Why do islam hates people?

[BADecker]

The American nation was founded by people who were Christian in a big way. True, lots of evil people have used the nation over the years for unChristian activity. But the base was Christian. You can find all kinds of Christian sayings and indicators throughout Washington, D.C.

The point is that Christianity will be found in the books and school teachings simply because that's where the nation came from, that is how it was settled originally.

It was settled as a Christian society by England before its Independence. The U.S. inherited that Christian foundation, as many of the architects of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights (7 years later) were religious, in their public life, but non practicing in their private affairs. (For example, our first elected* President, George Washington. He was a dues paying member of over a dozen churches, even a board member on several, but rarely attended a Sunday service while home in Mt. Vernon, Virginia. Yet, on public trips, made a show to attend church services several times a week.)

*President of the Continental Congress was a largely ceremonial position. Therefore, most (all) historians begin the first presidency, with George Washington, in 1789.




EDIT: In my head, I was mixing up the Bill of Rights with the Treaty of Paris...Bill of Rights was 15 years later, not 7.

You, perhaps, said it better, with additional detail.

The point is, the people of the USA at its beginnings were basically from Christian lands, or lands where Christianity was taught in depth at one time or another. They had the training built into them, if simply because the lands they came from had trained them, automatically, parents to children, just in habit-like living. Because of this, it should be no surprise that at least the "dregs" of Christian teaching are found in all of the schools of the land. It's in the people.

The major difference between Islam and Christianity is teachings that revolve around Jesus, the Christ. Even though Islam may acknowledge the fact of the existence of Jesus, they do not accept that Jesus saves. Islam accredits salvation to the living of a good life. Christianity accredits salvation to faith that Jesus will save the people by the salvation He set in place when He did His work on the cross. In addition, there are many other differences in the way the two religions consider Jesus.

So, there will be differences and controversies between the people of the two religions, especially since the Muslims who are moving into Christian lands are those that are slightly more militant. This can be seen from the fact that they are brave enough to move to strong Christian lands.

[1714770237]

1714770237

[1714770237]

1714770237

[1714770237]

1714770237

[1714770237]

1714770237

[1714770237]

1714770237

[1714770237]

1714770237

[BADecker]

The following is from Alan Korwin, the publisher of Gunlaws.com, from his "Page Nine blog," except that the quote, below, may not be posted on the blog yet. Give him a couple of days. Better yet, go there - http://gunlaws.com/PageNineIndex.htm - and look at a lot of other interesting things.

Iran Tweets in English: "Israel Must Be Annihilated"

Media fails to cover THAT part of Netanyahu's speech


The "secret" treaty Obama/Kerry want won't stop an Iranian nuke
Netanyahu spells it out -- THAT'S why they hated his appearance



The lamestream media told you:
The lamestream media told you:

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a highly controversial speech before Congress on March 3, 2015. Many democrats boycotted the speech, people in Israel thought it was a political stunt, and the president made a big deal out of deciding not to watch it. Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu do not get along.



The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The crucial parts of Netanyahu's speech were in the beginning.

These were excluded from most U.S. "news" reports, but having watched the whole thing live I heard it. My jaw dropped. A simple web search provides anyone with the transcript.

You heard about the controversy, the fact that the man currently in the White House turned his back on the speech -- from our greatest ally in the Middle East! isolated among endless murderous muslim maniacs in the region.

Here's what the "news" didn't give you -- the news. FACTS about the blood thirsty madmen seeking atom bombs, literally being aided and abetted by our own president and secretary of state -- unimaginably impeachable offenses. These are not minor glitches or problems. These are full-fledged nightmares.

Netanyahu shed light: "Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated -- he tweets! You know, in Iran, there isn't exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed."

Have you seen that in the "news"? No of course not. It would upset their narrative. We need a man to come here from the other side of the world to say it, so the man in the White House can turn his back -- and our media can decide it's not important enough to repeat.

He continues: "For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran's chief terrorist proxy. He said: 'If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.'"

I am not making this up. Neither is Netanyahu. Have you seen that in the "news"? No of course not. It would upset their narrative of "controversy." We need a man to come here from the other side of the world to say it, so the person in the White House can turn his back and our media can decide not to dwell on it.

"But Iran's regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem... The people of Iran are very talented people. They're heirs to one of the world's great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots -- religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship. That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran's borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime's founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to 'export the revolution throughout the world.'

"America's founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran's founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that."

Israel's prime minister goes on to list Iran's "successes" in pursuit of jihad, all familiar to us, but never spelled out one after the other, connecting the dots.

And then Netanyahu warns us carefully:

"Don't be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn't turn Iran into a friend of America.

"Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.

"In this deadly game of thrones, there's no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don't share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.

"So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy... is your enemy."

And these people want the atom bomb, and are determined to get it. Right now, Secretary of State Kerry is working to give it to them. He is naively negotiating with these savages, agreeing to terms that are unenforceable, conditions that cannot be verified, guarantees that cannot be confirmed, and that doesn't even matter, because in a mere few years, the entire agreement expires, and Iran is totally unrestricted and can do whatever it pleases. It's as if Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu points out that the only difference between the warring factions, "is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs."

Speaking only of publicly available information (he was scolded for using secret intelligence, but made it clear everything he "revealed" was already on Google), "To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war... that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them."

And he goes on to detail how all of Iran's nuke plants continue to exist, grow, operate and make enriched uranium. Inspectors can document violations -- but can't stop them. And like North Korea, Iran breaks the locks, takes out the cameras, and plays "hide and cheat," constantly. These aren't Boy Scouts -- they are villains. They've been caught twice with huge secret nuke plants -- not barrels of uranium, that inspectors didn't know existed. The chief IAEA inspector said, "If there's no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn't have one."

Netanyahu told us, in front of Congress: "Iran's Supreme Leader says Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount -- 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision."

Did the "news" media report any of this to you? This is the important part of Bibi's speech. And there is nothing controversial about Israel in this. Iran is the controversy here. And our media -- now among our greatest enemies -- is a root problem for us. They are keeping you in the dark. Iran plans to make enough enriched uranium for an arsenal of nukes, not a bomb, they want to annihilate our greatest ally. We're their greatest enemy, and you had to read my report to find out. Hmmm.

Netanyahu's not done: " Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.

"And by the way, if Iran's Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the Earth, including to every part of the United States... That's why this deal is so bad. It doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb."

And Mr. Obama is designing it with Mr. Kerry, who claim ignorance. Who knows, maybe they are. That's why Mr. Netanyahu came here  to speak directly to us.

Then the controversial part (according to our press) -- if Iran wants a good deal, stop behaving so badly, stop exporting terrorism, stop your path to nuclear weapons, stop your brutality at home and abroad, treat your woman like humans, endure sanctions while you behave so badly, Israel will always remain a staunch ally of the U.S., and we know we in Israel can count of you in America, but we cannot and will not allow this to occur no matter what, for the sake of the world. You can read it all online.

In other words, the various militant parts of Islam, including Islamic nations, want mass Jihad, especially of Israel. Does this sound like a religion of peace to you?

[worhiper_-_]

you can not say that all islam hates people , not everyone in yhe world is evil dahh moreover we should not give so much attention to religions and stuff ... as you know in the past religion was coneecting civiliazitions but now every country is for itsself and only this is the sad truth ... i personally was baftized as a christian but know i dont really care  sorry for bad engilsh

[sickhouse]

Islam don't hate people, Islam hate west and they have a right to. War torn for over 10 years for money soley, I'd be pissed too, wouldn't you? Hard to put yourself in their situation but imagine your family blown to bits you a 12 yo child - collateral damage sorry!

I heard Jesus is named as a prophet in the Quran more than Muhammed, is it true.. Googled fast but it doesn't say anything about Mohammed.

The most mentioned prophet in the Qur'an is Moses (commonly transliterated as Musa; موسى‎, pronounced “Mūsā”), as he is mentioned 136 times. Jesus, whose name is commonly transliterated as Isa (but also known as Al-Masih, the Messiah;

Mohammed raped kids and women to left and right, it's a nice prophet eh?

[Muhammed Zakir]

The following is from Alan Korwin, the publisher of Gunlaws.com, from his "Page Nine blog," except that the quote, below, may not be posted on the blog yet. Give him a couple of days. Better yet, go there - http://gunlaws.com/PageNineIndex.htm - and look at a lot of other interesting things.

=snip=

FYI: Some people quote others words out of context. I am not saying what he said is right or wrong because I can't judge on it as I haven't heard it yet.

other words, the various militant parts of Islam, including Islamic nations, want mass Jihad, especially of Israel. Does this sound like a religion of peace to you?

I told earlier don't mix people with religion and also the meaning of Jihad. You are obviously trying to spread FUD or you are mistaken. If you what you saying is possible, I can say "US are bad people, do you think this is a country of peace?". I can say this because US has done many such things, one of the worst was on Japan(Hiroshima & Nagasaki).
 

I heard Jesus is named as a prophet in the Quran more than Muhammed, is it true.. Googled fast but it doesn't say anything about Mohammed.

The most mentioned prophet in the Qur'an is Moses (commonly transliterated as Musa; موسى‎, pronounced “Mūsā”), as he is mentioned 136 times. Jesus, whose name is commonly transliterated as Isa (but also known as Al-Masih, the Messiah;

Not Jesus, Isa. I know you call Isa as Jesus but as there wasn't crucifixion, instead, crucifiction was happened. To call the execution a crucifixion, the victim(here Jesus) must die but Jesus didn't die. So it is crucifiction not crucifixion.

Yes, you are right. There are names of 24 prophets mentioned in Qur'an and Musa and Isa is most mentioned because there is many history in Qur'an about 'em.

Mohammed raped kids and women to left and right, it's a nice prophet eh?

Can you tell me when this happened? Can you give some source? It is either misunderstanding or misinterpretation or slander(spreading lies).

[sickhouse]

I heard Jesus is named as a prophet in the Quran more than Muhammed, is it true.. Googled fast but it doesn't say anything about Mohammed.

The most mentioned prophet in the Qur'an is Moses (commonly transliterated as Musa; موسى‎, pronounced “Mūsā”), as he is mentioned 136 times. Jesus, whose name is commonly transliterated as Isa (but also known as Al-Masih, the Messiah;

Not Jesus, Isa. I know you call Isa as Jesus but as there wasn't crucifixion, instead, crucifiction was happened. To call the execution a crucifixion, the victim(here Jesus) must die but Jesus didn't die. So it is crucifiction not crucifixion.

Yes, you are right. There are names of 24 prophets mentioned in Qur'an and Musa and Isa is most mentioned because there is many history in Qur'an about 'em.

Mohammed raped kids and women to left and right, it's a nice prophet eh?

Can you tell me when this happened? Can you give some source? It is either misunderstanding or misinterpretation or slander(spreading lies).
[/quote]
Thought it was pretty known? I own a copy of the Qur'an and have read some, he married a 12 year old iirc?
I think it's cool that Jesus is mentioned more than Mohammed, news for me!

[Muhammed Zakir]

Thought it was pretty known? I own a copy of the Qur'an and have read some, he married a 12 year old iirc?

You maybe referring to A'isha. Do you know that woman become pubescent from the age 9? And also as long as the spouses have no problem of the marraige(after reaching puberty), there is no problem. There is an English country which allows marriage if the woman is atleast 13 years old but I forgot the name and don't know if the law is same. Different countries set different age rules.

P.S. You should check the meaning of "rape" first. And, is the copy of Qur'an in Arabic or English(meaning)? Can you please tell me who translated? Be careful, there are some copies which mistranslated by people. Buy only the ones which are translated by known people.

I think it's cool that Jesus is mentioned more than Mohammed, news for me!

[sickhouse]

Thought it was pretty known? I own a copy of the Qur'an and have read some, he married a 12 year old iirc?

You maybe referring to A'isha. Do you know that woman become pubescent from the age 9? And also as long as the spouses have no problem of the marraige(after reaching puberty), there is no problem. There is an English country which allows marriage if the woman is atleast 13 years old but I forgot the name and don't know if the law is same. Different countries set different age rules.

Thing is that you have no idea if she were through puberty and rules were different back then... And why marry so young, marry your age =/

P.S. You should check the meaning of "rape" first. And, is the copy of Qur'an in Arabic or English(meaning)? Can you please tell me who translated? Be careful, there are some copies which mistranslated by people. Buy only the ones which are translated by known people.

Yeah, it said so in the index that it can't be translated correctly completely (it's only in Arabic it's 100% correct, but I got the Swedish version think it's ok). Rape went on during those times so not gonna change my mind there.

I think it's cool that Jesus is mentioned more than Mohammed, news for me!

As prophet in the Qur'an?

[Muhammed Zakir]

Thing is that you have no idea if she were through puberty

Do you? No! I will try to explain.

• In Islam there is no fixed age for marriage, he/she can marry when he/she reaches puberty. Nikkah can be done before they reach puberty but sex with spouse should only be after reaching puberty.
• Research says that girls can reach puberty even at age 7. See Abstarct.
• Research also says that different people reach the age of puberty at different times. And in general, it varies over the time and across the regions with variant climate conditions. In fact, people living in regions of low altitudes attain puberty earlier then those in high altitudes regions. Similarly people in warm climates attain puberty earlier then those in cold climates. The marriage was ~1400 years back and it happened in Arabia, a region with lower altitude and hot climate.
• A'isha has told about puberty:
1) "When a girl is nine years old, she is a woman (meaning, she has attained puberty)." (Tirmidhi, Hadith 1109)
2) "We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj then I got ill and my hair fell down…” (Bukhari Hadith 3605)

and rules were different back then...

Which rules are you talking? Why was it different after Islam came?

And why marry so young, marry your age =/

There are many things behind it. You should search more about it. If prophet wants to marry younger women, why did prophet marry widows when there was younger women? Why marry Khadija when Khadija was 15 years elder than prophet? You should look more depthly than picking just one.

According to Islamic belief, the main objectives of Muhammad's marriages can be divided into four.

• Helping out the widows of his companions.
• Creating family bonds between him and his companions (Muhammad married the daughters of Abu Bakr and Umar, whereas Uthman and Ali married his daughters. He therefore had family bonds with all the first four Caliphs).
• Spreading the message by uniting different clans through marriage.
• Increasing credibility and sources for conveying his private family life. If he only had one wife, then it would have been a tremendous responsibility on her to convey Muhammad's private acts of worship and family life, and people would try to discredit her to destroy the credibility of these practices. However, with multiple wives, there were a lot more sources to the knowledge, making it more difficult to discredit. Therefore his marriages gave more women the opportunity to learn and teach the matters of his private life.

Also, in Qur'an 33:6:

"The Prophet is closer to the believers than their selves, and his wives are (as) their mothers."

As prophet in the Qur'an?

Didn't understand.

[Wilikon]

KABUL, Afghanistan — An angry mob stoned and beat a woman before hurling her onto a riverbed and setting her body alight in the Afghan capital after she allegedly burned copies of the Quran, officials and eyewitnesses told NBC News.

The woman was set upon by a crowd near the popular Shah-Do Shamshira holy shrine in Kabul on Thursday, according to two nearby shopkeepers and police officials.

Mohammad Haroon, a 23-year-old bread seller near the shrine, and Abdullah, a nearby shopkeeper who like many Afghans goes by only one name, told NBC News that police attempted to hold back the crowd by locking the doors of the shrine and firing shots into the air. But the mob climbed the walls of the compound and chanted that the woman should be killed, they said.

The crowd then attacked the woman with sticks and stones, with some men stomping on her body, and she was dragged down the street, according to eyewitnesses and horrific images shared widely on social media. Haroon added that several cars drove over the woman's body while she was in the street before she was thrown in onto the riverbed and set on fire.

The victim's family told Kabul police their daughter had been suffering from mental illness for many years, according to Afghanistan's TOLO news channel.

Details of the attack were confirmed by a police official at the scene who did not wish to be named because he was not authorized to speak to the media. Kabul police chief Gen Abdul Rahman Rahimi confirmed that the woman was killed but declined to give further details. He said four people had been arrested in connection with the incident.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said in a statement Friday that the Ministry of Interior and a committee of religious scholars would conduct separate investigations into the incident. Ghani said that while Afghanistan condemns in the "strong terms" disrespectful actions toward the Quran, no one was permitted to "make oneself a judge and use violence to punish others." This was a "clear contradiction" of Islamic law, he said.

Previous instances of Quran burning — including by controversial U.S. pastor Terry Jones — have set off violent and widespread protests in conservative Afghanistan.



http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/afghan-woman-stoned-set-alight-after-allegedly-burning-quran-n327001

[Spendulus]

Thing is that you have no idea if she were through puberty

Do you? No! I will try to explain.

• In Islam there is no fixed age for marriage...

We disagree on many things, but it is unfair and simply wrong to say either that the word "rape" applies to the young girl that Mohammed married.

In Texas, if I recall correctly, a girl may be married with her parents consent at age 14.  It may be lower in other places. 

A thousand years ago, life was short, brutal, and harsh.  We cannot be applying today's modern rules to those times.

At the same time, in many cases, Islam cannot apply thousand year old rules to today's times.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Do you? No! I will try to explain.

• In Islam there is no fixed age for marriage...

You removed important part from it. Without it, that statement is wrong. It is out of context, my friend!

We disagree on many things,

It is because of lack of explanation and I am sorry for that.

but it is unfair and simply wrong to say either that the word "rape" applies to the young girl that Mohammed married.

Thank you. Atleast you agreed it not good.

In Texas, if I recall correctly, a girl may be married with her parents consent at age 14.  It may be lower in other places.  

Thank you! That was the one I was looking for! AFAIK I think that is the lowest.

A thousand years ago, life was short, brutal, and harsh.  We cannot be applying today's modern rules to those times.

I disagree. Life period becomes shorter when we go forward not backward. You can easily check it.

At the same time, in many cases, Islam cannot apply thousand year old rules to today's times.

This is also because of the lacking explanation. Islam has told to follow the country's rule except the rules which break Islamic rules. For example, eating pork, not praying etc... You should follow country's rule. For example, in India, some bodies need postmortem to be done but in Islamic rule, harming our bodies especially after the death is wrong but following it isn't problem | In India, we need to be atleast 18 years old to marry but in Islamic rule, reaching puberty is enough. As it is illegal to marry a person under 18 years old even if he/she reaches puberty, we should follow it.

TL;DR: Islam said to follow country's laws unless it breaks Islam.

* Country here refers to the country you live in.

[Wilikon]

Do you? No! I will try to explain.

• In Islam there is no fixed age for marriage...

You removed important part from it. Without it, that statement is wrong. It is out of context, my friend!

We disagree on many things,

It is because of lack of explanation and I am sorry for that.

but it is unfair and simply wrong to say either that the word "rape" applies to the young girl that Mohammed married.

Thank you. Atleast you agreed it not good.

In Texas, if I recall correctly, a girl may be married with her parents consent at age 14.  It may be lower in other places.  

Thank you! That was the one I was looking for! AFAIK I think that is the lowest.

A thousand years ago, life was short, brutal, and harsh.  We cannot be applying today's modern rules to those times.

I disagree. Life period becomes shorter when we go forward not backward. You can easily check it.

At the same time, in many cases, Islam cannot apply thousand year old rules to today's times.

This is also because of the lacking explanation. Islam has told to follow the country's rule except the rules which break Islamic rules. For example, eating pork, not praying etc... You should follow country's rule. For example, in India, some bodies need postmortem to be done but in Islamic rule, harming our bodies especially after the death is wrong but following it isn't problem | In India, we need to be atleast 18 years old to marry but in Islamic rule, reaching puberty is enough. As it is illegal to marry a person under 18 years old even if he/she reaches puberty, we should follow it.

TL;DR: Islam said to follow country's laws unless it breaks Islam.

* Country here refers to the country you live in.

Does the concept of a Republic, does the concept of a Democracy break islam?

[Spendulus]

Do you? No! I will try to explain.

• In Islam there is no fixed age for marriage...

You removed important part from it. Without it, that statement is wrong. It is out of context, my friend!

We disagree on many things,

It is because of lack of explanation and I am sorry for that.

but it is unfair and simply wrong to say either that the word "rape" applies to the young girl that Mohammed married.

Thank you. Atleast you agreed it not good.

In Texas, if I recall correctly, a girl may be married with her parents consent at age 14.  It may be lower in other places.  

Thank you! That was the one I was looking for! AFAIK I think that is the lowest.

A thousand years ago, life was short, brutal, and harsh.  We cannot be applying today's modern rules to those times.

I disagree. Life period becomes shorter when we go forward not backward. You can easily check it.

At the same time, in many cases, Islam cannot apply thousand year old rules to today's times.

This is also because of the lacking explanation. Islam has told to follow the country's rule except the rules which break Islamic rules. For example, eating pork, not praying etc... You should follow country's rule. For example, in India, some bodies need postmortem to be done but in Islamic rule, harming our bodies especially after the death is wrong but following it isn't problem | In India, we need to be atleast 18 years old to marry but in Islamic rule, reaching puberty is enough. As it is illegal to marry a person under 18 years old even if he/she reaches puberty, we should follow it.

TL;DR: Islam said to follow country's laws unless it breaks Islam.

* Country here refers to the country you live in.

I may have erred in snipping your post, if so I apologize.  With respect to lifespan, here is what I mean.

http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/

http://www.wonderquest.com/LifeSpan.htm states:  “Anglo-Saxons back in the Early Middle Ages (400 to 1000 A.D.) lived short lives and were buried in cemeteries, much like Englishmen today. Field workers unearthed 65 burials (400 to 1000 A.D.) from Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in England and found none who lived past 45.

Kings did better. The mean life expectancy of kings of Scotland and England, reigning from 1000 A.D. to 1600 A.D. were 51 and 48 years, respectively. Their monks did not fare as well. In the Carmelite Abbey, only five percent survived past 45.”

I think that if people today only lived until their 40s, they certainly would start marrying earlier and having babies younger.  There are still parts of the world where this is true, although perhaps fewer each year. 

Medically 12 years is too young to have babies, but that's a bit of a side issue.  Long ago, marriages were often arranged years in advance.  I just think that if one wishes to criticize Islam or Mohammed, there are so many valid points to do it on that alleging "rape" in the case of 12 year old marrying is neither right, nor a good choice for criticism.

[MichaelBliss]

This is a general statement to several of you uninformed people:

Wouldn't it be more fruitful to study with an open mind, learn a thing or two about the facts and truth of the matters you insist on discussing, and THEN opine about it?

I hope you realize how American y'all look when you write paragraphs of opinions that are based on various mistaken presumptions, mal-formed ideas, and just basic ignorant racism!

Wouldn't it be better to study and learn, and thus know a thing or two about what you are talking about?

It's very American to feel entitled to express an uninformed opinion - or two.....thousand.   It's even more American to have absolutely no shame or embarrassment for being tragically wrong about so many things!

Your always discussing you're delusional fantasies that have been installed in you by Hollywood.   So you are wrong about everything that Hollywood is wrong about.  Including your perverted support for the most brutal regimes on the planet: Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Fact: Iran's Ayatollah has prohibited weapons of mass destruction (after they were attacked by the US agent Saddam Hussein, with the chemical weapons your countries.  Later they explicitly announced a fatwah against nuclear weapons, and have stated that countries who pursue and own nukes (your country) are "politically retarded".   None of the 17 or so US intelligence agencies, nor the Israeli ones, believe in the propaganda that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, or that they are close to it.    Those are lies only uninformed morons believe...

Seriously - why don't you people have a sense of shame or embarrassment for being so terribly wrong about basic facts?   Your ignorant racism is showing.   Too much TV!

[Muhammed Zakir]

=snip=
TL;DR: Islam said to follow country's laws unless it breaks Islam.

* Country here refers to the country you live in.

Does the concept of a Republic, does the concept of a Democracy break islam?

I like that! No, if it doesn't break Islamic rules. This sentence may seem complicated but I don't know how to answer correctly, you will know that I am bad at explaining if you look at my posts. I can answer directly if you ask the direct question because it depends on what you want to do or what you do.

FYI: Islamic_rules/Islam are meant to protect or help you. It never make a person to go bad. If some persons are going bad, that means persons who teach them is feeding them with misconceptions and blatant lies.

[Spendulus]

This is a general statement to several of you uninformed people:

Wouldn't it be more fruitful to study with an open mind, learn a thing or two about the facts and truth of the matters you insist on discussing, and THEN opine about it?

I hope you realize how American y'all look when you write paragraphs of opinions that are based on various mistaken presumptions, mal-formed ideas, and just basic ignorant racism!

Wouldn't it be better to study and learn, and thus know a thing or two about what you are talking about?

It's very American to feel entitled to express an uninformed opinion - or two.....thousand.   It's even more American to have absolutely no shame or embarrassment for being tragically wrong about so many things!

Your always discussing you're delusional fantasies that have been installed in you by Hollywood.   So you are wrong about everything that Hollywood is wrong about.  Including your perverted support for the most brutal regimes on the planet: Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Fact: Iran's Ayatollah has prohibited weapons of mass destruction (after they were attacked by the US agent Saddam Hussein, with the chemical weapons your countries.  Later they explicitly announced a fatwah against nuclear weapons, and have stated that countries who pursue and own nukes (your country) are "politically retarded".   None of the 17 or so US intelligence agencies, nor the Israeli ones, believe in the propaganda that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, or that they are close to it.    Those are lies only uninformed morons believe...

Seriously - why don't you people have a sense of shame or embarrassment for being so terribly wrong about basic facts?   Your ignorant racism is showing.   Too much TV!

Haha.  You know, TV is one of the export products of the USA.  You will find our TV shows and movies everywhere in the world. 

But we have a monopoly on stupid people?

Sure...buddy.  And Mohammed split the Moon apart.  (NOT)

[Wilikon]

This is a general statement to several of you uninformed people:

Wouldn't it be more fruitful to study with an open mind, learn a thing or two about the facts and truth of the matters you insist on discussing, and THEN opine about it?

I hope you realize how American y'all look when you write paragraphs of opinions that are based on various mistaken presumptions, mal-formed ideas, and just basic ignorant racism!

Wouldn't it be better to study and learn, and thus know a thing or two about what you are talking about?

It's very American to feel entitled to express an uninformed opinion - or two.....thousand.   It's even more American to have absolutely no shame or embarrassment for being tragically wrong about so many things!

Your always discussing you're delusional fantasies that have been installed in you by Hollywood.   So you are wrong about everything that Hollywood is wrong about.  Including your perverted support for the most brutal regimes on the planet: Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Fact: Iran's Ayatollah has prohibited weapons of mass destruction (after they were attacked by the US agent Saddam Hussein, with the chemical weapons your countries.  Later they explicitly announced a fatwah against nuclear weapons, and have stated that countries who pursue and own nukes (your country) are "politically retarded".   None of the 17 or so US intelligence agencies, nor the Israeli ones, believe in the propaganda that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, or that they are close to it.    Those are lies only uninformed morons believe...

Seriously - why don't you people have a sense of shame or embarrassment for being so terribly wrong about basic facts?   Your ignorant racism is showing.   Too much TV!

Wouldn't it be more fruitful to study with an open mind, learn a thing or two about the facts and truth of the matters you insist on discussing, and THEN opine about it?

 

[Wilikon]

=snip=
TL;DR: Islam said to follow country's laws unless it breaks Islam.

* Country here refers to the country you live in.

Does the concept of a Republic, does the concept of a Democracy break islam?

I like that! No, if it doesn't break Islamic rules. This sentence may seem complicated but I don't know how to answer correctly, you will know that I am bad at explaining if you look at my posts. I can answer directly if you ask the direct question because it depends on what you want to do or what you do.

FYI: Islamic_rules/Islam are meant to protect or help you. It never make a person to go bad. If some persons are going bad, that means persons who teach them is feeding them with misconceptions and blatant lies.

OK. A simpler question to you then. Does the concept of sharia laws breaks the concept of a Republic, breaks the concept of a Democracy, when sharia laws are applied within a Republic or a Democracy?

Are sharia laws compatible with Republic laws, with Democratic laws? Which Republic? Which Democracy? ANY of them.

[Muhammed Zakir]

I may have erred in snipping your post, if so I apologize.

No problem! Sometimes, when excluding important part, it may looks like you take it out of context.

With respect to lifespan, here is what I mean.

http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/

http://www.wonderquest.com/LifeSpan.htm states:  “Anglo-Saxons back in the Early Middle Ages (400 to 1000 A.D.) lived short lives and were buried in cemeteries, much like Englishmen today. Field workers unearthed 65 burials (400 to 1000 A.D.) from Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in England and found none who lived past 45.

Kings did better. The mean life expectancy of kings of Scotland and England, reigning from 1000 A.D. to 1600 A.D. were 51 and 48 years, respectively. Their monks did not fare as well. In the Carmelite Abbey, only five percent survived past 45.”

I think that if people today only lived until their 40s, they certainly would start marrying earlier and having babies younger.  There are still parts of the world where this is true, although perhaps fewer each year.  

Thank you! If you like to know the reason, "Life 1400 years ago was very rough in the too hot desert. The average life span back then was 50 years. People used to die from all kinds of diseases. Both parents of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) for instance, died natural deaths before he even knew them.".

Medically 12 years is too young to have babies, but that's a bit of a side issue.  Long ago, marriages were often arranged years in advance.  I just think that if one wishes to criticize Islam or Mohammed, there are so many valid points to do it on that alleging "rape" in the case of 12 year old marrying is neither right, nor a good choice for criticism.

If prophet had that intention, prophet would have married young women but almost all of spouses was widows.

Edit:

OK. A simpler question to you then. Does the concept of sharia laws breaks the concept of a Republic, breaks the concept of a Democracy, when sharia laws are applied within a Republic or a Democracy?

Are sharia laws compatible with Republic laws, with Democratic laws? Which Republic? Which Democracy? ANY of them.

Sharia itself means law, so an additional "law" after sharia isn't needed.

It also depends on what is your definition for Republic and Democracy.

A republic is a form of government in which power resides in the people, and the government is ruled by elected leaders run according to law (from Latin: res publica), rather than inherited or appointed (such as through inheritance or divine mandate).

Democracy is "a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity ... are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly."Democracy is further defined as (a:) "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (b:) " a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." According to American political scientist Larry Diamond, it consists of four key elements: "1. A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections. 2. The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life. 3. Protection of the human rights of all citizens. 4. A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens"

Both doesn't break Sharia. If you can tell your definition, I might explain better.