How do you deal with Islam?
- Thread starter JamieDimonsBalls
- Start date
Heres how Biden deals with it...I swear you cant make this stuff up. How many times a day do we post sh!t about this admin that makes your head spin? Any other admin and people would be furious.
There are other stories about this.
www.foxnews.com
There are other stories about this.
Sen. Ted Cruz issues chilling warning on Biden-appointed ‘Iranian spies’ working in the US government
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, blasts the Biden administration for appointing an 'incredible Iran sympathizer' as chief negotiator during the nuclear deal.
No try. That was an Islamic source quoting Islamic text, not IUCrazy's interpretation.
Islam came in with a sword and slaughtered unbelievers and then set up a system that legally coerced/forced people to join the religion if the wanted to be able to live a normal life. That is spreading the religion by the sword. It wasn't missionaries going out peacefully and convincing people to join, it was missionaries walking behind a conquering army and saying, "Look how awesome we are, you should join us. And if you don't, no problem but you have to pay us a special tax, you can't marry anyone of our religion but your daughters are fair game for us (and we will force them to convert through marriage), you cannot bring legal claims against us, etc." That is forced conversion by any definition.
The Europeans forced the conversion of the Native Americans at the point of a sword. Particularly those who interacted with Spain. We can freely admit that but yet we have issues with calling out the EXACT same behavior in Islam. "Well actually they weren't held up by the sword and force to sign their conversion papers..." Well no kidding, that is because that isn't how it works. They slaughter people initially to set the table and as an example:
Siege of Banu Qurayza - Wikipedia
Then they give the two options to anyone from there: Convert or become sub-human under our law. That is coercion under the sword. And next to nothing has changed since then.
Hey, the mass killer in Maine needs some understanding. Maybe you can go up there and see if you can organize support for him.
I don't have time for this on my phone. I'll chat at you tonight.No try. That was an Islamic source quoting Islamic text, not IUCrazy's interpretation.
Islam came in with a sword and slaughtered unbelievers and then set up a system that legally coerced/forced people to join the religion if the wanted to be able to live a normal life. That is spreading the religion by the sword. It wasn't missionaries going out peacefully and convincing people to join, it was missionaries walking behind a conquering army and saying, "Look how awesome we are, you should join us. And if you don't, no problem but you have to pay us a special tax, you can't marry anyone of our religion but your daughters are fair game for us (and we will force them to convert through marriage), you cannot bring legal claims against us, etc." That is forced conversion by any definition.
The Europeans forced the conversion of the Native Americans at the point of a sword. Particularly those who interacted with Spain. We can freely admit that but yet we have issues with calling out the EXACT same behavior in Islam. "Well actually they weren't held up by the sword and force to sign their conversion papers..." Well no kidding, that is because that isn't how it works. They slaughter people initially to set the table and as an example:
Siege of Banu Qurayza - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Then they give the two options to anyone from there: Convert or become sub-human under our law. That is coercion under the sword. And next to nothing has changed since then.
Here is something you can't make up. Jewish students at Cooper University were barricaded in the school library by Palestinian protestors. But good news is that the Jewish students were told they could hide in the "attic" if they wanted to. 😐Heres how Biden deals with it...I swear you cant make this stuff up. How many times a day do we post sh!t about this admin that makes your head spin? Any other admin and people would be furious.
There are other stories about this.
Sen. Ted Cruz issues chilling warning on Biden-appointed ‘Iranian spies’ working in the US government
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, blasts the Biden administration for appointing an 'incredible Iran sympathizer' as chief negotiator during the nuclear deal.
Jewish students barricade in Cooper Union library as protesters chant 'Free Palestine,' on day of protest across NYC campuses - Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Student groups in New York and nationwide, meanwhile, staged a walkout in support of the Palestinians on Wednesday, and a pro-Israel rally took place at Columbia University.
www.jta.org
You are wasting your time. This guy thinks Islam is the only organized religion that has ever mistreated somebody, more violence is the answer, and it's okay for some entities to mistreat others.
If you were a Jew in one of the Dems' big blue cities right about now you'd probably have a different take. It's a horrible religion and a menace to modernity.
I don't think that's his take. And I think your take in this thread is off, as well. Just about nobody is getting it right. Brad seems to be close.
I know Jews that are critical of Israel and aren't hardcore right wingers like the assholes in charge of Israel. If you think there are no Jews that are critical of Israel, citizens or not, then you are naive.
I only know peaceful Muslims: like all religion, it is supposed to be peaceful. Extremists are the issue. Lack of democracy, education, and a healthy economy are the issue. Much wrong has been done in the name of religion.
Hmm, let's check the record:
So illiterate, liar, or ESL? Which are you?
I have forgotten and read more then you will ever know, simpleton. You literally believe more violence is the answer and are too big of a pussy to carry it out yourself.
You have a bias against Islam: just admit it and we will move on.
Grin. Goat always knows what getting it right means. Just ask him. Glad you asked. I,ll be waiting.
It doesn't make any difference whether Jews are right wingers or lefties. They are targets in any event.
Well......you don't seem to care much for Christianity. Are you biased against Christianity, or correct? You might ask the same about other people who are not thrilled with Islam.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
And here i thought jews and their spaces lasers were dems. Now we are pretending dems and jews don't get along.
about 70% but politically now they are growing confused because their bedfellows are suspect like blm and progressives. about like lars liking these old bats until one of em takes out her teeth
You said Crazy was biased against Islam but did not cite any specific incorrect statements on his part. Perhaps he is not a fan of Islam, but is also correct in his criticisms?
They are definitely parts of the Middle East that need to evolve. Anybody that cannot practice religion peacefully sucks, including those who practice Islam. However, there are plenty of Muslims that can practice the religion peacefully, and a blanket stereotype statement is not a logical statement.
Is the statement "a blanket stereotype statement is not a logical statement" also a "blanket stereotype statement" about blanket stereotype statements, and thus illogical?
Second-order logic geek.
Is suggesting that saying a blanket stereotype statement a blanket stereotype segment also a blanket stereotype segment? I fear we are trapped in an infinite loop and need an escape.Is the statement "a blanket stereotype statement is not a logical statement" also a "blanket stereotype statement" about blanket stereotype statements, and thus illogical?
I wish you had forgotten more and saved all us from your posts.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
@IUCrazy2 @HoosierJimbo89
The problem with this debate is that both of you are incorrect in your assertions, but also ironically incorrect in your criticism of each other. History is complicated, and so, no, Islam is not a religion of violence, but no, it's not a religion of peace, either. Same with Christianity. Religions are complex social structures that reflect underlying cultural forces, both good and bad.
Take Iberia. The classic understanding is that it was conquered by the Muslims, who were stopped at the Battle of Tours, and then slowly reconquered by Christians until the last Muslims were defeated at Granada. That's 750 years of religious strife. Obviously it's not as simple as that, because if it were, there would be no people in Spain, because they all would have died a long time ago. Instead, the history is more complex. Yes, Muslim leaders conquered Christian cities, and Christian leaders conquered Muslim cities. Yes, some of those cities were depopulated (sometimes by force, but often just by people trying to avoid war). But for the most part, during those 750 years, Christians, Muslims, and Jews lived together in relative peace. They shared pursuits both academic and economic. They intermarried. Swore fealty to each other. When Muslim rulers were ascendant, Christians paid a special tax to them. When Christians became dominant, the local Muslim rulers became their vassals and paid them instead.
Iberia is just an example, but this pattern holds true for all of Europe and the Middle East. Some times were more violent than others, but for the most part, people were just trying to get by, and they lived and worked together when they could. The common perception of Muslims conquering the world and converting the masses at swordpoint is largely imaginary, just as the perception of the Crusaders as hellbent on exterminating Muslims in the Holy Land is also largely imaginary. Largely because those unflattering portraits are based on kernels of truth, but imaginary because those kernels honestly don't accurately tell the broader story.
Crazy is wrong to act like the Muslims were especially bad. They weren't. They were just acting like any other medieval society. But Jimbo is wrong to act like organized religion is the disease behind all this violence. It's not. Genghis Khan had one of the most cosmopolitan courts of the time, purposefully recruiting people of all ethnicities and cultures. It was a truly egalitarian government. And yet he killed more Muslims than all the Crusades combined, and if he doesn't have the record as the #1 Christian killer, it's only because he died while the Mongols were just barely starting to tease Europe.
Finally, none of this has much bearing on today. Today is largely about political and ethnic disagreements between two groups of people who both want to occupy the same land, and the places where religion enters into it are largely modern - Wahhabism didn't arise until the 18th century, and the most radically religious versions of Zionism are even newer than that.
That might be a bit overbroad and rambling, but I think it's enough for now. I'll be happy to go into more detail in any areas you have disagreements with.
The problem with this debate is that both of you are incorrect in your assertions, but also ironically incorrect in your criticism of each other. History is complicated, and so, no, Islam is not a religion of violence, but no, it's not a religion of peace, either. Same with Christianity. Religions are complex social structures that reflect underlying cultural forces, both good and bad.
Take Iberia. The classic understanding is that it was conquered by the Muslims, who were stopped at the Battle of Tours, and then slowly reconquered by Christians until the last Muslims were defeated at Granada. That's 750 years of religious strife. Obviously it's not as simple as that, because if it were, there would be no people in Spain, because they all would have died a long time ago. Instead, the history is more complex. Yes, Muslim leaders conquered Christian cities, and Christian leaders conquered Muslim cities. Yes, some of those cities were depopulated (sometimes by force, but often just by people trying to avoid war). But for the most part, during those 750 years, Christians, Muslims, and Jews lived together in relative peace. They shared pursuits both academic and economic. They intermarried. Swore fealty to each other. When Muslim rulers were ascendant, Christians paid a special tax to them. When Christians became dominant, the local Muslim rulers became their vassals and paid them instead.
Iberia is just an example, but this pattern holds true for all of Europe and the Middle East. Some times were more violent than others, but for the most part, people were just trying to get by, and they lived and worked together when they could. The common perception of Muslims conquering the world and converting the masses at swordpoint is largely imaginary, just as the perception of the Crusaders as hellbent on exterminating Muslims in the Holy Land is also largely imaginary. Largely because those unflattering portraits are based on kernels of truth, but imaginary because those kernels honestly don't accurately tell the broader story.
Crazy is wrong to act like the Muslims were especially bad. They weren't. They were just acting like any other medieval society. But Jimbo is wrong to act like organized religion is the disease behind all this violence. It's not. Genghis Khan had one of the most cosmopolitan courts of the time, purposefully recruiting people of all ethnicities and cultures. It was a truly egalitarian government. And yet he killed more Muslims than all the Crusades combined, and if he doesn't have the record as the #1 Christian killer, it's only because he died while the Mongols were just barely starting to tease Europe.
Finally, none of this has much bearing on today. Today is largely about political and ethnic disagreements between two groups of people who both want to occupy the same land, and the places where religion enters into it are largely modern - Wahhabism didn't arise until the 18th century, and the most radically religious versions of Zionism are even newer than that.
That might be a bit overbroad and rambling, but I think it's enough for now. I'll be happy to go into more detail in any areas you have disagreements with.
I think you are soft selling Islam but whatever. I am more concerned with the here and now than the then.
It isn't Christians or Jews or Hindus running around screaming glory to God today after cutting babies out of their mother alive and calling their parents to brag about murdering people with their bare hands.
Forget Islam's past, their present sucks.
Not sure about that part ..... when a monotheistic religion claims to be the only true one and all others are false or evil it makes it too easy to dehumanize the other side. Any difference in race or culture can be used to do the same but the gravity of religious belief - that one is fighting for good against evil - makes it easier to dehumanize and then rationalize atrocities when done in the name of God. And, yes both Christians and Muslims throughout history have committed atrocities in the name of a peaceful loving knowing true God..
And atheists have committed atrocities as well. All we do know is humans no matter if they believe in no god, multiple gods, or one god will commit atrocities.
Look at Rome. Pagan Rome oppressed Christians for a while, just as Christian Rome later oppressed Pagans. I think in each case it was really done for political reasons. Buddhists in Sri Lanka today, I think, wrap nationalism in a religious ethos. I think in most violent episodes in history, you'll be able to make a similar calculus. Religion reflects divisions already there, and often is used as a tool by the dividers, but it isn't itself the driving force. Religion itself is largely a passive societal structure put to use by active people for good or evil.
All groups have people that commit atrocities, but only one religion promotes, expects, & celebrates its members committing mass murder.
I think the past is relevant in the Palestine/Israel discussion when someone wants to bring up 1948 as the beginning of time because conquer back and forth. They conquered those areas with violence. That is indisputable.
So when someone says the Jews stole the land, well...the bloody history of Mohammad's merry band of murderers kind of comes into the discussion.
