Muslim Vs. Christian debating Options

[illriginal]

lolz

[saintsaens]

I think I'm in the mood for steak.

[emberfly]

damn their voices are annoying.

[Simba]

damn their voices are annoying.

because they're authentic African? :X

[illriginal]

Ya I don't judge people by their accents, personality, intelligence, and their over all message is more important.

[smoke]

Ya I don't judge people by their accents, personality, intelligence, and their over all message is more important.

And it's a good thing I don't judge people by their proper or improper use of grammar.

Oh, wait, I do.

[emberfly]

^ me too xD

[brooklyneast05]

i think i'm missing the big deal in this video. someone break it down for me

[illriginal]

i think i'm missing the big deal in this video. someone break it down for me

Christian thinks Jihad is something bad and only something that Muslims do. Muslim shows Christian in The Holy Bible that Jesus himself preached Jihad. Christian doesn't believe it until he reads it. Muslim laughs because he knows the Bible better than the Christian does.

Oh and also the Muslim points out that in Islam as Monotheists, we worship the Creator (God). While Christians worship a creation (Jesus) of the Creator.

[brooklyneast05]

oh yeah, i think i just get mixed up about the word jihad as a whole. it seems the word is thrown around all the time in different contexts or used in different ways. for example, it seems like i hear it on the news, but it's not the same context as here. i don't if anyone knows what i'm talking about.

[illriginal]

oh yeah, i think i just get mixed up about the word jihad as a whole. it seems the word is thrown around all the time in different contexts or used in different ways. for example, it seems like i hear it on the news, but it's not the same context as here. i don't if anyone knows what i'm talking about.

Yeah, you know the media lol

From an Islamic scholar:

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All thanks and praise are due to Allah and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear questioner, we would like to express our deep appreciation to you for the great confidence you have in us and we hope these humble efforts of us meet your expectations.

First, we would like to start with stating that Islam does not call for violence; rather it abhors all forms of violence and terrorism, whether against Muslims or non-Muslims. Islam, moreover, calls for peace, cooperation, and maintaining justice, and provides for the happiness and welfare of humanity as a whole. This fact is declared in the Qur'an when Allah says: (Allah commands justice, the doing of good, and liberality to kith and kin, and He forbids all shameful deeds, and injustice and rebellion: He instructs you, that ye may receive admonition.) (An-Nahl 16: 90)

Islam makes it obligatory upon Muslims to stand by the oppressed regardless of their race, color, religion or affiliation and say NO to the oppressor and ask him to respond to the voice of reason and justice.

As regards the question you posed, we would like to cite for you the fatwa issued by the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former Head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, that reads:

Jihad is one of the words that have been misused due to misunderstanding its true meaning. The word “Jihad” is derived from the Arabic word “Jahd” which means fatigue or the word “Juhd” which means effort. A Mujahid is he who strives in the Cause of Allah and exerts efforts which makes him feel fatigued. The word “Jihad” means exerting effort to achieve a desired thing or prevent an undesired one. In other words, it is an effort that aims at bringing about benefit or preventing harm.

Jihad can be observed through any means and in any field whether material or moral. Among the types of Jihad are struggling against one’s desires, the accursed Satan, poverty, illiteracy, disease, and fighting all evil forces in the world.

There are many religious texts that refer to these types of Jihad. Among the forms of Jihad is defending life, property or honor. Those who die while engaging in Jihad are considered to be martyrs, as confirmed by Hadith. Jihad is also done to avert aggression on home countries and on all that is held sacred, or in order to face those who try to hinder the march of the call of truth.

In Islamic Shari`ah, Jihad in the Cause of Allah means fighting in order to make the Word of Allah most high, and the means for doing so is taking up arms in addition to preparation, financing and planning strategies. A large number of people are supposed to take part in Jihad including farmers, craftsmen, traders, doctors, engineers, workers, security men, preachers, writers and all those who directly or indirectly participate in the battle.

This type of Jihad was a major concern of Muslims in the beginning of the formation of the Islamic community, and a lot of verses of the Glorious Qur’an and the Hadith advocated and encouraged it. Almighty Allah says: (March forth, whether you are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor) and strive with your wealth and your lives in the Cause of Allah.) (At-Tawbah 9: 41) Jihad is considered an individual duty (Fard `Ein), on all Muslims who are capable and fit to fight, in the event of being invaded by the enemy, and is considered a collective duty (Fard Kifayah) in the event of not being invaded. However, if the Imam (leader) calls to Jihad, people must respond to his call. This is evident from Allah’s Saying, (O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allah (i.e. Jihad) you cling heavily on the earth?) (At-Tawbah 9: 38), and the Hadith narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim, "When you are called to Jihad, then go forth."

A question arises: is taking up arms the only means to spread Islam? Fighting originally had two main objectives: the first one was to ward off an actual or an anticipated aggression, and the second one was to clear the hurdles in the path of Da`wah (call for Islam). The battles of Badr, Uhud, Al-Khandaq and others are examples of staving off actual aggression and some of them were fought in order to aid the oppressed. Almighty Allah says: (But if they seek your help in religion, it is your duty to help them…) (Al-Anfal 8: 72). The conquest of Makkah was undertaken for the purpose of staving off an expected aggression after the Quraish had violated its covenant with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in Al-Hudaybyah; this was also the case of the expedition of Tabuk and other expeditions. It also cleared the obstacles placed in the path of Islam by enabling the Muslims to leave Madinah and spread the call to Islam all over the world because Islam is a universal message. Since Jihad was legalized in Islam and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said that he was sent by Allah to wage war against disbelief and that his sustenance was “tied” to his spear, as related by Ahmad on the authority of Ibn `Umar, then we have to understand that Islam advocated acquiring the highest degree of power, and the reason for this is that Islam, at that time, was a newly rising power and was expected to be “attacked” by the already existing powers to prevent it from competing with them over power – a conflict that is common to all ages.

Therefore, the new entity had to be defended in order to prove its strength and deliver its message. If Islam were a local temporary call, taking up arms would be just for the purpose of defense, but Islam is a universal call that had to reach the whole world. However, the only means at that time was traveling, which was, and still is fraught with dangers; so taking up arms was necessary to prevent the enemies from standing in the path of the Islamic call.

While arms were necessary to remove the hurdles in the past, their sole mission now is to defend Islam against those who want to harm it and harm those who embrace it. As for spreading Islam, there are several means that spare people the trouble of traveling, such as newspapers, books, the Internet and other means that have known no boarders, although they may be controlled to some extent. However, radio stations have become of such power and prevalence that they can reach people while being at home or even in bed, and they can neither be prevented by any authority, nor held back by any door or border.

The superficial understanding of the legality of fighting contained in the verses of the Glorious Qur’an and the Prophet’s hadiths may give the impression that Islam has been spread by force and that if it had not been for force, Islam would not have existed or become predominant in many countries or embraced by such a large number of people. But how could this be said about Islam which is the religion of mercy? Allah Almighty says: (But if the enemy inclines towards peace, do thou also incline towards peace and trust in Allah.) (Al-Anfal 8: 61) .The Prophet also says: "O people! Do not wish to face the enemy (in a battle) and ask Allah to save you (from calamities) but if you should face the enemy, then be patient and let it be known to you that Paradise is under the shades of swords.”

The call to Islam is not meant to be imposed on anyone, people are completely free to make their choice. In fact, creeds can never propagated by a dagger. Allah Almighty says to Noah: (Shall We compel you to accept it when you are averse to it?) (Hud 11: 28). Allah says to Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him): (Wilt thou compel mankind against their will to believe!) (Yunus 10: 99); many other verses convey the same meaning.

While there are texts that explicitly indicate the absolute order to fight, there are others that restrict it to whether it is for the purpose of staving off an aggression, preventing an expected aggression or making it a punishment for violating a covenant. Allah Almighty says: (Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits.) (Al-Baqarah 2: 190). And says: (But if they violate their oaths after their covenant and taunt you for your faith, fight thee the chiefs of unfaith.) (At-Tawbah 9:12). In fact, the previous verse specifies the meaning of the verses: (And fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together.) (At-Tawbah 9: 36), And: (And slay them wherever ye catch them.”

As for those who call for taking up arms to change the current state of the Islamic communities, we have previously said that any means of reform based on violence will not achieve its goals. In addition to this, exercising power requires extensive preparation and planning including a careful study of all existing circumstances before taking such a step, i.e. calling arms. However, this should not be understood as undermining the importance of Jihad in its general sense. Jihad will continue till the end of days in all its forms and through all its means. This is evident from the Hadith narrated by Abu Dawud: “Jihad will continue from the day I was sent by Allah till the last people of my nation fight against the Antichrist (Dajjal), it will neither be stopped by oppression nor abstention”. This Hadith denotes the continuance of Jihad in all fields including armed Jihad, is an integral element; this fact is evident from referring to fighting against the Antichrist.

Source: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satelli...aEAskTheScholar

[Reidar]

Both Islam and Christianity preach violence. Any Arab-speaking Muslim can see it as plain as day (my hand isn't this small; it's just a huge book):

click to enlarge

"Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority."

As fiction, however, they're pretty badass. Sort of like Warhammer 40,000.

[AngryBaby]

pwnt^

[illriginal]

Both Islam and Christianity preach violence. Any Arab-speaking Muslim can see it as plain as day (my hand isn't this small; it's just a huge book):

click to enlarge

"Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".

As fiction, however, they're pretty badass. Sort of like Warhammer 40,000.

War or any form of violence in the Qur'an is taught in "Times of War" or even when God believers are being "oppressed". If anyone has studied the Qur'an, they could see it as plain as day.

[Reidar]

That would be the Al-Anfāl, and it's one of the most important sections of the scripture, being a partner portion to the Sura At-Tawba. The forces of Saddam Hussein cited this as their divine permission to slaughter our Peshmerga and Kurd civilian friends.

[illriginal]

That would be the Al-Anfāl, and it's one of the most important sections of the scripture., being a partner portion to the Sura At-Tawba. The Baathist regime cited this as its divine permission to slaughter our Peshmerga and Kurd civilian friends.

And do you think they truly represent Islam? Do you think that the KKK truly represents Christianity? All of those who commit violent acts as transgressors, offenders, and or oppressors are by no means following the strict Qur'anic rules of War.

[heyo-captain-jac...]

Ya I don't judge people by their accents, personality, intelligence, and their over all message is more important.

I don't judge people by their accent, personality, intelligence, and over all message either

[illriginal]

I don't judge people by their accent, personality, intelligence, and over all message either

Holy crap... I just re-read what I posted and grammar looks horrible.


I meant that I don't judge people by their accent. What matters to me is their personality, intelligence, and their message lol

[Reidar]

And do you think they truly represent Islam?

Yes. They are abiding by what the scripture says.

It certainly was mainstream Muslims citing the offensive part of Salman Rushdie's heresy to be his crime of writing a novel, not the fatwa layed on him by Khomeini (ah, how I miss my Iranian countrymen), or when the main offense of Muhammad's depiction in a Danish cartoon was the infidelity of the publishers, not the infringement upon free speech rights.

Do you think that the KKK truly represents Christianity?

The Christian Bible doesn't call for arms against blacks, so no. The powers trying to force junk science into our schools do.

All of those who commit violent acts as transgressors, offenders, and or oppressors are by no means following the strict Qur'anic rules of War.

"Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority" is one of many.

[illriginal]

Yes. They are abiding by what the scripture says.

As transgressors? LOL C'mon Reidar, the Qur'an strictly forbids and condemns the killing of benevolence. Especially transgression and oppression.

It certainly was mainstream Muslims citing the offensive part of Salman Rushdie's heresy to be his crime of writing a novel, not the fatwa layed on him by Khomeini (ah, how I miss my Iranian countrymen), or when the main offense of Muhammad's depiction in a Danish cartoon was the infidelity of the publishers, not the infringement upon free speech rights.

Muslims take their religion a lot more serious than Christians of the West, who allow depictions of Jesus and mockeries of Jesus. God and all the Prophets/Apostles (peace and blessings upon them) of God are sacred.

The Christian Bible doesn't call for arms against blacks, so no. The powers trying to force junk science into our schools do.

Nor did it say anything about attacking non-whites in general. Yet the KKK claimed to be Christians same with King James who committed and commanded atrocities.

"Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority" is one of many.

Ok.. so you're just gonna keep using verses out of context like so many do and more than likely keep repeating them.

I will finish this discussion with you with these two videos. From Iran, from your countrymen.

[saintsaens]

Tama, the entire time you haven't been able to bring up scripture from your book that would counteract Reidar's argument. Why is this so?

You've been avoiding all the questions with vague videos and description.

[illriginal]

Tama, the entire time you haven't been able to bring up scripture from your book that would counteract Reidar's argument. Why is this so?

You've been avoiding all the questions with vague videos and description.

It's simple really, you see (he's purposely or maybe he just doesn't know) he's misusing the verses to prove how Islam is violent, the only way someone can see the full context is by reading the complete chapter. In this case, you'd have to read all of Chapter 3 to understand the context.

I'm surprised he didn't use:

[Surah 8:12] Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." (like most Islamophobes)


Which is a verse of a past time. Specifically The Battle of Badr

And for every 1 out of context violent verse, I can post 3 to combat it.

Here's an example that are out of context:

[Surah 5:32] On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

[Surah 5:33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

[Surah 5:34] Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

[saintsaens]

Yes, but there are still mentions of violence. Why.

Why don't you admit that your God has promoted violence upon a certain people? Even Christians admit that their God. (Old Testament, referred to the Judgemental/Fearful God."

[illriginal]

Yes, but there are still mentions of violence. Why.

Why don't you admit that your God has promoted violence upon a certain people? Even Christians admit that their God. (Old Testament, referred to the Judgemental/Fearful God."

Times. Of. War.

This is the only time when violence is accepted. And only in defense against transgressors/offenders/oppressors.

I already answered your question a few posts up, unless you're just reading it and not understanding it.

And for whatever Christians admit, that has nothing to do with Islam.

Also Muslims condemn those who offend, transgress, oppress, or even commits acts of terrorism.

[saintsaens]

Times. Of. War.

This is the only time when violence is accepted. And only in defense against transgressors/offenders/oppressors.

I already answered your question a few posts up, unless you're just reading it and not understanding it.

And for whatever Christians admit, that has nothing to do with Islam.

Also Muslims condemn those who offend, transgress, oppress, or even commits acts of terrorism.

Let's see some scripture.

[illriginal]

Let's see some scripture.

Here's an example in conduct of war:

When it comes to the Islamic conduct of war, some of the verses of the Quran that have often been quoted by non-Muslims to "prove" Islam promotes violence and bloodshed are found in Surah 2 verses 190-194:

2.190. Fight against those who fight against you in the way of Allah, but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors.

2.191. Kill them whenever you confront them and drive them out from where they drove you out. (For though killing is sinful) wrongful persecution is even worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight against you; but if they fight against you kill them, for that is the reward of such unbelievers.

2.192. Then if they desist, know well that Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Compassionate.

2.193. Keep on fighting against them until mischief ends and the way prescribed by Allah prevails. But if they desist, then know that hostility is only against the wrong-doers.

2.194. The sacred month for the sacred month; sanctities should be respected alike ( by all concerned). Thus, if someone has attacked you, attack him just as he attacked you, and fear Allah and remain conscious that Allah is with those who guard against violating the bounds set by Him.

There is a strong controversy about the relation between Islam and terrorism; some people say that terrorism has its roots in the Qur'an while others say that the Qur'an has nothing to do with terrorism. With this, the truth is lost between both exclusivists and apologists.

The root word "r h b" and its linguistic derivatives, which are the Arabic equivalents denoting a very literal translation to the words "terrorize" and "terrorism," have been mentioned seven times in the Qur'an.

Out of these seven occurrences, there is only one occurrence denoting the use of force.

God says in the Qur'an what means,

{Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides whom you may not know, but whom Allah does know. Whatever you shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and you shall not be treated unjustly.}(Al-Anfal 8:60)

Checking many of the classical and modern books of Qur'anic commentaries, you can easily find that none of the other six occurrences has any relation to the use of force or terrorizing innocents.

To the contrary, all of them refer to fearing God, supplicating to Him humbly while hoping His reward and fearing His punishment. The cited verse of Surat Al-Anfal calls upon Muslims to prepare different forms of deterrence in anticipation for those with whom they are at enmity, in case the enemy attacks all of a sudden.

The verse is cited in the context of Surat Al-Anfal, which began with reference to the first battle fought between Muslims and the polytheists of Makkah (i.e. the Battle of Badr) as if God is telling Muslims at that time to be ready for facing their enemies by preparing all the war logistics in case they are forced to confront the enemy.

According to commentators like late Sheikh Ash-Sha`rawi, the "preparation of force" referred to in the above verse doesn't mean that Muslims should adopt the wait-and-see approach to see how events will develop. Rather, they should be ready to face their enemies in case they are attacked.

Thus, the verse refers to the fact that Muslims' deterring force should be present both in war and peace times alike. In addition, being equipped with power and necessary war logistics doesn't necessarily mean using power aimlessly and haphazardly to terrorize the innocents.

This may explain why Prophet Muhammad advised his Companions on the night of the Battle of Badr saying, "Don't ever wish to meet the enemy, but if you are forced to do that, then be patient" (Al-Bukhari).

That saying of Prophet Muhammad indicates that facing the enemy should never be an aim in itself, but if Muslims are put in a situation where they have to fight those who transgress against them, they should endure with patience.

Therefore, the above verse reveals the following facts:

1. Muslims are faithful to their agreements at war times and peace times. This can be easily understood if we study some verses before and after this verse.
2. Islam orders Muslims to equip themselves with the necessary power to face their enemies in case they attack them.
3. There is a big difference between power preparation, which denotes self-equipment for possible future attacks, and the real application of power in a purely civil context, as power in this case will turn into uncivilized behavior causing harm for others, which is totally forbidden in Islam.
4. The verse urges Muslims to materially and psychologically demonstrate that they are not a weak force in order for their enemies to think twice before attacking them.
5. The verse is a call for what may be termed as "armed peace." Thus, it is an indirect call for peace because when Muslims are powerful, their enemies will decline from attacking them.
6. "Power" referred to in the above verse is a generic term denoting all kinds of materialistic, psychological, technological, etc., powers.
7. The verse aims at terrorizing the enemy and it doesn't mean terrorizing innocents in any way.

So it is clear that the quoted Qur'anic verse prohibits attacking civilians as they are not a targeted enemy. Even at war times, Islam prohibits fighting those who do not fight, let alone the non-combating women, children, old-aged, handicapped, and rabbis and saints in their places of worship.

There are two interchangeably used correlations in today's media: Muslim terrorists or Islamic terrorists, which indicates ignorance of the true teachings of Islam.

Islam is not the religion of terrorism. Rather, it is the religion of positive pacifism in the full sense of the word. It is a universal call for peace. It abhors and prohibits attacking others unjustifiably out of hate and revenge whether this is done by a Muslim or a non-Muslim.

God says in the Qur'an what means,

{And do not make mischief in the earth after its reformation, and call on Him fearing and hoping; surely the mercy of Allah is nigh to those who do good (to others).}(Al-A`raf 7:56)

Terrorism: Punishable Crime

The first community to expose and condemn terrorist attacks should be the Muslim community. This is simply because disseminating mischief in the land through terrorist acts is a strongly punishable crime in Islam.

God has referred to the punishment of those who commit these horrible crimes saying,

{The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.}(Al-Ma'idah 5:33)

This is the punishment prescribed by Islam for those who destabilize the society and deny people their right to tranquillity. Right before this verse is another one that considers the killing of a single human being, regardless of race, faith, or geographical location as an annihilation to all members of the human family.

{Whosoever kills an innocent human being, it shall be as if one has killed all humankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if one has saved the life of all humankind.}(Al-Ma'idah 5:32)

[Reidar]

As transgressors? LOL C'mon Reidar, the Qur'an strictly forbids and condemns the killing of benevolence. Especially transgression and oppression.

"Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority."

Muslims take their religion a lot more serious than Christians of the West, who allow depictions of Jesus and mockeries of Jesus.

Free speech > fake gods.

Doing anything but coming to Salman Rushie's defense is shameful.

Nor did it say anything about attacking non-whites in general. Yet the KKK claimed to be Christians same with King James who committed and commanded atrocities.

Yup, which is why they aren't representative of Christians. Their incentives were not religiously-based. You're preaching to the choir if you're trying to say, "Well, look here, Christianity is just as bad." Christianity is abhorrent, just not in the correlation you're trying to attribute the KKK to. Of all the fantastically easy things to go after the Christian Bible for, you had to pick a false one.

Ok.. so you're just gonna keep using verses out of context like so many do and more than likely keep repeating them.

To remove an excerpt from its context is to remove the interrelated circumstances in which it exists under. If you feel that that is the case, point out in which manner the subject of the discourse was bypassed. As it stands, and as it will continue to, highlighting the specific part of dissent is not removing context because the context hasn't changed within the contention.

And for every 1 out of context violent verse, I can post 3 to combat it.

That's like me writing a 500-page book on home gardening, and then in the middle of page 162 I insert "DEATH TO ALL JEWS." It'd be folly to say, "For that one bad line, there were hundreds of pleasant pages to combat it." I need only one preaching of violence out of a thousand supposed peace proclamations for Islam to have any instance of positing violence. It only takes one line with true premises and a false conclusion to establish the invalidity of an invalid inference.

[illriginal]

"Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority."

oh lawd. Please find your way into, "Ask About Islam" thread in the bodybuilding forum, brah. Apparently you're not aware.

Free speech > God.

In your perspective.

Yup, which is why they aren't representative of Christians. Their incentives were not religiously-based.

Well then, I guess you never read the Holy Bible either... specifically the King James version. Who's preaching to the choir when you're not even understanding what I'm telling you. How is it religion's fault, God's fault, or the Holy Book's fault that people commit lewdness? For God sake, the Qur'an even has the Hadiths!!! Only an illiterate moron could ever misunderstand the Qur'an and try to commit lewdness thinking that's what God commanded.

To remove an excerpt from its context is to remove the interrelated circumstances in which it exists under. If you feel that that is the case, point out in which manner the subject of the discourse was bypassed. As it stands, and as it will continue to, highlighting the specific part of dissent is not removing context because the context hasn't changed within the contention.

Read the whole chapter or you'll never understand the verse. Simple as that.

I need only one preaching of violence out of a thousand supposed peace proclamations for Islam to have any instance of positing violence. It only takes one line with true premises and a false conclusion to establish the invalidity of an invalid inference.

Yes by someone who's literally demented and breaks the conduct of war set forth by God. If you can't understand the Qu'ran especially when it's the literal word of God.. then it's because it has been destined to be and nothing will ever change that.


One thing I've never understood about non-believers. You guys slam religion, God, and the Holy Books.. yet, you don't have an ounce of a clue as to wtf yall are talkin about. Instead you google up "religious evil texts" or some phrases like that and you start to quote exactly what you read.. it's quite amusing yet mind numbing.

[AngryBaby]

You're preaching to the choir if you're trying to say, "Well, look here, Christianity is just as bad."

exactly what i was thinking lol.

[saintsaens]

LMAO, I gotta' go to the body building forum to learn about Islam.

Jeez, of all places...

[illriginal]

LMAO, I gotta' go to the body building forum to learn about Islam.

Jeez, of all places...

No, not you. Reidar since he goes there as well. And what exactly do you mean by "of all places"? There's people there who are more than likely 50 times more intelligent than majority of the people in this forum... from religion, to science, to mathematics, to politics, health, food, fitness, the list goes on... my goodness the ignorance in this thread is thick enough to cut through with a steak knife.

[AngryBaby]

dat dere cell tech

[illriginal]

dat dere cell tech

lawl

Oh ya btw, you mentioned something about me taking hydroxy cut, I actually use ECY (Ephedrine, Caffeine, Yohimbine) and currently I'm using Animal Cuts stacked with it

[Reidar]

oh lawd. Please find your way into, "Ask About Islam" thread in the bodybuilding forum, brah. Apparently you're not aware.

Bodybuilding.com pretty much sucks. Most bodybuilding forums do. ABC is the same, even though their articles are good. T-Nation and EliteFTS are far better.

In your perspective.

Relativism is poison. If Yahweh and Allah and Zeus and Adranus the volcano god assert that their reign is more important than free speech, then it's a pity they don't exist to defy them.

Well then, I guess you never read the Holy Bible either... specifically the King James version. Who's preaching to the choir when you're not even understanding what I'm telling you. How is it religion's fault, God's fault, or the Holy Book's fault that people commit lewdness? For God sake, the Qur'an even has the Hadiths!!! Only an illiterate moron could ever misunderstand the Qur'an and try to commit lewdness thinking that's what God commanded.

It's both the Holy Book's fault when it tells followers to "cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority" and people's fault for being mindless enough to kill in fiction's name.

You have to be kidding to say that the tense of that mitigates the degree upon which it stands. That's exactly why it's grounded as a tenet, so of course it's "a verse of a past time". The entirety of scripture is "verse of a past time". The sura were revealed when Islam followers were establishing a state and needed legislation. This is the context that demands a scrupulous look, the portion that mandates what law really is.

One thing I've never understood about non-believers. You guys slam religion, God, and the Holy Books.. yet, you don't have an ounce of a clue as to wtf yall are talkin about. Instead you google up "religious evil texts" or some phrases like that and you start to quote exactly what you read.. it's quite amusing yet mind numbing.

I have an original source in Arab. Do you?

click to enlarge

[illriginal]

My head hurts... I'm gonna go to bed now.

[Reidar]

Also, Cell-Tech sucks. Sugared creatine lowers insulinotropic response. Yohimbine is bad for the opposite reason: increasing alpha receptor sensitivity, which pretty much contradicts any lipolytic effects that weight loss pills claim. The original Hydroxycut only worked because it had Ephedra in it before being banned; everything else in it was nigh useless.

[illriginal]

Also, Cell-Tech sucks. Sugared creatine lowers insulinotropic response.

lol Yes. Green Mag, Purple Wrath, and White Flood = Godly pumps

Im outs!

[AngryBaby]

Also, Cell-Tech sucks. Sugared creatine lowers insulinotropic response. Yohimbine is bad for the opposite reason: increasing alpha receptor sensitivity, which pretty much contradicts lipolytic effects that weight loss pills claim.

i know man, lol its a meme

[Reidar]

I know, and it's my meme to bash Cell-Tech.

[AngryBaby]

.....
















dat dere cell tech?

[illriginal]

I know, and it's my meme to bash Cell-Tech.

Oh you reminded me, this is my next cutting supp:

[Reidar]

UCP1 manipulation is still a premature subject for thermogenesis and other processes for fat catabolism. There's supposed regulation by purine nucleotides, which is established, and fatty acids, which is specious. It'd be better than Hydroxycut for the mere reason of not containing Guggulsterones and HCA, though.