Why do islam hates people?

[BADecker]

There is only one reason why Mohammed didn't go to Hell. That reason is that Hell hasn't been activated yet. After the Resurrection, Mohammed and all his followers who have not turned to Jesus for forgiveness will be sent to Hell.

Since the Islamic people are raising children doomed to Hell, since they and their kids won't accept Jesus salvation, why should we let them remain alive, just so that they can propagate, thereby making a bunch of people who will go to Hell? Since they won't turn, no matter how much mission work you do with them, and since they are out to turn as many people to hell as they can by converting them, shouldn't they absolutely be wiped off the face of the earth?

You judge for yourself.

The seven reasons to wipe Islam off the face of the earth:

1.	They fight everyone.
2.	Even if they appear peaceful, you don't know for sure, because their religious writings tell them they can righteously lie to to anybody who isn't Muslim.
3.	They are going to Hell by not accepting Jesus.
4.	They won't turn to accept Jesus.
5.	They raise a bunch of kids who they train in Islam, thereby dooming their kids to the torture of Hell.
6.	Their kids grow up to do the same.
7.	They try to force everyone else to become Muslim so that everyone else can go to Hell.

What do you think?

One of my favorite movies is the Clive Cussler 2005 movie, Sahara.

[Spendulus]

British Islamic Group’s Billboard Warns Non-Muslims To “Be Careful With Mohammed”…

The Muslim Action Forum (MAF), which staged a protest outside Downing Street against Charlie Hebdo in February, has launched a "legal strategy" to stop insults against Mohammed.

The organisation is also asking supporters to "lobby your MP" to make "Islamophobia" a criminal offence.

They state that they intend "to launch a series of legal challenges in the English Court system" because "depictions of our Holy Prophet peace be upon Him is the worst kind of 'Hate Crime' that can be perpetrated on the 3 million Muslims in the UK and 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide."

The group says that they have "devised a legal strategy to prevent the continuous insulting and derogatory publications depicting and abusing the personality of our Holy Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him."

In a press release published shortly after the demonstration in February 2015, the MAF set out details of their plan to outlaw depicting Mohammed in the UK, through "amendment of some existing legislation and the presentation of a Private Members Bill that promotes the idea of Global Civility."

They describe "Global Civility" as a "new direction" and argue that the "desecration" of "collective human dignity", through "insult, denigration or humiliation is morally and ethically wrong". Their website rails against "reckless and malicious expressions".

They urge the 100,000 Muslims who they claim signed their petition to lobby their MPs and all candidates standing in the General Election. The MAF makes a number of suggestions including three specific questions which they ask supporters to direct to their MPs.

The MAF suggests that petitioners ask their MPs if they think the "the Public Order Act 1986 should be amended to include under 'hate crime' any malicious depiction of images and use of malevolent language against revered personalities of all religions?"

They also suggest asking if "Islamophobia should be a culpable offence?"

The suggestions include a point inquiring if MPs would support a "Bill of Rights" that promotes "Global Civility", a concept which would prevent insulting religion.

The appeal says that if the MP answers no to any of the points above, their answer "will clarify to the local Muslim community where their political representatives stand on the single most important issue to every Muslim in this country and worldwide."

Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, said: "We trust all prospective MPs will appreciate that there is no homogeneous 'Muslim community' and reject such unreasonable demands to undermine everybody's fundamental rights and freedoms. Free speech is the bedrock of liberty and a free society – and integral to combating the spectre of Islamism. Now more than ever we need to preserve and strengthen freedom of expression, not capitulate to extremist demands."

The Muslim Action Forum (MAF) explain that their campaign against satirical depictions of Mohammed, and what they call "uncivilised expressionists", took its "first historical step by presenting a petition supported by over 100,000 signatures of Muslims promoting the concept of Global Civility and condemning the continuous publication of these insulting cartoons in France and other parts of the world."

The MAF website has a section devoted to the concept of "uncivilised expressionists", and they cite examples including the Satanic Verses, Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and the burning of the Quran. They define uncivilised expressions as a "a psychological disposition of the human mind which insults and maligns others without care or consideration of consequences." They call this "behaviour against Muslims".



http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/03/be-careful-with-mohammed--muslim-action-forum-launches-legal-strategy-to-stop-publication-of-insults-to-mohammed

I can see some real problems with those concepts.  Either apply them to all religions, or give Islam special status.  (which nobody in the West is going to be willing to do.)

But if you apply these concepts to all religion, aside from destroying free speech, you have created a situation where we can't disrespect Scientology.

Now that wouldn't do at all...

[BADecker]

British Islamic Group’s Billboard Warns Non-Muslims To “Be Careful With Mohammed”…

The Muslim Action Forum (MAF), which staged a protest outside Downing Street against Charlie Hebdo in February, has launched a "legal strategy" to stop insults against Mohammed.

The organisation is also asking supporters to "lobby your MP" to make "Islamophobia" a criminal offence.

They state that they intend "to launch a series of legal challenges in the English Court system" because "depictions of our Holy Prophet peace be upon Him is the worst kind of 'Hate Crime' that can be perpetrated on the 3 million Muslims in the UK and 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide."

The group says that they have "devised a legal strategy to prevent the continuous insulting and derogatory publications depicting and abusing the personality of our Holy Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him."

In a press release published shortly after the demonstration in February 2015, the MAF set out details of their plan to outlaw depicting Mohammed in the UK, through "amendment of some existing legislation and the presentation of a Private Members Bill that promotes the idea of Global Civility."

They describe "Global Civility" as a "new direction" and argue that the "desecration" of "collective human dignity", through "insult, denigration or humiliation is morally and ethically wrong". Their website rails against "reckless and malicious expressions".

They urge the 100,000 Muslims who they claim signed their petition to lobby their MPs and all candidates standing in the General Election. The MAF makes a number of suggestions including three specific questions which they ask supporters to direct to their MPs.

The MAF suggests that petitioners ask their MPs if they think the "the Public Order Act 1986 should be amended to include under 'hate crime' any malicious depiction of images and use of malevolent language against revered personalities of all religions?"

They also suggest asking if "Islamophobia should be a culpable offence?"

The suggestions include a point inquiring if MPs would support a "Bill of Rights" that promotes "Global Civility", a concept which would prevent insulting religion.

The appeal says that if the MP answers no to any of the points above, their answer "will clarify to the local Muslim community where their political representatives stand on the single most important issue to every Muslim in this country and worldwide."

Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, said: "We trust all prospective MPs will appreciate that there is no homogeneous 'Muslim community' and reject such unreasonable demands to undermine everybody's fundamental rights and freedoms. Free speech is the bedrock of liberty and a free society – and integral to combating the spectre of Islamism. Now more than ever we need to preserve and strengthen freedom of expression, not capitulate to extremist demands."

The Muslim Action Forum (MAF) explain that their campaign against satirical depictions of Mohammed, and what they call "uncivilised expressionists", took its "first historical step by presenting a petition supported by over 100,000 signatures of Muslims promoting the concept of Global Civility and condemning the continuous publication of these insulting cartoons in France and other parts of the world."

The MAF website has a section devoted to the concept of "uncivilised expressionists", and they cite examples including the Satanic Verses, Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and the burning of the Quran. They define uncivilised expressions as a "a psychological disposition of the human mind which insults and maligns others without care or consideration of consequences." They call this "behaviour against Muslims".



http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/03/be-careful-with-mohammed--muslim-action-forum-launches-legal-strategy-to-stop-publication-of-insults-to-mohammed

I can see some real problems with those concepts.  Either apply them to all religions, or give Islam special status.  (which nobody in the West is going to be willing to do.)

But if you apply these concepts to all religion, aside from destroying free speech, you have created a situation where we can't disrespect Scientology.

Now that wouldn't do at all...

Oh sure. Apply them to all religions. Even if they don't apply to some religion.

But if you are going to apply them to ALL religions, then first recognize some of the religions that normally aren't recognized as such, like Atheism and the Religion of Evolution.

[DLCseller]

There is only one reason why Mohammed didn't go to Hell. That reason is that Hell hasn't been activated yet. After the Resurrection, Mohammed and all his followers who have not turned to Jesus for forgiveness will be sent to Hell.

Since the Islamic people are raising children doomed to Hell, since they and their kids won't accept Jesus salvation, why should we let them remain alive, just so that they can propagate, thereby making a bunch of people who will go to Hell? Since they won't turn, no matter how much mission work you do with them, and since they are out to turn as many people to hell as they can by converting them, shouldn't they absolutely be wiped off the face of the earth?

You judge for yourself.

The seven reasons to wipe Islam off the face of the earth:

1.	They fight everyone.
2.	Even if they appear peaceful, you don't know for sure, because their religious writings tell them they can righteously lie to to anybody who isn't Muslim.
3.	They are going to Hell by not accepting Jesus.
4.	They won't turn to accept Jesus.
5.	They raise a bunch of kids who they train in Islam, thereby dooming their kids to the torture of Hell.
6.	Their kids grow up to do the same.
7.	They try to force everyone else to become Muslim so that everyone else can go to Hell.

What do you think?

One of my favorite movies is the Clive Cussler 2005 movie, Sahara.

Did you know that muslim also accepts Jesus only as the messiah and not the "son of God"?
C'mon man, Christianity is just a lie.Paul of Taurus lied about him seeing Jesus' ghost and created christianity.And the one who died on the cross is not Jesus, its Judas Iscariot. God lift Jesus up to heaven and replace him with Judas.
FYI Jesus' real name is Isa Ibn Maryam. (pbuh)

[rosh]

British Islamic Group’s Billboard Warns Non-Muslims To “Be Careful With Mohammed”…
The Muslim Action Forum (MAF), which staged a protest outside Downing Street against Charlie Hebdo in February, has launched a "legal strategy" to stop insults against Mohammed.

If people of different religions start behaving this way, we can say goodbye to freedom of expression.

[Spendulus]

British Islamic Group’s Billboard Warns Non-Muslims To “Be Careful With Mohammed”…
The Muslim Action Forum (MAF), which staged a protest outside Downing Street against Charlie Hebdo in February, has launched a "legal strategy" to stop insults against Mohammed.

If people of different religions start behaving this way, we can say goodbye to freedom of expression.

Burkas are an insult to my religion of Atheism.

[darkota]

The 3 basic reasons to wipe Religion off the face of the Earth(There are countless more):

1) Religion only causes intolerance, mistrust, hate, divide, and cruelty
2) No one religion is right, they all have followers that fervently believe theirs and theirs only is true(Which confesses to the logical assumption that none is true)
3) God(s) does not exist

[DLCseller]

The 3 basic reasons to wipe Religion off the face of the Earth(There are countless more):

1) Religion only causes intolerance, mistrust, hate, divide, and cruelty
2) No one religion is right, they all have followers that fervently believe theirs and theirs only is true(Which confesses to the logical assumption that none is true)
3) God(s) does not exist

Hey peoples in this thread! We have an atheist here
C'mon theres so many proof God exist

[darkota]

The 3 basic reasons to wipe Religion off the face of the Earth(There are countless more):

1) Religion only causes intolerance, mistrust, hate, divide, and cruelty
2) No one religion is right, they all have followers that fervently believe theirs and theirs only is true(Which confesses to the logical assumption that none is true)
3) God(s) does not exist

Hey peoples in this thread! We have an atheist here
C'mon theres so many proof God exist

Quite the opposite. The data against God's existence far outweighs the "data"(If you classify people's opinions and bind faith as data) for God's existence.

[Wilikon]

The 3 basic reasons to wipe Religion off the face of the Earth(There are countless more):

1) Religion only causes intolerance, mistrust, hate, divide, and cruelty
2) No one religion is right, they all have followers that fervently believe theirs and theirs only is true(Which confesses to the logical assumption that none is true)
3) God(s) does not exist

Hey peoples in this thread! We have an atheist here
C'mon theres so many proof God exist

Quite the opposite. The data against God's existence far outweighs the "data"(If you classify people's opinions and bind faith as data) for God's existence.

What if you could create a thread about the existence of God... 

[DLCseller]

The 3 basic reasons to wipe Religion off the face of the Earth(There are countless more):

1) Religion only causes intolerance, mistrust, hate, divide, and cruelty
2) No one religion is right, they all have followers that fervently believe theirs and theirs only is true(Which confesses to the logical assumption that none is true)
3) God(s) does not exist

Hey peoples in this thread! We have an atheist here
C'mon theres so many proof God exist

Quite the opposite. The data against God's existence far outweighs the "data"(If you classify people's opinions and bind faith as data) for God's existence.

What if you could create a thread about the existence of God... 

God is real.Stop making lies.No one can lie that hard.

[dsyahputera]

- snip -

God is real.Stop making lies.No one can lie that hard.

Sure, they will know their mistakes after they was died.

[Beliathon]

Fuck organized religion.

Superstition is the end of reason, and therefore the ally of violence. A less superstitious world is a less violent world.
Religion is all about controlling people through fear and shame. This naturally leads to a great deal of hatred, violence, and suffering.

The following is an excerpt from The Empathic Civilization - Becoming Human, pp 119 - 122 (TLDR at bottom)

"When we talk of guilt, we need to be clear not to confuse it with shame. Often the two terms are used interchangeably when, in fact, they are quite different. While guilt can trigger empathic distress and the desire to reach out and make amends to another whom one has harmed, shame denigrates a person’s being, making them feel worthless and inhuman. To be shamed is to be rejected. Shame is a way of isolating a person from the collective we. He or she becomes an outsider and a nonperson. Shame has the effect of turning off the innate empathic impulse. If one feels like a nonbeing, socially ostracized and without self-worth, he is unable to draw upon his empathic reserves to feel for another’s plight. Unable to emotionally connect with others, he either shrinks into withdrawal or acts out his sense of abandonment by exercising rage at others. Why rage? Because it is often the only way he has open to him to communicate and engage his fellow human beings. The idea of the “loner,” isolated from society and full of rage toward his fellows, is a phenomenon in every society.

When one is made to feel guilty, it is one’s humanity that is being called upon to do the right thing by another person. Unlike shaming someone, which isolates him from humanity, guilty is an internal mechanism that reminds one of his deep social connection to others and the need to repair the social bond. Guilt needs to be handled carefully. If a parent’s induction discipline creates too much of a sense of guilt in the child, he is likely to grow up feeling that nothing he can do will ever be adequate to amend a hurt or restore a social bond. If, on the other hand, a parent’s induction discipline doesn’t result in instilling at least a minimum of guilt in the child, he will grow up without being able to reflect on how his behavior affects others and unable to trigger sufficient empathic distress to re-heal the social bond. Just good enough parenting lets the child know that he did something wrong, but in a caring way that lets him know that he is still loved and regarded as a person. By explaining how the other person might feel and asking him how he would feel in the same situation, the parents are letting him know that they trust his innate goodness and desire to empathize with others and make amends. Equally important, the parents are teaching a cxhild that their love for him is no less because of his wrongful behavior. No one is perfect. The best we can expect of each other is to learn from our indiscretions and try to do better next time.
By shaming a child, however, the parents are letting him know that whe is not living up to their expectations and, therefore, not worthy of their consideration. Their expectations, rather than his humanity, become the focal point of the disciplinary exercise. The child is left with the impression that his very being is a disappointment and that he must conform to an “ideal image” of what his parents expects from him or suffer the consequence of rejection*.
Guilt cultures create a very different human being from shaming cultures. The American philosopher Martha Nussbaum puts it this way:

Moral guilt is so much better than shame, because it can be atoned for, it does not sully the entirety of one’s being. It is a dignified emotion compatible with optimism about one’s own prospects. . . . Rather than making a forbidding and stifling demand for perfection, [morality] holds the child in her imperfection, telling her that the world contains possibilities of forgiveness and mercy, and that she is loved as a person of interest and worth in her own right. She therefore need not fear that her human imperfections will cause the world’s destruction. And because she is not stricken by annihilating shame at her imperfection, she will have less need for nevy and jealousy, emotions that express her desire for omnipotent control of the sources of good.

Ironically, while a shaming culture pretends to adhere to the highest standards of moral perfection, in reality it produces a culture of self-hate, envy, jealousy, and hatred toward others. Shaming cultures, throughout history, have been the most aggressive and violent because they lock up the empathic impulse, and with it the ability to experience another’s plight and respond with acts of compassion. When a child grows up in a shaming culture believing that he must conform to an ideal of perfection or purity or suffer the wrath of the community, he is likely to judge everyone else by the same rigid, uncompromising standards. Lacking empathy, he is unable to experience other people’s suffering as if it were his own and therefore is likely to judge their plight as their own fault because they failed to live up to the standards of perfection expected of them by society.
   Shaming cultures still exist in traditional societies. It is not uncommon to hear about a woman who has been gang-raped and who is then stoned to death by her own family and neighbors, because she has brought shame on herself and her family. Rather than empathize with her suffering, the community inflicts even greater punishment on her by taking her life. In the eyes of the community, she bears the shame of the rape, despite the fact that she was the innocent victim. As far as her family and neighbors are concerned, she is forever defiled and impure and therefore an object of disgust to be blotted out. The power of shaming cultures to squelch empathy and transform human beings into monsters is terrifying to behold."

TLDR
"While a shaming culture pretends to adhere to the highest standards of moral perfection, in reality it produces a culture of self-hate, envy, jealousy, and hatred toward others. Shaming cultures, throughout history, have been the most aggressive and violent because they lock up the empathic impulse, and with it the ability to experience another’s plight and respond with acts of compassion. When a child grows up in a shaming culture believing that he must conform to an ideal of perfection or purity or suffer the wrath of the community, he is likely to judge everyone else by the same rigid, uncompromising standards. Lacking empathy, he is unable to experience other people’s suffering as if it were his own and therefore is likely to judge their plight as their own fault because they failed to live up to the standards of perfection expected of them by society. (...) The power of shaming cultures to squelch empathy and transform human beings into monsters is terrifying to behold."
-Jeremy Rifkin

[SurplusBob]

All religion is poison. Every single religion at one point in history has been responsible for pointless hate and slaughter.

Moral equivalency based on false pretenses.

Would you extend your assertion to various religions that no longer exist? 
That of the Incas, the Mayas, which advocated human sacrifice?  That of the Druids?
is your broad brush assertion applicable to those who follow Buddha?

What, please tell, of the Church of the Subgenius?

http://www.subgenius.com/

http://dobbscoin.info/images/dobbscoin16.png HELL!! Pointless HATE & Slaughter is our MAINSTAY
DEATH TO THE PINKBOYS - http://www.dobbscoin.com

[jerol31]

I would not judge all muslim people, just because few islam religious soldiers are doing harm to western civilized world. They are doing it for their God, and they think that is the right thing to do. Of course, it is not.

No one has the right to take someone else's life.

[Wilikon]

I would not judge all muslim people, just because few islam religious soldiers are doing harm to western civilized world. They are doing it for their God, and they think that is the right thing to do. Of course, it is not.

No one has the right to take someone else's life.

... Unless. Infidels?

[BADecker]

If it isn't wrong for Muslims to take the lives of Infidels, then is it wrong for Islam to lie to Muslims by making them think that their religion is a peaceful one?

[Spendulus]

I would not judge all muslim people, just because few islam religious soldiers are doing harm to western civilized world. They are doing it for their God, and they think that is the right thing to do. Of course, it is not.

No one has the right to take someone else's life.

A .... few?

Well, let us check the Monthly Jihad Report for February.

Monthly Jihad Report
February, 2015

 Jihad Attacks:    232
 Countries:    23
 Allah Akbars:    42
 Dead Bodies:    1977
 Critically Injured:2354

[hangar18]

There is no place in the Quran where Muhammad commands Muslims to love people of other religions.  By contrast there are at least three dozen verses that tell Muslims to fight against non-Muslims and about 500 that speak of their place in Hell.  They are from each period in Muhammad's life, scattered across 87 of the Quran's 114 chapters.

[BADecker]

There is no place in the Quran where Muhammad commands Muslims to love people of other religions.  By contrast there are at least three dozen verses that tell Muslims to fight against non-Muslims and about 500 that speak of their place in Hell.  They are from each period in Muhammad's life, scattered across 87 of the Quran's 114 chapters.

The interesting thing about it all is, most of the Muslims live in reasonably illiterate parts of the world. And most of the literate Muslim countries aren't any more interested in reading their holy books than any other religious group is interested in reading theirs.

My question is, just how shocked would the Muslims be if they could and did read the Quran and the Hadith? Would they become strict Muslims and change from their peaceful ways to obey the strict, violent writings of their professed religion? Or would they realize that Islam wasn't for them and change to some other religion... or maybe drop the religion idea altogether?