Nature-lad said:

Yes it does say kill. What you failed to include is the before an after about who it says to kill. FYI it says to kill those who attack you i.e. self defence.

---

DieCommie said:

That is no excuse.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  They are human beings with the ability to make a choice.  They are not forced to throw gay people off of buildings because of US policy.  I find it pathetic, not funny, that you are making excuses for this behavior. 

---

Grapefruit said:

I find it funny how the west is so against Islam when actually we are fucking up the world in far worse ways. 25% of the worlds resources 5% of the total population and that's not including Europe. The atheist and christian capitalists in the west have the world by the balls. And that's not to mention the war crimes perpetrated in the middle east which do engender the Islamic violence.

Not that the rest of the world would not do the same if they could these days but that idea that life was all about control of resources and buying and making things you don't need came mostly out of the American value system.

---

usulpsychonaut said:

The strange part is that the elite capitalists pretty much fund left ideologies and fire the decent people as per the demands of social media mobs.

---

usulpsychonaut said:

Seems to me that Capitalism is slowly but surely reducing global poverty.

---

usulpsychonaut said:

The strange part is that the elite capitalists pretty much fund left ideologies and fire the decent people as per the demands of social media mobs.

---

DieCommie said:

usulpsychonaut said:

Seems to me that Capitalism is slowly but surely reducing global poverty.

---

I agree.  The driving force behind the drastic drop in global poverty over the past 40 years has been the adoption of market economics by ostensibly communist nations in asia.

---

Jokeshopbeard said:

Nature-lad said:

Yes it does say kill. What you failed to include is the before an after about who it says to kill. FYI it says to kill those who attack you i.e. self defence.

---

Were we reading the same book?? I can distinctly remember at least two places in which the book insinuated that any 'non-believers' should be killed. Certainly this is what we have seen in action around the world. Self defence does not count in pre-meditated acts, I think that is pretty clear to all.

I think just about anyone, with a book to tell them to do so or not, would kill someone who was trying to kill them in self defence, in the heat of the moment.

But laying in wait to kill someone who doesn't believe what you do is just wrong on so many levels.

---

usulpsychonaut said:

Grapefruit said:

I find it funny how the west is so against Islam when actually we are fucking up the world in far worse ways. 25% of the worlds resources 5% of the total population and that's not including Europe. The atheist and christian capitalists in the west have the world by the balls. And that's not to mention the war crimes perpetrated in the middle east which do engender the Islamic violence.

Not that the rest of the world would not do the same if they could these days but that idea that life was all about control of resources and buying and making things you don't need came mostly out of the American value system.

---

Seems to me that Capitalism is slowly but surely reducing global poverty. Peak Oil is a lie, global warming is a lie, open borders is a lie, the only westerners that are fucking the world up are the control freak left. I wonder how many of them have to be raped or stabbed before the idiocy ends? Loafers, workers and business people are not fucking the world up. Ideologues are, the left are giving power to Islam with their control slogans. An Arab can move west, be protected by anti racism laws and get away with rape, pedophilia, murder or just stomp all over the locals who get no protection at all. Locals are automatically racist haters under left imposed ideological laws. Diversity and multiculturalism is oppression of the innocent.

The strange part is that the elite capitalists pretty much fund left ideologies and fire the decent people as per the demands of social media mobs.

---

Nature-lad said:

Jokeshopbeard said:

Nature-lad said:

Yes it does say kill. What you failed to include is the before an after about who it says to kill. FYI it says to kill those who attack you i.e. self defence.

---

Were we reading the same book?? I can distinctly remember at least two places in which the book insinuated that any 'non-believers' should be killed. Certainly this is what we have seen in action around the world. Self defence does not count in pre-meditated acts, I think that is pretty clear to all.

I think just about anyone, with a book to tell them to do so or not, would kill someone who was trying to kill them in self defence, in the heat of the moment.

But laying in wait to kill someone who doesn't believe what you do is just wrong on so many levels.

---

We are most certainly reading the same book.

Perhaps if you didnt approach it with a bias at first you interpretation wouldnt be as distorted as it is.

You take things out of context and run around screaming  "ermahgerd! \'o'/ islam is violence  \'o'/"

---

DieCommie said:

we should only talk about what i think Islam is, not anything that is related or similar in any way

---

DieCommie later said:

bla bla  driving force bla bla poverty bla Capitalism, something or other Asia bla.

---

Jokeshopbeard said:

Nature-lad said:

Jokeshopbeard said:

Nature-lad said:

Yes it does say kill. What you failed to include is the before an after about who it says to kill. FYI it says to kill those who attack you i.e. self defence.

---

Were we reading the same book?? I can distinctly remember at least two places in which the book insinuated that any 'non-believers' should be killed. Certainly this is what we have seen in action around the world. Self defence does not count in pre-meditated acts, I think that is pretty clear to all.

I think just about anyone, with a book to tell them to do so or not, would kill someone who was trying to kill them in self defence, in the heat of the moment.

But laying in wait to kill someone who doesn't believe what you do is just wrong on so many levels.

---

We are most certainly reading the same book.

Perhaps if you didnt approach it with a bias at first you interpretation wouldnt be as distorted as it is.

You take things out of context and run around screaming  "ermahgerd! \'o'/ islam is violence  \'o'/"

---

I didn't approach it with any bias whatsoever. I read it before ISIS and all that lark was in the spotlight, many years ago. It was given to me by a friend who is devout, and is an extremely good human being.

When he first gave me the book, like I do with new books, I opened it at a random page. Read a little, saw something about killing non-believers. Ok I thought, mildly shocked at that point. Mildly.

I then opened it at another random page and began reading. Lo and behold, after reading a few lines, something more about killing non-believers. My level of surprise had increased by this point. Still, it's an old book, and the only Muslim I know was the one who had given it to me who is, like I say, a very good person.

Now, I've never run around saying what you suggest, so I contend that it is you that is in fact biased by suspecting my reaction to fit into the box you expect it to fit into.

I brought up a conflict between what you stated and what I found in my reading, which you have failed to address. Would you care to address it properly this time round?

---

laughingdog said:

you guys sure argue a lot without quoting sources. Some might even say
argument for it's own sake is violence of a sort. Perhaps Krishnamurti?
Anyway anyone who really wants to know has only to lift a finger, and have some curiosity.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

---