Or whenever you have the time, I guess. Lookin' forward to it.
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!
been-there wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:05 pmI don't understand. Can you elucidate? What difference does the numbers make and how do practioners of Islam affect you personally more ‘offensively'?Lupus Rothstein wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:23 pmOn a personal level, yes I do find them less offensive, especially on a social and cultural scale. But that is purely down to scale and numbers. Jewish culture and beliefs, however offensive, do not impact on me and my country on the same scale and magnitude as those offensive beliefs and customs of the Islamic community have done. You only have to look at the demographics of the UK to realise this.been-there wrote: ↑Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:07 pmOk. But would it be fair to presume you find the beliefs and customs of practicing followers of Judaism, (or Christianity), less offensive to you than the beliefs and customs of practicing followers of Islam?
I find the 'offensive' elements of Islam far outweigh those of the Jewish religion , so the more followers of Islam there are in the UK, then the higher the risk of exposure to it, resulting in a higher level of offence being caused to individuals like me, who class themselves as culturally Christian.
I am not talking about the general 'following' of a religion. I am referring to the elements that I find offensive. Therefore answering your question is not that straightforward, as it depends on who was doing the 'following', what the 'following' actually entailed, and where it was being carried out.been-there wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:05 pmNo, it doesn't answer. Can you ignore — for the sake of clarity — the issue of numbers and scale and just answer whether one person genuinely trying to follow Islam is more offensive to you than one person genuinely trying to follow Judaism, and if so how exactly?Lupus Rothstein wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:23 pmIf the UK Muslim population was at the same level as that of Jews, i.e. very low, then no doubt the scale of offense I encounter would also be reduced, and I probably wouldn't be sitting here communicating with you on the topic. I hope that answers your question.
For example : If the 'following' just consisted of a Muslim praying in a mosque , compared with a Jew doing similar in a synagogue, then how could I deem either as being more offensive than the other ? I couldn't. So I think you may have misunderstood my previous response , resulting in you asking the wrong question. Now if you had asked "why do you find Islam more offensive than Judaism or Christianity?" then I would be able to furnish you with an answer, supported by what I hope would be valid reasoning and evidence.
Well I see you have now amended your post to include 'Christian' . That's all I was curious about.been-there wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:05 pmNo. I have known Muslims who have impressed me more as noble humans than some Christians and Jews. I don't generalise in this way. I think behaviour has more to do with parental upbringing, standards of living, cultural conditioning than soley religious conditioning. E.g. Muslims in the Far East have different cultural values to those in Africa. And these have subtly different cultural values to those in India. Who again have differences to those in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Some generalisations can be made of course. But I believe there maybe many Bible-belt Christians who are more war-loving, intolerant, bigoted, etc., than many muslims.Lupus Rothstein wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:23 pmI note you only included 'Jewish practices and beliefs' as an alternative to those of Islam. Maybe you, like me, find Christian practices and beliefs to be relatively inoffensive and therefore ineligible for any entry into some "Worlds Worst Religion" competition ?
Ok, but if we scroll back it appears that you are still of the belief that the quoted verses you originally presented somehow demonstrate how the Quran "promotes respect, tolerance and peaceful co-existence" . Considering you have already offered your interpretation of these verses, ie that Allah is chastising Jews for rejecting their prophets, then I am slightly puzzled how you still insist these verses are good examples of Quranic respect, tolerance and peaceful co-existence. I am finding it hard to fathom out how anyone could equate this combination of criticism and threat to such virtues ?
I am not too concerned at the moment as regards the distinction you would make between what the Quran says compared to actual historical reality. The key issue for me is what is actually written in this highly influential religious book .been-there wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:05 pmI make a distinction between:Lupus Rothstein wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:23 pm
I acknowledge your interpretation of these verses. To be honest I had never considered this take on things before. So thank you for 'enlightening me' somewhat. However , I still have some 'issues' regarding this. I will return to this later.
Except maybe for those Christians who believed that Jesus was actually God ? This is what Allah has to say about them in verse 5:72 :
Surely, they have disbelieved who say: "Allah is the Messiah , son of Mary." But the Messiah said: "O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, then Allah has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode . And for the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers) there are no helpers.
Not very tolerant to the 'polytheists' either I see !
1.) the intolerance and certainty of the message and
2.) the historical evidence of generous treatment and offer of co-existence with people of whatever belief.
The message is uncompromising. Sure.
But as I showed with just a few fire-and-brimstone biblical quotes, that is the nature of the message of all the semitic prophets also. If these guys were telling people of their own religion they would be going to hell if they followed it incorrectly, I don't think its either logically consistent or fair to judge Muhammad's similar message so differently.
Whether or not you find the comparison unfair, the reason I posted those verses was to challenge the following viewpoint of yours, which you made here viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3939&start=20#p156495 :
The plain fact of the matter is that the verses I posted appear to contradict your above view. If the words of Allah make it clear that most Christians are disbelievers, and therefore destined to burn in hell, then I just cannot fathom out why you still believe the Quran promoted tolerance, respect and peaceful co-existence ."So I believe the answer is any Jew or a Christian, who ticked all the boxes of those aforementioned list of demands , except from accepting Muhammed as God's final prophet would be accepted."
Another argument, maybe for another time.been-there wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:05 pm
The common western portrayal of Muhammed as an intolerant, self-righteous, cruel, belligerent, warring, murderous, philandering paedophile is so far from my understanding of the actual historical truth, that this view can only be adequately explained as being a deliberate deceitful distortion, in my opinion. The Christian missionaries taught this portrayal because this was how they justified to themselves the superior intolerance of their own religion. But in my opinion its a self-serving, hypocritical and bogus view. The stuff that Yahweh/Jehovah and his people did with his blessings in the Tanakh/old testament out-does anything Muhammed is accused of, yet Christians and Jews accept this as 'divine' just because its in their holy books. I think that we who have been brought up in European-based Christian cultures have been infected with this hypocrisy. Which is partly why I asked if you were familiar with the history.
been-there wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:05 pmFirstly, we must understand that the pre-Islamic Arabian Christian communities who interacted with Muhammad were connected to the Syrian and Coptic Christian Churches NOT the Roman Catholic churches. There are some theological differences.Lupus Rothstein wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:23 pmAllah also makes it clear what his views are on Jesus being the Son of God, see below verse 5;75 :
The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother [Mary] was a Siddiqah [i.e. she believed in the words of Allah and His Books (see Verse 66:12)]. They both used to eat food (as any other human being, while Allah does not eat). Look how We make the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth).
And the fate of these Jews/Christians who believe in Ezra/Jesus is the 'Son of God' and not merely a 'messenger' ?? see below verse 9:30 :
And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
These subsequent verses, therefore appear to throw a spanner in the works over your view how Allah views Christians, and Jews. How will they be be allowed into paradise if their beliefs are unacceptable to Allah ? He has already made it clear that the Christians who believe Jesus is God won't be allowed beyond the pearly gates p, and he doesn't seem too keen on allowing entry to the Christians who believe Jesus is the Son of God either ! In fact he curses them. Surely this means the majority (if not all) of Christians and Jews would be classed as 'unbelievers' based on the criteria set down by Allah, and therefore not accepted, either by Allah or Muslims.
There were still some remnants of pre-Pauline theoligical belief in Arabia (what we now know as Christianity has come from the missionary work of St. Paul, not the twelve apostles who knew Jesus).
St. Paul never met Jesus and he invented the Divine being sacrificed for our sins and who did away with Judaic law.
By contrast Jesus and his followers were Nazarene/Essene Hebrews who followed Judaic law. The earliest christian groups (Ebionites, Nazarenes, etc.,) did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, and their teaching was completely compatible with the teaching of Muhammed on this point. Muhammed worked as a trader for his first wife and that involved travelling with her caravans to places where he met and conversed with Arabian 'Christian' monks and hermits.
The Koran doesn't refer to 'Christians' but to Nazarenes (nasrani)
Whether the correct translation in those verses is 'Nazerenes' or 'Christians', the principal point I am making remains, ie The Quran has systematically made it clear that the majority of Christians on the planet are disbelievers and therefore destined to burn in hell. If Allah has made it clear that any of the "Nazerenes" believe in the divinity of Christ, then they are disbelievers. So why would Allah's view be any different towards other Christians sects, wherever there geographical location be ?
[/quote]been-there wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:05 pmAnd I repeat the distinction explained above. If a deity is telling a simple, desert-dweller through the Angel Gabriel, which people that deity will be admitting into Heaven, what is the illiterate son-of-the-desert supposed to do? He has to deliver the message. But in my view that doesn't detract from the historical evidence that Muhammed as a person sought peaceful, tolerant co-existence with everyone. Even with the polytheistic 'unbelievers' in Mecca and EVEN AFTER they had attempted to murder him and then attacked his fledgling community in Medina twice with huge armies! That seems quite tolerant and forgiving to me.
If, as you believe , Mohammed did seek peaceful, tolerant co-existence with everyone, this was despite the words of his god , which as demonstrated, were anything but tolerant and peaceful.
Are you saying that the verses 5:72 , 5:75 and 9:30 were not revealed after the verses you quoted, being 2:62 and 5:69 ?been-there wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:05 pmFirst, the revelations in the Koran haven't been compiled in the chronological order that they were revealed!Lupus Rothstein wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:23 pmSee previous response above. These verses are contradicted by the later verses I quoted above. 5:72, 5:75 and 9:30. Note, it appears when Muhammad has achieved religous and territorial dominance in his later life, the later verses that are revealed simultaneously appear significantly less 'tolerant' to non-Muslims !! So, I cannot agree with you when you claim that these 'box-ticked' non-Muslims would be 'accepted'.
And secondly, as I read them, they don't contradict. As I see it, the message remained the same. Muhammad and muslims still today believe that the message from Yahweh/Allah/God has always been the same. And Muhammad himself believed and taught that what he was delivering was the EXACT same message from the EXACT same deity, which was a message that could be traced back to Jesus, Moses and Abraham: no false idols; no other deities; be good; do good.
As far as I am aware the final verse two verses are 9 and 5. These contain numerous more offensive and intolerant messages than the earlier ones.
I believe the Kray Twins used to demand "protection money" too. As did the Mafia and the Triads. However I doubt that you would be trumpeting this form of 'taxation' as being very 'tolerant' !been-there wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:05 pmRegarding the Jizyah or tax on non-muslims. That is a big subject. Very briefly, at its origin it was a tax for protection ('dhimmi') as non-muslims weren't permitted to serve in the army. Non-muslims were protected in muslim society. Not just tolerated, PROTECTED and given full rights.Lupus Rothstein wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 12:23 pm
Again, the chronology of these verses need to be factored in before we can determine the reality of Islamic conquest during the time of Muhammed. Here is another later verse 9:29, which again appears to contradict earlier more 'tolerant' verses :
Note the added injustice of what can only be described as an extortion racket on Christians and Jews who do not 'submit to Allah'. Again, this doesn't appear very 'tolerant' or 'peace-loving' does it ? So , if there is 'no compulsion in religion' then why are religious people of other faiths 'compulsed' to pay this extortion tax, just because their religion is different to that of their Islamic conquerers ?
Also, the above verse appears to contradict your view that Muhammad did not insist on conversion. When read in conjunction with the hadiths of Sadih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari , it appears this is exactly what was occurring . Conquered non-Muslims had 3 choices - 1) Submit to Allah (convert to Islam) 2) Pay the Jizyah or 3) Death (?) . I am assuming 'death' is the third, what else could it be ?
Related Hadiths :
"If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them" Sahih Muslim 19:4294
Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." Sahih Bukhari 53:386
Proof that the Jizyah tax wasn't an intolerant taxation for following the 'wrong' religion is the indisputable evidence that Christian monks and clergy were exempt from paying it. But sure, there were abuses later in different places at different times. As with all religions.
I acknowledge the exemptions you mentioned. But whether this was the actual reality in general reamains to be seen. I doubt it somehow, do you ?
The key issue here, which you may or may not agree with, is that the general population of non-Muslims under Islamic rule suffered under a dual tax system. They paid more tax than followers of Islam. So where is the fairness and "tolerance" in that ?
[/quote]been-there wrote: ↑Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:05 pmWell just to be clear I didn't enquire as some sort of a one-upmanship comparison or a contest. I only ask because there is a historical context that I believe is crucial to understanding these messages that later — after Muhhamad's demise — were collected, put in an order and written down for posterity and for the guidance of new followers.
Fair enough. But the main point of my participation here was just to take issue with your view that the Quran promotes respect and tolerance etc. I do not have the time currently to explore other sub-topics in great detail, but i do acknowledge the importance of determining the actual historical reality of how the Islamic dynasties treated non-Muslims post-Mohammed. And how they interpreted the verses in the Quran. Maybe another time and topic thread .
Been-there is engaging in Talmudic style apologetics that rabbis do for Judaism. Except he's doing it for Islam. He's splitting hairs. Christians were the only ones to whom the title "nazarene" would be applicable. That's also how the rabbis referred to Christians in the Talmud.The Koran doesn't refer to 'Christians' but to Nazarenes (nasrani)
When the Talmud was translated into the complete English Soncino edition in the 1930's many euphemisms were used in place of Christian such as 'idolator' or 'cuthean.' But we know what those really mean. Especially since the Steinsaltz English translation of the Talmud (never completed) revealed horrible anti-Gentile bigotry, even against innocent, well behaving Gentiles.
There isn't. But been-there is interested in defending Muslims because they are brown. That's all. He has many traits of regressive liberals. He seriously thinks that the Koran and the Hadith is the ONLY BODY of western religious thought that preaches tolerance. Jews and Christians have horrible religious texts. Only Muslims have the good, nice ones.
Idiotic and dishonest strawman distortion of what I think and what I argued.Werd wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 6:29 pm..been-there is interested in defending Muslims because they are brown. That's all.
...He seriously thinks that the Koran and the Hadith is the ONLY BODY of western religious thought that preaches tolerance. Jews and Christians have horrible religious texts. Only Muslims have the good, nice ones.
Seriously, when you need to distort so blatantly my position, I think it shows you have no rational argument, only emotional prejudice that you can't analyse nor let go of.
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
Been-there now pretends he is not defending the Koran saying it promotes tolerance. I.E. Doing what I say he is doing.
Been-there is perfectly aware of how horribly anti-Gentile and pro-pedophile the Talmud is as well as the Zohar.
So he can't pretend he doesn't think of Judaism like I justly accuse him of. He also can't pretend to be ignorant of how horrible the Old Testament is that Christians also love to the point of remaining silent when Israel ethnically cleanses and slaughters the Palestinians.been-there wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:37 pmConfirmation that the attitudes advocated in the Bar-Hayim lecture — of how Jews should view their neighbours — are wide-spread among Israeli Jews is shown here with them being interviewed at random:
Young Jewish women say that ALL Arabs have to be killed and then they laugh about it.
A Jewish guy of about thirty yrs old says 'they' should be “carpet bombed”, there's no other options.
been-there wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:48 pmThe following is a lecture by Rabbi David Bar-Hayim.
Bar-Hayim is an “Israeli Orthodox rabbi who heads the Shilo Institute (Machon Shilo), a Jerusalem-based rabbinical court and institute of Jewish education dedicated to the Torah of Israel”.
Points from the lecture with the time they are said:
@09:20 The Torah teaches that the life of a Jew is more precious than the life of a non-Jew.
@10:00 God (HaShem) prefers Jews to non-Jews and gives them a special status.
@11:00 The notion that Jews and non-Jews are equally precious to God contradicts the spirit of the Torah from beginning to end.
@16:40 According to Shimon bar Yochia (aka Rashbi) “the best of non-Jews should be killed” during any war situation because just as Jews cannot know if a snake approaching them is venomous or not, Jews cannot know which non-Jew is a danger to them.
@25:16 Jews must assume that it is likely that any non-Jew they meet does not live by the Noahide Laws.
According to Wikipedia the Noahide Laws are a “are a set of imperatives which, according to the Talmud, were given by God as a binding set of laws for the “children of Noah” – that is, all of humanity”. Here are these laws as listed by Maimonides himself:
Prohibition of idolatry
Prohibition of blasphemy
Prohibition of murder
Prohibition of sexual immorality
Prohibition of theft
Prohibition of eating parts of a still living creature
Imperative of legal system
...the penalty for breaking any one of these laws, according to Rabbi David Bar-Hayim, is death. Second, this list uses a euphemism when it speaks of “idolatry”. What is meant here is “Avodah Zarah” [Hebrew: "foreign religion" or "strange worship"]. ?..To put it simply, the religions of the aliens, the other nations, the goyim. This is exactly the accusation made by Pharisaic Talmudists against Christianity. ...this might come as a shock to many, but according to Pharisaic Talmudists, all Christians deserve to be killed for the sin of idolatry.
I am sure that there are those who are absolutely convinced that that is a gross misrepresentation of fact, that there is no way “Judaism” would really teach any such horrors. Think again, and listen to the Rabbi himself:
@25:33 Those who do not keep the Seven Noahide Laws are guilty of a capital offence.
@25:49 As “Avoda Zara” = idolatry is a punishable crime this means all non-Jews are breaking the laws of Noah and therefore deserve to be killed.
@26:15 since you cannot bring a non-Jew to court to establish his guilt, you take a neutral position by neither helping him nor killing him.
You got that? Since, like with snakes, it is impossible to tell a dangerous non-Jew apart from a safe one, you cannot just kill him. For that you need a ruling by a rabbinical court. But saving him is no option either, because he most likely deserves the death penalty (say, for being a Christian). So you do nothing when you see a non-Jew in danger or even perishing. Interestingly enough, the Rabbi is also asked if that kind of non-assistance to a person in danger could not negatively impact the reputation of Jews and he immediately replies:
@1:22:00 if not saving a non-Jew makes Jews look bad, then the Jew ought to lie about his motives
So it is okay to let a non-Jew die and, if challenged, just lie about it!
The key concept here is simple: Jews are more important to God and, therefore, to themselves than non-Jews. This is why
@1:00:30 there is no requirement to return a lost object to a non-Jew
@1:17:40 Jews can brake the sabbath to save a Jew but not a non-Jew because Jews do not consider all lives to be equal
I will stop the examples here.
The Rabbi clearly says that the humanistic notion that all humans are equal is contrary to the entire spirit of the Torah.
What makes the video by Rabbi David Bar-Hayim so interesting is that it is
3) that he really confirms it all...
Finally, for all the (alas many) bone-headed racists out there, none of that Pharisaic ideology is transmissible by genes so please don’t give me that “all Jews” nonsense. Some Jews do espouse these views, others don’t. Remember, Jews are not a race or ethnicity, they are a tribe. A Jew who completely rejects all this religiously-sanctioned racism about goyims does not somehow still mysteriously still carry in himself some “Talmudic bacillum” which can flare up and turn him overnight into a hate-filled racist.
[Sidebar: For whatever it is worth, in my life I have seen more kindness and compassion from (secular) Jews than from my fellow Orthodox Christians. Very often in my life I have had secular Jews being like the good Good Samaritan from the Gospel (Luke 10:25-37).
So there we have it: the root causes of antisemitism are not to be found in some weird cause-less aberration common to every single nation on earth, but in the teachings of Pharisaic Talmudism.
What is exceptionally pernicious is that by what could be referred to as cultural-osmosis, non-religious Jews find themselves raised in a secular culture which still hods this kinds of beliefs, minus their external religious trappings.
So yes it's clear been-there has a problem with the Jewish Talmud and the Jewish and Christian Old Testament. Therefore, let's combine his correct disgust of the rabbi's Talmud and his correct disgust of the Old Testament's warrior god that loves when Israel slaughters nations and takes the leftover women and girls for themselves, etc, that Christians ALSO support since they LOVE the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. What picture do we therefore got of been-there? It's clear that he has a problem with Jewish and Christian texts. Combine that with his defense of the Koran, we can see what his views are on the three religions and their corresponding texts. In other words, he thinks exactly like I accuse him of. Jewish and Christian texts = bad. Muslim texts = good. He's just mad that I can put two and two together because I have a good memory of what he has posted and also how to find it with a search engine. Just to further enrage him, I'm going to remind him of his past failure to prove his case that I'm some kind of unwitting or unknowing pawn of some Zionist agenda.been-there wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:02 am.
The 'holy' scripture here below is from the Hebrew TORAH (its also included in the Christian Old Testament as Numbers 31).
'Torah' means 'instructions'. I.e. its a training manual.
In Hebrew, the book is called Bmidbar, which means 'in a desert,' because it is the account of their forty years of wandering about.
It can be taken as a sign of the mentality of Jewish (and Christian) culture that this memorialised, genocidal behaviour is justified by them as being ordered by their 'holy' prophet, the founder of the jewish religion. They even claim that it was sanctioned by their tribal 'God'.
This they then proudly recorded for posterity and is still revered in a supposedly 'holy' book?!
The Jewsh 'prophet' Moses — claiming to be following the Jewish tribal God Yahweh’s command — instructs Yahweh's 'chosen people' the Jews to finish their invasive military operation against the Midianites. They've already killed ALL the men. Read on...
The Lord said to Moses “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”
So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites so that they may carry out the Lord’s vengeance on them.”
...They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man.
...The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest...
...Moses was angry with the officers of the army...
“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them.
“Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”
...The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.
...Moses and Eleazar the priest accepted from them [the commanders] the gold — all the crafted articles. All the gold from the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds that Moses and Eleazar presented as a gift to the Lord weighed 16,750 shekels. Each soldier had taken plunder for himself. Moses and Eleazar the priest accepted the gold from the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds and brought it into the tent of meeting as a memorial for the Israelites before the Lord.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
Defending the Koran and remaining hush hush about the problems Muslims are causing in Europe with rape and other violence (outside of calling me an islamophobe and falsely accusing me of hating all Muslims), is just his way of virtue signaling. He has an easily detectable motive for going soft on Islam and Muslims: So that we can focus on the Jews and the Zionist media and war machine (he never explains why we can't do both and be appreciative of how the Muslims screw up neighbourhoods while Jews screw up governments and media). Nessie wants to make Muslims look innocent so that hatred doesn't grow and spread and then another holocaust of minorities, including Jews, doesn't happen again. They both lie for their own reasons, for their own imagined "greater good."Werd wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:49 amAnd you're back on this bullshit again. Okay fine. Come back and prove it.I STILL think because of that you have become an unwitting agent/pawn of a Zionist agenda.Don't run away this time like a coward. Define unwitting agent/pawn/shill, whatever... and then link and quote. You refused to do it last time. Wanna try again?Werd wrote: ↑Mon Dec 24, 2018 12:53 pmThe reason been-there wastes time on words like "from" and "anymore" and "unwitting" (only to lose), is to avoid what I showed on page 3
and page 4
It has been a while. How about tonight? Or tomorrow?
Turkey’s Erdogan: “Our God commands us to be violent towards the kuffar” (infidels)
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Artic ... aspx/24727
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/11/turk ... r-infidels
- Posts: 6380
- Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
- Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Is this a mere opinion or do you have some qualifications?Lupus Rothstein wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 1:26 pmLooks like Turkey's Muslim president Erdogan has also 'misrepresented' his own religion's scriptures too. If the reports are accurate then he has basically confirmed what we already know about this 'religion' . But then again, maybe he's just another Islamophobe displaying prejudice and ignorance about the 'Religion of Peace'
Turkey’s Erdogan: “Our God commands us to be violent towards the kuffar” (infidels)
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Artic ... aspx/24727
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/11/turk ... r-infidels
𝕴𝖈𝖍 𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙𝖘...𝕾𝖔𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖌𝖊𝖍𝖙 𝖓𝖚𝖗 𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖑
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests