Islam doesn't condone terror

[Montalban]

One of the contrdictions of the 'no compulsion in religion' is their use of terror

 

[Islam_mulia]

So here's another chance for the Muslims participating here to show us that they don't condone violence:

So PHenry42 and Islam_Mulia, repeat after me:

"I unequivocally condemn the attacks and threats of murder directed at Mr. Geert Wilders because of his anti-Islamic statements, and Mr. Kurt Westergaard because of his political cartoons satirizing Muhammed."

That is very cheeky.

If those people, whoever they are, are in some other countries, which need not be Islamic, they would be penalised/punished/castracised for inciting hatred.

I am living in one of these countries (it's not an Islamic country, btw) , and I say those people would certainly be punished/jailed for inciting hatred towards another religion, as part of our law to maintain racial and religious harmony.

Now that I have answered, can I get the response for you:

Will you, Servant of Jesus, condemn people who purposely make a speech, draw or ridicule a person/figure who belongs to a religious institution?

Now, you will see Servant of Jesus running for cover.

 

[FRM48]

That is very cheeky.

If those people, whoever they are, are in some other countries, which need not be Islamic, they would be penalised/punished/castracised for inciting hatred.

I am living in one of these countries (it's not an Islamic country, btw) , and I say those people would certainly be punished/jailed for inciting hatred towards another religion, as part of our law to maintain racial and religious harmony.

Now that I have answered, can I get the response for you:

Will you, Servant of Jesus, condemn people who purposely make a speech, draw or ridicule a person/figure who belongs to a religious institution?

Now, you will see Servant of Jesus running for cover.

Sorry Islam_Mulia,But I believe in freedom.

 

[FRM48]

Also,hate is a very deceptive word,I remember a case in my home state of Pennsylvania where some christians were arrested for a hate crime against homosexuals.Do you know what the crime was?They told them that Jesus Loves Them.Thankfully a judge threw the case out on 1st amendment grounds.

 

[Montalban]

That is very cheeky
If those people, whoever they are, are in some other countries, which need not be Islamic, they would be penalised/punished/castracised for inciting hatred.

No that's very cheeky of you. There's a difference between killing someone for inciting hatred and 'punishing' someone for inciting hatred.

Let alone the differences between 'criticising' and 'inciting hatred'

For you ANY criticism of the 'prophet' can be deemed inciting hatred and that is a cause for killing someone.

Far different from 'any' nation.

 

[Montalban]

Also,hate is a very deceptive word

And certainly the way Islam_Mulia is using it.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Will you, Servant of Jesus, condemn people who purposely make a speech, draw or ridicule a person/figure who belongs to a religious institution?

Now, you will see Servant of Jesus running for cover.

Well, first- you don't seem to realize that there is a huge difference between someone who expresses their opinion, no matter how unfair or mean-spirited it is, and someone who promotes murder and terrorism. The old adage applies: sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

So I do condemn anyone who illegally makes a speech, draws or ridicules a person/figure who belongs to a given religious institution.

However, democratic societies allow free speech- you are allowed to express your opinion, even if some may consider certain comments to be critical, satirical, or even mean-spirited and unfair.

But there are limits to free speech: it is illegal to slander someone, and you can't engage in hate crimes; for example, promote violence against some group based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. etc..

So there you go- I've responded to your challenge- now why don't you respond to mine: say after me:

"I unequivocally condemn the attacks and threats of murder directed at Mr. Geert Wilders because of his anti-Islamic statements, and Mr. Kurt Westergaard because of his political cartoons satirizing Muhammed."

Remember, all I'm asking you to do is renounce murdering someone who is simply exercising their right to free speech, even if you completely disagree with what they're saying, or even find it offensive.

.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Now be careful here: you are allowed to remain silent, but if you in any way support murdering people like Geert Wilders and Kurt Westergaard, you are in fact engaging in an illegal activity (a hate crime) in most democratic countries.

 

[Islam_mulia]

Well, first- you don't seem to realize that there is a huge difference between someone who expresses their opinion, no matter how unfair or mean-spirited it is, and someone who promotes murder and terrorism. The old adage applies: sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

So I do condemn anyone who illegally makes a speech, draws or ridicules a person/figure who belongs to a given religious institution.

However, democratic societies allow free speech- you are allowed to express your opinion, even if some may consider certain comments to be critical, satirical, or even mean-spirited and unfair.

But there are limits to free speech: it is illegal to slander someone, and you can't engage in hate crimes; for example, promote violence against some group based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. etc..

So there you go- I've responded to your challenge- now why don't you respond to mine: say after me:

"I unequivocally condemn the attacks and threats of murder directed at Mr. Geert Wilders because of his anti-Islamic statements, and Mr. Kurt Westergaard because of his political cartoons satirizing Muhammed."

Remember, all I'm asking you to do is renounce murdering someone who is simply exercising their right to free speech, even if you completely disagree with what they're saying, or even find it offensive.

.

I already did. I, living in a democratic state, supports actions against people who, through their speech, writings and drawings, insults or degrade any personality that are associated with any religious institutions and may endanger the racial and religious harmony of the people in that nation.

If you find that the writings or drawings of the people you mentioned above insulting a prophet of Islam, or any persons associated with any religions, then you should condemn the same people, not protecting them.

 

[Islam_mulia]

Now be careful here: you are allowed to remain silent, but if you in any way support murdering people like Geert Wilders and Kurt Westergaard, you are in fact engaging in an illegal activity (a hate crime) in most democratic countries.

Actually, those who are supporting these kind of people are the ones supporting hate crimes. Sadly, some of these supporters come from the Christian faith.

 

[Islam_mulia]

No that's very cheeky of you. There's a difference between killing someone for inciting hatred and 'punishing' someone for inciting hatred.

Depending on the constitution of the state. Inciting hatred, racial or religious, which may lead to national and social unrest, could lead to draconian actions, including detention without trial, long jail term, or even exile. If the constitution does not state that killing is one of the punishments, then I do not support killing of these people. only other actions if they were done in this nation.

Let alone the differences between 'criticising' and 'inciting hatred'

As I wrote earlier, some of the people who supported those who incite and degrade other religions, sadly are Christians.

For you ANY criticism of the 'prophet' can be deemed inciting hatred and that is a cause for killing someone.

Nope. See my writings. It would be unpractical for me to believe that Christians would accept Muhammad (pbuh) as a prophet. Nevertheless, I am always willing to discuss and argue things in a proper perspective, even accusations against the Prophet which I found to be totally absurd.

 

[Montalban]

Actually, those who are supporting these kind of people are the ones supporting hate crimes. Sadly, some of these supporters come from the Christian faith.

Where's your evidence for Christians involved?

Were there any people involved with red hair? Is it relevant that they had red hair? If not, what is the relevance that people who you claim were involved are Christian?

 

[simonpeter]

Now be careful here: you are allowed to remain silent, but if you in any way support murdering people like Geert Wilders and Kurt Westergaard, you are in fact engaging in an illegal activity (a hate crime) in most democratic countries.

Is your hatred for Muslims so great that you're even willing to support a hateful bigot like Wilders? I can't believe this is a Christian site.

 

[Montalban]

Depending on the constitution of the state.

I agree that there might be some that have the death penalty. I don't know what this has to do with anything, but I love reading your posts.

As I wrote earlier, some of the people who supported those who incite and degrade other religions, sadly are Christians.

Yes, you love unsupported statements

Nope. See my writings. It would be unpractical for me to believe that Christians would accept Muhammad as a prophet. Nevertheless, I am always willing to discuss and argue things in a proper perspective, even accusations against the Prophet which I found to be totally absurd.

Again a nice slight of hand of yours.

There's a difference in your faith between discussing Islam and inviting them to it - so of course you'd be willing to speak to Christians about it, or to clear up points that you think that they're in error on, however I'm talking about criticisms, such as those you get here on these threads.

I see how one Moslem reacts to such - where he called my evidence something from 'anti-Islamic sites' and I didn't use one - I used Islamic evidence. And that's fortunately with us having fairly anonymous conversations. IF that's the 'rational' discussion with Moslems then I'd hate to see it in face-to-face debate

However the amount of times your argument does slight changes in focus is also truly amazing.

So if a Christian says "Is it true Muhammed had a child bride?" I'm quite sure you wouldn't kill them you'd set them straight with one of your many tricks.

 

[Islam_mulia]

So if a Christian says "Is it true Muhammed had a child bride?" I'm quite sure you wouldn't kill them you'd set them straight with one of your many tricks.

I based my arguments on facts, not emotions.

Muhammad (pbuh) did not marry a child, she married a woman, which
although was a young bride, was not a crime under Islamic, Jewish, Christian or any rules at that time.

That was not a trick. It was a fact.

 

[plenary]

In other words, you are saying that Christians should love the devil or its children?

It's children, yes... Most certainly... As it is not the person, one should hate, but the behavior... Because it does not matter, all people are called to be sons of God, although there are many who are sons of the devil...

And everything that is not of God, is of the devil...

Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

And loving one-another also means telling each other the truth... Because, again, love rejoices in the truth, while hatred rejoices in lies and deceit...

 

[plenary]

As I wrote earlier, some of the people who supported those who incite and degrade other religions, sadly are Christians.

Luke 6:
41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

What freedoms do other relions/other philosophies have in Muslim countries? please.

I would have liked nothing more, than that Muhammad had been a real prophet, but his laws are contrary to the laws of God... (Which can easily be seen, when one has just a little grasp of the doctrine as taught by Christ Himself.)

 

[Islam_mulia]

I would have liked nothing more, than that Muhammad had been a real prophet, but his laws are contrary to the laws of God... (Which can easily be seen, when one as just a little grasp of the doctrine as taught by Christ Himself.)

Can you be more specific? Which law do you think are "contrary to the laws of God"?

 

[plenary]

Can you be more specific? Which law do you think are "contrary to the laws of God"?

Quran 48:29 "Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another"

Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Bukhari:V1B2N25 "Allah's Apostle was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next best in goodness?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad, religious fighting in Allah's Cause.'"

Matthew 22:
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

All right, what do you think about the following situation: (when the message is indeed valid, which I do not know, since I do not live in Pakistan)

Pakistan’s only Christian cabinet minister, Shahbaz Bhatti, was accused of blasphemy after denouncing the cold-blooded murder of two Catholic brothers in handcuffs outside a courtroom last year.
On Wednesday, Islamic fundamentalists succeeded in carrying out the death sentence, in accordance with Sharia law.

Like the regime of Iran did? Just kill of the opposition? Because "insulting" is worth the death penalty?

But look on the bright site, there are no more Christians in the cabinet of Pakistan.... (He was the first Christian in a Pakistan cabinet..)

But the cunning politicians of Europe, still don't see any problems with Islam or Sharia....

 

[Ayersy]

I based my arguments on facts, not emotions.

Muhammad (pbuh) did not marry a child, she married a woman, which
although was a young bride, was not a crime under Islamic, Jewish, Christian or any rules at that time.

That was not a trick. It was a fact.

This is actually true. Back in those times, it was the norm for such things to happen.

Just as other things listed in various holy texts used to happen back then. I have no problems with the things Muhammad did, it's more people trying to advocate still doing those things now, when we know differently, that I have a problem with.

Plus, as I said, Muhammad loved cats. I love cats. Thefore, he's okay, with me.