West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: UnstoppableForce on September 22, 2003, 07:55:48 PM
-
Ok, first off, Islamic beliefs parallel those of Christianity and Judaism. Muslims believe in the same God, and accept the Bible as well as the Torah as heavenly books which do teach the will of God. We believe in the same prophets, we believe in Jesus, except for the fact that we acknowledge Muhammed as a messenger of God as well. Just in the same way that Christians accept the "additional" prophet, Jesus, which Jews don't.
Now why would any religion teach hate, violence, and killing. Does it really make sense for a religion to teach that, especially when these comments are made by Christians and Jews who believe in the same God we do. Allah is not a different God, it's just the word God in Arabic. Hispanics say Dios, but that doesn't mean they believe in a different God named Dios. It's the same God. Some of you have stated that Islam teaches hate, and have provided lines out of the Qu'ran to show that. The only thing is, those lines were taken out of context. Islam doesn't teach to attack someone, but it teaches that when under attack one should defend themselves and fight back. And if you compare the Qu'ran to the Bible you will find similar things. In the words of Jesus:
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." [Matthew 10:34].
"Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered. [Matthew 21:18,19].
In addition, Western authors wrongly translate the word "jihad" to mean holy war, when in fact the Arabic word jihad means struggle or resistance. Muhammed defined the struggle with the self to be a better person as jihad.
Quotes from the Qu'ran:
"The Qur'an advises against using force to change people's religion" [Qur'an 2:256]
The Qur'an advises against being the aggressor [Qur'an 2:190].
Muslims are asked to refrain from vengeance against prisoners of war or civilians in defeated regions [Qur'an 16:126,127; 8:67].
Here is a statistic:
A search for the word "kill" found it 442 times in the Revised Standard Version, and 271 times in the King James Version of the Bible compared to 40 times in the Pickthall Version and 22 times in the Yusuf-Ali Version of the Qur'an.
The facts show that Islam tolerates non - Muslim minorities within the Muslim Nation and treats them as independent nations free to worship and live according to their own religious laws. This was outlined in the Covenant of Medina which became the world's first written constitution in 622 AD.
In contrast, the Christian Romans used force to convert all the countries under their dominion to Christianity. When Roman Catholicism became the state religion, the Romans persecuted the Orthodox Christians who did not convert. The number of Orthodox Christians killed by Rome reached 200,000 which is huge considering the small population of Egypt at the time
While millions of Christians and Jews continue to thrive in the Muslim countries after 14 centuries of Muslim domination, there is no trace of the millions of Muslims who lived for centuries in Spain and Portugal
The "real" holy wars were waged by the Crusaders against the Muslims in the Middle East. The Crusaders were brutal in their treatment of Muslim prisoners of war and civilians. When the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem, they killed 70,000 Muslims. When the Muslims re-conquered the city they did not kill anybody.
NOW TO SOME MORE MODERN FACTS:
*50 million Native Americans were killed through war, starvation and disease
*Hitler's was responsible for the deaths of 7 million slave laborers, 6 million Jews, and 17 million Germans.
*Stalin was responsible for the deaths of over 14 million peasants... just peasants. This doesn't include the millions of others that died at his hands. Total it is estimated to be 20 million.
That's just 3 incidents. I'm not even including the U.S. killings of innocent Iraqies and Vietnamese.
-
Is this some sort of chain Email you just posted here? Seems strange to me that in one part it talks about accepting other religions, but then goes on to try and tear them down. Once again, please check out "The Dhimmi: Jews & Christians Under Islam" from your local library. It's based of PRIMARY sources from non-Muslims living under shari’a. Pretty horid stuff.
"As "dhimmi" (people of the contract) Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and others of the accepted religions had no rights of citizenship within a Muslim state. As "protected peoples" they had no right to self-defense. They were at best tolerated and at all times living without security - subject to the law but not protected by it.
For example, Jews and Christians are specifically accused in the Qur'an of having falsified God's word. In past Islamic societies therefore, Jews and Christians were considered to be willfully and knowingly adhering to a lie. As religiously convicted liars, they were given no standing in courts of law and could be convicted of crimes on the unsupported word of two Muslim males. The abuses of this system were extensive."
-
If you knew anything about the Spanish Inquisition (period of time during which Christians KILLED Jews&Muslims in Spain), you would know that the Muslims HELPED the Jews get out of Spain and into the Middle East.
In addition, you just stated that they were tolerant to other religions. Were the Christians? No. They killed off any Jew or Muslim in sight, and this at a later time period than the Muslims. Muslims who controlled an area of land didn't have to protect anybody by law. They didn't kick people out of the land like the Christians did; they didn't kill all the Jews in Jerusalem like the Christians did; and in fact, the Jews living in the Middle East never wanted their own nation. They were HAPPY and PEACEFUL living in the area now called Palestine/Israel. This again because the Muslims were religiously tolerant. All you have provided me is: in ancient times Muslims didn't protect non-Muslims in the areas under Muslim control. So what? What rights did blacks have in 18th & 19th century America? They were forced to convert to Christianity and received the most horrible treatment. Let me give you a book to read: "Uncle Tom's Cabin"
-
Anyway you look at it, in the world today, Christians aren't killing anybody, and Muslims sure as hell are. Unless you consider the U.S. wars crusades, then I guess you can say christians are killing people.
-
Anyway you look at it, in the world today, Christians aren't killing anybody, and Muslims sure as hell are. Unless you consider the U.S. wars crusades, then I guess you can say christians are killing people.
Christians are killing people in Afghanistan and Iraq... crusades or not.... they're killing them....
-
Anyway you look at it, in the world today, Christians aren't killing anybody, and Muslims sure as hell are. Unless you consider the U.S. wars crusades, then I guess you can say christians are killing people.
Christians are killing people in Afghanistan and Iraq... crusades or not.... they're killing them....
Let's take a look at the Religious makeup and procedures of the US Military:
Religions of service members in the U.S. armed forces, according to the Department of Defense Manpower Data Center.
Religion Army Air Force Navy/Marines
Protestant 194,594 152,226 226,442
Catholic 99,666 85,657 128,305
Muslim 1,988 760 1,410
Jewish 1,413 1,027 1,548
Orthodox 397 587 506
Buddhist 885 541 1,093
Hindu 158 115 164
Other 50,754 7,547 3,455
no pref 120,471 102,104 131,551
DODD-1300.17
A. REISSUANCE AND PURPOSE
This Directive reissues reference (a) and, pursuant to references (b) and (c), prescribes policy, procedures, and responsibilities for the accommodation of religious practices in the Military Services.
C. POLICY
A basic principle of our nation is free exercise of religion. The Department of Defense places a high value on the rights of members of the Armed Forces to observe the tenets of their respective religions. It is DoD policy that requests for accommodation of religious practices should be approved by commanders when accommodation will not have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, standards or discipline.
The following goals are to be used by the Military Departments in the development of guidance on the exercise of command discretion concerning the accommodation of religious practices. Nothing in these goals or in the implementing rules of the Military Departments (except when expressly provided therein) shall be interpreted as requiring a specific form of accommodation in individual circumstances.
a. Worship services, holy days, and Sabbath observance should be accommodated, except when precluded by military necessity.
b. The Military Departments should include religious belief as one factor for consideration when granting separate rations, and permit commanders to authorize individuals to provide their own supplemental food rations in a field or "at sea" environment to accommodate their religious beliefs.
c. The Military Departments should consider religious beliefs as a factor for waiver of immunizations, subject to medical risks to the unit and military requirements, such as alert status and deployment potential.
d. The Military Departments should include relevant materials on religious traditions, practices, and policies in the curricula for command, judge advocate, chaplain, and similar courses and orientations.
e. The Military Departments should develop a statement advising of DoD policy on individual religious practices and military requirements to applicants for commissioning, enlistment, and reenlistment.
f. Religious items or articles not visible or otherwise apparent may be worn with the uniform, provided they shall not interfere with the performance of the member's military duties, as discussed in subparagraph C.2.g.(5), below, or interfere with the proper wearing of any authorized article of the uniform.
g. Under Public Law 100-180, section 508 (reference (c)), members of the Armed Forces may wear visible items of religious apparel while in uniform, except under circumstances in which an item is not neat and conservative or its wearing shall interfere with the performance of the member's military duties.
Under this Directive, "religious apparel" is defined as articles of clothing worn as part of the doctrinal or traditional observance of the religious faith practiced by the member. Hair and grooming practices required or observed by religious groups are not included within the meaning of religious apparel. Jewelry bearing religious inscriptions or otherwise indicating religious affiliation or belief is subject to existing Service uniform regulations just as jewelry that is not of a religious nature.
In the context of the wearing of a military uniform, "neat and conservative" items of religious apparel are those that:
(a) Are discreet, tidy, and not dissonant or showy in style, size, design, brightness, or color.
(b) Do not replace or interfere with the proper wearing of any authorized article of the uniform.
(c) Are not temporarily or permanently affixed or appended to any authorized article of the uniform.
The standards in subparagraph C.2.g.(2), above, are intended to serve as a basis for determining a member's entitlement under Public Law 100- 180, section 508 (reference (c)), to wear religious apparel with the uniform. For example, unless prohibited by subparagraph C.2.g.(6), below, a Jewish yarmulke may be worn with the uniform whenever a military cap, hat, or other headgear is not prescribed. A yarmulke may also be worn underneath military headgear as long as it does not interfere with the proper wearing, functioning, or appearance of the prescribed headgear.
Exceptions to the standards in subparagraph C.2.g.(2), above, and other special accommodations for members of particular religious groups may be granted by the Military Departments under section D., below.
Whether an item of religious apparel interferes with the performance of the member's military duties depends on the characteristics of the item, the circumstances of its intended wear, and the particular nature of the member's duties. Factors in determining if an item of religious apparel interferes with military duties include, but are not limited to, whether the item may:
(a) Impair the safe and effective operation of weapons, military equipment, or machinery.
(b) Pose a health or safety hazard to the wearer or others.
(c) Interfere with the wearing or proper functioning of special or protective clothing or equipment (e.g., helmets, flack jackets, flight suits, camouflaged uniforms, gas masks, wet suits, and crash and rescue equipment).
(d) Otherwise impair the accomplishment of the military mission.
A complete prohibition on the wearing of any visible items of religious apparel may be appropriate under unique circumstances in which the member's duties, the military mission, or the maintenance of discipline require absolute uniformity. For example, members may be prohibited from wearing visible religious apparel while wearing historical or ceremonial uniforms; participating in review formations, parades, honor or color guards, and similar ceremonial details and functions.
The authority to approve the wearing of an item of religious apparel with the uniform, under the guidelines of this paragraph, shall be exercised at the command level specified by each Military Department. Denials of requests to wear religious apparel shall be subject to review at the Service Headquarters level. Final review shall occur within 30 days following the date of initial denial for cases arising in the United States, and within 60 days for all other cases. Exceptions to these deadlines shall be limited to exigent circumstances, such as extended deployment. Service members shall be obliged to comply with orders prohibiting the wearing of questionable items of religious apparel pending review of such orders under regulations issued by the Secretaries of the Military Departments.
h. Notwithstanding paragraphs C.2.f. and g., above, chaplains may wear any required religious apparel or accouterments with the uniform while conducting worship services and during the performance of rites and rituals distinct to their faith groups.
D. PROCEDURES
Under rules prescribed by the Secretary of the Military Department concerned, military commanders should consider the following factors along with any other factors deemed appropriate in determining whether to grant a request for accommodation of religious practices addressed in section C., above:
a. The importance of military requirements in terms of individual and unit readiness, health and safety, discipline, morale, and cohesion.
b. The religious importance of the accommodation to the requester.
c. The cumulative impact of repeated accommodations of a similar nature.
d. Alternative means available to meet the requested accommodation.
e. Previous treatment of the same or similar requests, including treatment of similar requests made for other than religious reasons.
The factors in subsection D.1, above, are intended to promote standard procedure for resolving difficult questions involving accommodation of religious practices. In view of the different mission requirements of each command, individual consideration of specific requests for accommodation is necessary; With the exception of requests involving the wearing of visible items of religious apparel with the uniform, denials of which must be reviewed at the Service Headquarters level, the appropriate level of command for resolution of these issues shall be determined by each of the Military Departments, based on its particular requirements and circumstances.
When requests for accommodation are not in the best interest of the unit and continued tension between the unit's requirements and the individual's religious beliefs is apparent, administrative actions should be considered. These actions may include, but are not limited to, assignment, reassignment, reclassification, or separation. Nothing in this Directive precludes action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (reference (d)) in appropriate circumstances.
For you to think the US Military is "Christian" is ignorant.
-
Ok, now show me the religions of the people who control the army and tell them what to do. I'm sure just anyone in the army just can't say "hey i feel like bombing this city today", although with the U.S. you never know.
-
Thank you for that. Some will never understand Islam but we are peaceful, we will only attack when attacked. I actually started reading The Qu'ran today. I feel foolish I waited so long.
-
Anyway you look at it, in the world today, Christians aren't killing anybody, and Muslims sure as hell are. Unless you consider the U.S. wars crusades, then I guess you can say christians are killing people.
And then we can all talk about Muslim war crusades...
And aneway american govt. showed how sick it really is by vetoing the recent resolution on Arafat's immunity... it's doesn't want peace anywhere.. it's after its own vested interests..
-
what is the point of this post, to say islam is the "better" "real" religion?
to say "hitler killed millions , and he was a christian" therfore christians are hypocrits to condemn islamic jihad against the US, is down right retarted. the 4 largest christian majority nations went to war with this so called "christian" and cut the cancer out. there were no chritian sympathizers with the nazi party ...saying oh they were opressed by the jewish occupation. then the US (and britain ) found out what was up with stalin , and straight condemned him. so really i don't appreciate your "better than you" undertones
and are you that insecure with your beleifs that you gotta run around trying to prove something? There's lunatics in every religion so i don't know what your point is saying that "oh christians killed muslums in the spanish crusades...." so and muslums have done the same. If you read the Bible or the Qu'ran they both say anyone that doesn't adhare (sp?) to the will of god (which all of these men wether muslum or christian) arn't true believers, wolves in sheep's clothing.
-
Thank you for that. Some will never understand Islam but we are peaceful, we will only attack when attacked. I actually started reading The Qu'ran today. I feel foolish I waited so long.
i'm sorry , but this post make laugh with all of the irony
-
what is the point of this post, to say islam is the "better" "real" religion?
to say "hitler killed millions , and he was a christian" therfore christians are hypocrits to condemn islamic jihad against the US, is down right retarted. the 4 largest christian majority nations went to war with this so called "christian" and cut the cancer out. there were no chritian sympathizers with the nazi party ...saying oh they were opressed by the jewish occupation. then the US (and britain ) found out what was up with stalin , and straight condemned him. so really i don't appreciate your "better than you" undertones
and are you that insecure with your beleifs that you gotta run around trying to prove something? There's lunatics in every religion so i don't know what your point is saying that "oh christians killed muslums in the spanish crusades...." so and muslums have done the same. If you read the Bible or the Qu'ran they both say anyone that doesn't adhare (sp?) to the will of god (which all of these men wether muslum or christian) arn't true believers, wolves in sheep's clothing.
You fuckin idiot. This thread was in regards to a post CWalker made in another thread where he claimed that there are ONLY Muslim terrorists, and that Muslims are responsible for more human deaths.
Next time before you run your mouth AGAIN about something you don't have a clue about, please make sure you know what the fuck is going on. Dumbass paisa.
-
^ shut up if you have nothing to contribute to the argument besides a bunch of nonsense and attempts to argue with me, fuck the hell off.
no matter who he was directing it at, he still tried to denigrate christianity...lord knows if me trauma or tom came in here bashing islam with some sort of "justifyable" cause **cough cough infinite bashing other religions cough cough** we'd be attacked prefusly.
so quit trying to start an argument
and call me a paisa all you want i ain't a lil bitch like javier , i take those coments with a grain of salt
-
^ shut up if you have nothing to contribute to the argument besides a bunch of nonsense and attempts to argue with me, fuck the hell off.
no matter who he was directing it at, he still tried to denigrate christianity...lord knows if me trauma or tom came in here bashing islam with some sort of "justifyable" cause **cough cough infinite bashing other religions cough cough** we'd be attacked prefusly.
so quit trying to start an argument
and call me a paisa all you want i ain't a lil bitch like javier , i take those coments with a grain of salt
Damn, you're a lot dumber than I thought.
1. You say "shut up if you have nothing to contribute to the argument". Well, you're arguing with me, so why should I not contribute. Then you say "besides a bunch of nonsense and attempts to argue with me". You already said we were having an argument, so how could I be trying to start an argument.
2. I wasn't trying to denigrate Christianity. In another thread, CWalker was actually doing that to Islam and claimed that only Muslims were terrorists, and that Muslims were responsible for the most deaths. I said that he was wrong, and if he was to apply a religious label to every terrorist, then it would end up showing that Christians have killed more people. That wasn't my point though, because I don't believe that you should classify someone's acts by his/her religion. The things don't correlate. The only reason I made this thread was to prove him wrong, which I obviously have, since he hasn't been able to reply. Truth hurts, I know. Maybe now he'll realize he's wrong.
3. People such as CWalker already bash Islam, and apply a religious label to terrorists, and go on to claim that these acts are taught by the religion.
I'm sorry you're so offended by the truth. Have a tampax...
-
Thank you for that. Some will never understand Islam but we are peaceful, we will only attack when attacked. I actually started reading The Qu'ran today. I feel foolish I waited so long.
i'm sorry , but this post make laugh with all of the irony
Explain the irony.
-
and call me a paisa all you want i ain't a lil bitch like javier , i take those coments with a grain of salt
thanx for the shoutout!!! now shut the fuck up and dont mention me ever again...racist
-
^ shut up if you have nothing to contribute to the argument besides a bunch of nonsense and attempts to argue with me, fuck the hell off.
no matter who he was directing it at, he still tried to denigrate christianity...lord knows if me trauma or tom came in here bashing islam with some sort of "justifyable" cause **cough cough infinite bashing other religions cough cough** we'd be attacked prefusly.
so quit trying to start an argument
and call me a paisa all you want i ain't a lil bitch like javier , i take those coments with a grain of salt
Damn, you're a lot dumber than I thought.
1. You say "shut up if you have nothing to contribute to the argument". Well, you're arguing with me, so why should I not contribute. Then you say "besides a bunch of nonsense and attempts to argue with me". You already said we were having an argument, so how could I be trying to start an argument.
2. I wasn't trying to denigrate Christianity. In another thread, CWalker was actually doing that to Islam and claimed that only Muslims were terrorists, and that Muslims were responsible for the most deaths. I said that he was wrong, and if he was to apply a religious label to every terrorist, then it would end up showing that Christians have killed more people. That wasn't my point though, because I don't believe that you should classify someone's acts by his/her religion. The things don't correlate. The only reason I made this thread was to prove him wrong, which I obviously have, since he hasn't been able to reply. Truth hurts, I know. Maybe now he'll realize he's wrong.
3. People such as CWalker already bash Islam, and apply a religious label to terrorists, and go on to claim that these acts are taught by the religion.
I'm sorry you're so offended by the truth. Have a tampax...
1. god damn you are petty,and a hypocrit for calling me stupid. if you have nothing concerning the argument (meaning the topic at hand) quit trying to go off on tanjable arguments with me....it's getting old . so unless you want to discuss this post quit trying to be super debater
2. there are other ways of trying to prove c-walker wrong......it's not that hard , really. But you're doing too much with that 'point' and put yourself to level c-walker.
3. if you take c-walker THAT seriously ......i laugh out loud at you
oh and thanks for sampling my disses, p. diddy, much appreciated.
-
Thank you for that. Some will never understand Islam but we are peaceful, we will only attack when attacked. I actually started reading The Qu'ran today. I feel foolish I waited so long.
i'm sorry , but this post make laugh with all of the irony
Explain the irony.
you thinking,people not understanding islam+you JUST starting to read the damn book=irony
-
and call me a paisa all you want i ain't a lil bitch like javier , i take those coments with a grain of salt
thanx for the shoutout!!! now shut the fuck up and dont mention me ever again...racist
hey it's javier the spic bean colored weeeeet back :-*
-
and call me a paisa all you want i ain't a lil bitch like javier , i take those coments with a grain of salt
thanx for the shoutout!!! now shut the fuck up and dont mention me ever again...racist
hey it's javier the spic bean colored weeeeet back :-*
check out how stupid it sounds when a latino calls another latino a wetback...and in a disrespectful way. How sad
-
:'( cry me a river sweet heart
-
Ok, you come into this thread out of fuckin nowhere and say that I'm trying to claim as Islam being the best religion and Christianity being evil. In response I tell you that this was over an argument me and CWalker were having, where he stated that Muslims were the only terrorists. Then you tell me to shut up unless I have anything to add to the argument. All I did was tell you why I made this thread, and you tell me to not to try and start arguments with you. If you don't want someone to reply to what you say, then don't say anything. If you can't handle being proven wrong, then shut up; it's that simple. You then go on to tell me that I could've proven CWalker wrong in another way; what the fuck do you care how I prove him wrong. He made a claim, and I took him up for it. He labeled terrorists by religion, so I did the same thing. The only reason I did it was to show him what he is doing, and show him that he's wrong.
Don't try arguing with me because you ran in this thread without knowing anything about why I made it. Get your facts straight, and go educate yourself, you ain't on my level.
-
:'( cry me a river sweet heart
lol ur just something else...kisses, calling a straight guy sweetheart...whats next? Post a picture of your dick in my email?!
-
Ok, you come into this thread out of fuckin nowhere and say that I'm trying to claim as Islam being the best religion and Christianity being evil. In response I tell you that this was over an argument me and CWalker were having, where he stated that Muslims were the only terrorists. Then you tell me to shut up unless I have anything to add to the argument. All I did was tell you why I made this thread, and you tell me to not to try and start arguments with you. If you don't want someone to reply to what you say, then don't say anything. If you can't handle being proven wrong, then shut up; it's that simple. You then go on to tell me that I could've proven CWalker wrong in another way; what the fuck do you care how I prove him wrong. He made a claim, and I took him up for it. He labeled terrorists by religion, so I did the same thing. The only reason I did it was to show him what he is doing, and show him that he's wrong.
Don't try arguing with me because you ran in this thread without knowing anything about why I made it. Get your facts straight, and go educate yourself, you ain't on my level.
don't try to twist this around and try to make yourself the victim here . i saw a post bashing my religion i defended it , i got attacked for it, then 4 posts later you reveal you were trying to get at c-walker. hmmm if i was trying to get at tech i wouldn't attack his religion as a whole. you're the one creating animosity here not me.
-
:'( cry me a river sweet heart
lol ur just something else...kisses, calling a straight guy sweetheart...whats next? Post a picture of your dick in my email?!
why? you want one? sorry i don't have a scanner.lol
hey he brought it up and insinuated it not me,lol
-
Wow, you're one stupid fuck, or you just read what you want to read. Ok, since you're so fuckin slow, I'll do this step by step ESL boy.
---CWalker said that only Muslims were terrorists, and claimed that Muslims were responsible for the most deaths. He then bashes Islam by claiming that the religion teaches to kill
---I take him up on his comment and tell him that I'll prove him wrong
---I make a thread "describing Islam" and showing him that it doesn't teach to kill. I show him that in the same way they dig up quotes from the Qu'ran the same can be done to the Bible. I even claimed that NO RELIGION WOULD TEACH TO KILL, NOT CHRISTIANITY, NOT ISLAM. I even write that I DONT THINK ITS RIGHT TO LABEL SOMEONE AND HIS ACTIONS BY HIS RELIGION, THESE THINGS DONT CORRELATE.
---I say that the only reason I made the thread was to show CWalker what he does, and how it's wrong. I didn't bash Christianity anywhere, all I did was provide facts on how Christians have killed too, on a larger scale.
---If the truth offends you then I'm sorry. If you were to say "oh yea those Muslim terrorists killed 4000 people on 9/11"... I would say "yes they did". But how is me saying "the Christians killed 50 million Indians" wrong? Does the truth hurt you? Am I bashing your religion?
-
Next time you make a comment, please read everything in its entirety. Your idiotic comments are getting out of hand. You say something dumb, I expose your stupidity, and in response you say something dumber. It's like a never-ending cycle. You love being proved wrong, huh? If not, you're doing a pretty good job at it.
-
quit repeating yourself....you got a bad habbit of doing that. Nevermind it's so fucking obvious you have no clue of what i'm trying to get at... ::)
-
If you didn't make stupid remarks, and knew what the fuck is going on, then there would be no need for me to repeat myself. How ironic for you to say that I don't know what you're getting at. I do know what you're getting at. You claimed that I was bashing the Christian religion, when it's obvious that I wasn't (if you knew about CWalker's comments).
P.S. Once again you claim that people don't know what you're getting at. Funny since the last the time you said that, right after you were like "i mistyped what i was trying to say".... maybe that's the reason again.
-
^actually no, not this time
man you are just starved for animosity arn't you
still the fact remains i don't like how you dragged christianity through the mud, i'm entitled to my opinion, you can try to justify you're bullshit with the name c-walker all you want (c-walker is a joke both literally and figuratively ) i dont know why you'd get so worked up about his coments. what he said about mecha and aztecs was fucked up but i only took it with a grain of salt cuz he's a joke, i can't believe you don't relize that. again i could care less how you're trying to justify this , i don't like how my religion was being singled out, regardless of your justification.
-
You're right.
I don't care how you took my comment, but guess what... I really don't give a fuck. Live with it. 8)
-
Thank you for that. Some will never understand Islam but we are peaceful, we will only attack when attacked. I actually started reading The Qu'ran today. I feel foolish I waited so long.
i'm sorry , but this post make laugh with all of the irony
Explain the irony.
you thinking,people not understanding islam+you JUST starting to read the damn book=irony
I see what youre saying, I didn't clarify it properly. What I meant was that I am reading it from front to back. I have read many passages but I now am reading it from one end to the other.
-
Thanks for the thread, props to Ballatician. Jazak-Allahu-Kairun for propagating Islam. Assalamulaikum wa rahmatulula wa barakatu.