Why do islam hates people?

[Spendulus]

Just a suggestion, I think this thread has got enough points/statements. So isn't it good to lock this thread?


I might not post here like I used it. Don't think it is because I can't answer your questions and/or arguments. My English is poor and I can't express what is in my mind through English which makes it worse than better. It will be easy if I know English better or you know Malayalam(my mother tounge/local language).

It was good debating with you. I also got some new knowledge. Thank you all! Looking forward to meet you in other threads of this forum or in other places of great virtual world or even in greatest, real world. Best of luck!

Right, since I have shown that you advocate violence in the name of Islam and that Islam is a violent religion (cutting off hands/feet/stoning women)

.... just lock the thread and run away!

Problem solved!

[1714796739]

1714796739

[1714796739]

1714796739

[1714796739]

1714796739

[BADecker]

Then you can see how your opponents in this discussion are right when they say "Islam is violent."  Now, notice that "Islam hates" is a very different thing.

This is the best point. The only time anybody can hate, is when they become involved deeply. You don't hate things that you are not involved with, or that you know very little about.....

That's true.  I can't hate Islam because I don't care about Islam (from one point of view this is WORSE than caring about it.)

I can't hate gays and gay marriage because I couldn't care less about gays and gay marriage.

Those Islam dudes tossing the gays off the tall buildings, they are haters.  It would seem.

The Islam judge or cleric ordering someone's hand to be cut off is probably not a hater, but is certainly representing the violence of Islam.

There is a very big question here. The question is,"Are violent Muslim extremists really Muslim? Or are they only saying that they are Muslim? Are they lying or mistaken when they say that they are Muslim?"

The Quran and Hadith have words that suggest that Islamites should be violent against people of other religions, and against traitors among the Islam religion who leave it. These writings also have words that speak about peace, both for Muslims, and at times, for people of other religions somewhat. Because of this, Islam can be a very mixed up religion, depending on whose interpretation of Quran and Hadith words you listen to.

Part of the answer is that that Islam is a poorly written religion. The violent words of Islam seem to suggest hate for people who are not Muslim. The non-violent words seem to suggest love for Muslims, but little love for people of other religions. This makes Islam the perfect religion for violent extremists of every nation.

Now, here is another BIG question. Were the writings of the Quran and Hadith intentionally written this way? The Hadith was, because the writers of the Hadith received their information from the Quran. What was the intent of the writer of the Quran? Did Muhammad write with sly, mixed intent? If Allah wrote the Quran, is Allah the biggest tricker of men ever?

Whatever the purpose of the writings of Islam, they are mixed up enough that people can see the hate as well as the love. This duplicity of Islam suggests either that it is a stupid religion, or that it was deceptively designed to be hateful.

[Spendulus]

Then you can see how your opponents in this discussion are right when they say "Islam is violent."  Now, notice that "Islam hates" is a very different thing.

This is the best point. The only time anybody can hate, is when they become involved deeply. You don't hate things that you are not involved with, or that you know very little about.....

That's true.  I can't hate Islam because I don't care about Islam (from one point of view this is WORSE than caring about it.)

I can't hate gays and gay marriage because I couldn't care less about gays and gay marriage.

Those Islam dudes tossing the gays off the tall buildings, they are haters.  It would seem.

The Islam judge or cleric ordering someone's hand to be cut off is probably not a hater, but is certainly representing the violence of Islam.

There is a very big question here. The question is,"Are violent Muslim extremists really Muslim? Or are they only saying that they are Muslim? Are they lying or mistaken when they say that they are Muslim?"

The Quran and Hadith have words that suggest that Islamites should be violent against people of other religions, and against traitors among the Islam religion who leave it. These writings also have words that speak about peace, both for Muslims, and at times, for people of other religions somewhat. Because of this, Islam can be a very mixed up religion, depending on whose interpretation of Quran and Hadith words you listen to.

Part of the answer is that that Islam is a poorly written religion. The violent words of Islam seem to suggest hate for people who are not Muslim. The non-violent words seem to suggest love for Muslims, but little love for people of other religions. This makes Islam the perfect religion for violent extremists of every nation.

Now, here is another BIG question. Were the writings of the Quran and Hadith intentionally written this way? The Hadith was, because the writers of the Hadith received their information from the Quran. What was the intent of the writer of the Quran? Did Muhammad write with sly, mixed intent? If Allah wrote the Quran, is Allah the biggest tricker of men ever?

Whatever the purpose of the writings of Islam, they are mixed up enough that people can see the hate as well as the love. This duplicity of Islam suggests either that it is a stupid religion, or that it was deceptively designed to be hateful.

This is perceptive.   Many religions have vanished because they were not adaptable to changed times.  Many of the North American Indian religious are in this category.  But some, that were flexibly designed, survive today, like the Navajo.

Christianity is extremely adaptable - turn the other cheek, be industrious and fair, in five or ten generations you own the land.

Islam I think also exhibits this adaptability.  When the conditions faced call for war, the book supports it.  When conditions call for peace, the book supports it.  Clerics can and do pick and choose what they use.  This doesn't make it a "perfect book" as some here have suggested, that's ridiculous.

Islam as practiced in some lands exhibits a 7th century medieval attitude - brutal, violent and totally oppressive - even as the people babble about it being a religion of peace.  It is of course their peaceful submission they refer to. 

No medieval Caliphate will rule the world.  People of Islam will either pull themselves out of poverty and ignorance, and get with the 21st century or their religion will shrink.  More of Islam will be hijacked by extremists - look at what has happened to the phrase Allah Akbar.

[Netpyder]

these religious topics should be locked. i believe it is not making people learn the religion but spreading more hate and more misunderstanding amongst each other.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Right, since I have shown that you advocate violence in the name of Islam and that Islam is a violent religion (cutting off hands/feet/stoning women)

.... just lock the thread and run away!

Problem solved!

I was thinking about this sometime but most times, I was in middle of discussion. So I thought it is good to post after a discussion is somewhat ended. And if I didn't post here, you will think I am avoiding you. Anyway, the response was same.

[BADecker]

these religious topics should be locked. i believe it is not making people learn the religion but spreading more hate and more misunderstanding amongst each other.

Ever heard of the term, "Fight fire with fire?" People don't really want to be hateful. But when Islam, the religion of hate, attacks them, they have to fight back. So they begin to look hateful, just like Islam, when all they are doing is, self-defense against Islam.

[Netpyder]

these religious topics should be locked. i believe it is not making people learn the religion but spreading more hate and more misunderstanding amongst each other.

Ever heard of the term, "Fight fire with fire?" People don't really want to be hateful. But when Islam, the religion of hate, attacks them, they have to fight back. So they begin to look hateful, just like Islam, when all they are doing is, self-defense against Islam.

yeah right, that is why israel ,usa, france,china, uk and russia are superpowers and allies. because muslim and islam attacks them 

[thebitcoinquiz.com]

I hope you know the difference between communal riots and terrorism on the name of religion.
What you are talking about, the "Sikhs, Hindus, etcetc" have also attacked are a part of communal riots.

These type of posts obviously say laws are unjust for Muslims. What muslims do is religious violence and people from other religions do is communal violence.

To your doubt: Even in Wikipedia, it is mentioned. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India.

Communal violence is religious violence if religions involve in it and it is obvious, what I said do have it.

Communal violence is a bit different from Islamic Terrorism, Communal Violence is more like a civil war, even Muslim can involved in communal violence, but its short lived and happens as a reaction to something.
While terrorism is when you are more interested in threating others, brutally blowing other people and penetrating a sense of fear in the minds of the people, these things aren't common in terrorism and communal violence.

What Hindus, ever did could be related to communal violence(that too when they were provoked by Muslims) but by far it wasn't related to any terrorist activity.
While  Islamic Terrorists are practicing terrorism, and that's the reason why you cannot blame acts on terrorism on other religions.

[BADecker]

these religious topics should be locked. i believe it is not making people learn the religion but spreading more hate and more misunderstanding amongst each other.

Ever heard of the term, "Fight fire with fire?" People don't really want to be hateful. But when Islam, the religion of hate, attacks them, they have to fight back. So they begin to look hateful, just like Islam, when all they are doing is, self-defense against Islam.

yeah right, that is why israel ,usa, france,china, uk and russia are superpowers and allies. because muslim and islam attacks them 

It has become evident to the wise people of these superpower nations that, if Islam, the religion of violence, is allowed to exert its influence farther, the whole world will destroy itself by Islamic hate and violence.

What is the evidence of this? The evidence is that even when the superpowers attack Islam out of self-defense, they have a hard time destroying the hateful, violent Islamites. The superpowers are too gentle and peaceful to be able to destroy the more violent, hateful nations of Islam.

Islam thinks that it is inserting itself into the superpower nations. The wise of the superpower nations want the Islamites to think this. Rather, the Islamites are allowed to enter the nations, so the Islamites can teach the people of the nations how to be violent and hateful. Why do the wise superpower rulers want their people to learn violence and hate? They don't! But it is the only way their soldiers can learn the great hate and violence so that they have a chance at beating the Islamites.

The danger is that the Islamites might take over the superpower nations. This isn't much of a danger, however. There is too much hate and violence among the Islamites for them to control much of everything. Otherwise they would have taken over the world long ago. It's why they are not superpowers; their hate and violence hinders them.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Ever heard of the term, "Fight fire with fire?"

Yes. You should fight a natural fire with a natural fire and artificial fire with are artificial fire. Fighting natural fire with artificial fire isn't good, but fighting artificial fire with natural fire is okay.

However, I think it is better to fight fire with water.

People don't really want to be hateful. But when Islam, the religion of hate, attacks them, they have to fight back. So they begin to look hateful, just like Islam, when all they are doing is, self-defense against Islam.

Yes, I understand that when Islam fight a war, it is hateful. When others fight a war, it only "looks" hateful.

 Unjust laws & theories!!!

[Muhammed Zakir]

Communal violence is a bit different from Islamic Terrorism, Communal Violence is more like a civil war, even Muslim can involved in communal violence, but its short lived and happens as a reaction to something.
While terrorism is when you are more interested in threating others, brutally blowing other people and penetrating a sense of fear in the minds of the people, these things aren't common in terrorism and communal violence.

What Hindus, ever did could be related to communal violence(that too when they were provoked by Muslims) but by far it wasn't related to any terrorist activity.
While  Islamic Terrorists are practicing terrorism, and that's the reason why you cannot blame acts on terrorism on other religions.

I even show you a wiki link. If you missed it, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India.

It is obvious, you want to spread more hate towards Islam. It is one of the reason you used "Islamic" instead of the true one "Muslims".

Another thing is you told Hindus only did communal violence and that too because of Islams. Ever heard about communal violence regardins Sikh which had a possible influence by Hindus? Ever heard of Hindu wars? Ever heard of Christian wars? Ever heard of Jews wars?

Only thing to say "Islam hates". Some of you probably hate me when I say these, but this is how you see us and twist it.

That's why, I said to lock these threads. Probably, this will get similar response I got earlier.

[Muhammed Zakir]

=snip=
The superpowers are too gentle and peaceful to be able to destroy the more violent, hateful nations of Islam.

Yeah. This is too peaceful and too gentle. Now I understand what it means.

Killing 5-10 million people from '80s is peace. Killing a few thousand people is terrorism.

I pity US more than I pity claimed-to-be-muslim terrorists. 1.7 million Germans killed and telling it was Russians who did it!

He ordered that these Germans did not fall under the Geneva Rules, and were NOT TO BE FED, NOR GIVEN ANY WATER or medical attention. The Swiss Red Cross was NOT to inspect the camps, for under the DEF classification, they had no such authority or jurisdiction.

Months after the war was officially over, Eisenhower’s special German DEF camps were still in operation forcing the men into confinement, but denying that they were prisoners.

“For years we have blamed the 1.7 million missing German POW’s on the Russians. Until now, no one dug too deeply … Witnesses and survivors have been interviewed by the author; one Allied officer compared the American camps to Buchenwald.”

It is known, that the Allies had sufficient stockpiles of food and medicine to care for these German soldiers. This was deliberately and intentionally denied them. Many men died of gangrene from frostbite due to deliberate exposure.

Edit: Nazis were at-least kind enough to give food unlike this US.

[Wilikon]

Communal violence is a bit different from Islamic Terrorism, Communal Violence is more like a civil war, even Muslim can involved in communal violence, but its short lived and happens as a reaction to something.
While terrorism is when you are more interested in threating others, brutally blowing other people and penetrating a sense of fear in the minds of the people, these things aren't common in terrorism and communal violence.

What Hindus, ever did could be related to communal violence(that too when they were provoked by Muslims) but by far it wasn't related to any terrorist activity.
While  Islamic Terrorists are practicing terrorism, and that's the reason why you cannot blame acts on terrorism on other religions.

I even show you a wiki link. If you missed it, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India.

It is obvious, you want to spread more hate towards Islam. It is one of the reason you used "Islamic" instead of the true one "Muslims".

Another thing is you told Hindus only did communal violence and that too because of Islams. Ever heard about communal violence regardins Sikh which had a possible influence by Hindus? Ever heard of Hindu wars? Ever heard of Christian wars? Ever heard of Jews wars?

Only thing to say "Islam hates". Some of you probably hate me when I say these, but this is how you see us and twist it.

That's why, I said to lock these threads. Probably, this will get similar response I got earlier.

[BADecker]

Don't lock this thread. In fact, just the opposite. Unravel it.   

[Netpyder]

these religious topics should be locked. i believe it is not making people learn the religion but spreading more hate and more misunderstanding amongst each other.

Ever heard of the term, "Fight fire with fire?" People don't really want to be hateful. But when Islam, the religion of hate, attacks them, they have to fight back. So they begin to look hateful, just like Islam, when all they are doing is, self-defense against Islam.

yeah right, that is why israel ,usa, france,china, uk and russia are superpowers and allies. because muslim and islam attacks them 

It has become evident to the wise people of these superpower nations that, if Islam, the religion of violence, is allowed to exert its influence farther, the whole world will destroy itself by Islamic hate and violence.

What is the evidence of this? The evidence is that even when the superpowers attack Islam out of self-defense, they have a hard time destroying the hateful, violent Islamites. The superpowers are too gentle and peaceful to be able to destroy the more violent, hateful nations of Islam.

Islam thinks that it is inserting itself into the superpower nations. The wise of the superpower nations want the Islamites to think this. Rather, the Islamites are allowed to enter the nations, so the Islamites can teach the people of the nations how to be violent and hateful. Why do the wise superpower rulers want their people to learn violence and hate? They don't! But it is the only way their soldiers can learn the great hate and violence so that they have a chance at beating the Islamites.

The danger is that the Islamites might take over the superpower nations. This isn't much of a danger, however. There is too much hate and violence among the Islamites for them to control much of everything. Otherwise they would have taken over the world long ago. It's why they are not superpowers; their hate and violence hinders them.

do you read what you reply? and you find what you wrote something with SENSE?? o.O

[r3wt]

By ignoring the question i posed 3 pages ago, you have proven that i cannot trust you Mohamet Zakir. Why should i trust you if you cannot answer the simple question i give you?

[Muhammed Zakir]

By ignoring the question i posed 3 pages ago, you have proven that i cannot trust you Mohamet Zakir. Why should i trust you if you cannot answer the simple question i give you?

I checked page 46 and 47. I answered your question in page 47 but I couldn't find question in page 46. Can you please quote it or give me the link? I probably missed it. Thank you!

[lophie]

By ignoring the question i posed 3 pages ago, you have proven that i cannot trust you Mohamet Zakir. Why should i trust you if you cannot answer the simple question i give you?

Shame on you Mohamet Zakir! How can you miss his question! it is just mere 50 pages! you should go back and forth and review all posts, I cannot trust you too. this is a valid metric to estalish how untrustworthy you are.... 

[r3wt]

By ignoring the question i posed 3 pages ago, you have proven that i cannot trust you Mohamet Zakir. Why should i trust you if you cannot answer the simple question i give you?

Shame on you Mohamet Zakir! How can you miss his question! it is just mere 50 pages! you should go back and forth and review all posts, I cannot trust you too. this is a valid metric to estalish how untrustworthy you are....  

He responded to the question, but it was no answer, as you can see:

Then can you tell us all why Terrorist are always identifying with the Islamic Faith, and Jihad? I find it peculiar why no muslim can answer us why they do this. I think you are lying. I have read excerpts from the Quran, and the stated goal is for Islam to be the faith of all people on the planet. Sounds sinister to me.

#1: Can you explain "Islamic faith"? There isn't any such Islamic faith you are claiming. They are using wrong faith.
#2: Jihad means to strive; to struggle.
#3: Islam is for all human beings from the living of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH). However, there is no rule to force any person to become Muslim and forcing is against Islamic teachings. They should become Muslim at their own will.
(Optional)#4: You have some misunderstanding about some things.

We should analyze the word 'terrorism'. Everyone who provide terror (a real terror) to a group of person with a weapon, knife etcetera ... By the definition is a terrorist, now the history can speak itself because not all the Muslim are terrorist and not all the terrorist are muslim. I think it's wrong to link the word Islam to the word terrorism, can you explain to us why aren't all the muslim terrorists?

Thanks for your input. Was the last questions to me? I didn't get you correctly. I should prove all muslims aren't terrorist?

[Muhammed Zakir]

By ignoring the question i posed 3 pages ago, you have proven that i cannot trust you Mohamet Zakir. Why should i trust you if you cannot answer the simple question i give you?

Shame on you Mohamet Zakir! How can you miss his question! it is just mere 50 pages! you should go back and forth and review all posts, I cannot trust you too. this is a valid metric to estalish how untrustworthy you are.... 

He responded to the question, but it was no answer, as you can see:

My name is Muhammed Zakir not Mohamet Zakir.

What type of answer are you looking for? I may not be able to answer in a way you think. However, if you can clarify a bit, it will be helpful. As I have mentioned earlier, either I will have to make my English better or you will have to know Malayalam for a better answer. Sorry if it isn't answer your question but I can't understand "why" it isn't an answer to your question.