((Do you know what? Members of the Mafia [whom we are supposed to love also] honestly believe their enterprise is a “business”. Are we to respect that belief too? Give me a break.
The problem is that we are supposed to point out the error of our brothers’ ways, but whenever we do it’s, “You are offending Islam and/or the prophet.” So it would seem that a civil dialog is not possible. A monologue [Muslims complain, Christians listen, nod wisely, and appease], yes; a dialog, no. Fifty million people paid with their lives because one man tried to appease one other in 1938. Naturally, the appeaser was not one of the casualties. Quite frankly, the world cannot afford that kind of folly any more.))
—Posted by sedonaman
No i am speaking about Spiritual Beliefs not thous of criminals, yes we can point out the errors but calling the most respected person in Islam a pedophile isent exactly proper Christian conduct sorry again Toribus.
Code:
So... your comparing my attempt at civil conversation with Nevil Chamberlain giving into the Nazis? dialog is met to bring down barriers of misunderstanding not cause wars. Appeasement (as you put it) is going to accomplish nothing.
There is no room for insults in a civil conversation.
can we please get back to the discussion now?
HickmanJosh
It seems that you haven’t cracked open any Islamic texts and then you tell us that because - maybe, just maybe - we have and we know that their prophet not only was a pediphile, but an Adulterer, Bandit, Immoral, Inhuman, Looter, Lecher, Misogynist, Murderer, Materialistic, assasin,
Narcissist, Pedophile, Raider, Rapist, Slavetrader, Sexmaniac, Terrorist, Torturer, Vengeful Warlord.
He tortured a man just to get the rest of his loot. He had an old man over 100 years old, and a woman still suckling her baby, both assasinated for speaking against him. He raided more caravans that were poorly armed and had women and children along so he could loot them and carry the women and children away as slaves. And when he wasn’t along on the raids, and battles, he would demand 1/5 of the loot and slaves.
He took his stepson’s wife and gave as an excuse ‘Allah said it was ok’ (I paraphrase). His Allah gave more excuses (well, Muhammed actually gave the excuses and said that it was Allah who did it) for his sexual desires and perversions. He told his followers that it was good to deceive others if it would gain them some more loot, a victory in battle - even if the battle was for no other reason than to steal and enslave people, and that cease fires were not to be honored any longer than they needed to rearm and regroup. Tell the infidels anything and break them as soon as possible. At one point Muhammed realized that it was to his advantage to not kill all the men and enslave all the others but to subjugate them and tax them and humiliate them. It was called
dhimmitude.
This is what you are telling us that we should have respect for.
No one hates the Muslims in fact they are Muhammed’s first victims. And one of the Muslim’s first duties besides Jihad, not that ‘inner struggle’ either, is to make sure that infidels are intentionally deceived to know the Quran (so we can squabble amongst ourselves, I suppose). But, here are the surahs: 6:25 6:110 17:45-76
They used to not even take the Quran with them if they migrated to other lands because they did not want the infidels to know what the Quran contained. Basically, commands to war against us and if we did not want to convert and if we accepted subjugation (dhimmitude) then we were to be killed.
Go back and read my posts. Sedonaman has some very good posts too as do some others. OR you could do some reading of the Muslim’s texts too.
Centrality of jihad in islam
History of jihad
Slavery in islam FFI’s article on slavery in islam
No Muslim country has signed the UN anti-Slave law because it would go against Islam.
