Arab boycott on France begins!

[Insaanistan]

Source?

I wouldn't hold your breath. I've asked for sources a couple of times now and am still waiting on them.

Muafi.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 6IEBtMK4rF https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 24hErJF8dx
https://www.en24news.com/2020/10/jordan ... ted-2.html

[The Lone Alliance]

If the vast majority of muslims are peaceful and tolerant, they would have been eroded, just like witch burning no longer exists in christian nations, Christianity had to "grow up" as it were.

And a large reason why Christianity did have to grow up is the enlightenment looked at it honestly and went "Oh wow we've done some fucked up shit", the problem with Islam is whenever they look at their fucked up shit they simply shift the blame to someone else and never accept any responsibility.

It's a large problem in the world today, people not accepting responsibility for their own stupidity and simply finding something to blame.

Or the person claims victimhood and claim the reason why they're acting like a complete idiot is because of their victimization.

[Sanghyeok]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54742403

I think this might make things even worse.

[Albionist Great Britain]

If the vast majority of muslims are peaceful and tolerant, they would have been eroded, just like witch burning no longer exists in christian nations, Christianity had to "grow up" as it were.

And a large reason why Christianity did have to grow up is the enlightenment looked at it honestly and went "Oh wow we've done some fucked up shit", the problem with Islam is whenever they look at their fucked up shit they simply shift the blame to someone else and never accept any responsibility.

It's a large problem in the world today, people not accepting responsibility for their own stupidity and simply finding something to blame.

Or the person claims victimhood and claim the reason why they're acting like a complete idiot is because of their victimization.

The first step to rectifying a problem is recognising one. Unfortunately, to most Muslims Islam and the Quran are infallible and ‘perfect’ so the root of the problem goes ignored while apologists blame the individual for ‘taking scripture out of context’ and all of that - while many outright agree or support the attackers wholesale.

What needs to happen is an Islamic Reformation. No ifs nor buts.

[Insaanistan]

And a large reason why Christianity did have to grow up is the enlightenment looked at it honestly and went "Oh wow we've done some fucked up shit", the problem with Islam is whenever they look at their fucked up shit they simply shift the blame to someone else and never accept any responsibility.

It's a large problem in the world today, people not accepting responsibility for their own stupidity and simply finding something to blame.

Or the person claims victimhood and claim the reason why they're acting like a complete idiot is because of their victimization.

The first step to rectifying a problem is recognising one. Unfortunately, to most Muslims Islam and the Quran are infallible and ‘perfect’ so the root of the problem goes ignored while apologists blame the individual for ‘taking scripture out of context’ and all of that - while many outright agree or support the attackers wholesale.

What needs to happen is an Islamic Reformation. No ifs nor buts.

The thing is terrorists ARE taking it out of context. Islam needs no reformation. TG me or put in IDT any verse you think is problematic, and Zizou, Jolthig or I will explain it.

[The Restored Danelaw]

The first step to rectifying a problem is recognising one. Unfortunately, to most Muslims Islam and the Quran are infallible and ‘perfect’ so the root of the problem goes ignored while apologists blame the individual for ‘taking scripture out of context’ and all of that - while many outright agree or support the attackers wholesale.

What needs to happen is an Islamic Reformation. No ifs nor buts.

Islam had its reformation. It didn't end any better -by all measures it became worse. It wasn't the Reformation that had Christianity fixed. It was generations of religious war and a reasonable percentage of the people going "alright, enough is enough, religion can stay in the private.". Unlike Christianity, Islam is figuratively incapable of "remaining" in the private, because it is, rather than a religion, a political ideology designed for totalitarian rule. Returning it to its figurative "roots" will basically be ISIS, as that is what Islam, at its roots and in the first 100-150years of its history, was.

[Insaanistan]

The first step to rectifying a problem is recognising one. Unfortunately, to most Muslims Islam and the Quran are infallible and ‘perfect’ so the root of the problem goes ignored while apologists blame the individual for ‘taking scripture out of context’ and all of that - while many outright agree or support the attackers wholesale.

What needs to happen is an Islamic Reformation. No ifs nor buts.

Islam had its reformation. It didn't end any better -by all measures it became worse. It wasn't the Reformation that had Christianity fixed. It was generations of religious war and a reasonable percentage of the people going "alright, enough is enough, religion can stay in the private.". Unlike Christianity, Islam is figuratively incapable of "remaining" in the private, because it is, rather than a religion, a political ideology designed for totalitarian rule. Returning it to its figurative "roots" will basically be ISIS, as that is what Islam, at its roots and in the first 100-150years of its history, was.

This whole statement demonstrates a gross lack of knowledge of history. The Qur’ân explicitly says,
“Whoever takes an innocent life, it is as if he has killed all of mankind. And whoever saves an innocent life, it is as if he has saved all of mankind.”
Muhammad (pbuh) himself warned of violent people with black banners etc etc and told Muslims that we should never join them.
Muhammad (pbuh)’s actions don’t correspond with what ISIS says, as much as you’d like us to believe that. Islam is not a religion of terrorism. Many leaders, such as Timur-i-Leng (Tamerlane), Aurangzeb, and Shah Ismail I did force Islam on people and were by all means terrorists. Notice however, that they came into conflict with other Muslims, not just non-Muslims. Additionally, for a majority of Islamic history, conversion to Islam was voluntary, not forced. Even when. Muslim empire got so bad people began to flee, they usually fled to another Muslim empire, like the Jewish scholar Maimonides.
But you’d rather point to Iran, Saudi and Pakistan and pretend if they do it it must be Islamic and all Muslims most love it. Go ahead. I’m ready.

[Ethel mermania]

The first step to rectifying a problem is recognising one. Unfortunately, to most Muslims Islam and the Quran are infallible and ‘perfect’ so the root of the problem goes ignored while apologists blame the individual for ‘taking scripture out of context’ and all of that - while many outright agree or support the attackers wholesale.

What needs to happen is an Islamic Reformation. No ifs nor buts.

The thing is terrorists ARE taking it out of context. Islam needs no reformation. TG me or put in IDT any verse you think is problematic, and Zizou, Jolthig or I will explain it.

according to you, (and I am glad you do not believe they are not what is being stated by the leaders in the middle east).

But according to the folks advocating and committing these crimes in the name of Allah, they are following the right path, and it is you and your friends who are misinterpreting the quoran. And to be honest as long as those committing the harm are saying they are doing it in the name of Allah, i have to take them at their word.

[The Restored Danelaw]

This whole statement demonstrates a gross lack of knowledge of history. The Qur’ân explicitly says,
“Whoever takes an innocent life, it is as if he has killed all of mankind. And whoever saves an innocent life, it is as if he has saved all of mankind.”
Muhammad (pbuh) himself warned of violent people with black banners etc etc and told Muslims that we should never join them.
Muhammad (pbuh)’s actions don’t correspond with what ISIS says, as much as you’d like us to believe that. Islam is not a religion of terrorism. Many leaders, such as Timur-i-Leng (Tamerlane), Aurangzeb, and Shah Ismail I did force Islam on people and were by all means terrorists. Notice however, that they came into conflict with other Muslims, not just non-Muslims. Additionally, for a majority of Islamic history, conversion to Islam was voluntary, not forced. Even when. Muslim empire got so bad people began to flee, they usually fled to another Muslim empire, like the Jewish scholar Maimonides.
But you’d rather point to Iran, Saudi and Pakistan and pretend if they do it it must be Islamic and all Muslims most love it. Go ahead. I’m ready.

This entire argument -like literally everything else you've posted throughout your tenure on this website- stinks of condescending bad faith posting in a way that I am genuinely at the risk of bans if I am to put up with, and as such not going to get into with after that whole fiasco with EAC. Literally anyone who suggests that any single person took Islam voluntarily in its age of expansion is so wrong they don't deserve to be paid any attention to on any level. Tell that to the people Muhammad butchered in Arabia, or Umar and his successors (until like, Harun roughly 150ish years later) did to Iran, Egypt or the Middle East. Or to the shit that the Ottomans did to the Balkans. Or even non-ruling Muslims did to Afghanistan not even 250 years ago. Bringing up verses that literally no human being has interpreted the way you do until 1960s just reeks of lying, which isn't that surprising as that is literally all you've done since you started posting here.

[Pan Evropa]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54742403

I think this might make things even worse.

time to completely close our external borders. Refugee from the war-torn country of.... Tunisia. right...

[Insaanistan]

This whole statement demonstrates a gross lack of knowledge of history. The Qur’ân explicitly says,
“Whoever takes an innocent life, it is as if he has killed all of mankind. And whoever saves an innocent life, it is as if he has saved all of mankind.”
Muhammad (pbuh) himself warned of violent people with black banners etc etc and told Muslims that we should never join them.
Muhammad (pbuh)’s actions don’t correspond with what ISIS says, as much as you’d like us to believe that. Islam is not a religion of terrorism. Many leaders, such as Timur-i-Leng (Tamerlane), Aurangzeb, and Shah Ismail I did force Islam on people and were by all means terrorists. Notice however, that they came into conflict with other Muslims, not just non-Muslims. Additionally, for a majority of Islamic history, conversion to Islam was voluntary, not forced. Even when. Muslim empire got so bad people began to flee, they usually fled to another Muslim empire, like the Jewish scholar Maimonides.
But you’d rather point to Iran, Saudi and Pakistan and pretend if they do it it must be Islamic and all Muslims most love it. Go ahead. I’m ready.

This entire argument -like literally everything else you've posted throughout your tenure on this website- stinks of condescending bad faith posting in a way that I am genuinely at the risk of bans if I am to put up with, and as such not going to get into with after that whole fiasco with EAC. Literally anyone who suggests that any single person took Islam voluntarily in its age of expansion is so wrong they don't deserve to be paid any attention to on any level. Tell that to the people Muhammad butchered in Arabia, or Umar and his successors (until like, Harun roughly 150ish years later) did to Iran, Egypt or the Middle East. Or to the shit that the Ottomans did to the Balkans. Or even non-ruling Muslims did to Afghanistan not even 250 years ago. Bringing up verses that literally no human being has interpreted the way you do until 1960s just reeks of lying, which isn't that surprising as that is literally all you've done since you started posting here.

No human being interpreted them that way? Then why did Jews flourish during the Islamic Golden Age? Why didn’t Muslims kill all the non-believers? My people would have been massacred, but the only ones who ever massacred us were the British.
Islamic conversion WAS largely voluntary, as the Khalifahs at the time were not keen to force conversions, and neither was Muhammad (pbuh). By butchered people are you referring to the Jewish soldiers who plotted to kill him, broke the treaty, betrayed him to his enemies and/or engaged in armed rebellion against him? Ūmar? His last order to Ūthman was to make sure he continued Ūmar’s policy of making sure the Zoroastrians were treated equally. When he conquered Jerusalem? He prayed OUTSIDE of a church, and when the Christians assured him he was allowed to pray inside and asked why he wouldn’t, he said, “I was afraid that if I were to pray INSIDE, the people would say ‘This is the place where Ūmar prayed’ and would turn it into a mosque instead.”
The Iranians have a habit of trying to demonize Ūmar because, well, he’s not Āli. Westerners also tried to pin the burning of the Library of Alexandria on him, but now historians say it was Julius Caesar, not Ūmar, and that he wouldn’t have done it any way because “the Muslims loved books to much to do that.”
Were Zoroastrians ever persecuted? Definitely. Again, Shah Ismail I (who also persecuted Sunnis). The ones killed in the initial conquest and its aftermath? People who tried to revolt.

The Ottomans? A bit trickier, because the empire existed for so long we can’t say they were always tolerant or always intolerant. However, when Europeans kicked Jews out of Spain, the Ottomans sent a ship to get the Jews to safety in the empire. The Ottoman Empire was completely full of refugees of other groups they had taken in. Then, you have other sultans forcing all people to be Sunni, and enticing (read “forcing”) non-Muslims to convert.

As for the interpretations. Mate, have you ever read up on the Islamic Golden Age? Scholars have been saying stuff like what I’m saying for CENTURIES. It’s not new!
Honestly, please, pick up a book that wasn’t written in 1910 by some British dude who calls us “Barbaric Mohammedan Saracens”.
LOL.

[Sanghyeok]

This entire argument -like literally everything else you've posted throughout your tenure on this website- stinks of condescending bad faith posting in a way that I am genuinely at the risk of bans if I am to put up with, and as such not going to get into with after that whole fiasco with EAC. Literally anyone who suggests that any single person took Islam voluntarily in its age of expansion is so wrong they don't deserve to be paid any attention to on any level. Tell that to the people Muhammad butchered in Arabia, or Umar and his successors (until like, Harun roughly 150ish years later) did to Iran, Egypt or the Middle East. Or to the shit that the Ottomans did to the Balkans. Or even non-ruling Muslims did to Afghanistan not even 250 years ago. Bringing up verses that literally no human being has interpreted the way you do until 1960s just reeks of lying, which isn't that surprising as that is literally all you've done since you started posting here.

No human being interpreted them that way? Then why did Jews flourish during the Islamic Golden Age? Why didn’t Muslims kill all the non-believers? My people would have been massacred, but the only ones who ever massacred us were the British.
Islamic conversion WAS largely voluntary, as the Khalifahs at the time were not keen to force conversions, and neither was Muhammad (pbuh). By butchered people are you referring to the Jewish soldiers who plotted to kill him, broke the treaty, betrayed him to his enemies and/or engaged in armed rebellion against him? Ūmar? His last order to Ūthman was to make sure he continued Ūmar’s policy of making sure the Zoroastrians were treated equally. When he conquered Jerusalem? He prayed OUTSIDE of a church, and when the Christians assured him he was allowed to pray inside and asked why he wouldn’t, he said, “I was afraid that if I were to pray INSIDE, the people would say ‘This is the place where Ūmar prayed’ and would turn it into a mosque instead.”
The Iranians have a habit of trying to demonize Ūmar because, well, he’s not Āli. Westerners also tried to pin the burning of the Library of Alexandria on him, but now historians say it was Julius Caesar, not Ūmar, and that he wouldn’t have done it any way because “the Muslims loved books to much to do that.”
Were Zoroastrians ever persecuted? Definitely. Again, Shah Ismail I (who also persecuted Sunnis). The ones killed in the initial conquest and its aftermath? People who tried to revolt.

The Ottomans? A but trickier, because the empire existed for so long we can’t say they were always tolerant or always intolerant. However, when Europeans kicked Jews out of Spain, the Ottomans sent a ship to get the Jews to safety in the empire. The Ottoman Empire was completely full of refugees of other groups they had taken in. Then, you have other sultans forcing all people to be Sunni, and enticing (read “forcing”) non-Muslims to convert.

As for the interpretations. Mate, have you ever reas up on the Islamic Golden Age? Scholars have been saying stuff like what I’m saying for CENTURIES. It’s not new!
Honestly, please, pick up a book that wasn’t written in 1910 by some British dude who calls us “Barbaric Mohammedan Saracens”.
LOL.

Look, you would have a lot more support if you argued "99% of moderate Muslims are good people", which I agree with, rather than being an apologist for every terrible action in Islam history. Christians and Hindus and Buddhists have done terrible things in their past, like every major religion.

[Insaanistan]

No human being interpreted them that way? Then why did Jews flourish during the Islamic Golden Age? Why didn’t Muslims kill all the non-believers? My people would have been massacred, but the only ones who ever massacred us were the British.
Islamic conversion WAS largely voluntary, as the Khalifahs at the time were not keen to force conversions, and neither was Muhammad (pbuh). By butchered people are you referring to the Jewish soldiers who plotted to kill him, broke the treaty, betrayed him to his enemies and/or engaged in armed rebellion against him? Ūmar? His last order to Ūthman was to make sure he continued Ūmar’s policy of making sure the Zoroastrians were treated equally. When he conquered Jerusalem? He prayed OUTSIDE of a church, and when the Christians assured him he was allowed to pray inside and asked why he wouldn’t, he said, “I was afraid that if I were to pray INSIDE, the people would say ‘This is the place where Ūmar prayed’ and would turn it into a mosque instead.”
The Iranians have a habit of trying to demonize Ūmar because, well, he’s not Āli. Westerners also tried to pin the burning of the Library of Alexandria on him, but now historians say it was Julius Caesar, not Ūmar, and that he wouldn’t have done it any way because “the Muslims loved books to much to do that.”
Were Zoroastrians ever persecuted? Definitely. Again, Shah Ismail I (who also persecuted Sunnis). The ones killed in the initial conquest and its aftermath? People who tried to revolt.

The Ottomans? A but trickier, because the empire existed for so long we can’t say they were always tolerant or always intolerant. However, when Europeans kicked Jews out of Spain, the Ottomans sent a ship to get the Jews to safety in the empire. The Ottoman Empire was completely full of refugees of other groups they had taken in. Then, you have other sultans forcing all people to be Sunni, and enticing (read “forcing”) non-Muslims to convert.

As for the interpretations. Mate, have you ever reas up on the Islamic Golden Age? Scholars have been saying stuff like what I’m saying for CENTURIES. It’s not new!
Honestly, please, pick up a book that wasn’t written in 1910 by some British dude who calls us “Barbaric Mohammedan Saracens”.
LOL.

Look, you would have a lot more support if you argued "99% of moderate Muslims are good people", which I agree with, rather than being an apologist for every terrible action in Islam history. Christians and Hindus and Buddhists have done terrible things in their past, like every major religion.

You seem not to realize (or maybe I’m not being clear), but terrible things happened in Islamic history. BUT were they representative of the majority of Islamic history or what Islam says? No.

[Lost Memories]

If the vast majority of muslims are peaceful and tolerant, they would have been eroded, just like witch burning no longer exists in christian nations, Christianity had to "grow up" as it were.

Witch hunting was a pagan practice, because christians don't believe witches to exist.

[The Alma Mater]

If the vast majority of muslims are peaceful and tolerant, they would have been eroded, just like witch burning no longer exists in christian nations, Christianity had to "grow up" as it were.

Witch hunting was a pagan practice, because christians don't believe witches to exist.

Then why does the Bible explicitly mention they should be killed ?

[Novus America]

Witch hunting was a pagan practice, because christians don't believe witches to exist.

Then why does the Bible explicitly mention they should be killed ?

Which bible? The KJV? Not everyone uses that translation.
IRC there is some dispute over the particular verse, as the term “witch” obviously did not exist in the older texts.

Then there is the whole covenant theology and so forth.

But even if it was a Christian practice, it is not really any more.
After the horrors of the Wars of Religion in the 1500s and 1600s Christianity shaped up, in a way Islam never did.

Maybe if the Islamic world has the equivalent of the Thirty Years War and the resulting Enlightenment it might get better.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Then why does the Bible explicitly mention they should be killed ?

Which bible? The KJV? Not everyone uses that translation.
IRC there is some dispute over the particular verse, as the term “witch” obviously did not exist in the older texts.

Then there is the whole covenant theology and so forth.

But even if it was a Christian practice, it is not really any more.
After the horrors of the Wars of Religion in the 1500s and 1600s Christianity shaped up, in a way Islam never did.

Maybe if the Islamic world has the equivalent of the Thirty Years War and the resulting Enlightenment it might get better.

Islam never had a reformation movement, there was no Martin Luther to challenge the doctrine of Sharia, mainly because there was no central church like the Catholic Church to use as a scapegoat

[Insaanistan]

Then why does the Bible explicitly mention they should be killed ?

Which bible? The KJV? Not everyone uses that translation.
IRC there is some dispute over the particular verse, as the term “witch” obviously did not exist in the older texts.

Then there is the whole covenant theology and so forth.

But even if it was a Christian practice, it is not really any more.
After the horrors of the Wars of Religion in the 1500s and 1600s Christianity shaped up, in a way Islam never did.

Maybe if the Islamic world has the equivalent of the Thirty Years War and the resulting Enlightenment it might get better.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=htt ... AdAAAAABAK

[-Astoria-]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54742403

I think this might make things even worse.

time to completely close our external borders. Refugee from the war-torn country of.... Tunisia. right...

Does feel a bit like a copycat attack to me.

[Insaanistan]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54742403

I think this might make things even worse.

time to completely close our external borders. Refugee from the war-torn country of.... Tunisia. right...

Completely?! Why?!
Also, wars aren’t the only things that cause people to immigrate.

[-Astoria-]

time to completely close our external borders. Refugee from the war-torn country of.... Tunisia. right...

Completely?! Why?!
Also, wars aren’t the only things that cause people to immigrate.

Making a sarcastic joke, he was.

[Sanghyeok]

Look, you would have a lot more support if you argued "99% of moderate Muslims are good people", which I agree with, rather than being an apologist for every terrible action in Islam history. Christians and Hindus and Buddhists have done terrible things in their past, like every major religion.

You seem not to realize (or maybe I’m not being clear), but terrible things happened in Islamic history. BUT were they representative of the majority of Islamic history or what Islam says? No.

Then there is no need to defend every single action, is there? Your argument right now is weak and you could make it much stronger.

[Insaanistan]

You seem not to realize (or maybe I’m not being clear), but terrible things happened in Islamic history. BUT were they representative of the majority of Islamic history or what Islam says? No.

Then there is no need to defend every single action, is there? Your argument right now is weak and you could make it much stronger.

I’m defending the actions of the Prophet (pbuh) and the first four Khalifahs, not the Ottomans raping Christian kids.

[Insaanistan]

https://id.pinterest.com/pin/298222806576746211/

[-Astoria-]

Then there is no need to defend every single action, is there? Your argument right now is weak and you could make it much stronger.

I’m defending the actions of the Prophet (pbuh) and the first four Khalifahs, not the Ottomans raping Christian kids.

Could we please not turn this thread into the IDT, though?