The Punisher goes woke?

Nov 11, 2018
188
51
150
Still haven’t explained why you’re comparing religion, a mutable characteristic, with race, an immutable characteristic.
My initial comment was in response to someone implying Muslims are guilty of great atrocities. I said that the greatest perpetrators of atrocities against men in recent recorded history have been nations helmed by white anglo-saxons.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
8,432
9,666
825
Australia
My initial comment was in response to someone implying Muslims are guilty of great atrocities. I said that the greatest perpetrators of atrocities against men in recent recorded history have been nations helmed by white anglo-saxons.
You really don’t get it, do you?

Islam = religion = mutable characteristic = can be changed.

White = race = immutable characteristic = cannot be changed.

Your argument is attributing race as a causal factor in likelihood to commit atrocities. That’s dumb, because someone’s race tells you nothing about what they may think. There’s a word for someone who assumes it does.

It’s just a shit argument that makes you look like a total hypocrite given how much you cry about social justice. Especially so when you realise that white Muslims can exist.
 
Jun 13, 2017
888
967
210
Do you want me to just say white people? That might be considered racist. And as far as Asians committing just as many atrocities? Where are those receipts? Let me guess, you're going to repeat the lie that Mao killed millions, right?
Saying anglo saxons is wrong, and it's obviously not what you mean, if you happen to get banned for saying white people I promise I'll ask the mods not to.

Ah yes the Mao conspiracy...going to need you to explain that one.

Well anyway, you have

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_to_Suppress_Counterrevolutionaries between 1 - 2 million
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_of_landlords_under_Mao_Zedong 1 - 4 million
A bunch of japanese war crimes, not sure of the body count.
 
Feb 2, 2017
745
415
245
You really don’t get it, do you?

Islam = religion = mutable characteristic = can be changed.

White = race = immutable characteristic = cannot be changed.

Your argument is attributing race as a causal factor in likelihood to commit atrocities. That’s dumb, because someone’s race tells you nothing about what they may think. There’s a word for someone who assumes it does.

It’s just a shit argument that makes you look like a total hypocrite given how much you cry about social justice. Especially so when you realise that white Muslims can exist.
Would his argument change if he replaced Muslim with Arab/Middle Eastern ?
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
8,432
9,666
825
Australia
Would his argument change if he replaced Muslim with Arab/Middle Eastern ?
Yes, his argument would change, because then he would be comparing race with race. However, it would still be a shitty argument because he would still be treating race as a causal factor in propensity to commit atrocities. A better argument would be to compare Christian vs. Muslim, or whatever the ideology of the group he is criticising was. Ideologies (including religions) are mutable characteristics, i.e. the individual has control and can change them, and do not deserve the same protection from criticism as immutable characteristics like race, sex, and sexual orientation. Moreover, someone's ideology gives you an idea of what they may think, whereas their race does not.
 
Feb 2, 2017
745
415
245
Yes, his argument would change, because then he would be comparing race with race. However, it would still be a shitty argument because he would still be treating race as a causal factor in propensity to commit atrocities. A better argument would be to compare Christian vs. Muslim, or whatever the ideology of the group he is criticising was. Ideologies (including religions) are mutable characteristics, i.e. the individual has control and can change them, and do not deserve the same protection from criticism as immutable characteristics like race, sex, and sexual orientation. Moreover, someone's ideology gives you an idea of what they may think, whereas their race does not.
So why are you addressing them and not the originator of his reply post ? Who immediately started talking about Muslims. It begs to question are you only interested in correcting posters who are more lenient towards Muslims. What method would you use to compare atrocities then if you think using race or religion as a contributing factor is pointless?

It boggles my mind just how subversive and blind the leftists are to Muslim atrocities in general. Its do obvious that if they are causing troubles wherever they are in a substantial population, be it Europe, US, India, Russia, Philippines, then there must br something wrong with the religion itself! But no. Leftists will blame it on poverty, war, disillusionment, feeling alone and what not. Anything but religion. I dont see minority Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs etc going on rampage anywhere.
Kinda digressed from the point but it disgusts me that not only the world turns a blind eye towards atrocities by Muslims, it also punishes anyone who dares speak about it. And i am not even a Christian to whom this Punisher thing should matter. But the hypocrisy of liberals is obvious.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
8,432
9,666
825
Australia
So why are you addressing them and not the originator of his reply post ? Who immediately started talking about Muslims. It begs to question are you only interested in correcting posters who are more lenient towards Muslims. What method would you use to compare atrocities then if you think using race or religion as a contributing factor is pointless?
Clearly didn’t understand a word I said.

Islam is not an immutable characteristic.
 
Feb 2, 2017
745
415
245
Clearly didn’t understand a word I said.

Islam is not an immutable characteristic.
I understand what your saying i just dont think you trying to poke holes in their argument will change much , if he replaces race with race the argument would still hold up, or religion for religion. Where would you put Leopold II who wiped out half a country who also happens to be a White Roman Catholic Male, he ticks all the boxes so it would still be pointless which is why i dont personally mind when someone compares the actions of a race with a religion .
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
8,432
9,666
825
Australia
I understand what your saying i just dont think you trying to poke holes in their argument will change much , if he replaces race with race the argument would still hold up, or religion for religion. Where would you put Leopold II who wiped out half a country who also happens to be a White Roman Catholic Male, he ticks all the boxes so it would still be pointless which is why i dont personally mind when someone compares the actions of a race with a religion .
But the fact he was white had nothing to do with why he committed the crimes. His religion did.
 
Likes: RedVIper
Jun 13, 2017
888
967
210
I understand what your saying i just dont think you trying to poke holes in their argument will change much , if he replaces race with race the argument would still hold up, or religion for religion. Where would you put Leopold II who wiped out half a country who also happens to be a White Roman Catholic Male, he ticks all the boxes so it would still be pointless which is why i dont personally mind when someone compares the actions of a race with a religion .
Saying:

I have a problem with Islam/Budism/Christianity

Is very different from saying:

I have a problem with white/black/yellow people

How are you not getting this.
 
Likes: matt404au
Feb 2, 2017
745
415
245
But the fact he was white had nothing to do with why he committed the crimes. His religion did.
His religion played no part , he took over the Congo and his actions led to the death of half the country (estimated). Its very obvious he viewed blacks people as disposable property.

You can categories his actions down to his race and the colonial expansion into Africa. That’s where the issue lies when comparing race with race or race with religion. If you see each atrocity in its own unique way you still end up categorising the perpetrators by race or religion.

Saying:

I have a problem with Islam/Budism/Christianity

Is very different from saying:

I have a problem with white/black/yellow people

How are you not getting this.
That’s not what I’m saying
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
8,432
9,666
825
Australia
His religion played no part , he took over the Congo and his actions led to the death of half the country (estimated). Its very obvious he viewed blacks people as disposable property.

You can categories his actions down to his race and the colonial expansion into Africa. That’s where the issue lies when comparing race with race or race with religion. If you see each atrocity in its own unique way you still end up categorising the perpetrators by race or religion.
So, you are saying that the reason he did it is because he was white.
 
Feb 2, 2017
745
415
245
So, you are saying that the reason he did it is because he was white.
By proxy ...colonial ideology is a mixture of beliefs that stem from religion , political , economic and social factors. Him being white played a part but just as equally as the others. So when someone now compares Muslim terrorism to what a race does its boiling it down to ideological level .
 
Likes: DeafTourette
Jun 13, 2017
888
967
210
By proxy ...colonial ideology is a mixture of beliefs that stem from religion , political , economic and social factors. Him being white played a part but just as equally as the others. So when someone now compares Muslim terrorism to what a race does its boiling it down to ideological level .
I'm fairly sure the color of your skin has nothing to do with your ideologies. There's Muslims of every color, just like there's Christians of every color.
 
Apr 23, 2018
778
472
215
deaftourette.com
Still haven’t explained why you’re comparing religion, a mutable characteristic, with race, an immutable characteristic.
I believe because most people view Muslims as those who are brown skinned from the Middle East. Yes, there are white Muslims and Asian Muslims, but to most of the world, a Muslim is a black or brown skinned person.
 
Oct 24, 2018
19
21
80
By proxy ...colonial ideology is a mixture of beliefs that stem from religion , political , economic and social factors. Him being white played a part but just as equally as the others. So when someone now compares Muslim terrorism to what a race does its boiling it down to ideological level .
And people who share your perspectives have the gall to call other people racist...

"Colonial Ideology", is that one of the new pseudo scientific terminologies that subtly and "smoothly" enable the hypocrites to practice the "sins" they accuse others of doing?

And I even notice you keep the definition vague, how convenient. Please do describe what "religious", "political", "social and economical factors" do you have in mind? Also, why use this term at all and even if existed why apply it in an universal way to all white people? Isn't that the maximum exponent of your most feared "prejudice"?

(edited)
 
Last edited:
May 24, 2005
39,739
2,623
1,320
I think that's what conservatives are trying to do, but of course it's arguable to what extent people in power are taking advantage of keeping voters reliant on the government, and it's even more arguable how to best help reduce the number of people who require welfare. I think stressing the importance of an intact family could help a lot, but it's hard to influence social standards like that, and it's even harder when a very loud group of the media, politicians, and educators would consider you to be attacking single mothers at the mere suggestion.

Black or white, having both parents in the house is statistically proven to be very important for ensuring kids grow up to be stable responsible and productive members of society. That doesn't mean you have to have both parents in the picture, but doing so helps children a lot. Beyond that, I don't have stats to quote, and I'm certainly no expert.

If you're looking to learn more about opposing opinions on the subject, maybe try Thomas Sowell.

Conservatives version of the "welfare state" is constant tax cuts for "certain" people. They claim that if you just cut the taxes for job creators, that will automatically grow the economy because those job creators will want to create more jobs. That's a top-down approach, whereas the Progressives prefer a bottom-up approach. It's been amazing how conservatives have made one of those approaches sound like the Devil's work, whereas the other is God's work.

And having both parents in the household is the preferred method and you're 100% right. So, clearly creating laws to make it easier to lock "certain people" up for non-violent crimes doesn't make sense. Changing laws so that you stay locked up in prison longer for crimes than you ever have before also didn't make sense. Yet this country chose to do that, which made raising kids harder for certain families.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
8,432
9,666
825
Australia
I believe because most people view Muslims as those who are brown skinned from the Middle East. Yes, there are white Muslims and Asian Muslims, but to most of the world, a Muslim is a black or brown skinned person.
But also....wouldn't blaming that person's religion for the crimes they commit also a dumb thing to do?
These comments just show to me that you guys don’t even understand what is meant by “immutable characteristics”. How can we find any common ground when we aren’t even speaking the same language?
 
Jun 13, 2017
888
967
210
But also....wouldn't blaming that person's religion for the crimes they commit also a dumb thing to do?
The colour of your skin tells me nothing about your ideoligy. Your religion does, because that's what a religion is. How hard is that to understand.

I believe because most people view Muslims as those who are brown skinned from the Middle East. Yes, there are white Muslims and Asian Muslims, but to most of the world, a Muslim is a black or brown skinned person.
Muslims make one quarter of the world population. Most of the world does not view them as a brown skinned person.
 
Likes: matt404au
May 24, 2005
39,739
2,623
1,320
The colour of your skin tells me nothing about your ideoligy. Your religion does, because that's what a religion is. How hard is that to understand.
.
Except someone's religion doesn't tell me what someone will do in a public space to other human beings. It literally says nothing about if that person will murder people or not. Being a white\southern Christian in America doesn't mean that guy will be a racist and hate black people. Being an older Catholic man doesn't mean that dude will want to rape young boys. And being a Muslim man doesn't mean that guy will want to terrorize people that don't share his religion. It doesn't tell you much actually, except who that person believes his God is.
 
Likes: DeafTourette
Jun 13, 2017
888
967
210
Except someone's religion doesn't tell me what someone will do in a public space to other human beings. It literally says nothing about if that person will murder people or not. Being a white\southern Christian in America doesn't mean that guy will be a racist and hate black people. Being an older Catholic man doesn't mean that dude will want to rape young boys. And being a Muslim man doesn't mean that guy will want to terrorize people that don't share his religion. It doesn't tell you much actually, except who that person believes his God is.
There's more to Islam/Christianity than just believing in a god.
 
Mar 6, 2018
1,864
2,488
300
Conservatives version of the "welfare state" is constant tax cuts for "certain" people. They claim that if you just cut the taxes for job creators, that will automatically grow the economy because those job creators will want to create more jobs. That's a top-down approach, whereas the Progressives prefer a bottom-up approach. It's been amazing how conservatives have made one of those approaches sound like the Devil's work, whereas the other is God's work.
I think of it as this: I don't know if I believe in "trickle down economics," where cutting taxes for business benefit everyone in the long run, but I definitely believe in "shit runs downhill," where taxing the rich and business owners is just going to get passed down to everyone else. No corporation looks at their shareholders, shrugs their shoulders and says "well sorry, I guess you're getting less money this year, but that's okay, right?"

And speaking of God's work, I believe before welfare, churches did used to be the main source of aid to the poor. But of course, there are also flaws with that system. I certainly don't think giving tax cuts to business is God's work, but I think increasing their taxes is generally a bad idea too.

And having both parents in the household is the preferred method and you're 100% right. So, clearly creating laws to make it easier to lock "certain people" up for non-violent crimes doesn't make sense. Changing laws so that you stay locked up in prison longer for crimes than you ever have before also didn't make sense. Yet this country chose to do that, which made raising kids harder for certain families.
You have an excellent point, here. The war on drugs may have been well-intended, but I think it did a lot more harm than good, and I'm sure it definitely was a contributing factor.
 
Feb 2, 2017
745
415
245
And people who share your perspectives have the gall to call other people racist...

"Colonial Ideology", is that one of the new pseudo scientific terminologies that subtly and "smoothly" enable the hypocrites to practice the "sins" they accuse others of doing?

And I even notice you keep the definition vague, how convenient. Please do describe what "religious", "political", "social and economical factors" do you have in mind? Also, why use this term at all and even if existed why apply it in an universal way to all white people? Isn't that the maximum exponent of your most feared "prejudice"?

(edited)
Why do you think most European countries have colonised most of modern African at one point in time.
 
Oct 24, 2018
19
21
80
Why do you think most European countries have colonised most of modern African at one point in time.
Do not run away from my questions. Answer them.

Second, for the same reasons every other empire from any other culture existed, or are you that indoctrinated/ignorant to actually think "bad white ban created empire".

Now, answer the questions I presented in my previous post, or I will ignore you.
 
Jan 15, 2019
15
0
75
Except someone's religion doesn't tell me what someone will do in a public space to other human beings. It literally says nothing about if that person will murder people or not. Being a white\southern Christian in America doesn't mean that guy will be a racist and hate black people. Being an older Catholic man doesn't mean that dude will want to rape young boys. And being a Muslim man doesn't mean that guy will want to terrorize people that don't share his religion. It doesn't tell you much actually, except who that person believes his God is.

A Bible is a collection of truth claims, as is a Quran, a Hadith, Mein Kampf etc. If you remove one claim from any of these writings they become something else entirely. A King James Bible without John 3:16 is not a King James Bible.

If one claims to be a Christian by definition they are following the claims of the historical Christ of Nazareth (The Christ we received through history).
Claims of Christ:
Everything He says is exclusive Truth, including statements regarding the Future: (John 14::6, Matthew 26:34)

Old Testament is authoritative truth but its regulations are obsolete (John 5:39, Hebrews 8-10),

12 Apostles are/will be Authoritative Pillars of the Faith(Luke 9,Acts 1, Matthew 16),

The Christ-endorsed Apostle Peter endorses the writings of Paul as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16),

Paul 's scripture claims the scriptures that make up our Bibles are God written and define the religion of Christianity (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and that anyone that claims to be a Christian but disregards/disobeys scripture is not a Christian (2 John 1:10,Galatians 1:8, 2 Corinthians 11:4).

The religion of Christianity is defined by the Bible, which itself defines what to expect from Christians, "love one another", "After all, do I have any business judging those who are outside [the Christian faith]? Isn't it your business to judge those who are inside?, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,.

If a person claims to be a Christian but doesn't follow the example of Christ, they simply aren't Christian. There is no such thing as moderate Christians, there are simply people that have taken the label and misrepresent it. This applies to Islam as well. The people the media calls "moderate" Muslims are actually not Muslim. They have assimilated Muslim culture and tradition into their worldview. Same with "moderate" Christians. According to Christ only "fundamentalist" Christians are actually Christian.

There are white Muslims, Black Muslims, Asian Muslims etc. Muslim isn't a race. A Muslim is an adherent of the Ideology of Islam.

Most Self Professed "Muslims" have never read the Quran or Hadith. They may be taught to recite it in Arabic but actually understanding it isn't stressed. https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-Muslims-has-read-the-entire-Quran

"You have an excellent model in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad), for all who put their hope in Allah and the Last Day and remember Allah much. (Surat al-Ahzab :21) "

"Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves Quran (48:29) -

- "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." Quran (47:3-4)
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

A Muslim is a person that takes the Quran/Hadith/Islam at its word and acts upon their beliefs. The media would call these Extremists or Fundamentalists. But they're actually the only real Muslims around. The more they integrate Islam into their worldview the more "radical" they become. The world wants moderate Muslims but the reality is more moderate Islam (not Islam at all) just gives the opportunity for true Islam to be taught openly. Whether we acknowledge this or not, the history of Islam speaks for itself. The history of Catholicism is similar and when you evaluate its claims against scripture you'll realize the Bible disqualifies Catholicism as an extension of Christianity. Both Catholicism and Islam use Christian concepts to support their ideologies while simultaneously opposing Christ defined Christianity.


A Fundamentalist Christian, one like I defined above would never use violence or force their sense of morality on others.
It's actually the "moderate" christians", those that steal aspects of Christianity but don't adhere to it that are the highest risk. These are the gun toters and Fox News advocates. Christians, real ones anyway, don't give a fuck about politics or forcing people to adopt their moral code through force or legislation. Most self professed "christians" don't take the Bible seriously either, which is why so many of them suck.

Full agreement with the Bible, the Quran, or Mein Kampf tells you everything you need to know about a person.


Actually on topic:

I find this series entertaining, I'll probably enjoy this second season too. I'm not upset that the main villain is a "fundamentalist Christian", I've yet to see Hollywood accurately represent Christian fundamentalism, so nothing new.
 
May 24, 2005
39,739
2,623
1,320
A Muslim is a person that takes the Quran/Hadith/Islam at its word and acts upon their beliefs. The media would call these Extremists or Fundamentalists. But they're actually the only real Muslims around. The more they integrate Islam into their worldview the more "radical" they become. The world wants moderate Muslims but the reality is more moderate Islam (not Islam at all) just gives the opportunity for true Islam to be taught openly. Whether we acknowledge this or not, the history of Islam speaks for itself. The history of Catholicism is similar and when you evaluate its claims against scripture you'll realize the Bible disqualifies Catholicism as an extension of Christianity. Both Catholicism and Islam use Christian concepts to support their ideologies while simultaneously opposing Christ defined Christianity.


A Fundamentalist Christian, one like I defined above would never use violence or force their sense of morality on others.
It's actually the "moderate" christians", those that steal aspects of Christianity but don't adhere to it that are the highest risk. These are the gun toters and Fox News advocates. Christians, real ones anyway, don't give a fuck about politics or forcing people to adopt their moral code through force or legislation. Most self professed "christians" don't take the Bible seriously either, which is why so many of them suck.

Full agreement with the Bible, the Quran, or Mein Kampf tells you everything you need to know about a person.


Actually on topic:

I find this series entertaining, I'll probably enjoy this second season too. I'm not upset that the main villain is a "fundamentalist Christian", I've yet to see Hollywood accurately represent Christian fundamentalism, so nothing new.
The stuff you said about Christianity is true, but clearly, your understanding of Islam is way off. You sound like some of the people that don't understand the Bible but love to point to parts in the Old Testament where God is getting his revenge and they claim hates gay people and people that have sex before marriage. Those people don't understand the Bible at all. And I think you don't understand the Koran at all. The terrorists are NOT the "real" Muslims. I'm amazed that someone here actually thinks this.
 
Jan 15, 2019
15
0
75
The stuff you said about Christianity is true, but clearly, your understanding of Islam is way off. You sound like some of the people that don't understand the Bible but love to point to parts in the Old Testament where God is getting his revenge and they claim hates gay people and people that have sex before marriage. Those people don't understand the Bible at all. And I think you don't understand the Koran at all. The terrorists are NOT the "real" Muslims. I'm amazed that someone here actually thinks this.
I've quoted from the Quran and ive yet to see a verse that abrogates the commands for Jihad. The entire new testament abrogates the violence of the old Testament. If i don't understand Islam it should be simple to find a quote from Muhammad that would support your view. I welcome correction.
 
May 24, 2005
39,739
2,623
1,320
I've quoted from the Quran and ive yet to see a verse that abrogates the commands for Jihad. The entire new testament abrogates the violence of the old Testament. If i don't understand Islam it should be simple to find a quote from Muhammad that would support your view. I welcome correction.
I'm 100% sure the jihad part isn't supposed to be activated at all time by all Muslims. In the same way, you explain "why" the Old Testament is invalidated (not all parts because Jesus does say there are many things that are still valid in the OT), I'm sure the Koran explains when and why jihad is supposed to be done.
 
Jan 21, 2018
533
441
230
Republic of Catalonia
So when does the new season drop? I want to have all my Pomegranate La Croix and vegan bac’n avocado toast sliders ready so I can be the wokest motherfucker alive when I’m watching Frank Castle murder the fuck out of people
I don't know which time is in the States right now, but seems like it premieres tomorrow.

By the way, the creator of the punisher says that cops using the skull logo is as offensive as the confederate flag.

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/punis...sing-the-skull-logo-are-like-people-using-the

Is getting more woke by the minute.
 
Last edited:
Jan 15, 2019
15
0
75
I'm 100% sure the jihad part isn't supposed to be activated at all time by all Muslims. In the same way, you explain "why" the Old Testament is invalidated (not all parts because Jesus does say there are many things that are still valid in the OT), I'm sure the Koran explains when and why jihad is supposed to be done.

I don't see a need to change my views based on anyone's presumptions. Isn't it unreasonable to hold a view without knowing what supports it?

"
Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti, a contemporary Al-Azhar University scholar, wrote that "the verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not a defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of God, the construction of Islamic society, and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth regardless of the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive holy war."

Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission that the Prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase, that is, calling all people to embrace Islam. Even for People of the Book, there can be no role except conversion to Islam or subjugation to Muslim rule. Hence, Muhammad's statement, "They would not invade you, but you invade them."

"

https://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam
 
May 24, 2005
39,739
2,623
1,320
I don't see a need to change my views based on anyone's presumptions. Isn't it unreasonable to hold a view without knowing what supports it?

"
Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti, a contemporary Al-Azhar University scholar, wrote that "the verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that holy war, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not a defensive war because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all holy wars. Its goal is the exaltation of the word of God, the construction of Islamic society, and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth regardless of the means. It is legal to carry on an offensive holy war."

Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission that the Prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase, that is, calling all people to embrace Islam. Even for People of the Book, there can be no role except conversion to Islam or subjugation to Muslim rule. Hence, Muhammad's statement, "They would not invade you, but you invade them."

"

https://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam
Logic tells me that the 99% of muslims that aren't terrorists are probably closer to the truth, than the 1%. One side is clearly way out of wack.
 
Jan 15, 2019
15
0
75
Logic tells me that the 99% of muslims that aren't terrorists are probably closer to the truth, than the 1%. One side is clearly way out of wack.
I actually agree, but those 99% completely ignore Islamic law. So if the side that's wack is accepting of Muhammad's orders and the side that is not wack ignores them, what does that say about Islam(Following Muhammad) ?

Maybe the problem is the ideology itself. If we can get rid of 90% of the Quran why should we adhere to any of it?
 
May 24, 2005
39,739
2,623
1,320
I actually agree, but those 99% completely ignore Islamic law. So if the side that's wack is accepting of Muhammad's orders and the side that is not wack ignores them, what does that say about Islam(Following Muhammad) ?

Maybe the problem is the ideology itself. If we can get rid of 90% of the Quran why should we adhere to any of it?
Because a person with the name "Christian" isn't going to make me think they know more about Islam than all the non-terrorist Muslims walking the planet.
 
Jan 15, 2019
15
0
75
Because a person with the name "Christian" isn't going to make me think they know more about Islam than all the non-terrorist Muslims walking the planet.
How about an Islamic Scholar with the name Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti? Who I quoted above. If you're denying the validity of my sources you're unknowingly denying Islam.
 
Sep 26, 2018
61
81
185
How about an Islamic Scholar with the name Muhammad Sa‘id Ramadan al-Buti? Who I quoted above. If you're denying the validity of my sources you're unknowingly denying Islam.
You know what you are talking about. I can tell because I did my own research on islam.Islamic jihad as understood by islam's oldest and most respected jurists does impose on all able muslims in any place and time to subjugate other people into their faith or to force them to pay special tax (jizya) to muslims. A special considerations apply when muslims are not yet strong enough to do this offensive jihad. They are allowed to wait and to execute violent jihad when they are strong enough to do so. It is called jihad fard kifayah.