Afghan mob beats woman to death

@hylian: correction. Why can't I be the only human alive

Right.Because the russians that INVADED Afghanistan were so much nicer.

We "invaded" Afganistan after the request (the 20-th request) from government to stop the civil war that started in 1978 and the goddamned jihadists. Hell, read Bzhezinsky or that former director of CIA Gates, they already stated that US began to help jihadists six monthes befor our "invasion" to provoke our "invasion".

http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

You invaded Libyia to help the jihadists against government just like you supported them in the Afganistan and in Syria. The civil or guerilla wars in this states, as well as Iraq, rages even now. What's wrong with you, guys? Are you blind as moles? Or are you just happy warmongers?

Me either

Those barbaric acts are so common that makes them even more scarier.

There is a problem within a muslim community, the number of muslim extremists is not extremely small.

@batmanx2005: Seems reasonable :)

Let's kill every Arab on earth.

-Facebook Community

Pilasy:La Voix d'un homme

As a black Christian I find myself always having empathy and sympathy for the majority of Muslims when they get hate due to actions committed by extremists. These acts seem to further lead like half of the world into mocking and ridiculing the Islam religion and its people. Just when you think certain people's actions can't go anymore overboard, they actually start to brutally attack their own people. Wow...

Triggered (opens can of freedom)

Lets murder a woman for being raped or something petty.

-Arab Community

I remember a few weeks ago when that atheist guy killed those Muslims in NC. And guess what...nobody condemned the entirety of atheist people. They on,y condemned the guy responsible for the action. Freaking imagine that...

Lots of terrible minds have also existed that have entertained the delusion that they're great.

Seriously, this is such a hilariously terrible statement. If you think I'm crazy, it's because you can't comprehend the greatness of my thoughts. Have you paused to consider the possibility that you're just crazy?

The question of volume arises, no? There isn't an epidemic of atheists killing Muslims.

Wasn't his motive for killing them was over a parking spot? Plus, Atheism is not a religion. It's a simple disbelief in a God or gods. That's where the common denominator between Atheism ends. It's not a way of life, or doctrine one must adhere to in order to be apart of it. You act as if there is a radical Atheist movement that has people screaming "KILL THE SPIRITUAL FOLKS!!!"

Its comical that I even have to explain the difference.

Of course.

Just because there isn't an epidemic to speak of doesn't mean that its okay to blame an entire group for the actions of an individual or for the actions of a small percentage of the group. Extremists are the problem not muslims or atheists, is my point.

I don't agree with blaming an entire group. It's the ideology that's at fault. There isn't an atheist ideology that commands non-believers to burn down places of worship and kill believers. That's my point.

That's horrible, die already!

-Facebook Community

Pilasy:La Voix d'un homme

@sog7dc:

I think so.

Then the analogy fails here. He didn't kill them for some sort of atheistic ideology - he did it because he didn't feel like parking a few spaces further from the building. That, and he obviously had other anger issues.

Really?! Are you sure???

This is blowing my mind.

Nice. But, I would rank that sarcasm a 6-7 at best. You should watch more Squidward.

Uhm...disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods is a necessarycondition for being an atheist. So there is a tenet to which one must adhere in order to be considered an atheist.

If you bothered to read my post correctly - you would know that I did say that, but explicitly stated that is where it ended. Atheism isn't a set of ideologies that one must follow, it's simply a lack of belief of deities. That's it. I have read passages of the Quran that explicitly states to do the horrific things that some Muslim do.

You're missing my point and projecting your misunderstanding on what I'm saying. My point is to not blame the many for the few. I'm saying not to blame every member of a group for the radical actions of a single or minority portion of the group.

Not really. I understand your point well, and agree. But the example you gave was horrid, and the way you reached the conclusion was daft. Simply because it implied that Atheism is actually a group that follows a specific credo, and sports a particular system of beliefs of any sort, which it doesn't. That's like saying Santa Claus disbelievers (which includes all sane human beings) are a group, just because we disbelieve in Santa Claus. It's preposterous.

The religion of peace, which was...founded by a conquering war-world who spread the faith by the sword.

Never fails to crack me up.

@dccomicsrule2011:

The analogy is that an atheist who had a recorded history of expressing hatred towards muslims killed muslims and no one blamed atheism or atheists. they blamed the one guy who was responsible. As it should be. The fact that there is no doctrine commanding atheists to do any one thing is inconsequential to my point that the actions of the few should not be projected upon the many simply because they identify themselves as being part of the same group. the reasons why these actions were taken arunimportant to my point, my focus is on the reaction to the actions. The fact remains that are far more muslims who will never commit acts of terrorism or brutality than there are msulims that are terrorists and evil doers, yet in spite of that fact certain people will still say, "One muslim killed people in the name of Allah? That means all muslims are bad/dangerous because they all have the same interpretation of their scriptures." which, obviously, is laughably ignorant and false. Doing that (blaming the many for the few) is just as ignorant as blaming all black people in Ferguson for the looting that happened in Ferguson, or blaming all police for incidents of police brutality.

Only 6-7? I feel as though I could have sold it better in person :/

Again, I think you're misinterpreting me. You said, "It's not a way of life, or doctrine one must adhere to in order to be apart of it." when it is plainly obvious that this: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods is a necessarycondition for being an atheist. So there is a tenet to which one must adhere in order to be considered an atheist." is most certainly a way of life one must adhere to in order to be a part of atheism or atheist beliefs/lack fo beliefs, whatever. So, at the very least, you contradicted yourself. An atheist must believe there is no God or gods to be an atheist.

But atheism is the belief that there is no deity/deities. If you want to rephrase it to say it is the lack of belief that there is a deity/deities thats fine but my original post still stands and I still stand by it.

Again, you contradict yourself. You say that all sane human beings are people who do not believe in Santa. That is a description of a group of people. I'll even do a quick counterexample:

That's like saying Santa Claus disbelievers (which includes all sane human beings) are a group, just because we disbelieve in Santa Claus. It's preposterous.

Santa Claus disbelievers-S

All sane human beings-A

Group-G

It's preposterous-P

That's like saying S, which are A, are a G just because we S. P.

S-Atheists

A-human beings who don't believe in any deity

G-group

P-Preposterous

"That's like saying Atheists, which are people who don't believe in any deity, are a group just because are atheists. It's preposterous. "

Seeing as how that conclusion does not probably follow that premise, this is an uncogent argument.

@sog7dcsaid:

*sigh* We're basically arguing semantics at this point.

The analogy is that an atheist who had a recorded history of expressing hatred towards muslims killed muslims and no one blamed atheism or atheists.

That's because there is no Atheistic credo that says to do harm to anyone because they don't follow something that's stated in a text book. The Islamic credo, on the other hand, does. That was where I was getting at in my very first post.

The fact that there is no doctrine commanding atheists to do any one thing is inconsequential to my point that the actions of the few should not be projected upon the many simply because they identify themselves as being part of the same group.

It's the ideology of Islam that makes some people respond the way they do, and not the group itself. But as you told Saren, that's another discussion in general.

@sog7dc said:

the reasons why these actions were taken arunimportant to my point, my focus is on the reaction to the actions. The fact remains that are far more muslims who will never commit acts of terrorism or brutality than there are msulims that are terrorists and evil doers, yet in spite of that fact certain people will still say, "One muslim killed people in the name of Allah? That means all muslims are bad/dangerous because they all have the same interpretation of their scriptures." which, obviously, is laughably ignorant and false. Doing that (blaming the many for the few) is just as ignorant as blaming all black people in Ferguson for the looting that happened in Ferguson, or blaming all police for incidents of police brutality.

Don't know why you're reiterating this to me. I already agreed with the conclusion you've arrived at - it's the way you used it that I have problems with. I know all Muslims aren't radicals who would stone their daughter to death because her ankle was showing in public.

@sog7dc said:

You said, "It's not a way of life, or doctrine one must adhere to in order to be apart of it." when it is plainly obvious that this: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods is a necessarycondition for being an atheist.

I already said that in my post. In fact, I said that's where the common denominator ends in Atheism. Maybe I should have worded it better.

@sog7dc said:

Again, I think you're misinterpreting me. You said, "It's not a way of life, or doctrine one must adhere to in order to be apart of it." when it is plainly obvious that this: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods is a necessarycondition for being an atheist.

I said that already. I clearly said that's where it ends.

Atheism is not a religion. It's a simple disbelief in a God or gods. That's where the common denominator between Atheism ends.

It's a simple disbelief in a God or gods. That's where the common denominator between Atheism ends.

It's a simple disbelief in a God or gods. That's where the common denominator between Atheism ends.

It's a simple disbelief in a God or gods. That's where the common denominator between Atheism ends.

I thought I made that clear...

@sog7dcsaid:

Only 6-7? I feel as though I could have sold it better in person :/

:P

@sog7dc said:

Again, you contradict yourself. You say that all sane human beings are people who do not believe in Santa. That is a description of a group of people. I'll even do a quick counterexample:

That's like saying Santa Claus disbelievers (which includes all sane human beings) are a group, just because we disbelieve in Santa Claus. It's preposterous.

Santa Claus disbelievers-S

All sane human beings-A

Group-G

It's preposterous-P

That's like saying S, which are A, are a G just because we S. P.

S-Atheists

A-human beings who don't believe in any deity

G-group

P-Preposterous

"That's like saying Atheists, which are people who don't believe in any deity, are a group just because are atheists. It's preposterous. "

Seeing as how that conclusion does not probably follow that premise, this is an uncogent argument.

You're going out of your way to create a straw-man here. By "group", I was referring to the aforementioned: a group that follows a specific credo, and sports a particular system of beliefs of any sort".

You don't seem to be able to differentiate between blaming a community, and blaming the individuals from the community.

Unlike atheists, Muslims are a community, and they share holy books, doctrines, teachings and ideas, which can, just like any ideas and doctrines, affect their behaviour.

The atheists among themselves share only a single disbelief, and the fact that someone is an atheist tells you nothing about what that person believes in, what are his morals, where he gets his morals etc.

On top of that, this guy that happened to be an atheist killed those Muslims over a parking dispute, not because they belived in god, killings like this happen all the time. I'm not saying his anti-theistic belifes haven't effect his jugdment, but that doesn't seem to be the primary source of conflict in this situation.

On the other hand the problem in Muslim world is not that 1 or even hundreds of muslims are killing people in the name of Allah (not over parking dispute), the real problem is the sheer amount of muslims fully or partially supporting such a behaviour. A mob like that in the video can't form if only a tiny tiny minority of people support such a behaviour. If you take a look at the people in the mob, most of them are not hurting the girl, but they aren't complaining about it either.

If you take a look at the statistics, the numbers are scary

When we talk about extremists, usually one would assume that we're talking about less than 1% of a certain group, but the poll results from predominantly Muslim countries would suggest otherwise.

I would suggest you take a look at these poll results, before forming an opinion about the effects of Islam on our civilization.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

Especially this sub section:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

and if you're in the mood

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm

This last link is the most disturbing, but I haven't yet checked the validity of all it's sources.

.

Just to give you a glimpse of what you can find in those link up there:

NOP Research: 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons;

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06

http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY

In my book, a Muslim who believes I should be punished for drawing a Muhammad is a extremist. And we are not talking about less than 1% of Muslims, we are talking about 78%. We need to face the ugly fact that Islam is a extremist religion which effects people in a way which makes them less likely to respect the freedoms of others.

And it gets only uglier.

83% of Pakistanis support stoning adulterers

78% of Pakistanis support killing apostates

http://www.realcourage.org/2009/08/pakistan-78-percent-call-for-apostate-deaths/

Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam

86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam

30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam

76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam

51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam

http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

The truth is that radical Muslims are not some minor fringe group, they are a large part of Muslim population, and this can hardly be denied. I am afraid of what Islam could potentially do to our civilization, and I think it would be beneficial for everyone if we could find a proper way to reduce it, to reform it, or at least to contain it.

This doesn't mean that when I meet a muslim I assume he's a extremist fundamentalist, and no one should be doing that, but Muslim community cleary has some serious problems it needs to address, and we should not pretend like those problems do not exist.

this is the religion of peace...

@dccomicsrule2011:

This has gone far enough. Honestly I just want to communicate that its foolish to blame a group for the actions of individuals. Since w agree on that I'm not interested in arguing anymore. Though I did, on some level, enjoy our conversation.

@mortein

I didn't read that. Not because I'm trying to be cool but because, if we agree on my main point (bolded above) then I don't want to argue about, as dccomicsrule said, semantics or religion or blah blah blah I wanngo talk about comics.

Well, that saddens me, I put some effort into writing that.

I do not agree with the bolded part. It would be foolish to blame individuals from one group for the actions of some other individuals from that group, but the group as a whole can obviously be blamed for the actions of it's individuals, if those actions were driven by the doctrines of the group.

Should we not blame nazis as a group for the actions of the individual nazis? Not according to what you said up there.

@mortein:

The difference is that all muslims are not engaging in terrorist behavior. Myself and the christian up the street may pray to the same God but if he goes on a terror spree and invokes the name of God am I then responsible for his actions?

Me three.

Also, just to add to the conversation, this is done to males as well and not just in Afghanistan. Usually there is more to it. An accusation of insulting Islam in some way is simply a means to punishing/killing someone in response to something else (refusal of marriage, perceived competition) and riling up a mob is far too easy when dealing with people who are systematically forced into ignorance by their society and government.

I don't want to start a flame war or to sound as an amoral prick, but I've always thought this way and I will continue to do it unless I am proven wrong. I think most muslims are radical muslims who are always ready and will do everything to protect their religion, and by anything I mean stuff like this. Of course, there are lots of muslims who don't think this way and would never behave like that but I have the impression that Islam, as a whole, is a radical religion that allows it's followers to do atrocities like this one in order to protect the name of Mohamed, the Quran or anything else Islamic.

Oh that is so true, but tell that to the idiots.

Actually, everything these extremists are doing, contradicts to one of the main things Islam stands for.

Oh please, Islam is all about peace. The extremists and Islam are two different things. Everything the extremists are doing contradicts to what Islam is about. Hell, those ISIS dirtbags aren't even Muslims, and there's evidence behind that.

Also, to reach peace, you have to fight for it.

And what would that be? Isn't Islam a religion that preaches that every believer should submit to Allah and do as it is said in the Quran. Where it is written that the Islamic relgion should be defended and preached at every cost and that its a religion of "peace"?

I am not the best expert in religion but I have seen enough from both muslims and christians(no matter if catholic, orthodox or a protestant) to know the basic beliefs of either religion and where radical believers are able to go.

It's a religion of peace because to live as a good Muslim, you have to help other people, forgive them, be tolerant, etc. The stuff you see on the media is BS. There's nothing saying that you have to kill someone who don't like Islam. In fact, in Islam you have to respect other people's beliefs and stuff. We're not supposed to burn gay people, but rather not be gay ourself.

@captain_batman_ftw: That's willful cherry picking on your part and ignorance of the mass amounts of bigotry, violence and hatred spawned in the Qu'ran I'm afraid. You can cite the "If you save one man, it is as if you have saved mankind entirely" quote for instance but the passage which comes after it is this one:

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

Same thing happens in Christianity too except that more Muslims cling to the old and outdated ways of Islam because the West is advancing in secularism and moving away from religion. Islam is not a tolerant and respectful religion just because you're a tolerant and respectful person. You've grown up away from the culture of The Middle East so you don't take it as seriously because you've experienced other things outside of Islam. Those animals in the Middle East have't. They're barbaric, uneducated and cling unquestionably to anything the Qu'Ran says because they can't imagine a world without Islam. So these extremists are representing Islam and many of their core tenants regardless of whether you want to believe it or not. The suffering and death toll speaks for itself.

It's sad but I'm really into Mario KArt 8 right now, so I can't focus too much on this stuff.

It's sad, but a primitive backward culture has it's own rules. I'd have stopped it or tried to if I were there.

this is what a simple idea can do. Some chemicals shifted in a man's brain 2000 years ago, and the fabrications of his mind became "real" to him. This idea has now spread like wildfire, taken root in the minds of the incompetent, evolved into a vehicle of oppression. Almost anything can, and has and will be made into a tool to gain power. The human mind is not a hard castle to conquer.

ps i'm not bashing on Islam in general, only these kinds of animals

*enter unoriginal nihilistic statement about humanity*

Couldn't help myself.

@lvenger:

That's willful cherry picking on your part and ignorance of the mass amounts of bigotry, violence and hatred spawned in the Qu'ran I'm afraid.

Oh, but it's not. Muhammed himself said that you should act like that. If you want to talk about ignorance, then how about you leaving behind more parts of the Quran where it says more better things than bad things? How about Muhammed saying that every Muslims has a responsibility of giving away love and forgivness to other people?

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

Sure, there are stuff like this, but it's only the Muslims with radical point of view that does this. Also, the Quran originated from the middle east centuries ago, so there's really no surprise as for stuff like this.

If you like to nit-pick, yourself (ironic), then I might as well go ahead and do that as well, no? Let's take a look at some laws in USA, for example. I know that there are different laws within the different states, but I'm just pointing out some in general.

Cops having the authority to beat down people because they defy their authority.

This isn't as bad as the sureh you mentioned, but these two still have the same concept. At the time the Quran arrived, all kind of crazy sh*t was allowed. Let's take France for example (this was way, way, way after the Quran came); execution was allowed if they overcame their authority during the French Revuloution.

Arrested by the revolutionaries he was accused of treason for ordering the Swiss Guard to resist the storming of the royal palace and thereby offending the "Majesty of the People".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Josef_von_Bachmann, and here it confirms that he was executed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_executed_by_guillotine_during_the_French_Revolution.

Stuff like these happened all the time at those times. What's holy can't be changed, and since the Quran arrived centuries ago, there's no wonder stuff like that is in the Quran.

Same thing happens in Christianity too except that more Muslims cling to the old and outdated ways of Islam because the West is advancing in secularism and moving away from religion

Yeah, but the thing is, those Muslims who do live in the West are rational (not every single, but most). They are teached to give forgivness and love to other people, because they've interpretated the Quran correctly. Sure, it does say some few irrational things in the Quran, but the good stuff outdoes the bad stuff. Imams are not barbaric, are they? That's because they know what being a muslim means.

We Muslims believe in Paradise, and if you do stuff like being an extremist and doing bad stuff, then you're not going to enter paradise, even if you've prayed to Allah, believed in the profets and Allah's angels your entire life. Because you've done terrible stuff. Hell, Muslims who do not live in the middle east, who's tolerant and rational, says that this is wrong. If Islam would have actually been as you say, then you'd have over 1 billion people going around killing those who do not believe in Allah. Imams thinks that this is wrong as well, and thousands upon thousands of Muslims around the world thought that the Paris incident was wrong and not right.

Islam is not a tolerant and respectful religion just because you're a tolerant and respectful person.

Islam is a tolerant and respectful religion, and you saying that it isn't simply because defying Allah means punishment, doesn't really change anything at all. The police today are intolerance against getting their authorities defied, but why don't you complain about that? Defying Allah and Muhammed is a bad thing within Islam, and it's the only intolerant thing Islam has that gives a punishment like that (except for death penalties for good reasons), basically.

You've grown up away from the culture of The Middle East so you don't take it as seriously because you've experienced other things outside of Islam. Those animals in the Middle East have't. They're barbaric, uneducated and cling unquestionably to anything the Qu'Ran says because they can't imagine a world without Islam. So these extremists are representing Islam and many of their core tenants regardless of whether you want to believe it or not. The suffering and death toll speaks for itself.

That's because they take everything that's said in the Quran literlal. You don't see people in the West who have gotten education go around bombing people, do you? Probably a few, but that's rare. And those animals, ISIS, who ''represents Islam'', doesn't do so at all. ISIS isn't even a Muslim group. They pretend to be Muslims, and there's evidence behind that.

They pray two different directions, which is wrong. If they're so fed up in believing in Allah, why can't they pray correctly? These extremists are just BS'ing all over the place, and they do irrational stuff that contradicts to what Islam actually stands for.

@captain_batman_ftw:

Oh, but it's not. Muhammed himself said that you should act like that. If you want to talk about ignorance, then how about you leaving behind more parts of the Quran where it says more better things than bad things? How about Muhammed saying that every Muslims has a responsibility of giving away love and forgivness to other people?

And what does the word of one single man mean against the weight of suffering, murder and ignorance caused by his religion? If you want to talk about ignorance, don't try and accuse me of cherry picking when your argument is entirely based upon it. Muhammad said numerous contradicting things, sometimes teachings which might be considered reasonable or even kind but on many other occasions, Muhammed also said vile, evil and despicable quotations that would be considered morally reprehensible by today's standards. Just some examples of what I mean:

• Qu'ran 2:216 "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." And based on the hadith, this was written at a time when Muhammed was actually encouraging his people to raid merchant caravans for loot.
• Qu'ran 3:151 "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority." This is what Muhammed wanted to do to Christians or atheists like me who didn't share his views.
• And lastly Qu'ran 4:74 "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." One of the many quotes terrorists and suicide bombers use to justify their actions from Muhammad himself.

Muhammad seems like a fickle guy from the Qu'ran, surely someone can't simultaneously believe in love and forgiveness whilst also endorsing jihadism and pillaging?

Sure, there are stuff like this, but it's only the Muslims with radical point of view that does this. Also, the Quran originated from the middle east centuries ago, so there's really no surprise as for stuff like this.

See you almost understand the point, this book was written thousands of years ago by a comparatively primitive culture, why believe in the stuff it says? And it's not like there aren't loads of radical Muslims situated in the Middle East right?

If you like to nit-pick, yourself (ironic), then I might as well go ahead and do that as well, no? Let's take a look at some laws in USA, for example. I know that there are different laws within the different states, but I'm just pointing out some in general.

Cops having the authority to beat down people because they defy their authority.

This isn't as bad as the sureh you mentioned, but these two still have the same concept.

I'm not from the USA, I live in Britain so I assure you I dislike this particularly aggressive law and power American cops have whilst on duty. However, a cop beating up someone who doesn't do what he says pales in comparison to tearing a woman apart just because she supposedly burnt a copy of the Qu'ran, as you admit. The severity of the latter outranks the former's severity significantly.

At the time the Quran arrived, all kind of crazy sh*t was allowed. Let's take France for example (this was way, way, way after the Quran came); execution was allowed if they overcame their authority during the French Revuloution.

Arrested by the revolutionaries he was accused of treason for ordering the Swiss Guard to resist the storming of the royal palace and thereby offending the "Majesty of the People".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Josef_von_Bachmann, and here it confirms that he was executed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_executed_by_guillotine_during_the_French_Revolution.

Stuff like these happened all the time at those times. What's holy can't be changed, and since the Quran arrived centuries ago, there's no wonder stuff like that is in the Quran.

Now the French Revolution I am familiar with, I'm a student of history after all. Thing is, the Jacobin tyranny was strongly based on cult-like behaviour and absolutely adherence to the 'teachings' of the revolution. Anyone who disagreed got put to the guillotine as you cite an example of the numbers yourself. And this is a very similar conduct between the French Revolution and today's Muslim terrorist violence that ransacks the Middle East. The crazy s*** happens in both periods of history and share a lot of methods and types of principles.

Yeah, but the thing is, those Muslims who do live in the West are rational (not every single, but most). They are teached to give forgivness and love to other people, because they've interpretated the Quran correctly. Sure, it does say some few irrational things in the Quran, but the good stuff outdoes the bad stuff. Imams are not barbaric, are they? That's because they know what being a muslim means.

I don't deny that premise, most are rational and wouldn't support the actions of Al Qaeda, The Taliban or ISIS. But it's a categorical flaw on your part to state that they're like that because they've interpreted the Qu'ran the correct way. There is no correct way to interpret the Qu'ran, I've proven that with just 3 passeges also written by Muhammed himself. And I'm sorry but the good stuff does not outweigh the bad. There is far more violence, bigotry and ignorance in the Qu'ran than even The Old Testament Bible and that is saying something. Just because you and your vision of Islam live a good life, it does not mean this is what being a Muslim means, There is far more negative connotations within the Qu'ran than good. This link might explain why I and others view the direct negative passages of the Qu'ran the way we do:

No, You’re Not Taking Those Verses ‘Out of Context’

We Muslims believe in Paradise, and if you do stuff like being an extremist and doing bad stuff, then you're not going to enter paradise, even if you've prayed to Allah, believed in the profets and Allah's angels your entire life. Because you've done terrible stuff. Hell, Muslims who do not live in the middle east, who's tolerant and rational, says that this is wrong. If Islam would have actually been as you say, then you'd have over 1 billion people going around killing those who do not believe in Allah. Imams thinks that this is wrong as well, and

Considering I know of numerous passages in which Muhammed or apostles state anyone who fights for the Muslim cause gets into paradise with milk, honey and virgins as their reward, the direct words of your own religion go against you here. You've also gotten the wrong idea of my point, it's not that most Muslims are willing to commit Jihad to get into heaven, because they realise how wrong that would be. However, there are enough Muslims who interpret the word of the Qu'ran literally enough that they doggedly obey any punishment that's said in that outdated book.

thousands upon thousands of Muslims around the world thought that the Paris incident was wrong and not right.

Not the entire truth here, Thousands of Muslims actually supported the Paris Incident. And even amongst those that condoned, there was an arrogant and stiff attitude that they had brought it on themselves by blaspheming against Muhammed. A sickening viewpoint in my mind to commit murders against the freedom of speech and press just because some Muslims got offended about a drawing of Muhammed. There were protests after the incident too so it shows the priority wasn't entirely on condemning the men who killed those journalists.

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2944946/Thousands-British-Muslims-protest-against-Charlie-Hebdo-magazine-publishing-cartoons-Prophet-Mohammed.html
• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslims-protest-against-cartoons-of-prophet-mohamed-in-face-of-britain-first-counterdemo-10032912.html
• http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/02/08/uk-britain-protest-islam-idUKKBN0LC0VG20150208

Islam is a tolerant and respectful religion, and you saying that it isn't simply because defying Allah means punishment, doesn't really change anything at all. The police today are intolerance against getting their authorities defied, but why don't you complain about that? Defying Allah and Muhammed is a bad thing within Islam, and it's the only intolerant thing Islam has that gives a punishment like that (except for death penalties for good reasons), basically.

Again, the evidence is against you here. When innocents aren't slaughtered daily and communities split into Sunni and Shia lines of aggression, then maybe Islam might be considered a religion of peace. However, I find that reality unlikely because more often than not, religion is a cause of the Middle East's problems, terrorism and fear mongering. Changing the subject onto police brutality is simply a smokescreen on your part to cover up one evil with another evil. It doesn't work like that. Moreover, as I have pointed out, terrorists are technically adhering to Muhammed's creed with jihadism, just as you're also adhering to the cherry picked good parts. Thing is, one of them doesn't need Islam to be performed by others.

That's because they take everything that's said in the Quran literlal. You don't see people in the West who have gotten education go around bombing people, do you? Probably a few, but that's rare. And those animals, ISIS, who ''represents Islam'', doesn't do so at all. ISIS isn't even a Muslim group. They pretend to be Muslims, and there's evidence behind that.

They pray two different directions, which is wrong. If they're so fed up in believing in Allah, why can't they pray correctly? These extremists are just BS'ing all over the place, and they do irrational stuff that contradicts to what Islam actually stands for.

Funny you should mention about educated people bombing others: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-three-missing-british-schoolgirls-al-raqqa-1491031 - A trio of schoolgirls from Britain, with GCSEs and promising education prospects decided to drop all that, lie to their parents and buy plane tickets to Turkey in order to join ISIS. It can affect educated Muslims as well as already radical Muslims, religious extremisism is quite disturbing in its effects on others.

And there's evidence to support my arguments too which contradicts your single praying the wrong way image. And they outweigh that scan a hundred fold.

You do seem like a nice guy but I'm afraid ISIS do represent your religion when they're quoting Muhammad's words about false gods before Allah as justification for breaking thousand year old statues. Just because they're doing bad things doesn't mean they're not a part of your religion.

@lvenger: I have my interpretations of the religion, and I believe that it's the right one, because that's how it's mostly been portrayed and how I've been teached throughout my life. I'd rather take the non-extremist side of Islam (which is what I've done), and that's the way rational Muslims have done so. I have my interpretations and so does the extremists, mine is the good one and the extremists' are the bad interpretations (in my opinion), because the morals I've learned comes from my religion; help those in need, donate money to poor people, be nice to people, respect people and so on, and that's how I think a Muslim should be.

Still, I want some evidence for the 'bad stuff outweighing the good stuff', because many Muslims today does more good stuff rather than bad. At least here in the West. Out of curiousty, do you hate religions and Islam specifically? I'm just curious, and please be honest. I think that you think that good Muslims are good people. I'm just taking a guess.

I'll take a bet and say that you know some Muslim people in your life and you may be friends with them. If you are friends with some Muslim people, what do you think about them? I'm just curious.

@captain_batman_ftw: And that's very good for you but I do believe you mainly think that because you haven't lived in the country of your birth for at least over a decade now. Aka your cultural lifestyle determined your less extreme Islam viewpoints. And why cherry pick the good parts of the Qu'ran when there are other non Islam/religious ways of doing good without it? Does everyone need to follow Islam to do good then? That may be how you think Muslims should be but the Middle East seems to disagree with you.

I've supplied the evidence already and there are loads of sites you can find yourself, as well as journalist pieces, blogs from prominent atheists and humanists in the public and even academic scholarship in disciplines from history to archaeology centred around the bad Islam has produced. I'm not a fan of any religion for the record, I really have a thing against any ideology that's used to justify murder, sabotage, destruction, horror and fear amongst other affects being instilled into people just because they believe something differently about a fiction and non existent deity for which there is no empirical evidence for. I don't deny that there are good Muslims BUT that's because they don't take their religion so seriously in the West. When Muslims do take their religion seriously, we have what we're going through now. That is the honest and blunt truth of my opinion on the matter, religion causes way more harm than good because it's a bad idea or meme which has embedded itself into human culture.

I don't have any Muslim friends but I have had talks with Muslims in my university and at talks I've gone to about Islam. And I think that whilst they're obviously nice people who wouldn't do the things ISIS do, they are believing in a fantasy idea to try and find meaning in a meaningless universe and for their moral compass. A fantasy which has gotten people killed over centuries since its conception. And I don't find I need religion to find meaning or do the right thing.

Most religions' main beliefs are quests for peace and to be always at a friend's or someone else's disposal if he needs help. But the problem is that Islam, and almost every single one other religion, has driven apart from their main beliefs and what we are currently seeing is a demented form of that religion. While every religion has it's zealots, Islam has the most or at least throughout the history of the world, radical muslims and prophets have done the most damage to orthodox and catholic christians and even other people.

As I said, I am not trying to start a flame war or something like that, I am just expressing my opinion.

@tdk_1997: Ok.

bump

@mortein: Why bump this?