People only know about Islam & Muslims because of what they see in the news

[nevs666]

America invaded Iraq to topple Saddam (supposedly). And they got cheap oil out of it.

We invaded Iraq because we and other governmental intelligent agency's has suspicion that he had WMD's and had the ability to develop nukes. We know he had WMD's he gassed his own people. About that oil...

[Snake]

Now that I'm on my computer, I can tell you guys what I've tried to say;

In islam, its all forbidden, what we have done is not in the name of Allah(swt). Its in the name of their own country, in the name of their own will

ALLAH DOES NOT ACCEPT THIS NONSENSE.

Those muslims have done nothing good to the islam, they have done nothing usefull, they are WASTE!

[Empire]

Now that I'm on my computer, I can tell you guys what I've tried to say;

In islam, its all forbidden, what we have done is not in the name of Allah(swt). Its in the name of their own country, in the name of their own will

ALLAH DOES NOT ACCEPT THIS NONSENSE.

Those muslims have done nothing good to the islam, they have done nothing usefull, they are WASTE!

Again. Forbidden: Except to those god allows it.

Ironically the terrorist has just as much proof that god told them to go to war than muhammad had for his.

---------- Post added at 11:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 PM ----------

The problem is? The Meccans persecuted them, took everything they had and they can't react in self-defense?

This is the thing. The Muslims did not react violently. They fled to Medina and Abyssinia, yet they did not fight back. Then they had permission too. Yes, this did benefit Muhammad and the Muslims. How? They didn't get slaughtered by the Meccans and they fought back.

About Khaybar...

"On the reasons for the attack, Scottish historian William Montgomery Watt notes the presence in Khaybar of the Banu Nadir, who were inciting hostilities along with neighboring Arab tribes against the Islamic community in Medina. Italian orientalist Laura Veccia Vaglieri, while giving full credence to Watt's view, claims other motives included the prestige the engagement would confer upon Muhammad among his followers, as well the booty which could be used to supplement future campaigns"

America invaded Iraq to topple Saddam (supposedly). And they got cheap oil out of it.
The Muslims attacked Khaybar because they were causing strife, violence and mistrust between others. And some loot came out of it. You may not know, but the losing army usually loses resources when they lose a battle.
Treaty of Versailles
Meeting at Vienna
etc.

Just so we are clear: You just admitted that muslims do not only wage war in defense.
-Not only that, but that looting is ok in Islam. Which pretty much goes double for this point on only sefl defense battles.
-Which again, raiding caravans and killing the drivers is hardly "defense" already but w/e you are done.
------------------------------------------------------

I'm kinda baffled here. You view America's war for oil as bad. But then you turn around and say "hey an army doesn't fund itself" like that makes it ok in either scenario....


When you grow up please let me know. It gets a bit boring debating a point 3 times now that you yourself have proven my points and practically won my arguments for me.

[Snake]

Again. Forbidden: Except to those god allows it.

Ironically the terrorist has just as much proof that god told them to go to war than muhammad had for his.

---------- Post added at 11:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 PM ----------



Just so we are clear: You just admitted that muslims do not only wage war in defense.
-Not only that, but that looting is ok in Islam. Which pretty much goes double for this point on only sefl defense battles.
-Which again, raiding caravans and killing the drivers is hardly "defense" already but w/e you are done.
------------------------------------------------------

I'm kinda baffled here. You view America's war for oil as bad. But then you turn around and say "hey an army doesn't fund itself" like that makes it ok in either scenario....


When you grow up please let me know. It gets a bit boring debating a point 3 times now that you yourself have proven my points and practically won my arguments for me.

Just read the Qu'ran before you go judging.

Now that I'm on my computer, I can tell you guys what I've tried to say;

In islam, its all forbidden, what we have done is not in the name of Allah(swt). Its in the name of their own country, in the name of their own will

ALLAH DOES NOT ACCEPT THIS NONSENSE.

Those muslims have done nothing good to the islam, they have done nothing usefull, they are WASTE!

Again. Forbidden: Except to those god allows it.

Ironically the terrorist has just as much proof that god told them to go to war than muhammad had for his.

---------- Post added at 11:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 PM ----------

The problem is? The Meccans persecuted them, took everything they had and they can't react in self-defense?

This is the thing. The Muslims did not react violently. They fled to Medina and Abyssinia, yet they did not fight back. Then they had permission too. Yes, this did benefit Muhammad and the Muslims. How? They didn't get slaughtered by the Meccans and they fought back.

About Khaybar...

"On the reasons for the attack, Scottish historian William Montgomery Watt notes the presence in Khaybar of the Banu Nadir, who were inciting hostilities along with neighboring Arab tribes against the Islamic community in Medina. Italian orientalist Laura Veccia Vaglieri, while giving full credence to Watt's view, claims other motives included the prestige the engagement would confer upon Muhammad among his followers, as well the booty which could be used to supplement future campaigns"

America invaded Iraq to topple Saddam (supposedly). And they got cheap oil out of it.
The Muslims attacked Khaybar because they were causing strife, violence and mistrust between others. And some loot came out of it. You may not know, but the losing army usually loses resources when they lose a battle.
Treaty of Versailles
Meeting at Vienna
etc.

Just so we are clear: You just admitted that muslims do not only wage war in defense.
-Not only that, but that looting is ok in Islam. Which pretty much goes double for this point on only sefl defense battles.
-Which again, raiding caravans and killing the drivers is hardly "defense" already but w/e you are done.
------------------------------------------------------

I'm kinda baffled here. You view America's war for oil as bad. But then you turn around and say "hey an army doesn't fund itself" like that makes it ok in either scenario....


When you grow up please let me know. It gets a bit boring debating a point 3 times now that you yourself have proven my points and practically won my arguments for me.

And thereby: muslim terrorist have killed less than 1 million people in TOTAL with every kill counted up.

You guys killed OVER 100 million native americans, you guys killed OVER 50 million african slaves.

And then we are the terrorists? Bitch please, those 150m+ kills werent even war related. Nice try trying to hide your nationalitys mistake. We know we're not the ones doing it wrong.

Now that I'm on my computer, I can tell you guys what I've tried to say;

In islam, its all forbidden, what we have done is not in the name of Allah(swt). Its in the name of their own country, in the name of their own will

ALLAH DOES NOT ACCEPT THIS NONSENSE.

Those muslims have done nothing good to the islam, they have done nothing usefull, they are WASTE!

Again. Forbidden: Except to those god allows it.

Ironically the terrorist has just as much proof that god told them to go to war than muhammad had for his.

---------- Post added at 11:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 PM ----------

The problem is? The Meccans persecuted them, took everything they had and they can't react in self-defense?

This is the thing. The Muslims did not react violently. They fled to Medina and Abyssinia, yet they did not fight back. Then they had permission too. Yes, this did benefit Muhammad and the Muslims. How? They didn't get slaughtered by the Meccans and they fought back.

About Khaybar...

"On the reasons for the attack, Scottish historian William Montgomery Watt notes the presence in Khaybar of the Banu Nadir, who were inciting hostilities along with neighboring Arab tribes against the Islamic community in Medina. Italian orientalist Laura Veccia Vaglieri, while giving full credence to Watt's view, claims other motives included the prestige the engagement would confer upon Muhammad among his followers, as well the booty which could be used to supplement future campaigns"

America invaded Iraq to topple Saddam (supposedly). And they got cheap oil out of it.
The Muslims attacked Khaybar because they were causing strife, violence and mistrust between others. And some loot came out of it. You may not know, but the losing army usually loses resources when they lose a battle.
Treaty of Versailles
Meeting at Vienna
etc.

Just so we are clear: You just admitted that muslims do not only wage war in defense.
-Not only that, but that looting is ok in Islam. Which pretty much goes double for this point on only sefl defense battles.
-Which again, raiding caravans and killing the drivers is hardly "defense" already but w/e you are done.
------------------------------------------------------

I'm kinda baffled here. You view America's war for oil as bad. But then you turn around and say "hey an army doesn't fund itself" like that makes it ok in either scenario....


When you grow up please let me know. It gets a bit boring debating a point 3 times now that you yourself have proven my points and practically won my arguments for me.

And thereby: muslim terrorist have killed less than 1 million people in TOTAL with every kill counted up.

You guys killed OVER 100 million native americans, you guys killed OVER 50 million african slaves.

And then we are the terrorists? Bitch please, those 150m+ kills werent even war related. Nice try trying to hide your nationalitys mistake. We know we're not the ones doing it wrong.

[Empire]

And thereby: muslim terrorist have killed less than 1 million people in TOTAL with every kill counted up.

You guys killed OVER 100 million native americans, you guys killed OVER 50 million african slaves.

And then we are the terrorists? Bitch please, those 150m+ kills werent even war related. Nice try trying to hide your nationalitys mistake. We know we're not the ones doing it wrong.

First off, i don't understand how you got "muhammed waging war and promoting peace is hypocritical" was in the topic of "lets compare wars".

First off, and lets take this as a given: A country is not a religion.
-Meaning this comparison is pretty much null and void to begin with. Its like me comparing all the middle east deaths in war and violence to "the muslims killed people".

Second off: Pulling numbers out of your ass.
-Meaning: Well there weren't 100million native americans to begin with. Here:
How many Native Americans (indians) were killed in action by White americans? - Yahoo! Answers
-Also the same on slaves. There weren't that many in america at all either, much less killed.
-------------------------------------------------------

Again, comparing the two is stupid. Though i doubt you'd understand that since you would probably compare muslims to nazi's in an attempt to go "at least we aren't that bad".

[Snake]

First off, i don't understand how you got "muhammed waging war and promoting peace is hypocritical" was in the topic of "lets compare wars".

First off, and lets take this as a given: A country is not a religion.
-Meaning this comparison is pretty much null and void to begin with. Its like me comparing all the middle east deaths in war and violence to "the muslims killed people".

Second off: Pulling numbers out of your ass.
-Meaning: Well there weren't 100million native americans to begin with. Here:
How many Native Americans (indians) were killed in action by White americans? - Yahoo! Answers
-Also the same on slaves. There weren't that many in america at all either, much less killed.
-------------------------------------------------------

Again, comparing the two is stupid. Though i doubt you'd understand that since you would probably compare muslims to nazi's in an attempt to go "at least we aren't that bad".

You don't get it, do you?

There is no 'apple to pear comparing' in killing.

You know its true, if all muslims, or arabia, would of have literally exterminated a nationality, it would be known as a muslim deed.

There is no difference with the americans deeds. The difference is that now I am judging you guys the way you're judging us.

Get out of your little ignorant mind and start stating facts, life is life, not a science project.

[Empire]

You don't get it, do you?

There is no 'apple to pear comparing' in killing.

You know its true, if all muslims, or arabia, would of have literally exterminated a nationality, it would be known as a muslim deed.

There is no difference with the americans deeds. The difference is that now I am judging you guys the way you're judging us.

Get out of your little ignorant mind and start stating facts, life is life, not a science project.

Well yeah there is. First off there is civilians and military combatants. You are comparing american indians vs. americans to terrorist using a car bomb to kill civilians as if it is equal. .

The highest # of natives killed was primarily through disease also since normal viruses in england were the equivalent of plagues vs. the natives.
-------------------------------------------------------

I mean really, calling me ignorant when you bring up a topic without anywhere near realistic statistics.


Then saying terrorist vs. civilians is the equivalent of soldiers vs. soldiers? Are you serious?


Get over yourself kid. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about and you should just stay quite.

-Its kinda funny though how this actually has nothing to do with any prior topics, its like you come in here all "DERP BUT AMERICA KILLED PEOPLE" like that had anything to do with anything.

[Snake]

Well yeah there is. First off there is civilians and military combatants. You are comparing american indians vs. americans to terrorist using a car bomb to kill civilians as if it is equal. .

The highest # of natives killed was primarily through disease also since normal viruses in england were the equivalent of plagues vs. the natives.
-------------------------------------------------------

I mean really, calling me ignorant when you bring up a topic without anywhere near realistic statistics.


Then saying terrorist vs. civilians is the equivalent of soldiers vs. soldiers? Are you serious?


Get over yourself kid. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about and you should just stay quite.

-Its kinda funny though how this actually has nothing to do with any prior topics, its like you come in here all "DERP BUT AMERICA KILLED PEOPLE" like that had anything to do with anything.

Okay.
/msgtooshort

[Commander X]

Meh. Blood has been shed on both sides, this all predates our time. I'm sure everyone will be labeled some name throughout history.

[vaporak10]

Just so we are clear: You just admitted that muslims do not only wage war in defense.

I am done with you.
In desperation, you have jumped from polygamy to the Quran to war.

I said it once.

The Muslims lost everything.

They try to regain it so they can SURVIVE. How is that offensive?

Refute, disprove or debunk that one point and I WILL concede.

Honestly, step up or shut up

[Empire]

I am done with you.
In desperation, you have jumped from polygamy to the Quran to war.

I said it once.

The Muslims lost everything.

They try to regain it so they can SURVIVE. How is that offensive?

Refute, disprove or debunk that one point and I WILL concede.

Honestly, step up or shut up

Oh yeah polygamy is right because..........one man is worth 4 women correct? There thats done.

Quran creation is obviously made for profit as he did it over 23 years with god "coincidentally" doing this all in private, making muhammad above the law, and giving him permission to wage war.
-Done there as well.
+ the poetry thing is hilarious. First off it was spoken only, so as far as "its unable to be copied" or w/e, you might as well give all the credit to whoever actually wrote it down after muhammed died, not muhammed.
-------------------------------------------


Really what did the muslims lose huh? Becuase in all accounts the muslims had it a LOT better than the jews or christians. Not only that, revenge is immoral as well. Your point there is completely null and actually proving it for me(again).
Myth: Muslims Fled Mecca under Persecution (the Hijra)
-Also just so you know "lost everything" is a bit much. Since they in turn murdered caravan drivers and took loot from the cities, its almost hypocritical for you to say that.(its like defending theives/murderers as they "lost everything". oh who am i kidding it IS).

Go figure huh. You talk big but have nothing in the end.

[Snake]

Oh hey, to you retards out there: 1.muslims NEVER lost.
2. Mohammed(sas) had the chance to become sultan, he had the chance to rule arabia and do whatever he wanted to. No, he did the opposite.

But seriously, read the Qu'ran you scums, you all sound like kids who try to brag about maths while they never learned about it.

Just embaressing, I'm laughing my ass off right here.



@D3Dh0oker

Stop trying brother, everyone is completely brainwashed, they're just fuckwads who think their and the medias OPINION is a fact, which just makes me laugh at them and even increases my belief in the islam.

[Empire]

Oh hey, to you retards out there: 1.muslims NEVER lost.
2. Mohammed(sas) had the chance to become sultan, he had the chance to rule arabia and do whatever he wanted to. No, he did the opposite.

But seriously, read the Qu'ran you scums, you all sound like kids who try to brag about maths while they never learned about it.

Just embaressing, I'm laughing my ass off right here.



@D3Dh0oker

Stop trying brother, everyone is completely brainwashed, they're just fuckwads who think their and the medias OPINION is a fact, which just makes me laugh at them and even increases my belief in the islam.

You need to brush up on your english before posting. Your posting in-response to something no one has posted.

1. What are you even talking about.
2. Uh-huh...... he did the opposite? He was already above the law, even his own law.

Reading the quran again would only make me point out more.

[Snake]

Oh hey, to you retards out there: 1.muslims NEVER lost.
2. Mohammed(sas) had the chance to become sultan, he had the chance to rule arabia and do whatever he wanted to. No, he did the opposite.

But seriously, read the Qu'ran you scums, you all sound like kids who try to brag about maths while they never learned about it.

Just embaressing, I'm laughing my ass off right here.



@D3Dh0oker

Stop trying brother, everyone is completely brainwashed, they're just fuckwads who think their and the medias OPINION is a fact, which just makes me laugh at them and even increases my belief in the islam.

You need to brush up on your english before posting. Your posting in-response to something no one has posted.

1. What are you even talking about.
2. Uh-huh...... he did the opposite? He was already above the law, even his own law.

Reading the quran again would only make me point out more.

I already apologized for my english as its my 4th language. And I'm on my phone.

And no, you haven't read the qu'ran, stop bullshitting around. You're just saying stuff that sound logical to you.

[vaporak10]

Really what did the muslims lose huh? Becuase in all accounts the muslims had it a LOT better than the jews or christians. Not only that, revenge is immoral as well. Your point there is completely null and actually proving it for me(again). Myth: Muslims Fled Mecca under Persecution (the Hijra)
-Also just so you know "lost everything" is a bit much. Since they in turn murdered caravan drivers and took loot from the cities, its almost hypocritical for you to say that.(its like defending theives/murderers as they "lost everything". oh who am i kidding it IS).

Interesting website. You do know that report over 17000 terrorist casulties but they don't cite one of them? Yep, reliable.

Anyways,
Error by TROP
"Only Muhammad was in danger at Mecca"
WTF?
What about Sumayyah bint Khabbab, the seventh convert to Islam, who was tortured first by Abu Jahl?
What about Bilal ibn Rabah?
What about the 80+ Muslims who fled to Abyssinia?
Persecution of Muslims by the Meccans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Muslims Persecuted at Makkah - Administrator - Islam Story

And lastly, TROP gives no links or citations to these "Muslim scholars" that they cite.

They are a joke and so are you. Ths debates over. The moment you use fake, biased and made-up information as a reference is the moment where I realize you know nothing about Islam and you just hate it blindly like islamophobic sheeple.

Bye