• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The ISIS Megathread

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. This is not "an interpretation", this is clear literal commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

It's funny because historically speaking Muslims have lived better with different faiths than Christians ever have - I mean, shit, I don't recall any pogroms against Jews before Isabella ran the Muslims out. In fact, I don't recall ANY mass genocides against "non-believers" in the Muslim world that have come anything close to what Europeans have done with depressing regularity. But, of course, WTF would history know - some guy on the internet with a clear and enunciated bias against a group of people has interpreted the "true" meanings of the Quaran and the hadithas.
 
Racist-300x300.jpg

Lol. The "liberal social democrat" (lulwut?) who sources from ThePeoplesCube - cool story...

Marijuana_Colorado_Poster.jpg
 
Unlike the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

"First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly and I myself was unaware of it will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 [:10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], "You are Peter," etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.
Fifth, I advise that safeconduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. (...remainder omitted).
Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause.
Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants."
 
Right, so the first two posts I don't have a fucking clue what relevance they have to anything or what you mean by posting them.

The last post you seem to be quoting some of Martin Luthers work.

What are you trying to prove, that Christians can be antisemitic? If you think I have any love for historical or contemporary christianity then you would be mistaken.

Although I do find it doubtful that you would jump to their defence if I started attacking them....mostly because it is not a brown person religion like Islam.
 
But its more than just fundamentalism, its a literal reading of the quran and the hadith

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. This is not "an interpretation", this is clear literal commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

So what?

How is this the manifestation of the "theological firm ground" and how does it render the 1.5 billion other Muslims irrelevant? Does this mean organizations like the Klan and the Branch Davidians hold the Christian "firm ground" because they're simply more literal and fundamental? Do they negate the beliefs and actions of two billion other Christians? Being more literal or fundamental religiously doesn't equate to more legitimacy.


So you were wrong

I didn't see any references to European immigrants as "human trash". I don't understand how you don't see this as derogatory.


Why misquote and misrepresent my opinion, wouldn't you prefer it if we could see eye to eye on something....obviously not.

Do you really think I don't remember the previous conversations we've had? I only asked about this because it sounded like you had some sort of epiphany. I was curious.


Which is what I said in the first place! Seriously, don't do drugs and then post online because you're obviously fucking high

How does liberalism correlate with "libertarian leftist leanings"?

There is a big difference between a liberal and a leftist.

Indeed.
 
Middle Way said:
But its more than just fundamentalism

Yes, and it's more than just any cultural ethic or doctrine as well. We have to ask, what socio-structural conditions have led to the varied manifestations of cultural practices that we see associated with specific sub-groups today? The following article actually uses cross-national comparison to demonstrate that the politico-economic conditions of economies rooted in oil-extraction controlled oligarchically contribute more to persisting patriarchy than religious doctrine:

http://www1.international.ucla.edu/media/files/Oil Islam and Women v5.pdf

Sure, we can say that "Islam is bad!" in aggregate in some fashion, but this really misses the point: local socio-structural conditions affect the lenses with which people interpret religious doctrine but also in-form the ways in which people choose to wield religious scripture as a social tool.

ebola
 
p.s. sharia is actually about living humbly and being charitable to those who are less fortunate.

totally unaustralian

Regarding the Progressive left and Islam:
Do you think what you mutually love or what you mutually hate that drives this one sided love affair?
 
It's funny because historically speaking Muslims have lived better with different faiths than Christians ever have - I mean, shit, I don't recall any pogroms against Jews before Isabella ran the Muslims out. In fact, I don't recall ANY mass genocides against "non-believers" in the Muslim world that have come anything close to what Europeans have done with depressing regularity. But, of course, WTF would history know - some guy on the internet with a clear and enunciated bias against a group of people has interpreted the "true" meanings of the Quaran and the hadithas.

Armenian genocide. Assyrian genocide. Greek genocide. Read a book. 8):|:\
 
nope, just removing the hatemongering hype.

Completely ignoring things, too. You seem to be painting a picture that shariah actually deserves the respect of a place in our society. It doesn't respect our laws. It doesn't coexist with democracy. It instills gender inequality. It asks for death for apostates, and is invasive of peoples personal lives. No free mixing of the sexes. Shariah has absolutely no place in a free society. Not all cultures deserve the same respect.
 
Last edited:
Completely ignoring things, too. You seem to be painting a picture that shariah actually deserves the respect of a place in our society. It doesn't respect our laws. It doesn't coexist with democracy. It instills gender inequality. It asks for death for apostates, and is invasive of peoples personal lives. No free mixing of the sexes. Shariah has absolutely no place in a free society. Not all cultures deserve the same respect.

This is the utter insanity of the progressive left. Islam is essentially a right wing ideology and is against everything they claim to stand for yet they are knocking each other over to defend it.

Despite all this debating on here I still don't understand it, I don't think they understand it. Maybe Its just a pavlovian response to white people attacking brown people?

The best I can figure is that its a case of "the enemy of my enemiy is my friend"
 
This is the utter insanity of the progressive left. Islam is essentially a right wing ideology and is against everything they claim to stand for yet they are knocking each other over to defend it.

Despite all this debating on here I still don't understand it, I don't think they understand it. Maybe Its just a pavlovian response to white people attacking brown people?

In my experience, not many of those on the left side of the spectrum defend Islamic fundamentalists or the violent state/tribal incarnations it has spawned. Realistically, Islam isn't a monolithic religion. It's incredibly diverse, with varying degrees of literal interpretation and application of the Quran. Personally as an atheist, I think once humanity is free from religious doctrine (regardless of the faith), the more progressively society can continue. What I don't accept however, is the rejection or marginalization of an individual or group based solely on their religious affiliations. There are plenty of Muslims who also hold secularist and progressive values. Malala Yousafzai isn't exactly an anomaly.

Point being, criticize the fundamentalists. But don't lump every Muslim on the planet together as if they have more in common with Islamic extremists than they do with you and I on a practical level.
 
It's funny 'cos he takes great umbrage when I do the same to him - the thinking man's Herald Sun reader for instance (note: the HS is Melbourne's local Newscorpse rag)

Troll, nothing but a troll.


Point being, criticize the fundamentalists. But don't lump every Muslim on the planet together as if they have more in common with Islamic extremists than they do with you and I on a practical level.



Conversely, I say to you criticise the radicals and the extremists, the BNP, golden dawn ans the Anders Breviks etc.
But don't lump everyone who has reservations about Islam or immigration together as if they have more in common with the right wing extremists than they do with you or I on a practical level.

This cuts both ways
 
Conversely, I say to you criticise the radicals and the extremists, the BNP, golden dawn ans the Anders Breviks etc.

Oh please. This notion of that there is a peaceful majority of Islamophobes is nonsense. Breiviks enunciated the same beliefs as shared by mainstream Islamophobes such as your hero John Howard. You are all speak the same rhetoric and, as such, you pretty much ARE Ander Breiviks - QED.
 
Top