This week in Islam

[dialamah]

15 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

So no...you can not.

Apparently, you can't actually comprehend what you read.

[Infidel Dog]

33 minutes ago, Marocc said:

I've underlined what happened according to the translated article.

And that's why they call it islamophobia.

 

As if X nationality, skin colour and citizenship or lack of it equal being a Muslim.

Some of you think you're above this thread, but the truth is you eat half of what they feed you.

I'm not sure what you're talking about but at least you don't deny the central facts of what happened anymore. It did happen.

It happened and Jihad Watch quoted the facts from other media.

Your denial of the facts was a lie.

What you seem to be objecting to now is Spencer's prelude question to the facts of the case which went like this:

Quote

This is a frequent jihadi tactic. The Islamic State (ISIS) issued this call in September 2014:

So O muwahhid, do not let this battle pass you by wherever you may be. You must strike the soldiers, patrons, and troops of the tawaghit. Strike their police, security, and intelligence members, as well as their treacherous agents. Destroy their beds. Embitter their lives for them and busy them with themselves. If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be….If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him….

Did this call or others like it have anything to do with the murder of Axelle Dorier? Given the reticence of French authorities to acknowledge the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, we may never know.

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

And Spencer's question is totally centered on the question of ideology. It has nothing to do with 

Quote

nationality, skin colour and citizenship or lack of it

He's asking if cases like the vehicular homicide of Axelle Dorier can be connected to the mindset inculcated into a radical Islamic mind by organizations like the Islamic State.

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Apparently, you can't actually comprehend what you read.

 

No worries. I'll just use it against you in the future.

[Marocc]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

I'm not sure what you're talking about but at least you don't deny the central facts of what happened anymore. It did happen.

It happened and Jihad Watch quoted the facts from other media.

Your denial of the facts was a lie.

What you seem to be objecting to now is Spencer's prelude question to the facts of the case which went like this:

 

I hadn't even thought of that.

no, I never objected to the possibility that someone somewhere sometime was hit by a car.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Marocc said:

I hadn't even thought of that.

no, I never objected to the possibility that someone somewhere sometime was hit by a car.

 

You're just covering for your Jihadi buds.

[Infidel Dog]

1 minute ago, Marocc said:

I hadn't even thought of that.

no, I never objected to the possibility that someone somewhere sometime was hit by a car.

What were you saying "never happened." then. Because that did happen and the angry homicidal manner in which the Islamic perp conducted that crime made French citizens who had been observing similar crimes of anger from the followers of the warlord Mohammed wonder what was at the bottom of it.

[DogOnPorch]

17 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

What were you saying "never happened." then. Because that did happen and the angry homicidal manner in which the Islamic perp conducted that crime made French citizens who had been observing similar crimes of anger from the followers of the warlord Mohammed wonder what was at the bottom of it.

 

I guess a slave owning warlord that boinked kids is more appealing to today's sophisticated religion follower than a Birkenstock clad hippy carpenter that pissed off the Romans. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by DogOnPorch

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I support religious rights.  Totalitarians don't support religious rights.  Anti-liberals don't support religious rights.

This thread is about tarring people with the crimes of others and perpetuating myths that only work as part of a propaganda hate machine.

You are free to engage in deplorable behaviour.

Do you support the right to lock up women for years for having a miscarriage or a still birth?  That seems to be a religious right in El Salvador.  There was a woman released just this week after serving six years for her crimes.  I don't know how one would decry such religious barbarism and yet be accused of tarring all Christians, so I feel nothing but bemusement when I hear from those who find the decrying of a far worse, far more barbaric religion, just a tarring, and nothing more.  There are enough Muslims who commit atrocities for their God, and far, far more who think such is justified, even if they didn't participate, that tarring is not actually required. 

If people would actually discuss the fact that there are countries with the death penalty for homosexuality, blasphemy, adultery, etc, and that there are an awful lot of Muslims who think such things are good ideas, or, at least, justifiable in certain situations, instead of pretending they don't exist, then there would be no need for accusations of tarring.  We would have enough to be going on with.

If one concentrates on just the awful people, of any religion, is it still deplorable?

Edited September 25, 2020 by bcsapper

[Infidel Dog]

 

Yeah El Salvador is a pretty backward little country. Hard to believe they're governed as a Democratic Republic.

Technically I think the woman was charged for murder. I think the hospital said the miscarriage was an abortion. Their law considers abortion murder. Still...no excuse.

In countries run on the Islamic law of Sharia we find this:

British woman 'arrested in Dubai after being raped'

This will make you think twice before ever handing over your passport again.

Women jailed for being raped in countries run by Islamic law has been happening for years and as far as I know still does.

 

Quote

The United Arab Emirates follows Sharia Law, which is the traditional Islamic law.

Under Sharia Law, people are prohibited from having sex outside of marriage and, unfortunately, rape falls under that law.

Under Sharia law, a rape allegation is not considered by the courts unless it was witnessed by at least four Muslim men who are each willing to testify and attest that the sex was non consensual.

Then there's this business of what Mohammed called "what the right hand possesses."

Basically according to Mohammed if you take possession of a woman who's an unbeliever she's yours to "till as you would your soil." So if you're say, doing some Gang Grooming of young British girls you can justify that in your mind and your community by quoting the Koran. 

Edited September 25, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

 

Yeah El Salvador is a pretty backward little country. Hard to believe they're governed as a Democratic Republic.

Technically I think the woman was charged for murder. I think the hospital said the miscarriage was an abortion. Their law considers abortion murder. Still...no excuse.

In countries run on the Islamic law of Sharia we find this:

British woman 'arrested in Dubai after being raped'

This will make you think twice before ever handing over your passport again.

Women jailed for being raped in countries run by Islamic law has been happening for years and as far as I know still does.

 

Then there's this business of what Mohammed called "what the right hand possesses."

Basically according to Mohammed if you take possession of a woman who's an unbeliever she's yours to "till as you would your soil." So if you're say, doing some Gang Grooming of young British girls you can justify that in your mind and your community by quoting the Koran. 

Yup.  Now, if anyone was to suggest to me that I would find any Muslim who abhors such things as much as I do anything less than salt of the earth, I would be very much aggrieved indeed.

[Infidel Dog]

Muslims? What do they have to do with the Republic of El Salvador's law against abortion?

If you're interested though, as I understand it most Shariah governed societies allow abortions, at least in cases where the mother's health is at risk or there are fetal abnormalities. 

I don't know of an Islamic country where they allow late term abortions. The way I heard it the Koran opposes infanticide. So they got that much right, anyway.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Muslims? What do they have to do with the Republic of El Salvador's law against abortion?

 

You mean apart from the fact that both are capable of doing barbaric things to people who don't deserve it?

Nothing whatsoever.  Why?

 

Edited September 25, 2020 by bcsapper

[Marocc]

27 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You mean apart from the fact that both are capable of doing barbaric things to people who don't deserve it?

Nothing whatsoever.  Why?

 

It was brought up as though it was directly related to Muslims...

[Marocc]

Did no one comment at all on the Charlie Hebdo magazine? Really you people have been distracted. Now who will inform the world? Who will defend Canada? Who will protect your liberty??!

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Marocc said:

It was brought up as though it was directly related to Muslims...

No it wasn't.  It was brought up as an example of egregious religious behaviour.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Did no one comment at all on the Charlie Hebdo magazine? Really you people have been distracted. Now who will inform the world? Who will defend Canada? Who will protect your liberty??!

There was a knife attack there today, but no motive has been reported yet.  It is France, after all, so maybe just crime of passion.

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, Marocc said:

Did no one comment at all on the Charlie Hebdo magazine? Really you people have been distracted. Now who will inform the world? Who will defend Canada? Who will protect your liberty??!

Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.

[Marocc]

46 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.

You should really use quotation marks, or alternatively, if you decide to twist the words, say it is your adulteration.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Marocc said:

You should really use quotation marks, or alternatively, if you decide to twist the words, say it is your adulteration.

 

Your Quran...verbatim 

[Marocc]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Your Quran...verbatim 

No. The Quran is only in Arabic.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Marocc said:

No. The Quran is only in Arabic.

 

Guess again.

[Marocc]

38 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Guess again.

Well, you ought to know, I think the Qur'an is beautiful and perfect in every way. There is no verse in it that I wouldn't like to ponder.

[DogOnPorch]

4 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Well, you ought to know, I think the Qur'an is beautiful and perfect in every way. There is no verse in it that I wouldn't like to ponder.

 

Yup...like striking at the necks of the Unbeliever...always a fun time.

[Marocc]

3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Yup...like striking at the necks of the Unbeliever...always a fun time.

.....not a verse....