Why do islam hates people?

[semaforo]

     There is a lot of misunderstanding, fear, and confusion being thrown around here. Which is understandable- if there wasn't it would mean a centuries long propaganda effort, that currently costs billions of dollars every year, was totally ineffective. Which it isn't.

         The notion that western countries are somehow less violent than Muslim societies taken as a whole stems not only from disproportionate coverage of violence in the Muslim world (which has clear motives). It also comes from something that essentially boils down to a form of deception, I call it 'externalization,' although the term 'misdirection' could also be used. This is a major trend at the core of the western worldview, and I'll give a few examples.

Violence

     The United States is an incredibly violent country. I was researching the Egyptian revolution recently and I wanted to find out the death toll from all the events. Including the overthrow of Mubarak, the election of Morsi, the coup, and the Sinai insurrection and all of the bombings, including the downing of the Russian airliner, the total number killed in the last 6 years was between 7,000-8,000. I was surprised, because the number of killings in the US in an average year usually totals around 10,000-11,000. Of course, the US has a much larger population than Egypt. Egypt's murder rate is .8 per 100,000 people, which means there are between 700 and 800 homicides in the whole country. The number of killings has spiked during the revolution and the insurgency/low level civil war happening now, and if we average out all that violence, and add it to the normal murder rate, we get a number close to 2000 murders per year- and that's rounding up. Egypt's population is estimated at 91 million, while the US is 321 million, so there are 3.5 more people in the US.

   So if we divide America's rate of killings by 3.5 and compare it to Egypt's, even in a time of violence, revolution, massacres, and armed insurrection against the government, we find that America has approximately 50% more annual killings per capita.

   Living in Egypt, I really had to wonder why I felt so much more at ease and so much more peaceful.

     The actual statistic doesn't really reflect how violent America is, because a huge amount of the violence is prevented through imprisonment. This is what I mean by "externalizing." A lot of very disturbed and violent people are locked in boxes in remote and rural areas where no one sees them. No one denies that this system is basically ineffective in actually changing people's behavior- rates of recidivism are very high. All this does is effectively kicks the can down the road, not dealing with the problem, but simply hiding is away, where the same behaviors and mental illnesses are intensified by creating an artificial peer group composed of criminals and the mentally ill, so these tendencies bounce off of each other in a sort of echo chamber and intensify. There is a huge cost to this, with costs to house one prison inmate running an average of about $50,000 a year.

      In Egypt there are an estimate 100,000 people in prison, compared to over 2 million in the US. This means that at least .6% of the population is in prison, though most estimates put the number closer to 1%. By contrast, in Egypt, only .001% of the population is in prison. If the prison population of the United States were the same proportion as the prison population of Egypt, it would mean releasing over one and a half million inmates. Since many of these inmates would most likely be mentally ill and very difficult to employ, it would probably lead to a sharp increase in violence. When we try to imagine these numbers we get a feel for just how much more violent American society is than Egyptian society.

        Prison is also a form of psychological torture, and it does untold damage to individuals and communities- but instead of outright physical damage, it disfigures and mutilates people's minds- another form of externalization.

   So we don't have public discipline like hangings or canings in the US anymore, but we are doing similar damage in order to achieve social control, but it is hidden in two ways- one is physically the violent people are quarantined and hidden from view, and the second is that the violence that is done to them is on a less obvious level, since damage done to the body is much easier to understand and grasp than damage done to the mind and emotional health of a person.

    The alliance of NATO also serves as an externalizing factor by means of specialization. European states have extensive social systems and low rates of violence, but if NATO were to break apart it would be clear that they simply don't have the means to defend themselves in a range of military scenarios. So they present an image of peacefulness, but in reality they are major economic and social accessories to the NATO alliance, which is only functional due to the massive and tremendously expensive military force of the United States.

Environmentally

    Many elements Europe and the US also frequently talk about environmental regulation, sustainability, and similar trends. At the same time, they are utterly economically dependent on a range of imports from China, where environmental regulation is comparatively lax. Labor law and health regulations are such that people suffer under tremendous burden of stress, and many people develop cancer and other diseases as a result of being exposed to toxic chemicals during manufacturing processes. This is what makes the Chinese exports which are so important to both the happiness of individuals and the success of corporations located in Europe and the US so cheap. Again, countries like the US and Western European nations can claim to be environmentally friendly and champions of human rights and labor laws while their societies are actually indirectly contributing to destructive environmental practices that are accelerating the processes, like the damage of the earth's atmosphere, that they claim to be drafting legislation to protect.

Human Rights

     Besides just the importing of cheap manufactured goods from countries with no protections for workers, violence is externalized by support for a number of dictators who routinely use torture, completely disregard due process and civil liberties, and often engage in indiscriminate and extra-judicial killings. Some examples would be the foreign aid from the US to governments like Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Uzbekistan, paramilitary groups in Colombia, the Suharto massacres in Indonesia, just to name a few off the top of my head.

   In this way the United States can utilize methods that are not consistent with the ideals of human rights that are the supposed claim to superiority, while being conveniently insulated by a degree of separation that allows the creation of a narrative of moral superiority.

Temporally

    If moving atrocities, injustice, and cruelty to locations that are more out of view is one means of creating an illusion of moral superiority, it would follow that to do so temporally would also be a means of cultivating this illusion. This is evidenced by the extreme short term perspective.

   It is the national perspective that allows Europe and the US to claim superiority- they can point to the lower pollution levels, or other statistics, within their borders, omitting the effects that their markets and import and export patterns have on other countries, and can actually use the damage that they wreak on other countries as proof that those societies and their ways of life are in need of 'development aid,' or salvation by European cultures.
If we move the level of analysis to the global level, this narrative rapidly falls apart as the interdependencies become clearer.

   Temporally, this same logic can be exemplified by the model of corporate profit, planned obsolescence, or a for profit medical model.

   Corporate profit only focuses on the bottom line in a limited time period. Just as a territory like the United States is cordoned off with a border, a fiscal year or a quarter is cordoned off, and one measure of success is emphasized- overall profit. Never mind that IKEA may have had to pay fines for purchasing wood that was illegally logged from protected forest lands in Siberia- if the profits gained from the furniture that was sold with this wood are enough to counterbalance the fines that had to be paid, it was a successful venture. This doesn't factor in other sources of value- the biodiversity of the earths last remaining virgin forests, the genetic resources of the plants that grow in it with unresearched medical value, the intangible value of the cultural traditions of the native people of those forests and their traditional knowledge, the long term benefit that those forests could have had in offsetting and absorbing pollution, the wind force that those trees would have absorbed and how the extra windforce that now sweeps over plains rather than being absorbed by trees could contribute to storms that cause billions of dollars of damage at some point in the future, the loss of topsoil that could have produced food at lower levels of production but over a longer period of time than industrial agriculture, preventing future famines, to name just a few temporal considerations.

      Planned obsolescence is another example of temporal externalization, where resources are abused in order to achieve higher profits, eventually leading to major costs for society. In planned obsolescence, goods are intentionally produced to be low quality and to break, which forces the buyer to purchase new goods and throw away the old ones, thereby increasing profit for the producer. Subtle effects include developing an attitude towards material objects as being disposable, which leads to a general attitude of wastefulness that can also affect interpersonal relationships. It also leads to acceleration of the depletion of non-renewable resources while simultaneously generating dependence on goods that, when resource supply shocks occur, will lead to major difficulties for the individuals and societies that have become dependent on these goods.

     The for profit medical model, a problem which can also be observed with the military ventures and the police system of the United States, means that there is an unconscious imperative to ensure repeat business. If the cures actually permanently addressed the problem, the companies marketing the cures would rapidly become insolvent. This goes for the pharmaceutical industry, the prison industry, and the arms manufacturing industry. When these initiatives becomes wholly privatized and increasingly centralized in a democratic system, the influencing of legislation becomes key to profitability, and major conflicts of interest are created as power and influence is concentrated by the collusion of private industry and state. In other words, the manufacturer with the most wealth can use the wealth to influence legislation in such a way that competitors are disadvantaged, thereby augmenting the wealth and influence of the largest manufacturer(s) still more. This system thereby favors those who are most willing  to engage in business practices that are detrimental to consumers in the long term, while beneficial in the short term, ensuring maximal repeat business.

    If a state is not powerful enough to enforce this kind of legislation, or if legislation is immutable and cannot be changed, this kind of moral hazard cannot exist, and natural forces of competition will prevent these kind of abuses. This is the heavy price of a large government that tries to regulate a permanent state of consumer protection- regulatory bodies which were originally created for the protection of consumers can also be utilized to exert influence on industries to the advantage of certain players in those industries.

   And of course, the centralizer of power par excellence, is interest banking. There is no other institution that so thoroughly ensures that the rich become richer and the poor poorer as interest.  As for the source of influence being exerted in favor of interest banking, we need look no further than where the largest concentrations of capital are located- New York and Switzerland, incidentally where the two largest headquarters of the United Nations, the closest thing to a world government on earth, are located.

   Of course, the harms caused by these practices are both abstract and cumulative- meaning the harm caused is not readily visible, and there are enough factors involved in these scenarios that plausible deniability is possible. Everything I am saying can be disputed by a range of tactics, particularly if there is enough funding to hire PR managers, lawyers, and media firms to diffuse any sort of concerted attack on the centers of capital. In other words, through a process or misdirection, profits and wealth are obtained by causing suffering both in remote locations, and in the future.  

Islam

     If someone subscribes to and implements the pure doctrine of Islam, the effect on them will be more or less the same as if one were to condemn and disassociate oneself from all of the destructive practices described above. To disassociate oneself from all this destructive behavior, deception, and hypocrisy, means ultimately limiting both emotional and material support for those who are engaged in these practices, to limit ones own participation in these practices.

  Since divinity represents the highest principles of an individual or society, the emphasis in Islam on absolute unity of divinity means that there is a corresponding understanding of unity of the universe- since all of reality has a common source. This principle of unity means that what is detrimental to others is ultimately detrimental to ones self, so if people are engaged in harming others, and thereby themselves, a Muslim cannot in good conscience be "tolerant" and thereby supportive of a persons self destructive behavior. In this case, showing friendliness and kindness to a person engaged in self destructive behavior would actually be no kindness at all, because it would lead them to believe that you approve of their self destructive behavior and to feel more justified in continuing this harmful behavior. This is why the Quran describes those favored by their Creator as being "humble with the believers and stern (or proud) with the disbelievers," (Surah Maeda, 54). The most fundamental issue is the perception of the common origin of all phenomena, and all other moral issues stemming from this initial concern.

     In short, this is why we see consistent enmity between those who believe in a multiplicity of deities, or who do not have a clear boundary line between the eternal and the temporary, and those who believe in a unified and transcendent divinity.

I think that's a croc of shit. You've wandered off into about eight different subjects, babbled about murder rates for a bit, then leaped off into some nonsense about Islam totally unsupported by any prior word salad.

As for Egypt, check it out here.

www.thereligionofpeace.com

As for comparison of statistics, which you seg into to support premises which themselves are falsely stated,
here is a reference.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people

But you need to check your numbers, don't you?

 In Egypt there are an estimate 100,000 people in prison, compared to over 2 million in the US. This means that at least .6% of the population is in prison, though most estimates put the number closer to 1%. By contrast, in Egypt, only .001% of the population...

So there are about 600 people in prison in Egypt?

Why that's so very nice(but unhappily, it's a lie).  How about this statistic?

Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam

  Math isn't really my thing. Let's go over it again... 91 million people in Egypt so 1% would be 910,000. One tenth of 1% would be 91,000, so my bad, Egypt has 1 tenth as many people in prison per capita. I always get mixed up with percentages, so my decimal got moved over as it would were I calculating a percentage. Okay, but still 1 tenth as many imprisoned as in America.

   By the tone of your response and your inability to demonstrate comprehension of what I wrote, I expect that you have been thoroughly indoctrinated from an early age to believe in secular democratic government, probably with a superficial understanding of the ideological antecedents of that government, so I doubt you will be at all receptive to my response, but perhaps someone who is a little more open minded will stumble on this, so I'll address your only cogent criticism, the death penalty for apostasy.

   You may think that freedom of speech exists in Europe or the US, but the reality is that all of the liberal democracies would gladly destroy my life with prison time and force me to stop if I were to distribute media that is produced by the Islamic State... although it's just information. The premise underlying freedom of information is that if there is no censorship citizens can become informed independently of a central authority and engage in the political process leading to a more just and equitable society. So why all the censorship? The reason I mention this is because apostasy is basically impossible to prosecute unless people publicly proclaim it- all some one has to do to avoid the death penalty is rescind their apostasy. So practically speaking the only way someone can actually be executed for apostasy is if they choose to be. The reason I preface this with pointing out that freedom of speech does not exist in the United States or Western Europe is because people who have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the liberal tradition will find it instantly repugnant that a person cannot freely voice and show their religious views- which is all that the death penalty for apostasy actually means.


The fact remains, the mass imprisonment common in the US is a form of psychological torture and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment... except that it's usual because of its prevalence. This is part of why people are so willing to pull guns on police officers although it means instant death, and part of the reason there is a general atmosphere of extreme tension in the US, particularly in non-ethnic European neighborhoods or generally among the lower classes.


    In the absence of secular government, in a land with a state religion, apostasy is essentially tantamount to treason. It is common to find support for the death penalty for treason in the US.

       As I demonstrated in my original response to the question, it is easy enough to find fault with western societies, particularly if we leave the national level of analysis in favor of a more global analysis. In fact, a limited the scope of study is necessary for all of the presumptions of superiority that are so deeply ingrained in the Euro-centric perspective you are espousing. All of the points I made revolved around a central thesis which you apparently missed, which is that the ideological foundation of western societies are rife with inconsistencies that, when viewed holistically, lead to all manner of corruption and abuses, most specifically the establishment of freedoms and security for certain segments of humanity by the removing freedom and security from other segments of humanity.

     It is a moral responsibility in Islam to dissociate ones self from such injustices, which means distancing oneself from those involved in them. To characterize this as hate is incorrect, since in the ideal case this dissociation is done with desire for the well being of those engaged in this injustice, however there is no such doctrine of loving your enemies as in Christianity. Love builds people up and gives them strength, and each individual only has a finite quantity of love to give, so from the Islamic perspective love should be given to members of one's own community first and foremost- however, the Muslim community, theoretically at least, is open to all who are willing to at least attempt to implement Islam in their own lives and respect the rules- very similar to the modern concept of national citizenship, except that it is not limited by ethnicity, language, or place of birth, but rather by beliefs alone.

     So it is not hate for others per se, but rather a clear moral system in which it is not permissible to love evil. This is not to say that Muslims are morally perfect by any means- rather the only thing that distinguishes a Muslim from a non-Muslim is a general attitude of submission to the Creator, the sincere wish to obey the Creator and to live in harmony with the divine will. This attitude is not exclusive to followers of Muhammed, but it is highly likely that if someone possessing this attitude is exposed to the authentic teaching of Islam that they will become adherents to it.

   The assumption is that while Muslims may do wrong as anyone else, that with this general attitude of submission and humility, their conduct will tend towards good, whereas the cumulative sum of the actions of someone lacking this attitude will tend towards evil, although the results in either case may not be immediately apparent. Muslims likewise ought to have a general attitude of affection towards each other, but should not support each other in evil. Affection, love, and kindness form bonds of community, and the Muslims are meant to be a community, so this is why it is preferred that acts of love and kindness favor ones own community rather than other communities. The same logic would indicate that involvement in ones own neighborhood ought to take precedence over charity in Africa. In the US, for example, many neighborhoods have rampant heroin addiction and many individuals who are desperately in need of help, and yet these individuals remain in isolation, in peer groups of drug addicts or in prison, while many of their neighbors may support charities doing work in Africa that actually supports a neo-colonial agenda that is detrimental in the long term to the countries receiving aid- for example, subsidized food aid that undermines local food production.

       Calling something a "crock of shit" (there's a "k" in crock, if you would like me to return the favor of correcting a mistake) is not really as effective a refutation as actually addressing one, two, or all of the points that are being made. In case the connection between the points I was making and the central thesis of why dissociation of Muslims towards non-Muslims is necessary was not clear enough as you suggested, I have tried to elaborate in this post, and can further elaborate if it is still unclear.

   Statistical methods are always suspect and subject to criticism, but in this case I was simply looking at some statistics that helped to explain a first hand observation that I have made. And I have tried to address your concern about apostasy. It could be called tolerance to legalize sexual relationships between men and pre pubescent boys, but for most people that is repugnant, although there are advocacy groups in the US promoting it. Likewise, free expression with regards to religion is repugnant to most Muslims, and we don't want it, which is why we advocate against it.

  In the case of sexual relationships between adult men and pre pubescent boys, it is clearly observed that such relationships are psychologically harmful to the boys, which is why they are prohibited. You could say that you are limiting the freedom of the men who wish to engage in such relationships with this prohibition. An even handed and deep study of the social ills associated with different beliefs lends credence to the attitude that the censorship of these beliefs also prevents social harm, which we can get into if you wish. It also involves limiting the freedom of some members of society.


  As for the death penalty, it is simply an economic question. You will find a very different perspective on life imprisonment from families who have one of their relatives who has been locked up for life than among those who haven't. Among many of those who have spent time in prison, many regard death as preferable to life imprisonment.

  Life imprisonment from a certain perspective may appear more humane than the death penalty, but it can only be implemented in a society that has sufficient resources to maintain an extensive prison complex. It is not an accident that modern prisons as an apparatus of the state originate from colonial powers- it required a surplus of resources, obtained my mass slavery and genocide, to build up a resource surplus large enough to establish and maintain these institutions. This colonial relationship, complete with the human rights abuses and economic exploitation, is maintained through a combination of coups, military interventions, predatory lending, and unfair trade deals enforced by puppet governments.  

    It remains the case, and appears that it will remain the case for the foreseeable future, that mass imprisonment as a means of establishing social order is simply not a viable solution for the entire earth. As such, the death penalty remains for most places that are closer to the economic level that Europe was when the death penalty was prevalent, an essential element of maintaining social order.

  Sharia has a long track record of working absent the kinds of economic surpluses currently present in Europe and the US. Given the availability of resources on the earth, the model of liberal democracy is simply not viable for everyone. The suggestion that the absence of effective liberal democratic institutions is tantamount to cultural and social inferiority is an essential mechanism of the global order by which the illusion of superiority, in which underclasses must believe in order for the system to function, is maintained.  

  I would appreciate it if you could find someone who can actually understand these ideas (and prove it by reformulating and summarizing them) and could actually present some coherent arguments to them, as I have just done with your criticism of the death penalty for apostasy.
    

[semaforo]

When there are no extreme terrorist organizations like isis, there will be no reason to hate Muslims. Damn the terror.

There are hundreds of extremist Muslim organizations, but ISIS gets all the publicity today. These organizations go back to the 1970s with their atrocities-designed-to-get-world-media-attention.

It is no different today, and if it wasn't ISIS, it would be another. Islam continually seems to generate these groups. It would seem where ever there is Islam, there are some of them.

    You can find similar instances among Catholic paramilitary groups backed by the US, or among Indonesian paramilitary groups backed by the US, but actually they are quite a bit worse than ISIS, because ISIS does follow a consistent code of law, whether you agree with it or not, most of the time, while US backed paramilitary groups kill and rape at will.


  For example, ISIS fighters may rape, but they are required to take steps to establish paternity and take responsibility for any children born of the union, and only one man may have relations with one woman at a time, whereas with US backed groups, and the US military itself, many instances of gang rape have been documented.

 I don't want to get into statistics again, but it is far from clearcut who, as a percentage, has engaged in more mass killings- the US and groups that they have supported as part of the imperial and business agenda, or ISIS. Of course it is the US in terms of sheer numbers,  but the questions would be proportional to the size of the groups. In any case, it certainly cannot be said that the US has any moral superiority over ISIS... although that's probably not saying much.

     If we count the first and second world wars, the colonial legacy, and the proxy wars of the cold war, the Christian/secular NATO and Warsaw pact powers are easily responsible for far more atrocities than all Muslim groups combined, by a huge margin.

      The heavy coverage of Islamic groups simply serves a shallow narrative of superiority and is a component in justifying the ongoing imperial wars, just as the now archaic concepts of Western Europe representing a higher degree of civilization than "barbaric" or "savage" races once was.

[dudukpagidiripagi]

Islam is a retarding of the advancement and nobility of man.

The only reasons Muslims use modern advancements are, they aren't as much in favor of Islam as they think they are, or they are using the advancements that other religions and cultures have made to bring those cultures under Islam, after which, they will destroy all the modern advancements and move us back into the dark ages or worse.

The one word that best describes Islam is "destruction."

A better name for Islam would be "Ill-Sam."

[Sithara007]

It is no different today, and if it wasn't ISIS, it would be another. Islam continually seems to generate these groups. It would seem where ever there is Islam, there are some of them.

You should also remember that the moderate versions of Islam (Alawism, Sufism.etc) have considerably weakened during the past few decades, under the onslaught of the Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi ideology. Even the previously moderate nations such as Indonesia and Albania are producing and exporting terrorists now.

[semaforo]

Islam is a retarding of the advancement and nobility of man.

The only reasons Muslims use modern advancements are, they aren't as much in favor of Islam as they think they are, or they are using the advancements that other religions and cultures have made to bring those cultures under Islam, after which, they will destroy all the modern advancements and move us back into the dark ages or worse.

The one word that best describes Islam is "destruction."

A better name for Islam would be "Ill-Sam."

Would be nice if you could read my posts above... but I doubt you will. You've already been told what to believe, and you're doing it.

[voltesbit777]

I am here to just say one thing? Why do YOU hate people? and you should really give a valid reason not a shitty one that says 'Because Jews, Because Christians, Because Atheists'
and Yes, I am a people's person for those who ask, just tell me, come out of your shell and say why you HATE people like myself, and I could be here to clarify things to you, or not...
Also here is something that most muslims mistake about people's person like me is that "Christianity or Buddhism hate other religions" for this I say, Christianity or Buddhism does not hate ANY religion, but they suggest to 'invite' them to Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism, as slowly, and peacefully, even if they refuse, you can try and try, until it's their choice, you stop. and for all the wars that happened, it's because this other religion decided to come into war on Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism.

If you need anything clarified, I may not be here to answer you, don't be scared, I won't be offended by anyone, also haters, you can reply, I won't care Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink


In other news ->

I am also wondering why they hate people who are not muslim, but they are inviting their neighbor to convert their belief to muslim belief, and some religion doctrine same what muslim did,..sounds like insane

[semaforo]

I am here to just say one thing? Why do YOU hate people? and you should really give a valid reason not a shitty one that says 'Because Jews, Because Christians, Because Atheists'
and Yes, I am a people's person for those who ask, just tell me, come out of your shell and say why you HATE people like myself, and I could be here to clarify things to you, or not...
Also here is something that most muslims mistake about people's person like me is that "Christianity or Buddhism hate other religions" for this I say, Christianity or Buddhism does not hate ANY religion, but they suggest to 'invite' them to Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism, as slowly, and peacefully, even if they refuse, you can try and try, until it's their choice, you stop. and for all the wars that happened, it's because this other religion decided to come into war on Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism.

If you need anything clarified, I may not be here to answer you, don't be scared, I won't be offended by anyone, also haters, you can reply, I won't care Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink


In other news ->

I am also wondering why they hate people who are not muslim, but they are inviting their neighbor to convert their belief to muslim belief, and some religion doctrine same what muslim did,..sounds like insane

  Well on a very practical level most non Muslims simply have poor hygiene, due to not cleaning up well after going to toilet, not doing spiritual purification, sexual promiscuity... Muslims may have these issues also but not practicing Muslims who have sincere belief. Another reason Muslims prefer the company of other Muslims usually

[ozaeri]

I am here to just say one thing? Why do YOU hate people? and you should really give a valid reason not a shitty one that says 'Because Jews, Because Christians, Because Atheists'
and Yes, I am a people's person for those who ask, just tell me, come out of your shell and say why you HATE people like myself, and I could be here to clarify things to you, or not...
Also here is something that most muslims mistake about people's person like me is that "Christianity or Buddhism hate other religions" for this I say, Christianity or Buddhism does not hate ANY religion, but they suggest to 'invite' them to Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism, as slowly, and peacefully, even if they refuse, you can try and try, until it's their choice, you stop. and for all the wars that happened, it's because this other religion decided to come into war on Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism.

If you need anything clarified, I may not be here to answer you, don't be scared, I won't be offended by anyone, also haters, you can reply, I won't care Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink


In other news ->

I am also wondering why they hate people who are not muslim, but they are inviting their neighbor to convert their belief to muslim belief, and some religion doctrine same what muslim did,..sounds like insane

  Well on a very practical level most non Muslims simply have poor hygiene, due to not cleaning up well after going to toilet, not doing spiritual purification, sexual promiscuity... Muslims may have these issues also but not practicing Muslims who have sincere belief. Another reason Muslims prefer the company of other Muslims usually

I find muslims to have much worse hygiene than most non muslims I've met. As for spiritual purification that is just something I don't believe in and if I should respect a Mulims belief I think he should respect my right not to believe too. For sexual promiscuity its the same thing muslims don't think its right but I see nothing against it, as long as it doesn't affect them they shouldn't judge me either.

My biggest issue is that I'm so welcoming to muslims despite our differences but they are generally the opposite.

[kodes88]

I am here to just say one thing? Why do YOU hate people? and you should really give a valid reason not a shitty one that says 'Because Jews, Because Christians, Because Atheists'
and Yes, I am a people's person for those who ask, just tell me, come out of your shell and say why you HATE people like myself, and I could be here to clarify things to you, or not...
Also here is something that most muslims mistake about people's person like me is that "Christianity or Buddhism hate other religions" for this I say, Christianity or Buddhism does not hate ANY religion, but they suggest to 'invite' them to Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism, as slowly, and peacefully, even if they refuse, you can try and try, until it's their choice, you stop. and for all the wars that happened, it's because this other religion decided to come into war on Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism.

If you need anything clarified, I may not be here to answer you, don't be scared, I won't be offended by anyone, also haters, you can reply, I won't care Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink


In other news ->

I am Islam but I can not answer your question. I do not hate people just because different religions. Islam teaches tolerance, including religious tolerance, and I can tolerate it. I'm not concerned about religious differences in friendship. I hate people who do evil to me whatever their religion. I hate or not with someone depending on how they treat me, not what their religion is.

[Spendulus]

.....

  Well on a very practical level most non Muslims simply have poor hygiene, due to not cleaning up well after going to toilet, not doing spiritual purification, sexual promiscuity... Muslims may have these issues also but not practicing Muslims who have sincere belief. Another reason Muslims prefer the company of other Muslims usually

Thank you for revealing your broad ignorance and ridiculous prejudices.

[Sithara007]

Well on a very practical level most non Muslims simply have poor hygiene, due to not cleaning up well after going to toilet, not doing spiritual purification, sexual promiscuity... Muslims may have these issues also but not practicing Muslims who have sincere belief. Another reason Muslims prefer the company of other Muslims usually

Islam is a religion which originated in the Arabian desert, where there is a severe shortage of water. That is one of the reasons why Muslims use stones to wipe their asses after taking shit. But they should have changed this rule, at least for those Muslims who live outside the desert.

[Spendulus]

Well on a very practical level most non Muslims simply have poor hygiene, due to not cleaning up well after going to toilet, not doing spiritual purification, sexual promiscuity... Muslims may have these issues also but not practicing Muslims who have sincere belief. Another reason Muslims prefer the company of other Muslims usually

Islam is a religion which originated in the Arabian desert, where there is a severe shortage of water. That is one of the reasons why Muslims use stones to wipe their asses after taking shit. But they should have changed this rule, at least for those Muslims who live outside the desert.

Meanwhile, Semaforo, a Muslim who is certain he is better than you, proudly announces that Muslims (who have sincere belief) have great hygiene.

Are new stones used for each new dump?

[Russelmain]

Today already Take out the word Islam or Muslims It occurs as a common word. And this is not because they can be bad people, but all because their religion is very inadequate and evil towards all nations. This is the big picture. Sorry is very difficult and it seems to me that all these radical trends in Islam will not contribute to this.

[semaforo]

.....

  Well on a very practical level most non Muslims simply have poor hygiene, due to not cleaning up well after going to toilet, not doing spiritual purification, sexual promiscuity... Muslims may have these issues also but not practicing Muslims who have sincere belief. Another reason Muslims prefer the company of other Muslims usually

Thank you for revealing your broad ignorance and ridiculous prejudices.

    Umm well really everyone is ignorant on certain experiences, I do have quite a bit of background since I spent most of my life as a non Muslim, then traveled to about a dozen or so countries with large native populations of Muslims, then studied Islam for about 7 years before adopting it myself... and now I have been practicong myself for 6 years. But again you say insulting and inflammatory things without actually examining the facts.

[semaforo]

Well on a very practical level most non Muslims simply have poor hygiene, due to not cleaning up well after going to toilet, not doing spiritual purification, sexual promiscuity... Muslims may have these issues also but not practicing Muslims who have sincere belief. Another reason Muslims prefer the company of other Muslims usually

Islam is a religion which originated in the Arabian desert, where there is a severe shortage of water. That is one of the reasons why Muslims use stones to wipe their asses after taking shit. But they should have changed this rule, at least for those Muslims who live outside the desert.

Meanwhile, Semaforo, a Muslim who is certain he is better than you, proudly announces that Muslims (who have sincere belief) have great hygiene.

Are new stones used for each new dump?

Certainly not sure that I am better than anyone, didn't say that either... hygiene isn'the everything you know, good manners areally more important. Stones could be used I guess if there was no water. This is kind of personal but for example I used to think it was normal for women's vaginas to smell fishy... but it's not with proper hygiene.

[semaforo]

I am here to just say one thing? Why do YOU hate people? and you should really give a valid reason not a shitty one that says 'Because Jews, Because Christians, Because Atheists'
and Yes, I am a people's person for those who ask, just tell me, come out of your shell and say why you HATE people like myself, and I could be here to clarify things to you, or not...
Also here is something that most muslims mistake about people's person like me is that "Christianity or Buddhism hate other religions" for this I say, Christianity or Buddhism does not hate ANY religion, but they suggest to 'invite' them to Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism, as slowly, and peacefully, even if they refuse, you can try and try, until it's their choice, you stop. and for all the wars that happened, it's because this other religion decided to come into war on Christianity or Buddhism or Judaism.

If you need anything clarified, I may not be here to answer you, don't be scared, I won't be offended by anyone, also haters, you can reply, I won't care Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink Wink


In other news ->

I am also wondering why they hate people who are not muslim, but they are inviting their neighbor to convert their belief to muslim belief, and some religion doctrine same what muslim did,..sounds like insane

  Well on a very practical level most non Muslims simply have poor hygiene, due to not cleaning up well after going to toilet, not doing spiritual purification, sexual promiscuity... Muslims may have these issues also but not practicing Muslims who have sincere belief. Another reason Muslims prefer the company of other Muslims usually

I find muslims to have much worse hygiene than most non muslims I've met. As for spiritual purification that is just something I don't believe in and if I should respect a Mulims belief I think he should respect my right not to believe too. For sexual promiscuity its the same thing muslims don't think its right but I see nothing against it, as long as it doesn't affect them they shouldn't judge me either.

My biggest issue is that I'm so welcoming to muslims despite our differences but they are generally the opposite.

  This depends a lot on where you live but I presume it's the west, in which case most of the Muslims you know are probably not very practising... Islam and Muslims are two VERY different things, and most of the troubling things about Muslims are due to non adherence to Islam, not the opposite.

[Spendulus]

.....

  Well on a very practical level most non Muslims simply have poor hygiene, due to not cleaning up well after going to toilet, not doing spiritual purification, sexual promiscuity... Muslims may have these issues also but not practicing Muslims who have sincere belief. Another reason Muslims prefer the company of other Muslims usually

Thank you for revealing your broad ignorance and ridiculous prejudices.

    Umm well really everyone is ignorant on certain experiences, I do have quite a bit of background since I spent most of my life as a non Muslim, then traveled to about a dozen or so countries with large native populations of Muslims, then studied Islam for about 7 years before adopting it myself... and now I have been practicong myself for 6 years. But again you say insulting and inflammatory things without actually examining the facts.

Anyone can read the bolded sections and decide for themselves who is insulting and inflammatory without actually examining the facts.

Frankly you sound to me as very naive, egotistical and agenda driven. Which is fine, except it isn't a way to increase understanding of matters.

[Lancusters]

Well on a very practical level most non Muslims simply have poor hygiene, due to not cleaning up well after going to toilet, not doing spiritual purification, sexual promiscuity... Muslims may have these issues also but not practicing Muslims who have sincere belief. Another reason Muslims prefer the company of other Muslims usually

Islam is a religion which originated in the Arabian desert, where there is a severe shortage of water. That is one of the reasons why Muslims use stones to wipe their asses after taking shit. But they should have changed this rule, at least for those Muslims who live outside the desert.

Muslims eat a lot of spicy food and so they each time after using the toilet wash their Asses. I have not heard about the bricks. I hate them for their arrogance. For me a typical Muslim is the one that you showed in the video in my other post.

[Sithara007]

Well on a very practical level most non Muslims simply have poor hygiene, due to not cleaning up well after going to toilet, not doing spiritual purification, sexual promiscuity... Muslims may have these issues also but not practicing Muslims who have sincere belief. Another reason Muslims prefer the company of other Muslims usually

Islam is a religion which originated in the Arabian desert, where there is a severe shortage of water. That is one of the reasons why Muslims use stones to wipe their asses after taking shit. But they should have changed this rule, at least for those Muslims who live outside the desert.

Meanwhile, Semaforo, a Muslim who is certain he is better than you, proudly announces that Muslims (who have sincere belief) have great hygiene.

Are new stones used for each new dump?

Their definition of hygiene differs from mine and yours. For example, they regard uncircumcised penis as extremely unhygienic. This is ridiculous. Have you ever heard about people getting disease because their foreskin remains attached to the penis?

[7daystodie]

Well on a very practical level most non Muslims simply have poor hygiene, due to not cleaning up well after going to toilet, not doing spiritual purification, sexual promiscuity... Muslims may have these issues also but not practicing Muslims who have sincere belief. Another reason Muslims prefer the company of other Muslims usually

Islam is a religion which originated in the Arabian desert, where there is a severe shortage of water. That is one of the reasons why Muslims use stones to wipe their asses after taking shit. But they should have changed this rule, at least for those Muslims who live outside the desert.

Meanwhile, Semaforo, a Muslim who is certain he is better than you, proudly announces that Muslims (who have sincere belief) have great hygiene.

Are new stones used for each new dump?

Their definition of hygiene differs from mine and yours. For example, they regard uncircumcised penis as extremely unhygienic. This is ridiculous. Have you ever heard about people getting disease because their foreskin remains attached to the penis?

Perhaps earlier they used this procedure because there was no possibility to wash properly and there were no hygiene products, now it is completely unnecessary.