What's wrong with Muslims?

format_quote Originally Posted by nosmarter

Oh from the religious books .. I thought you were referring to history books.

Looking into details regarding history in secularist school curriculum history channel and history dot com shows that they too are religious (aimed at creating a legion with a certain animalistic and greedy Godless mindset in this context) whereas the guidance that the Prophets received was aimed at elevating the individual to a respectable human being - their aim was never to get rich by invading others - rather to bring them the guidance.

@ChosenTCO - just governance requires that people are compelled - whether willingly or unwillingly - to comply with just laws - the verse regarding "no compulsion" is based on a debating context where argument and intellectual discourse is the main tool - not on a governmental context - and the life of the Prophet and that of the companions proves that justice was only upheld when care was taken to ensure that people obeyed Allah's laws - their many sacrifices in Allah's path proves the fact that they weren't in it for the money so theres no point in equating them with the likes of george bush and donald trump either.


@Raymann and @nosmarter - please don't bother to use actions attributed to the entity called "ISIS" as an argument against Islam - since it is proven beyond doubt that secularist british soldiers in the employ of the british crown were operating false flag actions in the region under the ISIS banner - and the fact that so many blackwater trainers and mercenaries were also operating there -not as xe/blackwater but under disguise - really raises eyebrows as to the intent of your examples.

format_quote Originally Posted by nosmarter

1) That's maybe a good thing, no? Among other things, doesn't Sharia call for the death penalty for apostasy, criticizing Islam, homosexuality, adultery (for females) ..
2) That might account for poverty, but not for the rest of the issues menstioned
3) Those same countries, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine - all thought it was ok to attack other countries as well and with no real provocation. They maybe shouldn't be surprised if there are some reprisals. I would add that I see no evidence that any of those attacks you mentioned are because they are Muslims.

1. No, because we must rule by the law of Allah Azza Wa Jal. The fact that we've only gone downhill after ceasing to implement it properly shows that it is better for us.

Yes, in an Islamic country ruled by Sharia, anyone who is discovered to be cheating on their spouse, committing homosexuality, blaspheming or declaring apostasy will be executed by the state (provided there is enough evidence). Their gender is irrelevant as per most scholars, but the few that bring it up say that women get a lighter punishment.

2. Yes it does. Almost all poor countries exhibit the same traits I listed.

3. Are you stupid? Is starving someone's country, bombing them, taking over their land and killing their brothers in other countries not enough of a provocation in your mind? Terrorism is bad but don't act like it just started happening randomly.

I don't care if it's because these countries are Muslim or not, Muslims and Islam are still receiving foul treatment because of these wars so that's irrelevant.

format_quote Originally Posted by nosmarter

Actually, I don't see how it's possible to follow the rules set forth by the Quran and Sharia and not wind up with a society like IS. For every gay man they threw off the top of a building, for every person they beheaded, for every sex slave they took - they can and did draw a straight line from their actions to supporting verses and rules in Islamic scripture. Add to that the validation for the treatment of women as inferior, death for apostasy, death for adultery, death for homosexuality, death for witchcraft, .. and the list goes on.

Some of you here I can see are just about as much against this as I am. This means to me that your own moral values are in conflict with what's commanded by the books - something I find encouraging. But unless you choose to ignore or reinterpret the words in the book (something which the Quran warns against), you have to admit that those rules make for a pretty appalling place to live.

You are the one to talk when you atheist, christian, Jewish people breed the highest crime in the world. You breed single motherhood raising children without fathers around, you breed anti-male society and worshiping the female sex, you breed gays, lesbianism, gender equality thus removing the difference between the sexes, female empowerment thus breeding family break ups in societies and confusion in gender roles, you breed greed, you breed self gratification, breed violence, anti-family, feminists, instead of pointing blames on us why don't you go ahead and help your boys who are in crisis right now..whose screams for help are ignored and muffled by the screams and shouts of girls and women rights and feminist. Why don't you help your men out there who committee the highest suicide rate in the world. Why don't you stop having your girls and women sexualising themselves and walking in the streets like bunch of ----s and prostitute? Your world is infested with self gratifications at the expense of everyone and pornography that fills the world.

One thing I love about Islam is that it protects family. Gives gender roles. RESPECT MASCULINITY! Islam protects lineage. You guys take lineage as a joke. Islam respect honors and promote brotherhoods. You guys will stab the next man who will be your competition of getting laid by the next hot woman in your wake. You are speaking of ignorance when you are bashing Islam. You know what? I would love to see practicing homosexuals thrown off the roof. I would love to see practicing witchcraft killed. As for women inferiority....women are different than men there are no denying that...however...men have a higher degree over women and it is designed for a reason and thus means they have higher responsibility than women and they are accounted for their tasks in the afterlife.

Let me assure you, ones you put women and men at the same level you have destroyed society and USA is a great example of it. Eventually not only men but YOUR OWN WOMEN will agree that men should be the leaders and not women and that men have higher degree than women. I DO NOT SEE YOU COMPLAIN when we say that mothers are superior to their children. Why don't you fight for equality between mothers and children before you fight for equality between husband and wife. I know what you are going to say...you are going to say you cannot compare mothers to wife and husband and or parent to husband and a wife and I can say ...YES I CAN.

As you can see...when the husband marries his wife he TAKES OVER THE ROLE OF THE MOTHER AND FATHER of that daughter and the mother who birthed her and held her in her womb for nine month and breast fed her. The husband TAKES THE STATUS OF THE WIFE'S MOTHER so in terms of marriage the husband is superior or have higher level over his wife BECAUSE NOW HE TOKE the throne of the wife's mother. Which means she obeys the husband OVER HER OWN MOTHER who birthed her. Ones you say that a wife and husband should be equal THEN YOU HAVE TO SAY A MOTHER AND A CHILD are equal. Ones you do that THEN THE FATHER AND SON OR DAUGHTER is equal. If you agree to that..THEN THE CITIZEN AND PRESIDENT are equal. If you say that then there is no one ruling the other we are all the same and all equal...which means we follow our whims and desires and we have to step over other people's whims and desires to make sure we succeed in our whims and desire.

LOOK AT THAT...USA is a perfect of example of how that is not working well. Your boys and men are getting destroyed...your women are having sex everywhere doing everything and anything her heart desires..children are suffering left and right...no family structure..no lineage..nothing and your society is lost. Please..do me a favor...keep that LIBERATION..AND MODERNIZATION AND CIVILIZATION to yourself. I don't want it. If that makes me a sexist, women hating bigoted jerk then I take this label with a pride in my face. I obey Allah and his prophets, I don't obey you or any non-Muslim out there.

format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann

I'd like to see how a perfect and peaceful (secure and tolerant) Muslim Country would look like.

How about the Abbasid Caliphate up until 833 (when the liberal/secular Muʿtazila started attacking religion, much like modern liberals).

This thread^ turbo eye roll!!

format_quote Originally Posted by nosmarter

Your allegation has no proof whatsoever, much less proof "beyond doubt". It's interesting that you're so repulsed by ISIS that you'd rather hold on to some half-backed childish conspiracy theory than accept what everyone else already knows: that they are Muslims. Not Jews, Americans, British, nor Knight Templars; but Muslims.

The Americans, my interlocutor suspected, are trying to provoke an Iraqi civil war so that Sunni Muslim insurgents spend their energies killing their Shia co-religionists rather than soldiers of the Western occupation forces. "I swear to you that we have very good information," my source says, finger stabbing the air in front of him. "One young Iraqi man told us that he was trained by the Americans as a policeman in Baghdad and he spent 70 per cent of his time learning to drive and 30 per cent in weapons training. They said to him: 'Come back in a week.' When he went back, they gave him a mobile phone and told him to drive into a crowded area near a mosque and phone them. He waited in the car but couldn't get the right mobile signal. So he got out of the car to where he received a better signal. Then his car blew up."

Impossible, I think to myself. But then I remember how many times Iraqis in Baghdad have told me similar stories. These reports are believed even if they seem unbelievable. And I know where much of the Syrian information is gleaned: from the tens of thousands of Shia Muslim pilgrims who come to pray at the Sayda Zeinab mosque outside Damascus. These men and women come from the slums of Baghdad, Hillah and Iskandariyah as well as the cities of Najaf and Basra. Sunnis from Fallujah and Ramadi also visit Damascus to see friends and relatives and talk freely of American tactics in Iraq.

"There was another man, trained by the Americans for the police. He too was given a mobile and told to drive to an area where there was a crowd - maybe a protest - and to call them and tell them what was happening. Again, his new mobile was not working. So he went to a landline phone and called the Americans and told them: 'Here I am, in the place you sent me and I can tell you what's happening here.' And at that moment there was a big explosion in his car."

Just who these "Americans" might be, my source did not say. In the anarchic and panic-stricken world of Iraq, there are many US groups - including countless outfits supposedly working for the American military and the new Western-backed Iraqi Interior Ministry - who operate outside any laws or rules. No one can account for the murder of 191 university teachers and professors since the 2003 invasion - nor the fact that more than 50 former Iraqi fighter-bomber pilots who attacked Iran in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have been assassinated in their home towns in Iraq in the past three years.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...aq-475889.html






Mike Whitney: Provoking a Civil War in Iraq


...It’s impossible to know how much of the violence we see is real and how much is “black-ops”. Divide and rule is an adage that is as old as war itself and it is certainly being used in Iraq. In fact, the Bush administration commissioned the Rand Corporation to draw up a plan which promotes this very strategy....

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/mi...l-war-in-iraq/


The unorthodox tactic, which is seeing SAS units dressed in black and flying ISIS flags...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/59...ighter-Jihadis


Special forces soldiers allegedly murdered civilians and planted guns on their bodies

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7819006.html


BRAVE SAS heroes dressed up in BURKAS to carry out a daring raid

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...-jihadi-leader


ELITE SAS soldiers have enraged army bosses by posting pictures of themselves on Facebook – and could even face the SACK.

...Last week an SAS hero rubbished a £6million probe into shoot-to-kill policy in Afghanistan, saying: “We did nothing wrong.”

He said his regiment’s illegal killing of unarmed civilians was “an unwritten rule of our job”....

https://www.thesun.co.uk/uncategoriz...iest-missions/






Glenn Beck and the ISIS plumber's truck

A Texas Plumber’s Truck Lands in Syria
Photograph shows a Texas plumber's truck used by militants in Syria.

While some viewers speculated the photograph had been doctored, Jeff Oberholtzer of the Mark-1 plumbing company in Texas City confirmed it was indeed his company’s truck seen in the picture:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/th...und-the-world/


I feel like the media, false flag operations have misguided a bunch of people


He (the deceiver) would appear on the way between Syria and Iraq and would spread mischief right and left. O servant of Allah! adhere (to the path of Truth).

http://www.hadithcollection.com/sahi...mber-7015.html

format_quote Originally Posted by nosmarter

In your first article link, it shows that the SAS disguised themselves as the enemy to be able to reach them and sabotage their equipment. That's only proof that the Brits in this case are at war with Isis In no way dos the article suggest they invented Isis

In your second link, it shows that some rogue soldiers may have committed war crimes. But note that this is being brought to light not by the enemy, but by their own military establishment who decided to open an investigation. Again, that does nothing to prove your point here.

You were trying to say that the negativity that we attribute to Isis due to barbarity based on actions actually performed by secular Westerners not Isis. That's a very big claim and you really need to show some evidence of that. None of the above is very convincing.

Now you're talking .... like a hasbara troll...... one who's begining to prove the actual reason as to why he really joined the forum - which are not those stated in this introductory post: New atheist

format_quote Originally Posted by nosmarter

In no way dos the article suggest they invented Isis

From which part of my post did you get this? Or are you attempting to spar with a shadow of your own invention now that you cannot answer according to the facts?

Comparing my initial post addressed to you and raymann and the resulting discussion is sufficient evidence of the fact that you are a fanboy and a posterboy of the lying secularist murderers - your quickly improvised use of the term "enemy" indicates psychological manipulation - since i and any other true Muslim do not consider those who strive for Allah's sake to be "enemies" - rather it is an attempted sporting team style hack aimed at the dumbed down in order to re-align them based on self-interest after the truth has become evident.

The fact that so many lies have been invented against Muslims and Islam - and that secularist extremist infidels have been proven to have been immersed in carrying out relentless false flag attacks using the banner of an entity called "ISIS" is enough to dismiss any negative criticism of Muslims and Islam based on actions attributed to such a group..... does that sound weird to you?

Btw. I've updated the post since then by adding further information.





False flag

A false flag is a covert operation designed to deceive; the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility.

The term "false flag" originally referred to pirate ships that flew flags of countries as a disguise to prevent their victims from fleeing or preparing for battle. Sometimes the flag would remain and the blame for the attack laid incorrectly on another country. The term today extends beyond naval encounters to include countries that organize attacks on themselves and make the attacks appear to be by enemy nations or terrorists, thus giving the nation that was supposedly attacked a pretext for domestic repression and foreign military aggression.[1]

Operations carried out during peacetime by civilian organizations, as well as covert government agencies, can (by extension) also be called false flag operations if they seek to hide the real organization behind an operation.



This US Douglas A-26 C Invader was painted in fake Cuban Air Force colors for the military invasion of Cuba undertaken by the CIA-sponsored paramilitary group Brigade 2506 in April 1961.

Use in warfare

As pretexts for war

As a tactic to undermine political opponents

Pseudo-operations

Espionage

Civilian usage

Psychology

Conspiracy theories

See also

References


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag



Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government that originated within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The plans detailed in the document included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.[2] The proposals were rejected by the Kennedy administration.[3][4][5]

At the time of the proposal, communists led by Fidel Castro had recently taken power in Cuba. The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts that would actually be perpetrated by the U.S. Government.[6] To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:

The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.

Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The operation recommended developing a "Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods



Fact:
illegal secularist invaders have been killing people in Syria under the guise of an entity called I.S.I.S.

Claim:
It was to fight against an entity named I.S.I.S


Despite the fact that on occasions preceding these news articles - multiple witnesses have been coming forward claiming and spreading the word that British and American mercenaries/soldiers/ex-soldiers who are mercenaries -are illegally operating under the guise of I.S.I.S some of which have u.s army tattoos on their arms whilst swaggering through the streets - and some of which have been killed by mujahideen and found to have u.s army tattoos on their unclean bodies.

Do you expect me to bring you an admission by the secularist liars who carried out the false flag on 9/11 and illegally invaded Iraq based on the W.M.D falsehood and murdered over a million people - that they are carrying out false flag operations under the guise of I.S.I.S in order to discredit Islam, Muslims, and Jihaad for Allah's sake?

format_quote Originally Posted by nosmarter

You've resorted to ad-hominem attacks to defend your points. That's to me a clear sign you've run out of facts to back up your claim. But it matters not, at least I understand better why you think as you do. I take comfort in the fact that you and others seem to abhor ISIS, but I wish that others like yourself would stand up against such people rather than promote an elaborate conspiracy theory involving "secular Westerners" and thus avoiding the issue.

There's no ad homeninem whatsoever - simply a conformation of what i believed to be the case - which i posted on the "new atheist" thread (linked above).
A clear reading of my posts on this thread and your lame responses should make it a little less fuzzy for any who hasn't seen through the game yet.

May Allah's curse be upon those who lie.

Some people still think that this is a case of governments with public interests bickering with each other - however - those who care to study a little history will come to the realisation that the corruption of britain was a prelude to the ownership of governments by usury practising banks:

Just as EIC was then the darling companionship of the rich and influential heirs and barons of england - just as America became the country owned and established by the owners of EIC, so erik prince's blackwater/xe is now - only that the control has -as is inevitable- concentrated further into the hands a small oligarchical corporate structure.

---


We still talk about the British conquering India, but that phrase disguises a more sinister reality. It was not the British government that seized India at the end of the 18th century, but a dangerously unregulated private company headquartered in one small office, five windows wide, in London, and managed in India by an unstable sociopath – Clive.

....It was at this moment that the East India Company (EIC) ceased to be a conventional corporation, trading and silks and spices, and became something much more unusual. Within a few years, 250 company clerks backed by the military force of 20,000 locally recruited Indian soldiers had become the effective rulers of Bengal. An international corporation was transforming itself into an aggressive colonial power.....

....Using its rapidly growing security force – its army had grown to 260,000 men by 1803 – it swiftly subdued and seized an entire subcontinent. Astonishingly, this took less than half a century. The first serious territorial conquests began in Bengal in 1756; 47 years later, the company’s reach extended as far north as the Mughal capital of Delhi, and almost all of India south of that city was by then effectively ruled from a boardroom in the City of London. “What honour is left to us?” asked a Mughal official named Narayan Singh, shortly after 1765, “when we have to take orders from a handful of traders who have not yet learned to wash their bottoms?”.....

When it suited, the EIC made much of its legal separation from the government. It argued forcefully, and successfully, that the document signed by Shah Alam – known as the Diwani – was the legal property of the company, not the Crown, even though the government had spent a massive sum on naval and military operations protecting the EIC’s Indian acquisitions. But the MPs who voted to uphold this legal distinction were not exactly neutral: nearly a quarter of them held company stock, which would have plummeted in value had the Crown taken over. For the same reason, the need to protect the company from foreign competition became a major aim of British foreign policy.

The transaction depicted in the painting was to have catastrophic consequences. As with all such corporations, then as now, the EIC was answerable only to its shareholders. With no stake in the just governance of the region, or its long-term wellbeing, the company’s rule quickly turned into the straightforward pillage of Bengal, and the rapid transfer westwards of its wealth.

Before long the province, already devastated by war, was struck down by the famine of 1769, then further ruined by high taxation. Company tax collectors were guilty of what today would be described as human rights violations. A senior official of the old Mughal regime in Bengal wrote in his diaries: “Indians were tortured to disclose their treasure; cities, towns and villages ransacked; jaghires and provinces purloined: these were the ‘delights’ and ‘religions’ of the directors and their servants.”

Bengal’s wealth rapidly drained into Britain, while its prosperous weavers and artisans were coerced “like so many slaves” by their new masters, and its markets flooded with British products. A proportion of the loot of Bengal went directly into Clive’s pocket. He returned to Britain with a personal fortune – then valued at £234,000 – that made him the richest self-made man in Europe. After the Battle of Plassey in 1757, a victory that owed more to treachery, forged contracts, bankers and bribes than military prowess, he transferred to the EIC treasury no less than £2.5m seized from the defeated rulers of Bengal – in today’s currency, around £23m for Clive and £250m for the company.

No great sophistication was required. The entire contents of the Bengal treasury were simply loaded into 100 boats and punted down the Ganges from the Nawab of Bengal’s palace to Fort William, the company’s Calcutta headquarters. A portion of the proceeds was later spent rebuilding Powis.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...porate-raiders


Just as they used disenchanted hindus to foment turmoil and disintegration and assist them before - so now they use disenchanted "sunnis/shiahs" to unwittingly do the same.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb


Anyone bothering to research and critically study will realise that henry every was working for the morally and financially bankrupt british government as an agent of the east india company when he carried out thr biggest gold robbery in history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganj-i-Sawai


The words and advice:

He (the deceiver) would appear on the way between Syria and Iraq and would spread mischief right and left. O servant of Allah! adhere (to the path of Truth).

http://www.hadithcollection.com/sahi...mber-7015.html


Ring more true and solid than ever before....