Violent Islam

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

We weren't discussing the book. We are discussing Islam

You brought up the French Muslim ghettos and Muslim "discrimination against the French" there. The book is about the French Muslim ghettos and how they came about due to the French discrimination against Muslims.

The book and the news story which is the basis of your "discrimination" claim conflict about who discriminates against who. The book contains carefully researched data which your news story is missing.

Conclusion: Small wonder you wish to divert discussion away from that book.

[seekerman]

More from the 'peaceful' religion of Islam.....

"ISLAMABAD: A suicide attack on a Shia mosque left 15 people dead and more than 20 injured in Pakistan's north-western city of Peshawar on Friday."

"Sectarian violence in Karachi, Peshawar, Quetta and the north-west seems to be a manifestation of the bitter split between Sunnis and Shias. Over the past 20 years Sunni and Shia extremists have attacked each other all over Pakistan. According to observers, the bulk of the recent violence has been committed by Sunni militants inspired by al-Qaeda's ideology.

On Saturday, twin attacks by militants in the city of Quetta had killed 25 people. No clear motive for the attacks was established, but a Sunni militant group was blamed."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/w...w/20707166.cms

And this folks is just an example of the violent and oppressive religion of Islam in the past week. There's more to come. Why, you ask? Because Islam is shown time and time and time again to be the most violent and oppressive religion on the face of the earth today.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by seekerman

You simply aren't going to honestly point out the fact that Islam is almost always at the heart of religious violence today, are you? You aren't going to address the sunni murder of men, women and children of the shia opposing Islamic religious sect and you're not going to address the shia murder of men, women and children of the sunni opposing Islamic religious sect. Why do you pretend that murder and oppression isn't part of the sunni-shia religious violence today? Do you actually believe that your denial of the truth will cause the truth to somehow be hidden? It's not you know. Openness and honestly is one of the major enemies of the Islamic religion for openness and honestly will reveal the truth of Islam....that it's the most violent and oppressive religion on the face of the earth today.

Your dishonest and evasive muslim behavior is open for all to see. Your refusal to face the sunni-shia murder and oppression is exposing the mindset of the Islamic religion. Kill, maim and oppress but never face the truth of Islam.

Islam is the most violent and oppressive religion on the face of the earth today folks. You can read about it many many times a year when the sectarian Islamic violence reveals to the world the character and mindset of the Islamic religious mind. And the response from the muslims concerning the religious violence of Islam is always the same. Denial.

But....that's not going to make the truth of Islamic violence and oppression disappear or go away. It's there time after time after time after time for all the world to see. Here's the latest for you, as a muslim, to enjoy in your denial and evasion. If you don't like this story, don't worry, it won't be long until we'll have yet another story of Islamic violence.....not many days go by without that occurrence in the most violent religion on the face of the earth today.

"BAGHDAD, Iraq: Suicide bombers and a gunman assaulted a police station in northern Iraq on Sunday, one of several attacks across the country that left seven dead. They were the latest incidents in a wave of violence that has claimed more than 2,000 lives since the start of April. Militants, building on Sunni discontent with the Shia-led government, appear to have grown stronger in central and northern Iraq."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/w...w/20727910.cms

Oh...and notice the part about the "wave of violence that has claimed more than 2,000 lives since the start of April". That's yet another truth, another fact, for you as a muslim to deny. Or stick your head in the sand. But the truth can't be hidden, can it?

Islam is the most violent and oppressive religion on the face of the earth today. Stay tuned for more...and more....and more...and more...and more. So sad really.

My behavior has nothing to do with this discussion. History is history and is to be accepted or not.

Source of the "Sunni-Shia conflict": Rights to oil and rights to waterways to ship oil

The Iran–Iraq War began when Iraq invaded Iran via air and land on 22 September 1980. It followed a long history of border disputes, and was motivated by fears that the Iranian Revolution in 1979 would inspire insurgency among Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority as well as Iraq's desire to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state. Although Iraq hoped to take advantage of Iran's revolutionary chaos and attacked without formal warning, they made only limited progress into Iran and were quickly repelled; Iran regained virtually all lost territory by June 1982. For the next six years, Iran was on the offensive

Since the Ottoman–Persian Wars of the 16th and 17th centuries, Iran (known as Persia prior to 1935) and Iraq fought over full control of the Arvand Roud/Shatt al-Arab waterway. Historically, the waterway (called Arvand Roud in Iran and Shatt al-Arab in Iraq) and Khuzestan Province were all that remained of Iran's prior holdings in Mesopotamia, which had been lost to Turkey centuries earlier.:4 The Arvand Roud was considered an important channel for both states' oil exports, and in 1937, Iran and the newly independent Iraq signed a treaty to settle the dispute. In the same year, Iran and Iraq both joined the Saadabad Pact, and relations between the two states remained good for decades afterwards. Not possible if the conflict is "Religious" in nature is it sport?

The 1937 treaty recognised the Iran-Iraq border to be along the low-water mark on the Shatt's eastern side, except at Abadan and Khorramshahr, where the frontier ran along the deep water line (thalweg). This gave Iraq control of most of waterway and required Iran to pay tolls whenever its ships used it.[20]

In 1955, both nations joined the Baghdad Pact. However, the overthrow of the Hashemites in Iraq in 1958 brought a nationalist government to power which promptly abandoned the pact. On 18 December 1959, Iraq's new leader, General Abdul Karim Qassim, declared: "We do not wish to refer to the history of Arab tribes residing in al-Ahwaz and Mohammareh [Khorramshahr]. The Ottomans handed over Mohammareh, which was part of Iraqi territory, to Iran." The Iraqi government's dissatisfaction with Iran's possession of the oil-rich Khuzestan province (which the Iraqis called Arabistan) that had a large Arabic-speaking population was not limited to rhetorical statements. Iraq began supporting secessionist movements in Khuzestan, and raised the issue of its territorial claims at an Arab League meeting, though unsuccessfully.

Iraq showed reluctance in fulfilling existing agreements with Iran—especially after Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser's death in 1970 and the Iraqi Ba’ath Party's rise which took power in a 1968 coup, leading Iraq to take on the self-appointed role of "leader of the Arab world". At the same time, by the late 1960s, the build-up of Iranian power under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had gone on a military spending spree, led Iran to take a more assertive stance in the region.

In April 1969, Iran abrogated the 1937 treaty over the Arvand Roud, and as such, ceased paying tolls to Iraq when its ships used the waterway. The Shah justified his move by arguing that almost all river borders around world ran along the thalweg, and by claiming that because most of the ships that used the waterway were Iranian, the 1937 treaty was unfair to Iran. Iraq threatened war over the Iranian move, but when, on 24 April 1969, an Iranian tanker escorted by Iranian warships sailed down the river, Iraq—being the militarily weaker state—did nothing.

Iraq's regime was very politically secure, and in little danger of being overthrown by alleged plots of revolution-wracked Iran. According to some sources, Khomeini's hostility towards Saddam was actually milder than his Arab neighbors hostility towards Saddam. Saddam's primary interest in war stemmed from his desire to right the supposed "wrong" of the Algiers Agreement, in addition to finally achieving his desire of annexing Khuzestan and becoming the regional superpower. Saddam's goal was to replace Egypt as the "leader of the Arab world" and to achieve hegemony over the Persian Gulf. He saw Iran's increased weakness due to revolution, sanctions, and international isolation. Saddam had heavily invested in Iraq's military since his defeat against Iran in 1975, buying large amounts of weapons from the Soviet Union and France. By 1980, Iraq possessed 200,000 soldiers, 2,000 tanks and 450 aircraft. Watching the powerful Iranian army that frustrated him in 1974–1975 disintegrate, he saw an opportunity to attack, using the threat of Islamic Revolution as a pretext.

A successful invasion of Iran would enlarge Iraq's petroleum reserves and make Iraq the region's dominant power. With Iran engulfed in chaos, an opportunity for Iraq to annex the oil-rich Khuzestan Province, materialized In addition, Khuzestan's large ethnic Arab population would allow Saddam to pose as a liberator for Arabs from Persian rule. Fellow Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (despite being hostile to Iraq) encouraged Iraq to attack, as they feared that an Islamic revolution would take place within their own borders. Certain Iranian exiles also helped convince Saddam that if he invaded, the fledgling Islamic republic would quickly collapse.

In 1979–80, Iraq was the beneficiary of an oil boom that saw it take in US$33 billion, which allowed Iraq's government to go on a spending spree on both civilian and military projects. On several occasions, Saddam alluded to the Islamic conquest of Iran in promoting his position against Iran. For example, on 2 April 1980, half a year before the war's outbreak, in a visit to Baghdad's ‪al-Mustansiriya University‬, he drew parallels to Persia's defeat at the 7th century Battle of al-Qādisiyyah:


In your name, brothers, and on behalf of the Iraqis and Arabs everywhere we tell those Persian cowards and dwarfs who try to avenge al-Qadisiyah that the spirit of al-Qadisiyah as well as the blood and honor of the people of al-Qadisiyah who carried the message on their spearheads are greater than their attempts.

In 1979–1980, anti-Ba'ath riots arose in the Iraq's Shia areas by groups who were workings toward an Islamic revolution in their country. Saddam and his deputies believed that the riots had been inspired by the Iranian Revolution and instigated by Iran's government. On 10 March 1980, when Iraq declared Iran's ambassador persona non-grata, and demanded his withdrawal from Iraq by 15 March, Iran replied by downgrading its diplomatic ties to the charge d'affaires level, and demanded that Iraq withdraw their ambassador from Iran. In April 1980, Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr and his sister Amina Haydar (better known as Bint al-Huda) were hanged as part of a crackdown to restore Saddam's control. The execution of Iraq's most senior Ayatollah caused outrage throughout the Islamic world, especially among Shias.

Iraq soon after expropriated the properties of 70,000 civilians believed to be of Iranian origin and expelled them from its territory. Many, if not most, of those expelled were in fact Arabic-speaking Iraqi Shias who had little to no family ties with Iran. This caused tensions between the two nations to increase further

Religion?

[seekerman]

Heck, why not one more example of the 'peaceful' religion of Islam.

"BAGHDAD: Six explosions battered Shia and Sunni Muslim neighbourhoods across Baghdad on Thursday, killing at least 14 people and extending a descent into the worst sectarian violence since the civil war five years ago."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/w...w/20349907.cms

You know why you can commonly read stories like this? Because Islam is constantly shown to be the most violent and oppressive religion on the face of the earth today.

Stay tuned for more examples for the violence and oppression in Islam never takes a break for long. It's the very nature of the religion.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Pliny

It is always someone else's fault with this individual. Never has he accepted the responsibility of violence or the perversions of Muslims. In the case above a Christian Pastor simply shares the gospel by invitation. The Muslims sought to destroy him for such an "atrocity". A Muslim mob sought to murder him and threatened to murder his family by setting them on fire.

This disgusting individuals response is shown above. Instead of agreeing that this behavior is reprehensible he blames it on Europe. BTW Pastor Patras is Pakistani not European. This is just one of the many examples that can be shown how this individual thinks. If a Muslim does something it is never their fault. It is always someone else's fault or he will simply obfuscate the issue by saying some Pope in history or some other malevolent creature did something bad as well. Never condemning the act only justifying the perversion and violence of Muslims. Again as mentioned above instead of condemning the acts of these Muslims he seeks to justify them. This is Islam this Muslim here practices as we have seen it unfold before our eyes.

I wonder how many see the stark contrast between Christianity and Islam. Christianity does not justify anyone's perversion or violence. When a Christian sins, Christians are the first to denounce it. When Muslims sin they either blame it on someone else or justify it. Case in point I posted this:



This is the story of the Christian Pastor arrested and tortured by the Islamic Republic of Iran. For those who may be unaware please review the link and consider signing the petition. One thing seems to be for sure. Muslims will not stand up for the rights of this Christian man.

I challenge WII to sign the petition and get ALL of his Muslim brothers to sign it as well.

I will not hold my breath...

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

1 Day ago:

Officers of Sumter Police Department have arrested the pastor of WORD International Ministries on Guignard Drive and charged him with multiple counts of criminal sexual conduct involving multiple children.

Larry DuRant, 58, of 2080 Four Bridges Road, was arrested Friday and charged with two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor between the ages of 11 and 14 and four counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct.

According to the department, detectives had been investigating reports from both victims and their families who told police DuRant allegedly forced the children to participate in various sexual acts. He used his position in the church, according to reports, claiming the occurrences were part of a “healing process” and “private prayer.”

Officials believe there may be more victims and encourage them to come forward.

Anyone with information pertaining to these crimes is asked to call the Sumter Police Department at (803) 436-2717 or Crime Stoppers at 1-888-CRIMESC. Callers can remain anonymous.


With so many recent cases of Christian pedophiles targeting little girls, I'd say that Christian preachers have lost the right to tell us what Christianity can do for Muslims. Hopefully you can take it on yourselves to make that phone call rather than put these people on a pedestal and swoon over every word they say.

Confirmation once again. Muslims justify their evil deeds rather than root it out.
I am quite sure everyone on AFF would agree that all perverts should be punished however, what you will NOT find is anyone on AFF, except Muslims, attempting to justify the evil deeds.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Actually you did. You introduced France and Crime rates, the issue was how Muslims there created no go places for non- Muslims. You claimed it was to reduce Crime but that is not true.

Second since YOU raised the issue of France and Crime, not me, I pointed out many of those crimes are committed by Muslims, now you've got another excuse and all the while not one shred of evidence you post exonerates Islam of being a violent religion...misdirecting to secular nations is a red herring

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Wrong. Read the story. The muslims move into an area and force non-muslims out and impose sharia making the area a no go place for non-muslims.

You are doing exactly what I said so called moderates do by not opposing such actions and acting as if there is no problem at all.

This is what makes Islam a danger because most Muslims condone these actions by the way they deal with these issues.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

See? The topic is Islam and our "moderate" friend refuses to condemn what goes on but instead gives tacit approval by the "you too" logical fallacy or denying facts or making excuses for the violence.

Most Muslims I encounter are this way. Oh of course they do not commit they physical acts themselves but where do you think the pool of those becoming violent come from?

From the sympathizers

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

You brought up the French Muslim ghettos and Muslim "discrimination against the French" there.

Go read the article again..The topic is Islam, not the book but Islam and see my point again about how you routinely condone Muslim violence with excuses and "You too" arguments rather than condemn it.

You don't condemn the sexual attacks EVER, you always just make a "you too" argument.

That is what is scary because you are proving my point about the so called "non-violent" muslims are condoning the violence

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Go read the article again..The topic is Islam, not the book but Islam and see my point again about how you routinely condone Muslim violence with excuses and "You too" arguments rather than condemn it.

You don't condemn the sexual attacks EVER, you always just make a "you too" argument.

That is what is scary because you are proving my point about the so called "non-violent" muslims are condoning the violence

It is incomprehensible that you people actually believe that rape and sexual attacks are "religiously" motivated so your implication that Islam "teaches" these things gets put into the same round file as the terrible things about Jews that Hitler made speeches about. You gasp at the idea of public executions in Islamic countries and ignore the fact that I agree with and support these penalties as appropriate in cases of rape and sexual assault. There is no more that I can say on this but it is a mistake to brand me and my colleagues with the actions of those who commit these crimes. This is my view on rape and sexual assault: and this is the 3rd or 4th time I have noted this on this board.

A Saudi man was beheaded on Friday in Tabuk in the ultraconservative kingdom's north after being convicted of sexually assaulting another man's wife, a statement from the interior ministry said

Adel bin Mohammed Assiri forcibly entered the man's apartment and assaulted the man's wife, hitting her, photographing her naked and attempting to rape her, said the statement carried by the official SPA news agency.


"you too" in my view if you are involved in these things deserve the same penalty. That's just me.

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Heck, why not one more example of the 'peaceful' religion of Islam.

"BAGHDAD: Six explosions battered Shia and Sunni Muslim neighbourhoods across Baghdad on Thursday, killing at least 14 people and extending a descent into the worst sectarian violence since the civil war five years ago."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/w...w/20349907.cms

You know why you can commonly read stories like this? Because Islam is constantly shown to be the most violent and oppressive religion on the face of the earth today.

Stay tuned for more examples for the violence and oppression in Islam never takes a break for long. It's the very nature of the religion.

There is nothing in the Quran about oil and rights to waterways so I am wondering why wars over these things constitute "religious violence"

[Walks_in_islam]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Go read the article again..The topic is Islam, not the book but Islam and see my point again about how you routinely condone Muslim violence with excuses and "You too" arguments rather than condemn it.

You don't condemn the sexual attacks EVER, you always just make a "you too" argument.

That is what is scary because you are proving my point about the so called "non-violent" muslims are condoning the violence

LOL Go find one single post where I "condoned" religious violence Prax.

I do believe that there is a difference between violence against exploitation and violence against colonialization and religious violence and I believe that it is incorrect to lump the two together.

[Walks_in_islam]

Wrong. Read the story. The muslims move into an area and force non-muslims out and impose sharia making the area a no go place for non-muslims.

Wrong. Read the book. The Muslims were brought into France for the purpose of cheap labor and segregated by the French into substandard ghettos and now are accused (by you) of "discriminating against the French"