exposure to other religions?

[crunkjuice]

how many of you have been exposed to the other religions? do you understand them thoroughly? i'm just curious as to how you choose your own religion (presumably Christianity) if you dont fully understand others. i just think people are what they are by accident. if you were born in India, you'd probably be Hindu. if you were born in China, you'd probably be a Buddhist. that applies to pretty much every region in the world. how can people be so sure something is right when they were only taught it because of where they live?

i think we should install a Compartive Religions class early on in education to expose kids to other religions. i wish more people would make their own decisions on religion, and this would be a step in the right direction. how many Christian children can distinguish a Sikh from a Muslim? very few, if any, i would imagine. that just really bugs me for some reason.

[jamiethelanky]

how many of you have been exposed to the other religions? do you understand them thoroughly? i'm just curious as to how you choose your own religion (presumably Christianity) if you dont fully understand others. i just think people are what they are by accident. if you were born in India, you'd probably be Hindu. if you were born in China, you'd probably be a Buddhist. that applies to pretty much every region in the world. how can people be so sure something is right when they were only taught it because of where they live?

i think we should install a Compartive Religions class early on in education to expose kids to other religions. i wish more people would make their own decisions on religion, and this would be a step in the right direction. how many Christian children can distinguish a Sikh from a Muslim? very few, if any, i would imagine. that just really bugs me for some reason.
Bang on...

[BFan71]

how many of you have been exposed to the other religions? do you understand them thoroughly? i'm just curious as to how you choose your own religion (presumably Christianity) if you dont fully understand others. i just think people are what they are by accident. if you were born in India, you'd probably be Hindu. if you were born in China, you'd probably be a Buddhist. that applies to pretty much every region in the world. how can people be so sure something is right when they were only taught it because of where they live?

i think we should install a Compartive Religions class early on in education to expose kids to other religions. i wish more people would make their own decisions on religion, and this would be a step in the right direction. how many Christian children can distinguish a Sikh from a Muslim? very few, if any, i would imagine. that just really bugs me for some reason.

How many nonChristian children can do the same?

Anyway, I went to a Christian high school. We were required to take a Bible class each year. One year it was about world religions and how their beliefs compared to Christianity. Everyone had to pick a "major" religion to do a research paper and presentation. I thought it was a great idea for us to see/understand what others believed. It didn't change my mind, but did open my eyes.

[NashvilleBengalfan]

We should keep religion out of public schools.

[jamiethelanky]

We should keep religion out of public schools.
Incorrect. We should teach about religions, but not preach them. This will stop people (no names mentioned) from developing their views on religions on the evidence of half-baked blogs. I studied Religious Studies at school, I found it has contributed to making me a well-rounded individual...

[NashvilleBengalfan]

Incorrect. We should teach about religions, but not preach them. This will stop people (no names mentioned) from developing their views on religions on the evidence of half-baked blogs. I studied Religious Studies at school, I found it has contributed to making me a well-rounded individual...

your wrong

[jamiethelanky]

your wrong
Well, gee, that was a deep and thoughtful argument.

[IgnoreME]

Every religion should be studied and tought rigerously through school. (And this is probably the liberal college I went to talking) but learning in all areas of study makes for a better person. Job coaches and companies love the liberal arts core education because it makes the person a more well rounded and adaptable individual.

The problem is even though a child, teen, adult whomever is taught about those religions with an open mind, their loyalties generally reside within their family structure and relgious practice.

My entire Family (close and extended) are catholics and influence everyone else in our family to do the same.

[kevin28_1962]

your wrong

Could you expound on why you think it's wrong to teach religions in public schools? My kids took a World religion course in public school which teaches the commonality, the differences and basic principles behind different religions. I think that is a good thing. It isn't preaching to them nor is it telling them any specific religion is the right way or the wrong way. Just merely teaching about them.

[barryllium]

I have what I would consider a "decent" exposure to other religions. I was raised in both the Catholic and Methodist churches (I'm baptised and confirmed in both), because my parents were different religions - so we alternated between the two churches each week. I've attended mass at several different Catholic and Methodist churches, and had several different pastors at each as well.

I went to a public high school where the major religions (and a few minor ones) were taught in history class - something I think all schools should do, as all religions play a major role in history. Ignoring them is not giving a full view of history, in my opinion - and there is nothing wrong with people understanding religions in a factual and historical sense.

In college, my wife was a team leader for Notre Dame's Interfaith Worship group, and I attended this many times with her. This was a non-denominational worship that had in it's attendance many different types of Christians, Jewish people, and a few Muslims. People were asked to volunteer to give talks on their religion and relationship with god each week, which was very interesting and helped increase my knowledge in a few faiths that I was less familiar with. This experience helped me to see how, above all else, religion is self-exploration into each of our moral and ethical codes, and discovering our relationship with god - and this goes for all religions. In the end, it was amazing how easy it was for Christians, Jews, and Muslims to worship together when we all realized at the heart of all of our religions were the ideas of acceptance, understanding, self-exploration, and a relationship with god. The different "rules" and "views" rarely - if ever - came up. It was a really great experience.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

i think we should install a Compartive Religions class early on in education to expose kids to other religions. i wish more people would make their own decisions on religion, and this would be a step in the right direction. how many Christian children can distinguish a Sikh from a Muslim? very few, if any, i would imagine. that just really bugs me for some reason.

that would be a very bad idea

kids love to rebel against their parents, and giving young kids new religions to believe in is dangerous.

let their parents decide their religion the same way it's been since religion was created.

[jamiethelanky]

that would be a very bad idea

kids love to rebel against their parents, and giving young kids new religions to believe in is dangerous.

let their parents decide their religion the same way it's been since religion was created.
I have been taught this at the age of 15, and as far as I know nobody in my class has taken up a different religion due to it, yet it has given an understanding that essentially a lot of religions have comparable features and are not as evil as the media make out to be. Perhaps you should give it a try.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

I have been taught this at the age of 15, and as far as I know nobody in my class has taken up a different religion due to it, yet it has given an understanding that essentially a lot of religions have comparable features and are not as evil as the media make out to be. Perhaps you should give it a try.

ive read a great deal about religions, very interesting topic, thats how i know there have been over 10,000 of them in human history.

my point, is that young americans love to rebel against their parents, especially about religion, and exposing grade school children to religion is just too much for them, 15 is different, your only a few years away from being an adult, but not 9-10.

[jamiethelanky]

ive read a great deal about religions, very interesting topic, thats how i know there have been over 10,000 of them in human history.

my point, is that young americans love to rebel against their parents, especially about religion, and exposing grade school children to religion is just too much for them, 15 is different, your only a few years away from being an adult, but not 9-10.
Then why have it at grade school? Use that time for getting their literacy/numeracy up to speed. 11+ is where it all needs to start - when the education system should start to increase its academic rigour.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Then why have it at grade school? Use that time for getting their literacy/numeracy up to speed. 11+ is where it all needs to start - when the education system should start to increase its academic rigour.

religion has no place in school except for history class

[jamiethelanky]

religion has no place in school except for history class
I think it does, in a sociological sense. It won't be preaching to people, only showing that there are things that people follow in the world.

School is about teaching of facts, and it is a fact that people follow religions.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

I think it does, in a sociological sense. It won't be preaching to people, only showing that there are things that people follow in the world.

School is about teaching of facts, and it is a fact that people follow religions.

i have no problem with them learning about religion, i just fear the history of religion won't be fairly presented, yes of course it needs to be taught.

[barryllium]

that would be a very bad idea

kids love to rebel against their parents, and giving young kids new religions to believe in is dangerous.

let their parents decide their religion the same way it's been since religion was created.

Parents who have a solid relationship with their children don't have this problem. Stop vilifying children with blanket statements. And besides, what's wrong with children exploring faith?

[barryllium]

I think it does, in a sociological sense. It won't be preaching to people, only showing that there are things that people follow in the world.

School is about teaching of facts, and it is a fact that people follow religions.

Jamie is right on with all of this. For someone that has so much faith in the human mind, sloppy, you seem to demean it quite often.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Parents who have a solid relationship with their children don't have this problem. Stop vilifying children with blanket statements. And besides, what's wrong with children exploring faith?

14-15 is fine, but 9-10 is too young to start telling kids about the history of religions, unless you want them to start questioning their faith.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Jamie is right on with all of this. For someone that has so much faith in the human mind, sloppy, you seem to demean it quite often.

the human mind is both as sharp as a knife yet as malleable as wet clay, you have to be careful with it.

[barryllium]

14-15 is fine, but 9-10 is too young to start telling kids about the history of religions, unless you want them to start questioning their faith.

Why would questioning faith be a bad thing? Questioning my faith has only helped me strengthen it. And honestly, 9-10 isn't too young (and 14-15 is a little too late) - that is when children are in the midst of the concern stage (and soon to be moving on to the intimacy stage) of development, they are questioning their identity anyway, and starting to figure out where they belong. That is, in my opinion (and developmental psychology would back me up) a great time to start giving children as much factual, historical, and sociological knowledge as possible on religion and other areas. The ideal time would be more like 11-12, honestly - but 9-10 isn't too young.

[NashvilleBengalfan]

14-15 is fine, but 9-10 is too young to start telling kids about the history of religions, unless you want them to start questioning their faith.

I could live with that.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Why would questioning faith be a bad thing? Questioning my faith has only helped me strengthen it. And honestly, 9-10 isn't too young (and 14-15 is a little too late) - that is when children are in the midst of the concern stage (and soon to be moving on to the intimacy stage) of development, they are questioning their identity anyway, and starting to figure out where they belong. That is, in my opinion (and developmental psychology would back me up) a great time to start giving children as much factual, historical, and sociological knowledge as possible on religion and other areas. The ideal time would be more like 11-12, honestly - but 9-10 isn't too young.

hey man im all for questioning faith, im just tryin to help yall out but go ahead and start teaching religious history to 9 year olds, if you dont sugar coat it there's going to be some awfully barren churches in the future.

[barryllium]

hey man im all for questioning faith, im just tryin to help yall out but go ahead and start teaching religious history to 9 year olds, if you dont sugar coat it there's going to be some awfully barren churches in the future.

I hate to tell you, but there are awfully barren churches now. It is completely healthy and normal for children of all ages to oppose their parents - it is how we (as humans) form boundaries in our lives. The main problem is that a large amount of parents are too insecure to properly handle the opposition of their children, and do little to respect their childrens' point of view. If more parents would let their children do their natural exploration (both in the exploration stage of 18-36 months and in the later stages of childhood/teenage years), and engage in real discussion with their children - which involves recognizing and validating their questions and viewpoints - people would be a whole lot better off in their adulthood. Allowing children and teenagers to explore while they are under a parents roof gives the child an opportunity to do so while they have something to fall back on - their parents whom they live with - rather then doing it later in life when there is more opportunity and danger of becoming further and further lost in life.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

I hate to tell you, but there are awfully barren churches now. It is completely healthy and normal for children of all ages to oppose their parents - it is how we (as humans) form boundaries in our lives. The main problem is that a large amount of parents are too insecure to properly handle the opposition of their children, and do little to respect their childrens' point of view. If more parents would let their children do their natural exploration (both in the exploration stage of 18-36 months and in the later stages of childhood/teenage years), and engage in real discussion with their children - which involves recognizing and validating their questions and viewpoints - people would be a whole lot better off in their adulthood. Allowing children and teenagers to explore while they are under a parents roof gives the child an opportunity to do so while they have something to fall back on - their parents whom they live with - rather then doing it later in life when there is more opportunity and danger of becoming further and further lost in life.

thats all well and good and i agree.

but think about explaining the spanish inquisition to a 9 year old, or the children's crusade, or the holocaust, or the seige of masada.

religious history is too brutal for children, better they learn that history class in their teens.

[barryllium]

thats all well and good and i agree.

but think about explaining the spanish inquisition to a 9 year old, or the children's crusade, or the holocaust, or the seige of masada.

religious history is too brutal for children, better they learn that history class in their teens.

Incorrect. It's not like we need to show pictures or movies of brutality. Children can handle having things like this explained to them, most adults just don't give them enough credit. At this point in their development, things like this can very easily be discussed with children in a historical sense.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Incorrect. It's not like we need to show pictures or movies of brutality. Children can handle having things like this explained to them, most adults just don't give them enough credit. At this point in their development, things like this can very easily be discussed with children in a historical sense.


wow....i ain't rappin with no 9 year old about mohammed's child bride and i hope you don't either.

i think they should learn the basics of religions but leave the gory details until they are old enough to understand context and how different things were 1000's of years ago.

[jamiethelanky]

i think they should learn the basics of religions but leave the gory details until they are old enough to understand context and how different things were 1000's of years ago.
True.

On a second hand, I think you should do that, too...

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

True.

On a second hand, I think you should do that, too...

i do all to well holmes.

[barryllium]

wow....i ain't rappin with no 9 year old about mohammed's child bride and i hope you don't either.

i think they should learn the basics of religions but leave the gory details until they are old enough to understand context and how different things were 1000's of years ago.

No one was saying bring that up when they are 9. I'm saying that's when you start to introduce basic ideologies and general histories. Build up to the specifics later. But honestly, bringing up "mohammed's child bride" is not necessary (or relevant) to teach the religion, despite your consistent attempts to argue such.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

No one was saying bring that up when they are 9. I'm saying that's when you start to introduce basic ideologies and general histories. Build up to the specifics later. But honestly, bringing up "mohammed's child bride" is not necessary (or relevant) to teach the religion, despite your consistent attempts to argue such.

oh i think it's very very very relevant to bring that up.

why you ask??

because its one thing to read about an ancient figure, it's another to call him a prophet.

if you're going to be called a prophet, you better believe analytical people are going to investigate your life.

[barryllium]

oh i think it's very very very relevant to bring that up.

why you ask??

because its one thing to read about an ancient figure, it's another to call him a prophet.

if you're going to be called a prophet, you better believe analytical people are going to investigate your life.

Ugh. Your assault on Islam continues. Please - when giving information on religions the fact that Mohammed had a 7 year old wife is just as relevant as the fact that many characters in the bible had many wives. It doesn't matter. If someone is going to take college level courses into the 1400+ year history if Islam, maybe, but this is not relevant to a comparative and historical study of Islam.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Ugh. Your assault on Islam continues. Please - when giving information on religions the fact that Mohammed had a 7 year old wife is just as relevant as the fact that many characters in the bible had many wives. It doesn't matter. If someone is going to take college level courses into the 1400+ year history if Islam, maybe, but this is not relevant to a comparative and historical study of Islam.


so you dont think that people learning about islam should understand it's prophet?

thats the pillar of sand you stand on, talk about the religion....but only the good parts.

[barryllium]

so you dont think that people learning about islam should understand it's prophet?

thats the pillar of sand you stand on, talk about the religion....but only the good parts.

Show me the part of the Islamic religion that says "you must marry a 7 year old", and I'll explain why it matters. Is it necessary when showing the history of Southeast Asia to mention that of the women currently between 25 and 29, 45% are married by age of 15 years in Bangladesh (source (http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2005/presskit/factsheets/facts_child_marriage.htm))?

The fact is, most (if not almost all) Muslims do not condone this idea. And, 1400 years ago, marrying a 7 year old (she was actually 6, but she did not live with him and the marriage was not consummated until she was 9) would be closer to the marrying of a 14-15 year old today - still not condonable, but closer none-the-less.

Regardless, I continue to say this does not matter. You seem to think it does, because you have been fighting tooth and nail on these boards to show how evil Islam is, even though your knowledge of such is limited to reading biased sources on Mohammed and a limited knowledge of the Qur'an. You ignore the fact that Muslims are also humans, and continue to argue against many reasonable arguments and facts, simply because they do not match your biased and discriminatory viewpoints.

And, by the way, I'm not advocating only talking about the good parts of religions, just the ones that are actually relevant to history or the beliefs of the religion.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Show me the part of the Islamic religion that says "you must marry a 7 year old", and I'll explain why it matters. Is it necessary when showing the history of Southeast Asia to mention that of the women currently between 25 and 29, 45% are married by age of 15 years in Bangladesh (source (http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2005/presskit/factsheets/facts_child_marriage.htm))?

The fact is, most (if not almost all) Muslims do not condone this idea. And, 1400 years ago, marrying a 7 year old (she was actually 6, but she did not live with him and the marriage was not consummated until she was 9) would be closer to the marrying of a 14-15 year old today - still not condonable, but closer none-the-less.

Regardless, I continue to say this does not matter. You seem to think it does, because you have been fighting tooth and nail on these boards to show how evil Islam is, even though your knowledge of such is limited to reading biased sources on Mohammed and a limited knowledge of the Qur'an. You ignore the fact that Muslims are also humans, and continue to argue against many reasonable arguments and facts, simply because they do not match your biased and discriminatory viewpoints.

And, by the way, I'm not advocating only talking about the good parts of religions, just the ones that are actually relevant to history or the beliefs of the religion.

i can't believe you don't think it's relevant.

would it be relevant to talk about if jesus or mosses had child brides? they lived in ancient times too.

the reason it's relevant is so obvious to me that i can't understand why you disagree.

why would god's prophet have sex with children? why would he not have been told by god that this is wrong?? plain and simple.

telling people mohammed was a prophet and leaving that part out is doing them a major disservice.

also, my knowledge is not as limited as you think, check it

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm

[crunkjuice]

let their parents decide their religion the same way it's been since religion was created.

this is one of the biggest problems i have with religion, and exactly why i made this thread.

you act like it's a terrible thing for kids to actually CHOOSE what they believe as opposed to being brainwashed by their parents and what not.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

this is one of the biggest problems i have with religion, and exactly why i made this thread.

you act like it's a terrible thing for kids to actually CHOOSE what they believe as opposed to being brainwashed by their parents and what not.

i wouldn't trust a ten year old to choose what job they will have for the rest of their life

i also wouldn't trust a ten year old to pick what religion they'll have for the rest of their life.

would let a 10 year old pick his/her religion?

[crunkjuice]

i wouldn't trust a ten year old to choose what job they will have for the rest of their life

i also wouldn't trust a ten year old to pick what religion they'll have for the rest of their life.

would let a 10 year old pick his/her religion?

it's not like they have one day to decide what religion they are and have it locked down for life... just expose them to everything without any bias and they can come to their own conclusions over time. kind of sounds like choosing a career, wouldnt you say?

i realize this will never happen, unfortunately. the damage is already done.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

it's not like they have one day to decide what religion they are and have it locked down for life... just expose them to everything without any bias and they can come to their own conclusions over time. kind of sounds like choosing a career, wouldnt you say?

i realize this will never happen, unfortunately. the damage is already done.

i ten year old should be worried about little league, or skateboards, or pretty dresses and cartoons, not who their savior or prophet is

let them learn about it in history, the most underrated subject on earth

let them read about it when they are 14-15-16 and not when they still need to be told to brush their teeth for crying out loud.

religious history is just far far too brutal and scary to teach to kids, and teaching them the religion without it's history is how lies stay alive.

[barryllium]

i can't believe you don't think it's relevant.

would it be relevant to talk about if jesus or mosses had child brides? they lived in ancient times too.

the reason it's relevant is so obvious to me that i can't understand why you disagree.

why would god's prophet have sex with children? why would he not have been told by god that this is wrong?? plain and simple.

telling people mohammed was a prophet and leaving that part out is doing them a major disservice.

also, my knowledge is not as limited as you think, check it

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm

Oh my - you are using answering-islam.org for your answers. That explains way too much. That site is so liquored up with bias it's ridiculous. Just a few examples:

http://www.examinethetruth.com/page_against_01.htm#Answering_Islam_debunked
http://www.mostmerciful.com/deception.htm

Find a new source (or, Allah forbid - several sources). That whole site is ridiculous.

The mistake you continue to make is that you think Mohammed having a child bride is even relevant to the religion. It isn't - it is not condoned by the religion.

Again, I contend that his child bride is an issue for college level courses delving into the life of Mohammed. For a comparative religion course or a course detailing the history of religions, this is irrelevant. Much like it is irrelevant that several (if not close to all) of the people mentioned in the Old Testament. Or as relevant as the descriptions of the Apostle Paul in the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, which state he was "a man small in size, bald-headed, bandy-legged, well-built, with eyebrows meeting, rather long-nosed, full of grace. For sometimes he seemed like a man, and sometimes he had the countenance of an angel". It doesn't matter.

[barryllium]

i ten year old should be worried about little league, or skateboards, or pretty dresses and cartoons, not who their savior or prophet is

let them learn about it in history, the most underrated subject on earth

let them read about it when they are 14-15-16 and not when they still need to be told to brush their teeth for crying out loud.

religious history is just far far too brutal and scary to teach to kids, and teaching them the religion without it's history is how lies stay alive.

Says you. Again, developmental psychology absolutely disagrees with you. But I guess you know more than the learned people of the past century that have studied the intellectual, emotional and spiritual development of humans. You have no idea what you are talking about here, you are merely spewing your un-researched opinion.

[jamiethelanky]

"Muhammad's marriage, in its historical context, would not have been considered the least improper" - Professor Colin Turner, Professor of Persian Language and Islamic History, University of Durham (which is regarded to be the 3rd best in Britain after Oxford and Cambridge).

Ref: (C. (Colin) Turner, Islam: The Basics, Routledge Press, p.34-35)

[Treee]

Actually, I have actively studied Buddhism and briefly went through a stage where I thought I was athiest. I think I am pretty well versed in relegions, enough so to know that I can choose one knowing that I think it is "more right" than the others instead of just being born into it.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Oh my - you are using answering-islam.org for your answers. That explains way too much. That site is so liquored up with bias it's ridiculous. Just a few examples:

http://www.examinethetruth.com/page_against_01.htm#Answering_Islam_debunked
http://www.mostmerciful.com/deception.htm

Find a new source (or, Allah forbid - several sources). That whole site is ridiculous.

The mistake you continue to make is that you think Mohammed having a child bride is even relevant to the religion. It isn't - it is not condoned by the religion.

Again, I contend that his child bride is an issue for college level courses delving into the life of Mohammed. For a comparative religion course or a course detailing the history of religions, this is irrelevant. Much like it is irrelevant that several (if not close to all) of the people mentioned in the Old Testament. Or as relevant as the descriptions of the Apostle Paul in the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla, which state he was "a man small in size, bald-headed, bandy-legged, well-built, with eyebrows meeting, rather long-nosed, full of grace. For sometimes he seemed like a man, and sometimes he had the countenance of an angel". It doesn't matter.

so a pedophile prophet doesn't matter?

you still didn't answer my question, would you feel the same way if jesus or mosses did this as well? would it matter then?

you really think it's ok to say that a man is a messenger of god but leave that part out?

its not lying, but it sure is omitting the truth.

by the way dr. zakir naik is the one who says a muslim man can marry a non-muslim but a woman can't

and context or not, it says in the quran that wherever a muslim finds the kuffar, kill him
http://youtube.com/watch?v=p4Ko3ixFQ7E&feature=related

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

"Muhammad's marriage, in its historical context, would not have been considered the least improper" - Professor Colin Turner, Professor of Persian Language and Islamic History, University of Durham (which is regarded to be the 3rd best in Britain after Oxford and Cambridge).

Ref: (C. (Colin) Turner, Islam: The Basics, Routledge Press, p.34-35)

do you not understand that this is supposed to be the messenger god?

sure it'd be ok if he was just a soldier, warlord, merchant, etc.

but the messenger of god?

[jamiethelanky]

do you not understand that this is supposed to be the messenger god?

sure it'd be ok if he was just a soldier, warlord, merchant, etc.

but the messenger of god?
Context.

And unlike Jesus, he is seen as a prophet, rather than any form of deity. He was just a man and he just happened to live in that society at the time.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Says you. Again, developmental psychology absolutely disagrees with you. But I guess you know more than the learned people of the past century that have studied the intellectual, emotional and spiritual development of humans. You have no idea what you are talking about here, you are merely spewing your un-researched opinion.

ok then, tell your ten year old about all 10,000 religions that have existed.

y'know, to be fair and unbiased

[jamiethelanky]

ok then, tell your ten year old about all 10,000 religions that have existed.

y'know, to be fair and unbiased
How about just the main ones?

After all, the chemical properties of Californium are not taught in schools yet those of say, Carbon are. Go with the most abundant chemicals, go with the most abundant religions.

[crunkjuice]

I think I am pretty well versed in relegions, enough so to know that I can choose one knowing that I think it is "more right" than the others instead of just being born into it.

i can definately respect that. i just wish there were more people like that.

oh and i'm an atheist, in case people havent figured that out yet. :p

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Context.

And unlike Jesus, he is seen as a prophet, rather than any form of deity. He was just a man and he just happened to live in that society at the time.

a man who god chose to be the final prophet to end all prophets.

hmm, since god gave him the final message, i wonder why it didnt include

"dont have sex with kids!"

because maybe if that happened, it wouldn't still be happening today:

Ayatollah Khomeini told the Muslim faithful that marrying a girl before she began menstruating was a ‘divine blessing.”

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

How about just the main ones?

After all, the chemical properties of Californium are not taught in schools yet those of say, Carbon are. Go with the most abundant chemicals, go with the most abundant religions.

maybe thats why are math and sciences are crap and we have to bring in scientist from other countries more focused on those subjects.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

i can definately respect that. i just wish there were more people like that.

oh and i'm an atheist, in case people havent figured that out yet. :p

do you consider atheism a religion?

[jamiethelanky]

maybe thats why are math and sciences are crap and we have to bring in scientist from other countries more focused on those subjects.
Only at University level.

All subjects should be fairly basic through the pre-college schooling system, and as pupils whittle their chosen subjects down the detail increases until they are streamed into an area that they feel genuine passion about.

[barryllium]

so a pedophile prophet doesn't matter?

you still didn't answer my question, would you feel the same way if jesus or mosses did this as well? would it matter then?

you really think it's ok to say that a man is a messenger of god but leave that part out?

its not lying, but it sure is omitting the truth.

by the way dr. zakir naik is the one who says a muslim man can marry a non-muslim but a woman can't

and context or not, it says in the quran that wherever a muslim finds the kuffar, kill him
http://youtube.com/watch?v=p4Ko3ixFQ7E&feature=related

I could care less if Moses had married a 9 year old - it isn't relevant. Jesus marrying anyone would be relevant, though, due to his status as the son of god and all.

I'm not even gonna bother to address your "kuffar" issue, enough Muslims on here have already done so.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

this it's why it is important that mohammed had a child bride:

Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-’Ubeidi: There is no minimum marriage age for either men or women in Islamic law. The law in many countries permits girls to marry only from the age of 18. This is arbitrary legislation, not Islamic law....In some Islamic countries, the age of maturity can be 8 or 10 years

if you dont investigate the past you are doomed to repeat it.

if your prophet did it, what would stop
you?

wwmd: what would mohammed do?

obviously some very illegal things

[jamiethelanky]

a man who god chose to be the final prophet to end all prophets.

hmm, since god gave him the final message, i wonder why it didnt include

"dont have sex with kids!"

because maybe if that happened, it wouldn't still be happening today:

Ayatollah Khomeini told the Muslim faithful that marrying a girl before she began menstruating was a ‘divine blessing.”
Ayatollah Khomeni has nothing to do with most Muslims today. He was a fundamentalist, extremist nut-job.

Ignore.

[barryllium]

do you not understand that this is supposed to be the messenger god?

sure it'd be ok if he was just a soldier, warlord, merchant, etc.

but the messenger of god?

Stop acting like you even understand what the culture of Mohammed's time was. If you did, you would not refer to him as a warlord. You get your info from an extremely biased anti-Islamic website, you refuse to listen to anyone who actually has an extensive knowledge about Mohammed or Islam, and you continue to spread hate, fear and propaganda. Please discontinue doing such.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Only at University level.

All subjects should be fairly basic through the pre-college schooling system, and as pupils whittle their chosen subjects down the detail increases until they are streamed into an area that they feel genuine passion about.

you dont have an appriciation for how bad it is here, many american students dont know the first thing about your country for example.

[jamiethelanky]

this it's why it is important that mohammed had a child bride:

Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-’Ubeidi: There is no minimum marriage age for either men or women in Islamic law. The law in many countries permits girls to marry only from the age of 18. This is arbitrary legislation, not Islamic law....In some Islamic countries, the age of maturity can be 8 or 10 years

if you dont investigate the past you are doomed to repeat it.

if your prophet did it, what would stop
you?

wwmd: what would mohammed do?

obviously some very illegal things
Again, context.

[jamiethelanky]

you dont have an appriciation for how bad it is here, many american students dont know the first thing about your country for example.
I do have an appreciation of how ill-educated America can be, just from speaking to some people on here...

[barryllium]

ok then, tell your ten year old about all 10,000 religions that have existed.

y'know, to be fair and unbiased

How about just the main ones?

After all, the chemical properties of Californium are not taught in schools yet those of say, Carbon are. Go with the most abundant chemicals, go with the most abundant religions.

I'll let Jamie answer for me, since he has provided a logical response. You should try such sometime.

[barryllium]

this it's why it is important that mohammed had a child bride:

Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-’Ubeidi: There is no minimum marriage age for either men or women in Islamic law. The law in many countries permits girls to marry only from the age of 18. This is arbitrary legislation, not Islamic law....In some Islamic countries, the age of maturity can be 8 or 10 years

if you dont investigate the past you are doomed to repeat it.

if your prophet did it, what would stop
you?

wwmd: what would mohammed do?

obviously some very illegal things

How could it be illegal if it's legal though? :hmm:

Again, you continue to argue that a few people or country mean that everyone does something. Stop.

[barryllium]

Ayatollah Khomeni has nothing to do with most Muslims today. He was a fundamentalist, extremist nut-job.

Ignore.

Agreed.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Stop acting like you even understand what the culture of Mohammed's time was. If you did, you would not refer to him as a warlord. You get your info from an extremely biased anti-Islamic website, you refuse to listen to anyone who actually has an extensive knowledge about Mohammed or Islam, and you continue to spread hate, fear and propaganda. Please discontinue doing such.

ok then
Would it be fair to call Muhammad a warlord or bandit leader?

Well, certainly there are quite a few similarities and that's not an accident either because these are people who are pious Muslims and who believe that he gave them an example for human behavior -- and he did lead battles, he ordered his followers to fight on his behalf and to offer his enemies conversion, subjugation as 2nd class citizens, or war. So, there's considerable precedent within Muhammad's life, in his words and deeds, to support that kind of a life.

do agree disagree?

[jamiethelanky]

ok then
Would it be fair to call Muhammad a warlord or bandit leader?

Well, certainly there are quite a few similarities and that's not an accident either because these are people who are pious Muslims and who believe that he gave them an example for human behavior -- and he did lead battles, he ordered his followers to fight on his behalf and to offer his enemies conversion, subjugation as 2nd class citizens, or war. So, there's considerable precedent within Muhammad's life, in his words and deeds, to support that kind of a life.

do agree disagree?
CONTEXT!

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

How could it be illegal if it's legal though? :hmm:

Again, you continue to argue that a few people or country mean that everyone does something. Stop.

im arguing what their prophet did. the prophet that many have killed over and been killed over.

[jamiethelanky]

im arguing what their prophet did. the prophet that many have killed over and been killed over.
And Jesus has never been killed over?

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

CONTEXT!

ok, explain the context of that then

what is your definition of a warlord then? and if it doesn't fit mohammed, what would you call him?

[barryllium]

ok then
Would it be fair to call Muhammad a warlord or bandit leader?

Well, certainly there are quite a few similarities and that's not an accident either because these are people who are pious Muslims and who believe that he gave them an example for human behavior -- and he did lead battles, he ordered his followers to fight on his behalf and to offer his enemies conversion, subjugation as 2nd class citizens, or war. So, there's considerable precedent within Muhammad's life, in his words and deeds, to support that kind of a life.

do agree disagree?

Again, stop speaking about things as if you have full knowledge. You ignore any and all context in your arguments.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

And Jesus has never been killed over?

sure but jesus wasn't a pedophile, if you have one of them wwjd bracelets and you were about to have sex with a child, you'd be sinnin big time.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Again, stop speaking about things as if you have full knowledge. You ignore any and all context in your arguments.

stop saying context, you know thats a weak argument

if the man led soldiers than what was he?

[jamiethelanky]

ok, explain the context of that then

what is your definition of a warlord then? and if it doesn't fit mohammed, what would you call him?
He is a warlord because he had to be. As a breakaway religion from Judaism Islam was chided and threatened against, its followers had to be prepared to fight for their beliefs...

[barryllium]

sure but jesus wasn't a pedophile, if you have one of them wwjd bracelets and you were about to have sex with a child, you'd be sinnin big time.

Taking this back a step - point to the person (or people) that are saying "I am a Muslim because I want to marry a child" and you'll have a point. But you can't, and you don't.

[jamiethelanky]

stop saying context, you know thats a weak argument

Actually, it's a very strong argument. Context rules all. All customs and practices are decked in the context in which they were written. 1984 - look at the context. Frankenstein - context. Utopia - context. Canterbury Tales - context.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

He is a warlord because he had to be. As a breakaway religion from Judaism Islam was chided and threatened against, its followers had to be prepared to fight for their beliefs...

exactly thank you for admitting it

so no matter the context, the man killed people, and encouraged his followers to kill

[crunkjuice]

do you consider atheism a religion?

no... lack of religion. but i've accepted the fact that religion is going to be around for a while, and i'd prefer that people actually choose what they believe and formulate their own opinions.

[jamiethelanky]

exactly thank you for admitting it

so no matter the context, the man killed people, and encouraged his followers to kill
No, matter the context.

The context is all important.

[CloeHokie]

Hey guys whats going on? Lol

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Taking this back a step - point to the person (or people) that are saying "I am a Muslim because I want to marry a child" and you'll have a point. But you can't, and you don't.

what about the people who will just say "i am muslim and i married a child"

[barryllium]

stop saying context, you know thats a weak argument

if the man led soldiers than what was he?

Ugh. Mohammed (and his followers) were subject to much persecution - he in fact had to flee Mecca very early on after his revelations. He combined warring tribes in Medina - and even if violence was used to do such, he ended the warring between them in doing such. In going back to Mecca, he again received much persecution. Violence occurred between his followers and the tribes of Mecca - and regardless of which side you believe drew the first sword (from what I've seen, signs point towards Mohammed, but this is not conclusive) - the violence was inevitable because of conflicting beliefs and the culture of the time.

I don't know what I call him, but warlord is not the word.

OK, I've not presented my strong argument. Feel free to either ignore this or counter with another weak one.

[jamiethelanky]

what about the people who will just say "i am muslim and i married a child"
Example?

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

No, matter the context.

The context is all important.

so you dont see the similarities between a religion born in blood and whats going on today?

keep your head in the sand.

[barryllium]

what about the people who will just say "i am muslim and i married a child"

The vast minority. Not a representation of the religion at all.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Example?

their freakin prophet!!

[barryllium]

Hey guys whats going on? Lol

Saving the world, one post at a time. Care to join?

[jamiethelanky]

their freakin prophet!!
Context. How many Muslims say that now?

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

The vast minority. Not a representation of the religion at all.

i dont think it's the vast minority at all, its present in every sharia country and there's 520 million people living under sharia


but what does represent the religion?

with the civil war going within it it's hard to answer that.

[jamiethelanky]

so you dont see the similarities between a religion born in blood and whats going on today?

keep your head in the sand.
You don't see that there are a few extremists ruining the religion for everyone. I'd hate to be so stupid...

[barryllium]

so you dont see the similarities between a religion born in blood and whats going on today?

keep your head in the sand.

They are extremists. Extremists exist in every religion. The translation is minimal, if at all present.

Keep you head in... well, you know where it is, you're the one smelling it.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Context. How many Muslims say that now?

so lets understand something here.

they did it 2000 years ago, they still do it today, yet to you, its no big deal?

i fail to see how i can take something in the context of history if it still happens today

seems like they've enjoyed the custom enough to keep it around no?

[barryllium]

i dont think it's the vast minority at all, its present in every sharia country and there's 520 million people living under sharia


but what does represent the religion?

with the civil war going within it it's hard to answer that.

Are you really still running around with your fabricated numbers that have been continually debunked by both the Muslims and others on this board with far greater knowledge on this subject than you? I'm not even talking about me here - this has been done by people far more knowledgeable than me on here.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

They are extremists. Extremists exist in every religion. The translation is minimal, if at all present.

Keep you head in... well, you know where it is, you're the one smelling it.


dont you think its strange that 1,400 years later the extremist movement is growing? wouldn't they have evolved out of there violent past?

[jamiethelanky]

but what does represent the religion?

The Arabic translation of Islam itself - 'peace'. Finding peace with oneself. Finding peace after inevitable struggle.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Are you really still running around with your fabricated numbers that have been continually debunked by both the Muslims and others on this board with far greater knowledge on this subject than you? I'm not even talking about me here - this has been done by people far more knowledgeable than me on here.

no that number is not fabricated, go look at the populations of the 7 sharia countries

then come back and apologize

[jamiethelanky]

so lets understand something here.

they did it 2000 years ago, they still do it today, yet to you, its no big deal?

i fail to see how i can take something in the context of history if it still happens today

seems like they've enjoyed the custom enough to keep it around no?
Show me where it's happened today.

[jamiethelanky]

no that number is not fabricated, go look at the populations of the 7 sharia countries

then come back and apologize
Like they have any say in it...

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

The Arabic translation of Islam itself - 'peace'. Finding peace with oneself. Finding peace after inevitable struggle.

but the word muslim means to submit, submit to the will of god.

like i said, say one thing and do another.

[barryllium]

dont you think its strange that 1,400 years later the extremist movement is growing? wouldn't they have evolved out of there violent past?

Again, you and your biased sources say it is growing. Others disagree.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Like they have any say in it...

im sure most of the men love it, its built that way

[barryllium]

no that number is not fabricated, go look at the populations of the 7 sharia countries

then come back and apologize

I don't think I'll be apologizing. Mainly because, once again, the fact that that many people live in "sharia law" countries does not mean they agree with it or completely follow it - which is the idea you keep trying to push.

[barryllium]

im sure most of the men love it, its built that way

That's your opinion. Please respond with facts.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Again, you and your biased sources say it is growing. Others disagree.

its growing among the young, they are impressionable, aggressive.

all throughout history old evil men have depended on the young and naive to fight, radical islam is the best example of that today

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

That's your opinion. Please respond with facts.

you must know nothing about sharia

[jamiethelanky]

you must know nothing about sharia
No, you must know nothing. To suggest that all people, let alone a majority of people living under Sharia agree with it is the heighth of ignorance.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

I don't think I'll be apologizing. Mainly because, once again, the fact that that many people live in "sharia law" countries does not mean they agree with it or completely follow it - which is the idea you keep trying to push.

so you dont disagree that 520 million live under it?

if even half of them support it, thats 260 million, approaching the population of america

[barryllium]

its growing among the young, they are impressionable, aggressive.

all throughout history old evil men have depended on the young and naive to fight, radical islam is the best example of that today

Your lack of knowledge of developmental psychology continues to amaze me - especially since you keep acting as if you know anything about it. You are now being demeaning to the youth, as well as Muslims. Care to add to the list? Perhaps eskimos are also in on this?

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

No, you must know nothing. To suggest that all people, let alone a majority of people living under Sharia agree with it is the heighth of ignorance.

i never said that so stop lying.

[barryllium]

you must know nothing about sharia

I know enough to realize how ridiculous your claims are.

[jamiethelanky]

im sure most of the men love it, its built that way
Not the homosexuals, nor those who have to steal for their families, nor those who have been beaten, nor those concerned with human rights...

[jamiethelanky]

i never said that so stop lying.
Well where the **** does this 520m figure come from?

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Your lack of knowledge of developmental psychology continues to amaze me - especially since you keep acting as if you know anything about it. You are now being demeaning to the youth, as well as Muslims. Care to add to the list? Perhaps eskimos are also in on this?

where the heck did you grow up?

you dont remember all the fights in middle school??

young kids want to prove themselves, plain and simple.

[barryllium]

so you dont disagree that 520 million live under it?

if even half of them support it, thats 260 million, approaching the population of america

The 260 million number is still speculation.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Well where the **** does this 520m figure come from?

add up the populations of the 7 sharia countries

since you're an expert im surprised this is news to you

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

The 260 million number is still speculation.

its speculation that half the people support it?

if it was so grossly under supported why wouldn't they revolt?

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Not the homosexuals, nor those who have to steal for their families, nor those who have been beaten, nor those concerned with human rights...

and yet in your mind, we should respect this culture as it is equal to our own?

[jamiethelanky]

add up the populations of the 7 sharia countries

since you're an expert im surprised this is news to you
This feels awfully like a circular argument.
I'll spell it out to you. Your suggestion that because 520m people live under Sharia is usually used to show that it is not a vocal minority.

And yet it is. Onyl that they're in charge of those countries.

[jamiethelanky]

and yet in your mind, we should respect this culture as it is equal to our own?
No. But we should respect Muslims who understand the context of their religion, like the majority do.

[jamiethelanky]

its speculation that half the people support it?

if it was so grossly under supported why wouldn't they revolt?
Because they would be killed. Simple.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

This feels awfully like a circular argument.
I'll spell it out to you. Your suggestion that because 520m people live under Sharia is usually used to show that it is not a vocal minority.

And yet it is. Onyl that they're in charge of those countries.

so you think every sharia country has just hoodwinked it's people and they dont actually want to live by islamic law?

[jamiethelanky]

so you think every sharia country has just hoodwinked it's people and they dont actually want to live by islamic law?
Yes.

Those in power have got there by force and intimidation.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Because they would be killed. Simple.

oh but wait, i thought sharia countries were run by a minority of extremists and the populace doesn't want it...if that was case, they would have revolted long long ago

but of course, its not. its god law, and to revolt against it would be revolting against god.

[barryllium]

where the heck did you grow up?

you dont remember all the fights in middle school??

young kids want to prove themselves, plain and simple.

I grew up in a fairly economically and racially diverse high school - one that could be considered to be fairly representative of all socio-economic classes. And I remember a few fights - maybe 3-4 a year. Those people were not an example of all people that age.

And, once again, your opinion is not supported by those in the field of human development and developmental psychology. At it's simplest (and this is an extreme simplification), young children want to form an identity based upon the guidance and boundaries provided by their primary care takers. Children that do not receive proper guidance and boundaries from these people (usually parents, sometimes grandparents, etc.), they continue to search for it from others (teachers, peers, etc.). Eventually, if they continue to not find this (as most don't that do not get it from their parents or guardians), they choose one of two paths - receive no attention and become isolated, or receive any attention possible (which often results in attempts to receive bad attention). The aggression you speak of, and the "want to prove themselves" is not a natural thing, but a defense mechanism to deal with the life they have no healthy way of changing due to their unstable or neglectful home life.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Yes.

Those in power have got there by force and intimidation.

so then why dont we free the people in those countries, since they are so oppressed?

or it could it be they don't want any other way of life.

[barryllium]

its speculation that half the people support it?

if it was so grossly under supported why wouldn't they revolt?

Numbers is never the only factor in a revolt. There's a lot of places around the world where revolts would happen if numbers were the only issue - like in a few Latin American countries where 95% of the people are impoverished, yet they do not revolt against the 5% oppressive upper class.

[jamiethelanky]

so then why dont we free the people in those countries, since they are so oppressed?

or it could it be they don't want any other way of life.
Why don't we? We sure as hell should...

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

you know what haven't even considered about sharia

and i hope when you realize this, you'll understand your error

you think all the people in sharia countries dont actually want it, and that it's only horrible despots who have forced it on them.


SO WHY DO THEY WANT IT IN THE WEST?!?!

why do immigrants from sharia countries come to the west, home of freedom, yet many still want sharia and are calling for it?

obviously because it is the fundamental way of life for fundamental islam

now that we have established that fundamental islam wants sharia, can we then begin to agree that sharia is a complete insult to our way of life?

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Why don't we? We sure as hell should...

well at least we agree on that.

[jamiethelanky]

obviously because it is the fundamental way of life for fundamental islam

now that we have established that fundamental islam wants sharia, can we then begin to agree that sharia is a complete insult to our way of life?
Neither of us have doubted this...

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Numbers is never the only factor in a revolt. There's a lot of places around the world where revolts would happen if numbers were the only issue - like in a few Latin American countries where 95% of the people are impoverished, yet they do not revolt against the 5% oppressive upper class.

obviously with how brutal sharia is (flogging, beheading, amputation) they would reject it

it's also within islam that if one is oppressed, they are allowed to kill their oppressors

and please dont say i made that up

so since its within their religion to lash out at oppression, and they are oppressed by their government, why do they not lash out?

BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS THE RELIGION

[barryllium]

you know what haven't even considered about sharia

and i hope when you realize this, you'll understand your error

you think all the people in sharia countries dont actually want it, and that it's only horrible despots who have forced it on them.


SO WHY DO THEY WANT IT IN THE WEST?!?!

why do immigrants from sharia countries come to the west, home of freedom, yet many still want sharia and are calling for it?

obviously because it is the fundamental way of life for fundamental islam

now that we have established that fundamental islam wants sharia, can we then begin to agree that sharia is a complete insult to our way of life?

Again, these fundamentalists you speak of are the minority. Nothing in your argument here changes this or makes me find any error in my argument.

[barryllium]

obviously with how brutal sharia is (flogging, beheading, amputation) they would reject it

it's also within islam that if one is oppressed, they are allowed to kill their oppressors

and please dont say i made that up

so since its within their religion to lash out at oppression, and they are oppressed by their government, why do they not lash out?

BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS THE RELIGION

No, it's not. Corrupt3d already refuted this claim by you. I don't feel the need to do such again.

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

peace out yall no hard feelings just voicing my fear of radical islam, the way the extremist mulas talk its like a virus, wishing to infect the body (the world) and replicate itself amongst the cells (non-muslims) until nothing but itself remains (the "peace" factor)

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

No, it's not. Corrupt3d already refuted this claim by you. I don't feel the need to do such again.

its in the quran, dont have time now but check it, i aint lying, there's conditions in islam that allow one to kill, like being oppressed, or in defense of the prophet mohammed (pbuh)

[barryllium]

peace out yall no hard feelings just voicing my fear of radical islam, the way the extremist mulas talk its like a virus, wishing to infect the body (the world) and replicate itself amongst the cells (non-muslims) until nothing but itself remains (the "peace" factor)

And spewing hate, misinformation, non-information, propaganda, biased opinion...

With that said, I have no hard feelings, just sadness and pity.

[jamiethelanky]

And spewing hate, misinformation, non-information, propaganda, biased opinion...

With that said, I have no hard feelings, just sadness and pity.
Word.

[barryllium]

its in the quran, dont have time now but check it, i aint lying, there's conditions in islam that allow one to kill, like being oppressed, or in defense of the prophet mohammed (pbuh)

I'm referring to the government being the religion. It's not.

[Corrupt3d]

*Yawn* here we go again.


peace out yall no hard feelings just voicing my fear of radical islam, the way the extremist mulas talk its like a virus, wishing to infect the body (the world) and replicate itself amongst the cells (non-muslims) until nothing but itself remains (the "peace" factor)

no. you are not just "voicing your fear of radical islam". if you were, you would establish that radical islam is in the minority. to have a fear of radical islam means that you need to have an understanding of it. I can assure you, based on the fact that you've attributed false facts to both islam and its radical form, that you don't. by continuously arguing with me about completely untrue facts which i have shown you are incorretc, you have shown that you have no understanding of this religion, except for one small quandry in the next quote.


its in the quran, dont have time now but check it, i aint lying, there's conditions in islam that allow one to kill, like being oppressed, or in defense of the prophet mohammed (pbuh)



yes. yes there are. if you're under attack, you have the right to kill. if you're being oppressed, you have the right to speak out - if that gets you nowhere than you have the right to kill your oppressor - ONLY IF EVERY MEANS OF VERBAL COMMUNICATION HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED. if the prophet is being insulted, it doesn't give us the right to kill his insultors, for his own mantra was "fight by words, not by the sword". that ideal has been overlooked by every muslim terrorist and their so-called martyrs - that is why i regard none of them as muslims.

however, the fact that you said (pbuh) after stating the prophets name shows that understand something. i'm curious as to why you did it since its not required for non-muslims.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

peace out yall no hard feelings just voicing my fear of radical islam, the way the extremist mulas talk its like a virus, wishing to infect the body (the world) and replicate itself amongst the cells (non-muslims) until nothing but itself remains (the "peace" factor)

I love the smell of bigotry in the morning.....err ahh evening I mean :ninja::nervous::lol:

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

*Yawn* here we go again.




no. you are not just "voicing your fear of radical islam". if you were, you would establish that radical islam is in the minority. to have a fear of radical islam means that you need to have an understanding of it. I can assure you, based on the fact that you've attributed false facts to both islam and its radical form, that you don't. by continuously arguing with me about completely untrue facts which i have shown you are incorretc, you have shown that you have no understanding of this religion, except for one small quandry in the next quote.






yes. yes there are. if you're under attack, you have the right to kill. if you're being oppressed, you have the right to speak out - if that gets you nowhere than you have the right to kill your oppressor - ONLY IF EVERY MEANS OF VERBAL COMMUNICATION HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED. if the prophet is being insulted, it doesn't give us the right to kill his insultors, for his own mantra was "fight by words, not by the sword". that ideal has been overlooked by every muslim terrorist and their so-called martyrs - that is why i regard none of them as muslims.

however, the fact that you said (pbuh) after stating the prophets name shows that understand something. i'm curious as to why you did it since its not required for non-muslims.

Sorry for my ignorance....but what is "pbuh"?

[Corrupt3d]

Sorry for my ignorance....but what is "pbuh"?


"Peace Be Upon Him"


we say it after the name of every Prophet.