Original Post
Is Islam a violent religion that needs to be avoided?
Originally Posted by RedPanda
You see Mocucha, how many times has someone talked shit to you? I'm going to guess quite a lot. How many of them did you shoot? Gonna go on a wild hunch and say none.
Just because someone is thin skinned doesn't justify actions they've taken.
If they didn't kill 12 people because of what Charlie Hebdo illustrated what else could it be? I see no other motives other than a satiric cartoon or because they wanted to prove a point.
Both seem pointless to me and considered killing an innocent person which stands against the religion they were 'supposedly' fighting for.
In the Qu'ran there is also this term called Jihad and it also says killing is justifiable based on circumstance, for example killing a non islamic person aka a non believer in Allah is justifiable according to the Qu'ran
Originally Posted by Mujihad Definition
A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid, the plural of which is mujahideen. The word jihad appears frequently in the Quran,[1][2] often in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[3][4][5]
Originally Posted by Jihad
Contemporary fundamentalists were often influenced by jurist Ibn Taymiyya's, and journalist Sayyid Qutb's, ideas on jihad. Ibn Taymiyya hallmark themes included
the permissibility of overthrowing a ruler who is classified as an unbeliever due to a failure to adhere to Islamic law,
the absolute division of the world into dar al-kufr and dar al-Islam,
the labeling of anyone not adhering to one's particular interpretation of Islam as an unbeliever, and
the call for blanket warfare against non-Muslims, particularly Jews and Christians.[76]
Before quoting things you should look deeper into the religion to fully understand the depth of it.
No they are not opposing there religion , they are following it.
The reason for this is that we can't all be one religion, then we lose diversity and are no longer humans.
Religion is dumb, it's not natural. Bugs don't pray to god every night and hope for a next day, they just live.
Last edited by Velair; Jan 10, 2015 at 02:06 AM.
=
Maybe more people will jump on my "build a giant dome around the middle east" proposal.
It is not France's duty to police people who are not French citizens, or to integrate them into its society. Rather than deporting people, I think countries should close their borders to citizens of certain countries for a couple of decades. You can bet that if Sheikh Mahmood isn't allowed to party in Monaco because lowly citizen Habeeb's cousin is a terrorist, shit's going to get solved asap.
It is not France's duty to police people who are not French citizens, or to integrate them into its society. Rather than deporting people, I think countries should close their borders to citizens of certain countries for a couple of decades. You can bet that if Sheikh Mahmood isn't allowed to party in Monaco because lowly citizen Habeeb's cousin is a terrorist, shit's going to get solved asap.
Hoss.
Originally Posted by Hyde
Maybe more people will jump on my "build a giant dome around the middle east" proposal.
It is not France's duty to police people who are not French citizens, or to integrate them into its society. Rather than deporting people, I think countries should close their borders to citizens of certain countries for a couple of decades. You can bet that if Sheikh Mahmood isn't allowed to party in Monaco because lowly citizen Habeeb's cousin is a terrorist, shit's going to get solved asap.
"HEY WHY DON'T WE TRANSFORM THE WHOLE MIDDLE EAST INTO A PRISON IN WHICH NO ONE WILL GET IN OR OUT, LET'S LOCK ALL THE CIVILIANS THERE TOO!"
"YEAH, WE'LL DO THAT BECAUSE OF A VERY TINY MINORITY WHO COMMIT TERRORIST ATTACKS! WHO GIVES A SINGLE SHIT TO THE INNOCENT PEOPLE THERE?"
"HELL FUCKIN' YEAH, THIS IDEA SOUNDS AWESOME!"
That was your idea in a nutshell. I hope you understand how ridiculous it was.
Not all of those who live in the Middle East are muslims. An even smaller part of those muslims are extremist muslims willing to make terrorist attacks. That means that less than ~5% of the middle east population are actually willing to make any terrorist attack, and you're planning to lock all of the 95% along?
It's really easy to say "yes, let's fuck the whole middle east" because you wouldn't be affected directly, nor did you think about those who are not to blame, that are there because they happened to be, and they don't really have a choice.
Last edited by Rial; Jan 10, 2015 at 05:30 AM.
:^)
It's not ridiculous at all.
Creating a containment zone in an area where the average violent crime rate is ~180% over the world average is hardly a bad idea. Those bad eggs are the middle east's problem, they are not the rest of the world's problem. You may think you have the right to go wherever you want and do anything you want, but you don't. Why should the residents of France welcome Habeeb and his crazy family into their country? It's their country.
A government's primary, most basic role is to protect its citizens. If the optimal protection of its citizens involves closing your borders to citizens of a country, why not do it?
I hope Front Nationale wins out in France and UKIP wins out in the UK.
Creating a containment zone in an area where the average violent crime rate is ~180% over the world average is hardly a bad idea. Those bad eggs are the middle east's problem, they are not the rest of the world's problem. You may think you have the right to go wherever you want and do anything you want, but you don't. Why should the residents of France welcome Habeeb and his crazy family into their country? It's their country.
A government's primary, most basic role is to protect its citizens. If the optimal protection of its citizens involves closing your borders to citizens of a country, why not do it?
I hope Front Nationale wins out in France and UKIP wins out in the UK.
Hoss.
Originally Posted by Hyde
It's not ridiculous at all.
Creating a containment zone would immediately screw up relations with the countries within. It would essentially divorce us from the East. Overtly, that looks like a wonderful thing (I'm all for isolationism). But we rely on the East for resources. If there's a disruption in the oil trade, then that really does fuck up parts of the US economy (which then fucks up others). Energy security is a foundational component of national security.
I think, as a solution, instead of doming off the Middle East, we need to be focusing on becoming energy independent or (as I've said in this thread and others) we need to develop new energy sources.
