HOME | DD
AtheosEmanon — Muslim doesn't equal Terrorist
by-nc-nd
Published: 2011-07-31 20:50:04 +0000 UTC; Views: 11323; Favourites: 385; Downloads: 53
Redirect to original
Description
This is a simple stamp I am doing. I do not think this requires much explanation. Looking around on this site, and on another site that I am on [sodahead] people get so angry when you will not equate Muslim with terrorist.If you do not say that all Muslims are terrorists they smear you as anti American. Which is idiotic.
As someone who has many Muslim family members, several of whom are in the US military, two of whom have died in combat defending this country.
It would be a disservice to my family, especially the Muslims [all muslims even those who are not in my family] who died defending this country, to just lump them all in with the terrorists and textual literalists. Yes, there may be some questionable verses in the Quran where modern terrorists will use for their personal gains, but most of these texts are taken and should be understand from a historical standpoint of what Muhammad and other Muslims went through in the infancy of the faith where being a new religion left them open to attacks from the established faiths and being of a cultural difference in a time where culture was all that mattered also left them open to some attacks. So when used in modern tongue to incite violence, it would do a disservice to their own faith in that the same book that they use to speak of violence speaks to them not being the ones who are supposed to instigate said violence in many other verses.
It is one thing to say Islamic extremists are bad and condemn them. It is quite another thing to say ALL MUSLIMS are bad people because of what the extremists do. If extremists do terrible things, I shall condemn them, I shall not then say well... they were Muslims so all Muslims are bad. That, to me, makes no sense.
I condemn all acts of religious extremism or acts that are done by non-religious people who needlessly kill innocent people. Yet I will not go..well that person is a Christian, so all Christians are bad. That person is a Jew, so all Jews are bad. That person is a Muslim, so all Muslims are bad. That person is an atheist, so all atheists are bad.
Then you always get the.. typical liberal!!! Muslim apologist!!
It is not that we defend Muslims, it is that we do not condemn the vast majority who have not done anything and attempt to attribute the actions of the extremists to them….for that is not logically sound.
My favorite is when they try and use the text of Islam to show why all Muslims are terrorist… yeah, I guess all Jews are terrorists as well since their text aka old testament is just as bad…
People of all religions have their extremists. I would no more smear Muslims for the terrorists acts of the minority than I would smear all Christians for the tens of thousands of kids that have been abused and in some cases killed by extremist Christians in south Africa [“Saving Africa’s witch children” is the name of the documentary done on this] nor would I condemn all Christians for the acts of the “Lord's Resistance Army” who are a Christian paramilitary group who is killing people, raping people, etc.
I mean if the only basis for judging them as people is the text then certainly stoning your mother for wearing a dress of different fabrics, stoning anyone who is not a virgin, stoning anyone who believes in a different god.. all of which are in the old testament would also qualify those groups as terrorists...
As Aesop says in his “The wolf and the lamb” … “A tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny” Okay, some groups, like the Islamic extremists, use religion, others use nationalism, others use ethnicity… does not make the whole group bad.
So I will say again, I will not smear all Muslims, as bad people because of what a minority of their faith does, that, to me, makes absolutely no sense at all.
I may be an atheist, but as stated above, I have family members who are Muslim, Christians, Jewish, Buddhists and many other faiths. So it would not be logically sound for me to smear ALL MUSLIMS as being terrorists for what a small minority of the faith does.
If you have a different opinion, that is great, then make your own stamp equating Islam/Muslims to terrorism. I am not here to have an online pissing match.
As always comrades,
Let knowledge be that truth, which portrays humanity, condemns malevolence; that respects the differences in others while abandoning the hatred and misconceptions of the past.
-Emanon
Related content
Comments: 656
I am not speaking of modern humans, as I already said, I will, and so shall you be dead in the many centuries of possible advancements that would far exceed our current imaginations of realistic space travel.. so at that time, I would wager that people will either change their minds, or become more resolute in their position.. such is life..
Thousands of years is just the blink of the eye in the entire 200,000 year human existence, in that time we have evolved quite a bit..but yes, individuals can come further, but humans are complex so I would not expect all of them to "evolve" .. though with respect to the law of amputation of limb, while it is rather archaic that alone is not what I would judge the society as a whole about.. but that is just me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And as i said... No matter how far humanity goes, they will never be able to disprove the existence of something.
People changing their minds and becoming more resolute in their position does not change that fact.
What is likely is just a matter of opinions, and what is "physically possible" does not apply to other universes.
You can eventually prove that something is real, if you find it, but not finding it does not prove that it does not exist.
By "evolving" I was referring to the mind.
An individual can have a perfect idea of what a society etc. should be like, but if the rest of humanity doesn't understand it, nothing will change...
A society with insanely harsh laws like that must be judged.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That places limits on things the mind currently cannot fathom, but you are of course within your rights to hold such a view. I cannot speak of the "never"but some do, and that works for them, fine. I know not of the technological advances or our abilities in a great number of fields over the next few centuries to make the claim of "never".. for me that works, for me. So, for you it is a "fact" and that is great, for me it is not a fact and that for me is also great.
So on that we will just have to agree to disagree and I shall move onto your next point - -
I know what you were referring to, to which I said yes individuals can grow and evolve and humans as a whole may not.. adaptation happens in all species given time.. Yes, you judge them on that, I just do not take one part of a society to say the entire society is x, y or z.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It is a general fact that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist, since it is impossible to know everything about everything in existence.
All you can do is conclude that you cannot see anything within a specific area.
There is nothing to disagree about on that subject, as stated above.
Let me rephrase... A society must be judge based on its corruption.
Corruption cannot be accepted.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But I am not speaking of just the Abrahamic faiths and belief structures.. there are thousands.. perhaps more so of old age and new age belief structures that rise and fall ... I am speaking of them all - so what one belief structure may believe in, perhaps in the future we will be able to show that it is untrue - what another may believe in perhaps we will not be able to show it to be untrue - - or in either case possibly true. So it depends on the belief structure, what is the foundation and that in which an individual, or group is trying to disprove depending on the particular old age or new age belief structure being analyzed. - so that is why I cannot say "never" .. because the future is unknown, I know not the beautiful discoveries that lays before mankind long after every living person currently on earth is dead..
So, that is why, sir, I said we will merely have to agree to disagree - you have your view and that is fine.. I have my view and that is also fine.. such is life, everyone will have different views.. I am not trying to change your mind, and that is that.
now onto your next point.
I believe a society must be judged based on its totality ... saying, given the example you gave, that a thief has his hand amputated and that shows the people are idiots or to what you said "That is the fault of the idiot who was unclear when writing it down, and it proves that that country is extremely corrupt." .. it would not be a justice system that I would choose, and I think it to be rather archaic and very hm . primitive that alone would not lead me to believe the entire country is "corrupt" . but that is me, sir. You are of course entitled to your view. I am also, as with the previous views, unsure what else can be gathered with this particular premise - - it does seem to have run its course as they say. Unless there is more you wish to do discuss on the topic of societal corruption and the manner in which a country carries out its system of justice..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am not talking about the belief systems. I am talking about the fact that you cannot prove that a god is not real, only that what people believe about that god is not true.
The fact I am talking about is "no proof for =/= proof against".
It is not about disagreeing, it is about you not understanding what I meant.
But you can see that a society is corrupt, based on how they treat criminals, and what is considered illegal etc.
"Small" parts reveal the "larger" parts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
God is subjective at a premise of foundational core of a belief structure - saying you cannot prove that a god is not real.. is too broad... I take the view that I would first have to study any one of the thousands of faiths, to first see how they define or what their particular "god" is, look at each case on the merits and then see if the core part of that faith is something that can be tackled. So I also cannot say that you cannot disprove god, because which god.. god as defined by which of the hundreds of belief structures that profess belief in some god.. and which god in a structural format?...
So, sir, with greatest respect, I understand what you mean, I just disagree with it. So, can we finally agree to disagree because I truly do not see what else is there to discuss on that front, you have your view, and that is fine with me..
I am unsure if the word you are looking for is corrupt, corrupt is defined, by the Oxford Dictionary as "Having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain:" ... so I cannot say that an entire country is "corrupt" because of the manner that they choose to carry out their system of justice - - particularly with the amputation of limbs for thievery.
Therein lies the issue, for pretty much every society I know of modernly, theft is illegal - - now, you have countries especially in parts of Africa - be it a country or tribes - - or parts of the Middle East - once again be it the entire country or more sectarian etc that may imprison them for XXX amount of years, that may lash them and then release them, that may demand that they return what they stole or the value of what was stolen, that may in this case, amputate a hand.. or in some cases that may kill their thieves. That for me, would would perhaps tell me that the society's justice system is rather primitive yes, but can that alone tell me that the country is corrupt - for me that would be a no.
Now, sir, I am rather unsure, what more is there to be gathered from this particular premise of discussion.
Now, as with the discussion on religious studies above, and this one, it would seem we will have to simply agree to disagree on such matters. Which is fine for me. Unless of course there is more?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are adding too much into it.
Gods are beings that have evolved further than beings made of this crude matter.
That is all. And you cannot disprove the existence of such beings.
That is all I have been trying to say. Get it now...?
Whatever it is called, it is unacceptable to cut the hands of thieves, and a society where that is acceptable cannot be allowed to exist as it is.
It cannot be called "justice" at all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am not adding anything - "god" is a very broad term, which "god" The "god" of the Abrahamic faiths, the god of any hundreds of thousands of old age and new age belief systems... ? That is why I say that just saying "god" is usually very broad - - though in the West it is usually referring to the god of the Abrahamic faiths - -
If that is what you believe, sir, have at it. This whole strain thus far has been my saying you are entitled to your view, though I disagree with your view that is fine.
Once again, sir, I got what you were trying to say from the beginning, I just disagreed with it. So I shall assume finally we can just agree to disagree and move on because quite frankly this is becoming rather redundant..
That is your view, sir, and that is fine..
For you it is not, for them it is.
So, I admit, I am unsure what else is there to be discussed.
Shall I consider this conversation over, or is there more to discuss?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No. You don't disagree. You just don't understand what I am talking about.
As an example I'll take alternative universes.
Do you think that it is possible to disprove that there is another version of yourself in an alternative universe...?
The answer to that would be no, since you cannot know that.
You can prove that something you have seen is real, but you cannot prove that something you have not seen is not real.
That should even further clarify it.
You cannot search through everything in existence and thus prove that something does not exist anywhere.
It is completely impossible.
If there are gods, it will eventually be possible to prove it, but if there are no gods then we'll never know because you cannot prove a negative.
It's like disagreeing with the fact that we are held down by gravitation.
They are misusing the word "justice" if they call such a thing "justice".
Justice would be making the thief return what he/she stole and/or making him/her pay for anything that was broken.
Anything beyond that is unacceptable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
With great respect, sir, you cannot tell someone what they do and do not disagree with. .. the also you do not understand also is a bit juvenile.
I understand what you are saying, and I disagree. Without context of what god is being discussed or the particulars of a given faith or belief, I cannot agree with your claim that we will “never” know. If that is your view, have at it, you are entitled to such a view – but I do not agree with it.
Now, while you may come back with the “NOO!!! You just do not understand to agree!” We will have to simply agree to disagree.. but it seems with great respect that having offered numerous times to simply agree to disagree that you are of the mindset that unless I agree with you then I just do not understand..
Alternative universes is a theoretical possibility, but I am speaking of every faith, of every belief structure and every concept of god, thus I cannot say we will “never” be able to disprove any of that for that is an absolutist position that I do not agree with.
Yet every belief system does not hold the view that their deity is in an alternate universe, some do believe such, and some do believe their deity is in their given universe, so you can assess these when you are able to see if these things are true or the likelihood of them being true and then the person will have to make their own mind given the new evidence of the scope of the particular premise that is being addressed.
So, I will hold my position of disagreeing with the premise of “never” because that is too broad a scope, I prefer to look at the particular belief, particular faith and particular premise before I make such a broad claim that we will never know.
So that is why, I disagree with your premise, because it takes a absolutist view of some god, and then say if it does not exist we will never know.. that is far too broad for me.. it would depend greatly on what is that particular faith’s view of the god they worship, and what that particular god entails before I can make the view that we will never know it exists or does not exist.
So, I say again, we will have to agree to disagree.. but I am rather sure you may come back with no, I just do not understand.
I disagree as well with your view of their law, it is archaic and primitive, but I it is a system of justice that predates any modern society, does it being primitive and a bit archaic take it out of the realm of it being justice, I do not think so - - it would not be my ideal legal system or practice, but such is life.
Justice is not an absolute definition to fit every society, seeking that is chasing a dream.. America has the death penalty, to some people, killing someone to show that killing is wrong is not the “just” thing to do.. okay then, I am all for abolishing the death penalty but I do not say because county X or person X say it is unjust then it is automatically unjust.
unacceptable for you, not for them..
So this also will be something we have to agree to disagree..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So you are disagreeing with the fact that you cannot know everything...?
The part you don't understand is that I am not referring to "all faiths".
I am referring to the existence of the "gods", or whatever, people worship.
What they think about that being does not affect whether it exists or not.
True Justice can be perfectly applied to any society.
It is all a matter of the level of empathy.
True Justice has empathy up to a certain point.
I don't have a problem with executing murderers, with the exception of those with special circumstances, but stealing does not warrant having ones hand cut off.
Violence towards "lesser criminals" is not acceptable for any reason, and it cannot be associated with Justice.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, I disagree with your original premise with respect to we will “never” be able to disprove god .. that for me is a very broad thing to which I said that would depend on precisely the faith, the belief structure and how god is defined.. to say whether or not we will be able to prove or disprove said existence or to see if the premise for that faith is clearly wrong on the merits.
I will not say we will never… .because many structures, many views of god, etc.
But I am referring to all faiths, the entire premise was “humanity” that was the premise sir that you set up when you spoke of the individual vs society as a whole.. so we cannot call those horses back in the barn, sir.
..so we will have to agree to disagree, I have said this many times to the point of ad nauseam but for some reason, you wish to continue 0n.
Justice is different dependent upon culture, society, and structure of a society so there is no “true” justice since it will always be predicated on what the person making the assessment considers justice.
If you are of the view that one should have their hand cut off if they steal then that would be true justice.. It is not, as I said, a system that I would have in my society, it is rather primitive and archaic but to say it is in no way justice for me also does not meet the sniff test.
I wrote a piece entitled I support the death penalty and support repealing it.. I more so support repealing it because in one state in America, Florida for every 3 people that are executed, there is 1 person let off of death row because of DNA evidence.. that is a 25% error rate.. once they are killed, there is no “I’m sorry”.. there is no amount of money for the state killing an innocent man.. or woman.
It does not warrant such to you or I.. but we are speaking of a law that predates any modern society, so yes, it would be nice for them to come to the modern age..
Justice is many things, and it changes based on societal and cultural norms..
So this will be something we have to agree to disagree on… and I am willing to do that but the question is, are you?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I can say right now that "God" does not exist.
The existence of "God" suggests that there is only one god, which is not the case.
There are many gods/deities.
The disagreement lies in different definitions of gods, and is based on your mistake in thinking that I was talking about "faith systems".
I was talking about that it is impossible to know about something beyond your knowledge, thus you cannot disprove something that is beyond your knowledge.
If you could go all the way to a star, you could prove that it is actually there, but you cannot go to a seemingly empty space and actually know thast there isn't a star there.
Just because you cannot see it doesn't mean it is not there, and there is no way to disprove it.
(Again, there is nothing to disagree on here.)
True Justice has nothing to do with dumb "cultural norms".
True Justice is not affected by opinions. It is affected by absolute logic.
Does it intentionally hurt someone...? Then make it illegal.
Does it not hurt someone...? Then keep it legal.
Don't deal more damage to the criminal than the criminal caused.
True Justice is simple like that and cannot be changed by anyone.
It is objective, and never subjective.
(I should mention that this is something you theoretically could disagree on, as opposed to the misunderstanding above, which you should understand by now.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So, once again, we will just have to agree to disagree because we are not going to agree.. but for some reason, sir you seem of the view that either one takes your view or they just do not understand.
Not really, I must ask have you ever studied, collegiately, religions? I have audited a few classes on religious studies, religious theory and history… one of the key things when studying old and new age religion is to first gather which particular religion or belief you are referring to.
So if you say right now” God does not exist” my first question would be, which god, which faith, which belief structure etc to gain a better understand of just your layman’s use of the term god which can mean and encompass everything and nothing… so for your premise to prove true or reliable understanding of your premise.
Which sir, would be the point of questioning which god.. you say “there are many god/deities” I would say, speaking collegiately that there are many belief structures in which what they consider their gods or deities.. is very varied..
The disagreement lies in the absolute use of the term “never”… Actually I made no “mistake” I have said several times that I understand what you were trying to say, but that I disagreed with it. For some reason you cannot just accept that someone has a different view than your own and that THERE CAN BE NO DISAGREEMENT!!! EITHER YOU AGREE WITH ME OR YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND!!! Which I admit would work amazingly well for some but it makes little sense to me.
And I am talking about unless we are sure, what precisely we are talking about and the useless just throwing around “god” says nothing.
So unless we know particularly which god, which belief structure,. Or faith etc etc knowing the “known” variables of what we are speaking of then then making broad claims such as that is not what I can agree to.
It is a great deal to disagree with, but that is fine with me .. it does not seem to be fine with you for some reason.
True Justice, what is “true justice” Along with my previous question, have you ever studied the law sir? Have you ever studied international law? I am not speaking oh just googling a few terms here and there… have you ever studied international law? If you say that true justice has “nothing” to do with cultural norms then that would seem that one has not studied international law, which does address certain cultural norms, which does address cultural differences, with the domestic laws of that country in connection with the laws of other nations and flows between the international aspect of the law
“Absolute Logic” so therefore true justice does not exist, because sorry to inform you, sir, and I am not being a smart ass but saying “true justice” does not take into consideration anything other than “absolute logic” that would mean there is no system that has true justice.
“Does it intentionally hurt someone...? Then make it illegal.”
Um, sir.. you just said you were okay with the death penalty… under this premise the death penalty would be illegal since it kills someone.. unless you are okay with killing as long as it is painless…
Sorry, sir, the law is many things, especially when you travel to many countries, and study international law.. simple is not amongst them..
So, I guess we will have to disagree on this or sir.. will we keep going in circles of disagreement? I am more than okay with your not agreeing with my view, you seem of the view that unless one agrees with your view then it is not done.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I thought it was impossible to disagree with something so obvious.
You cannot disprove what you have no knowledge of.
Inability to posses knowledge = not knowing = not being able to prove.
Explain how something could contradict that without just being another negative assumption/a lie.
All the religions with several gods.
What I am against is one-god-believers.
The one they just call "God" as if that is their god's name.
All of them.
You cannot prove something if you cannot examine it.
If you have nothing to examine there can be no proof.
Disproving something without proof cannot happen.
I said supernatural beings at one point, but you ignored that and translated it to gods somehow.
Does it really matter what they are called...?
None of that matters.
I meant that it is not something you can disagree with, like gravitation.
I don't need to study all these laws to know that most of them need to change.
In conclusion, Justice cannot exist in a stupid world like this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I shall continue to say, looking at it from a collegiate and not a layman’s understanding of the words. So yes, I do disagree, and that for me is fine.. for you it does not seem to be .. I do not discuss such matters in layman’s simplicity … so I do not just say, or I would not just say GOD DOES NOT EXIST.. that is as illogical as saying god does exist.. in a collegiate understanding of religious studies - - it would behoove one to know which god, which structure, the epistemological aspects etc .. so I am sorry, I cannot, nor shall I agree with that premise.
Your premise with respect to all religions and the secondary premise seem self-contradictory ..
You are examining the merits of the claim, which is why I asked have you ever taken a collegiate course in religious studies? Because, and I mean this with great respect, such arguments seem a bit layman or simple at their base.
I ignored nothing, thus the entire point of my saying ask for clarification of the belief, faith etc..
It matters depending if the particular faith and belief structure as to how it is defined.
So, finally we will have to agree to disagree, but for some reason you wish to go on… I haven’t the faintest idea why.
I disagree with your premise on Justice but that part of the conversation, thankfully, seems to have come to its close. Now, to see if we can simply agree to disagree on the previous premise of religious studies and we can both move on.. I am off at 2 AM EST so if you answer any time after that I will try to answer it later on.. but hopefully we can simply agree to disagree and not drag this out for days.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
"it would behoove one to know which god, which structure, the epistemological aspects etc .. so I am sorry, I cannot, nor shall I agree with that premise."
behoove?! Hahahaha 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Think whatever you want. I don 't care anymore.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
and terroist aren't all muslim.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
terroirsts should be thrown into a volcano.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh... your stamp cheers me up!
I totally agree! Muslim is not terrorist because Muslim is just a religion. But humans can be terrorist.
But, why that Bush blamed the religion not Osama bin Laden himself?
Seriously, I am Muslim but I hate Osama bin Laden
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
I see. I am sick of people who claim Muslim is terrorist.
I bet those people are got brainwashed by Liberal Media. People (mainly western people) who don't think Muslim is terrorist are open minded and get a real life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If only I could favorite comments cuz your comment TOTALLY describes my situation! I'm a Muslim, but I think nobody likes to get near my page cuz of that
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Really? Why? Girl, I am Muslim too. And I feel same way with yours.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Cuz I don't get that much comments+Favs, yesterday I had only ONE fav in WEEKS!
At least I have 1-4 BFFs here, they understand me no mater what. And you are now My Bff! :3
(BTW, liek ur danny icon)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah... Thanks. and I see
Just ignore them who pick on you. I see many people who hate me cause I am Muslim but I only ignore them. At least, a lot of people respect me.
Look at the bright side! Many people love you and respect you no matter what. You know, hating people cause their religions is plain dumb.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have a very mixed fam.. but in the speech Bush gave he said we are not at war with Islam .... but with "terrorists'... and while I believe going into Iraq was a mistake... and that we, Americans, were lied into that war. In the Middle East I find much of their issue with the West tends to be our interfering and .... our drone policy does not help either..
I agree that humans can be terrorist and not a religion.. text alone cannot act
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmmm... I see.
Yeah, thanks for agreeing my opinions.
But you know, Many people are standing with their groups. I mean many pro-Muslim are anti-America and many pro-America are anti-Muslim.
I admit that I am Muslim but I am just neutral with America.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I find in my travels that the muslims who are truly anti American, I am not speaking of those who lost family to drones and such but those that truly just are taught to hate America are a very small minority of the ..what? 1.5-2 billion muslims on earth?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't know how much Muslims on earth but they are in anywhere and very very much
But very important, we must respect others.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Islam is the dominant Religion in the middle East and many nations in Africa and some say by 2050 it will be the world's dominant religion in that it will outgrow Christianity....
I am an atheist so as long as they are not trying to kill me .. then worship whatever they want. I tend to prefer secular societies above all else
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No problem. I have no problem with Atheists. I respect them too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
that true.
a American can be a terrorist
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, I fully agree - - anyone can be.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Osama bin laden was a horrible man.
But just because one asshole who believed that if your not muslim your evil doesnt mean that all muslims are horrid people.
i may be christian but muslims i respect.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
FUCKING AGREEEEEEEE!!!!!!! just because a small group of terrorists attacked us doesn't mean everyone else who is muslim is a terrorist!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly - - but there are a sub group of people and I am sure you have perhaps seen the banners and such who truly believe that ..as the banner says that they learned all they need to know about Islam on 9/11.. so they learned all they need to know about a 1,400 year old religion... on one day committed by a handful of people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually I did see one of those banners before. It was on a sticker that someone placed on their car. It's funny because when you apply the actual history of Islam with that thing it makes it all the more stupider
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I would wager that those who post things know very little about Islam. Those who use Islam for violence, which are a very small minority of the 1.5 Billion Muslims on Earth - utilize text from a time when the tribes were under constant attack because they were a new religion - - but like many faiths. the people who wish to harm people will always find a pretext in the text
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>