Cheat Engine Forum Index Cheat Engine
The Official Site of Cheat Engine
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


"Pansexuals" piss me off
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cheat Engine Forum Index -> Random spam
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
To0k
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13

Joined: 16 Nov 2007
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HackOtaku wrote:
Channel GannoK wrote:
There are no Muslim terrorists and they are quiet and peaceful alway, if you're delusional enough.


Teach me your ways talix


It's easy, any time a terrorist attack happens carried out by muslims, use the no true scotsman fallacy. Then you'll discover that it's not the fault of the tenants of Islam, but instead just some poor misinformed souls.
This, or just pick any spot on this bullshit bingo card and you're good to go.


o6qgn7domyby.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  75.52 KB
 Viewed:  355 Time(s)

o6qgn7domyby.jpg


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
greatsage
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To0k wrote:
HackOtaku wrote:
Channel GannoK wrote:
There are no Muslim terrorists and they are quiet and peaceful alway, if you're delusional enough.


Teach me your ways talix


It's easy, any time a terrorist attack happens carried out by muslims, use the no true scotsman fallacy. Then you'll discover that it's not the fault of the tenants of Islam, but instead just some poor misinformed souls.
This, or just pick any spot on this bullshit bingo card and you're good to go.

being a retarded hatemonger that can't critically assess situations usually does involve mindlessly following memes, regurgitating stupid shit, and generally saying things you're clueless about.
so yeah, easy enough. but the informed are very aware of the reality, and only see pity for children who behave in such ways.

good luck in life when you are already handicapped by your inability to see your irrationality and absurdity; it is the punishment of this world & the punishment of the next will be even worse for you.

www.huffpost.com/entry/playing-the-taqiyya-card-evading-intelligent-debate_b_5906ecdbe4b084f59b49fabc

www.huffpost.com/entry/calling-isis-unislamic-is_b_6730702

literally only a troll or an uneducated retard could only ever apply this thinking. given that you clearly want to rationally assess and discuss some materials, but have made yourself incapable of doing so for others; your bias is clear (and so is your stupidity)

what else is clear? u are in the minority and this type of thinking is already a relic of the past, and in pathetic death throes

_________________
Imam al-Shafi’i ( رحمه الله ) wrote:
It does not befit the lion to answer the dogs.

Steam: Talixxo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic
Reputation: 77

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 249

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's too bad because I'm against the violence of Islam, but it would be nice to be a Muslim so I could call out homosexuality for being an abomination while still being protected from the liberal backlash because it's my faith.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
greatsage
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HackOtaku wrote:
It's too bad because I'm against the violence of Islam, but it would be nice to be a Muslim so I could call out homosexuality for being an abomination while still being protected from the liberal backlash because it's my faith.

>against the violence of islam
oxymoronic. what muslims do <> what islam is. islam is perfect, muslims are not. shaitan still believes in Allah, and prays to Allah, but shaitan still does harm. does that mean that belief in Allah consequently lead to this?

no. which is why you can find the same actions and worse committed by people who have no religious beliefs whatsoever. the qur'an makes clear the difference between one who believe (mumin) and one who submits (muslim). both of these you are safe from.

similarly, you can't just make a claim like this without demonstrating how the tenets of islam are violent. someone who is educated knows very well that islam is not violent.

it's not simply that homosexuality is an abomination. kind of a weird and catholic word. committing homosexual acts in a sin. so is drinking alcohol. alcoholism and homosexuality are both sins in islam. most people will readily denounce alcoholism.

if you wanna be nice to a musilm, realise that when muslims say "we do not commit acts of terror, nor does our community welcome those who do", you do not have to argue against violent actions by arguing against "terrorism is to do with what islam is not" , you will get a lot farther by agreeing with our community, scholars, and leaders. this is what would be nice.

because then you are agreeing that the muslims should not welcome terrorism in their community. to argue against this is to legitimize the claims terrorists make.

if u were muslim it would be ur belief about homosexuality, not faith. faith is more in islam, you'd do good to study the understanding. u can't have faith in ur heart if others are not safe from you and u can not be trusted.
this is why one of the best friends of Muhammad, peace be upon him, was an alcoholic.
Allah forbids you not from being kind and merciful. i know you won't ever accept islam for one belief about homosexuality, because the faith is much more than just a tenet

_________________
Imam al-Shafi’i ( رحمه الله ) wrote:
It does not befit the lion to answer the dogs.

Steam: Talixxo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic
Reputation: 77

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 249

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

greatsage wrote:
HackOtaku wrote:
It's too bad because I'm against the violence of Islam, but it would be nice to be a Muslim so I could call out homosexuality for being an abomination while still being protected from the liberal backlash because it's my faith.

>against the violence of islam
oxymoronic. what muslims do <> what islam is. islam is perfect, muslims are not. shaitan still believes in Allah, and prays to Allah, but shaitan still does harm. does that mean that belief in Allah consequently lead to this?

no. which is why you can find the same actions and worse committed by people who have no religious beliefs whatsoever. the qur'an makes clear the difference between one who believe (mumin) and one who submits (muslim). both of these you are safe from.

similarly, you can't just make a claim like this without demonstrating how the tenets of islam are violent. someone who is educated knows very well that islam is not violent.

it's not simply that homosexuality is an abomination. kind of a weird and catholic word. committing homosexual acts in a sin. so is drinking alcohol. alcoholism and homosexuality are both sins in islam. most people will readily denounce alcoholism.

if you wanna be nice to a musilm, realise that when muslims say "we do not commit acts of terror, nor does our community welcome those who do", you do not have to argue against violent actions by arguing against "terrorism is to do with what islam is not" , you will get a lot farther by agreeing with our community, scholars, and leaders. this is what would be nice.

because then you are agreeing that the muslims should not welcome terrorism in their community. to argue against this is to legitimize the claims terrorists make.


Islam calls for violence though, that's why I am against the violence of Islam. I'm also against the violence of Muslims, but why address a symptom when the disease is apparent?

Either way, you can't say "homosexuality is wrong/sinful" without backlash unless you're a Muslim, or maybe a Jew, without instantly triggering the lefty outrage machine. But it's pretty dang gross and I don't care for it. Not that it should be outlawed or anything, but I should be able to dislike it while still being fine with people doing it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
greatsage
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HackOtaku wrote:
greatsage wrote:
HackOtaku wrote:
It's too bad because I'm against the violence of Islam, but it would be nice to be a Muslim so I could call out homosexuality for being an abomination while still being protected from the liberal backlash because it's my faith.

>against the violence of islam
oxymoronic. what muslims do <> what islam is. islam is perfect, muslims are not. shaitan still believes in Allah, and prays to Allah, but shaitan still does harm. does that mean that belief in Allah consequently lead to this?

no. which is why you can find the same actions and worse committed by people who have no religious beliefs whatsoever. the qur'an makes clear the difference between one who believe (mumin) and one who submits (muslim). both of these you are safe from.

similarly, you can't just make a claim like this without demonstrating how the tenets of islam are violent. someone who is educated knows very well that islam is not violent.

it's not simply that homosexuality is an abomination. kind of a weird and catholic word. committing homosexual acts in a sin. so is drinking alcohol. alcoholism and homosexuality are both sins in islam. most people will readily denounce alcoholism.

if you wanna be nice to a musilm, realise that when muslims say "we do not commit acts of terror, nor does our community welcome those who do", you do not have to argue against violent actions by arguing against "terrorism is to do with what islam is not" , you will get a lot farther by agreeing with our community, scholars, and leaders. this is what would be nice.

because then you are agreeing that the muslims should not welcome terrorism in their community. to argue against this is to legitimize the claims terrorists make.


Islam calls for violence though, that's why I am against the violence of Islam. I'm also against the violence of Muslims, but why address a symptom when the disease is apparent?

Either way, you can't say "homosexuality is wrong/sinful" without backlash unless you're a Muslim, or maybe a Jew, without instantly triggering the lefty outrage machine. But it's pretty dang gross and I don't care for it. Not that it should be outlawed or anything, but I should be able to dislike it while still being fine with people doing it.


islam does not call for violence, though.
https://www.whyislam.org/faqs/does-islam-teach-hatred-and-violence/
as i said, you can not simply make these claims. you have to demonstrate them, and you are refusing to. you are only parroting a baseless claim that is peered through by those with knowledge.

and no, saying those things even clearly in the context of faith like i did is enough to get you backlash. our identity is only good for them when it's useful. they don't care to protect us like that

_________________
Imam al-Shafi’i ( رحمه الله ) wrote:
It does not befit the lion to answer the dogs.

Steam: Talixxo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Channel GannoK
pffrt
Reputation: 128

Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 612

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do thoughts outlined in this religion that consist of murder and persecution of nonbelievers, lead to murder and persecution of others in reality? Of course not!

Join Islam Today! We promise it's not like those other religions. You get 72 virgins!

I swear everything about this religion, society, and people are 100% consistent with modern science, and logic.

_________________
Shrooms wrote:
Also writing logically makes zero sense, I suggest you brush up on your english

https://guildav.com
THIS IS JUST AN OPINION


Last edited by Channel GannoK on Fri May 17, 2019 10:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
greatsage
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The logical conclusion one arrives at when reading these verses is that Islam teaches and encourages Muslims to love all people, including those of different faiths. However, it forbids Muslims from being “sell outs” by allying themselves with xenophobes who fight against Muslims and ban them from their homes simply based on their religion. In other words, the Qurʾān does not teach Muslims to fight non-Muslims, but to fight religious intolerance.

The Qurʾān notes that if people do not stand up to religious intolerance it will lead to the destruction of all places of worship.

The above verse makes it clear that the Qurʾān’s permitting of violence is not against people of different faiths, but for the protection of religious freedom for all faiths. If that right of religious freedom is not protected for one religion, then it will lead to the persecution of other religious minorities.

_________________
Imam al-Shafi’i ( رحمه الله ) wrote:
It does not befit the lion to answer the dogs.

Steam: Talixxo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic
Reputation: 77

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 249

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

greatsage wrote:
HackOtaku wrote:
greatsage wrote:
HackOtaku wrote:
It's too bad because I'm against the violence of Islam, but it would be nice to be a Muslim so I could call out homosexuality for being an abomination while still being protected from the liberal backlash because it's my faith.

>against the violence of islam
oxymoronic. what muslims do <> what islam is. islam is perfect, muslims are not. shaitan still believes in Allah, and prays to Allah, but shaitan still does harm. does that mean that belief in Allah consequently lead to this?

no. which is why you can find the same actions and worse committed by people who have no religious beliefs whatsoever. the qur'an makes clear the difference between one who believe (mumin) and one who submits (muslim). both of these you are safe from.

similarly, you can't just make a claim like this without demonstrating how the tenets of islam are violent. someone who is educated knows very well that islam is not violent.

it's not simply that homosexuality is an abomination. kind of a weird and catholic word. committing homosexual acts in a sin. so is drinking alcohol. alcoholism and homosexuality are both sins in islam. most people will readily denounce alcoholism.

if you wanna be nice to a musilm, realise that when muslims say "we do not commit acts of terror, nor does our community welcome those who do", you do not have to argue against violent actions by arguing against "terrorism is to do with what islam is not" , you will get a lot farther by agreeing with our community, scholars, and leaders. this is what would be nice.

because then you are agreeing that the muslims should not welcome terrorism in their community. to argue against this is to legitimize the claims terrorists make.


Islam calls for violence though, that's why I am against the violence of Islam. I'm also against the violence of Muslims, but why address a symptom when the disease is apparent?

Either way, you can't say "homosexuality is wrong/sinful" without backlash unless you're a Muslim, or maybe a Jew, without instantly triggering the lefty outrage machine. But it's pretty dang gross and I don't care for it. Not that it should be outlawed or anything, but I should be able to dislike it while still being fine with people doing it.


islam does not call for violence, though.

as i said, you can not simply make these claims. you have to demonstrate them, and you are refusing to. you are only parroting a baseless claim that is peered through by those with knowledge.

and no, saying those things even clearly in the context of faith like i did is enough to get you backlash. our identity is only good for them when it's useful. they don't care to protect us like that


Quote:
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of Taghut. So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak.


It's pretty funny how liberals both embrace Muslims/Islam when it's convenient and lash against them when it isn't. At some point or another, they'll have to come to terms with the fact that they have an inconsistent belief system. Probably when Islam grows much more in the states.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Channel GannoK
pffrt
Reputation: 128

Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 612

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HackOtaku wrote:
greatsage wrote:
HackOtaku wrote:
greatsage wrote:
HackOtaku wrote:
It's too bad because I'm against the violence of Islam, but it would be nice to be a Muslim so I could call out homosexuality for being an abomination while still being protected from the liberal backlash because it's my faith.

>against the violence of islam
oxymoronic. what muslims do <> what islam is. islam is perfect, muslims are not. shaitan still believes in Allah, and prays to Allah, but shaitan still does harm. does that mean that belief in Allah consequently lead to this?

no. which is why you can find the same actions and worse committed by people who have no religious beliefs whatsoever. the qur'an makes clear the difference between one who believe (mumin) and one who submits (muslim). both of these you are safe from.

similarly, you can't just make a claim like this without demonstrating how the tenets of islam are violent. someone who is educated knows very well that islam is not violent.

it's not simply that homosexuality is an abomination. kind of a weird and catholic word. committing homosexual acts in a sin. so is drinking alcohol. alcoholism and homosexuality are both sins in islam. most people will readily denounce alcoholism.

if you wanna be nice to a musilm, realise that when muslims say "we do not commit acts of terror, nor does our community welcome those who do", you do not have to argue against violent actions by arguing against "terrorism is to do with what islam is not" , you will get a lot farther by agreeing with our community, scholars, and leaders. this is what would be nice.

because then you are agreeing that the muslims should not welcome terrorism in their community. to argue against this is to legitimize the claims terrorists make.


Islam calls for violence though, that's why I am against the violence of Islam. I'm also against the violence of Muslims, but why address a symptom when the disease is apparent?

Either way, you can't say "homosexuality is wrong/sinful" without backlash unless you're a Muslim, or maybe a Jew, without instantly triggering the lefty outrage machine. But it's pretty dang gross and I don't care for it. Not that it should be outlawed or anything, but I should be able to dislike it while still being fine with people doing it.


islam does not call for violence, though.

as i said, you can not simply make these claims. you have to demonstrate them, and you are refusing to. you are only parroting a baseless claim that is peered through by those with knowledge.

and no, saying those things even clearly in the context of faith like i did is enough to get you backlash. our identity is only good for them when it's useful. they don't care to protect us like that


Quote:
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of Taghut. So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak.


It's pretty funny how liberals both embrace Muslims/Islam when it's convenient and lash against them when it isn't. At some point or another, they'll have to come to terms with the fact that they have an inconsistent belief system. Probably when Islam grows much more in the states.


Liberals that defend islam don't realize that if the muslim community grew larger than the liberals, they would more than likely change to a heavy handed right wing style of government. Muslims want to change this world into saudi arabia and Iran. Classist caste societies. it's literally what Taqiyya is about

_________________
Shrooms wrote:
Also writing logically makes zero sense, I suggest you brush up on your english

https://guildav.com
THIS IS JUST AN OPINION
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic
Reputation: 77

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 249

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Channel GannoK wrote:

Liberals that defend islam don't realize that if the muslim community grew larger than the liberals, they would more than likely change to a heavy handed right wing style of government. Muslims want to change this world into saudi arabia and Iran. Classist caste societies. it's literally what Taqiyya is about


You're making the rise of Islam sound pretty good actually, except for the turning into Saudi Arabia part.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
greatsage
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Channel GannoK wrote:
Liberals that defend islam don't realize that if the muslim community grew larger than the liberals, they would more than likely change to a heavy handed right wing style of government. Muslims want to change this world into saudi arabia and Iran. Classist caste societies. it's literally what Taqiyya is about


u are a moron. taqiyya is a shia belief and not a belief in mainstream islam.
HackOtaku wrote:
greatsage wrote:
HackOtaku wrote:
greatsage wrote:
HackOtaku wrote:
It's too bad because I'm against the violence of Islam, but it would be nice to be a Muslim so I could call out homosexuality for being an abomination while still being protected from the liberal backlash because it's my faith.

>against the violence of islam
oxymoronic. what muslims do <> what islam is. islam is perfect, muslims are not. shaitan still believes in Allah, and prays to Allah, but shaitan still does harm. does that mean that belief in Allah consequently lead to this?

no. which is why you can find the same actions and worse committed by people who have no religious beliefs whatsoever. the qur'an makes clear the difference between one who believe (mumin) and one who submits (muslim). both of these you are safe from.

similarly, you can't just make a claim like this without demonstrating how the tenets of islam are violent. someone who is educated knows very well that islam is not violent.

it's not simply that homosexuality is an abomination. kind of a weird and catholic word. committing homosexual acts in a sin. so is drinking alcohol. alcoholism and homosexuality are both sins in islam. most people will readily denounce alcoholism.

if you wanna be nice to a musilm, realise that when muslims say "we do not commit acts of terror, nor does our community welcome those who do", you do not have to argue against violent actions by arguing against "terrorism is to do with what islam is not" , you will get a lot farther by agreeing with our community, scholars, and leaders. this is what would be nice.

because then you are agreeing that the muslims should not welcome terrorism in their community. to argue against this is to legitimize the claims terrorists make.


Islam calls for violence though, that's why I am against the violence of Islam. I'm also against the violence of Muslims, but why address a symptom when the disease is apparent?

Either way, you can't say "homosexuality is wrong/sinful" without backlash unless you're a Muslim, or maybe a Jew, without instantly triggering the lefty outrage machine. But it's pretty dang gross and I don't care for it. Not that it should be outlawed or anything, but I should be able to dislike it while still being fine with people doing it.


islam does not call for violence, though.

as i said, you can not simply make these claims. you have to demonstrate them, and you are refusing to. you are only parroting a baseless claim that is peered through by those with knowledge.

and no, saying those things even clearly in the context of faith like i did is enough to get you backlash. our identity is only good for them when it's useful. they don't care to protect us like that


Quote:
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of Taghut. So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak.


It's pretty funny how liberal both embrace Muslims/Islam when it's convenient and lash against them when it isn't. At some point or another, they'll have to come to terms with the fact that they have an inconsistent belief system. Probably when Islam grows much more in the states.


let me start out by saying ty for apparently making a genuine effort to discuss this

https://yaqeeninstitute.org/justin-parrott/jihad-as-defense-just-war-theory-in-the-quran-and-sunnah/
this is an article written by my friend on facebook.

it's funny but sad that liberals do this. politics is so dumb Sad
a lot of people ive talked to that are muslim reverts, not all, apparently were overwhelmed by uhh i guess a downward trend from liberals (i guess some call it degeneracy? idk i don't like thinking like that), and islam helped them reclaim some security over the chaos they were lead to

as for the verse you quoted, you have got to realise that english translations are only one interpretation of the meaning; the qur'an in arabic contains the actual meaning.

so when it says "fight against", this is not just a lone phrase, but it is something that all who read the qur'an understand it is a statement within context, relating to a certain conflict and certain people.
it is also clarifying that in that circumstance, where the muslims were being warred against, and driven from their homes, captured tortured and slaughtered, that there is not a third path of inaction.
taghut is a very broad word and is not easy to translate to english.
so when it was initially revealed that they were prescribed by Allah to defend themselves from the aggressors, but not initiate aggression or warfare or violate peace, then some of them questioned this order, and it was further explained.

i agree, that if you remove that verse from context, it could be taken and mistaught in a violent manner. but that would no longer be teaching the context it was revealed in, and would no longer be teaching the verse itself, but an innovation.

and as you stand against that, you will find muslims are already standing against this misinterpretation as well.

i will give you another example; you can quote from the new testament where "Jesus said, 'all who do not believe in me, bring me their head (via cutting it off)'". this removed from context sounds like christianity claims jesus calls for believers to behead those who do not believe in jesus. but jesus was telling a parable, and so it is incorrect to attribute such a statement removed from context to Jesus, as it is patently not even what is conveyed in the source.
http://www.alhewar.com/what_the_quran_really_says.htm

Quote:
On Terrorism and Violence

Obviously the Qur'an doesn't condone terrorism, though Muhammed was the leader of a military force and therefore used violence. "In the West," writes scholar Karen Armstrong in her book, Muhammad, "we often imagine Muhammad as a warlord, brandishing his sword in order to impose Islam on a reluctant world by force of arms. The reality was quite different. Muhammad and the first Muslims were fighting for their lives, and they had also undertaken a project in which violence was inevitable."

It is true, she says, that unlike Christianity, Islam's leader was not a pacifist. "Islam fights tyranny and injustice. A Muslim may feel that he has a sacred duty to champion the weak and the oppresed," she writes. "Fighting and warfare might sometimes be necessary, but it was only a minor part of the whole jihad or struggle. A well-known tradition (hadith) has Muhammad say on returning from a battle, 'We return from the little jihad to the greater jihad,' the more difficult and crucial effort to conquer the forces of evil in oneself and and in one's own society in all the details of daily life."

While there are passages in the Qur'an, like the Old Testament of the Bible, that celebrate military victory, the overall gestalt of the Qur'an promotes a more restrained view. Chapter 5, verse 32, for instance, states: "On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person--unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land--it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people."

That passages places a great value on the sanctity of a single life. "If you kill one person it's as if you kill all humanity," says Imam Hendi.

Indeed, Hendi says, the Qur'an goes one step further in chapter 8, verse 61, "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah."


HackOtaku wrote:
Channel GannoK wrote:

Liberals that defend islam don't realize that if the muslim community grew larger than the liberals, they would more than likely change to a heavy handed right wing style of government. Muslims want to change this world into saudi arabia and Iran. Classist caste societies. it's literally what Taqiyya is about


You're making the rise of Islam sound pretty good actually, except for the turning into Saudi Arabia part.


every muslim i have ever talked to has heavily criticised saudi arabia.

_________________
Imam al-Shafi’i ( رحمه الله ) wrote:
It does not befit the lion to answer the dogs.

Steam: Talixxo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic
Reputation: 77

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 249

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
let me start out by saying ty for apparently making a genuine effort to discuss this

https://yaqeeninstitute.org/justin-parrott/jihad-as-defense-just-war-theory-in-the-quran-and-sunnah/
this is an article written by my friend on facebook.

it's funny but sad that liberals do this. politics is so dumb Sad
a lot of people ive talked to that are muslim reverts, not all, apparently were overwhelmed by uhh i guess a downward trend from liberals (i guess some call it degeneracy? idk i don't like thinking like that), and islam helped them reclaim some security over the chaos they were lead to

as for the verse you quoted, you have got to realise that english translations are only one interpretation of the meaning; the qur'an in arabic contains the actual meaning.

so when it says "fight against", this is not just a lone phrase, but it is something that all who read the qur'an understand it is a statement within context, relating to a certain conflict and certain people.
it is also clarifying that in that circumstance, where the muslims were being warred against, and driven from their homes, captured tortured and slaughtered, that there is not a third path of inaction.
taghut is a very broad word and is not easy to translate to english.
so when it was initially revealed that they were prescribed by Allah to defend themselves from the aggressors, but not initiate aggression or warfare or violate peace, then some of them questioned this order, and it was further explained.

i agree, that if you remove that verse from context, it could be taken and mistaught in a violent manner. but that would no longer be teaching the context it was revealed in, and would no longer be teaching the verse itself, but an innovation.

and as you stand against that, you will find muslims are already standing against this misinterpretation as well.

i will give you another example; you can quote from the new testament where "Jesus said, 'all who do not believe in me, bring me their head (via cutting it off)'". this removed from context sounds like christianity claims jesus calls for believers to behead those who do not believe in jesus. but jesus was telling a parable, and so it is incorrect to attribute such a statement removed from context to Jesus, as it is patently not even what is conveyed in the source.
http://www.alhewar.com/what_the_quran_really_says.htm


I'm not going to read your friend's post because it is too long and I don't care that much.

I'll also accept your claim for now because I admittedly don't know an extensive amount of Islamic history, and you may be right, but that's hardly a single call of violence in the book.

Quote:
O you who have believed, if you obey those who disbelieve, they will turn you back on your heels, and you will [then] become losers.

But Allah is your protector, and He is the best of helpers.


We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.

And Allah had certainly fulfilled His promise to you when you were killing the enemy by His permission until [the time] when you lost courage and fell to disputing about the order [given by the Prophet] and disobeyed after He had shown you that which you love. Among you are some who desire this world, and among you are some who desire the Hereafter. Then he turned you back from them [defeated] that He might test you. And He has already forgiven you, and Allah is the possessor of bounty for the believers.


Now you may argue that this also calls for a defensive war, but doesn't that still mean Muhammad is advocating the use of terror to spread his message?

Quote:
i will give you another example; you can quote from the new testament where "Jesus said, 'all who do not believe in me, bring me their head


EDIT: also, Jesus never said "all who do not believe in me, bring me their head", that was some asshole king in a story. Additionally, the gospels are not taken as the "literal word of God" in the way the Quran is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
greatsage
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HackOtaku wrote:
Quote:
let me start out by saying ty for apparently making a genuine effort to discuss this

this is an article written by my friend on facebook.

it's funny but sad that liberals do this. politics is so dumb Sad
a lot of people ive talked to that are muslim reverts, not all, apparently were overwhelmed by uhh i guess a downward trend from liberals (i guess some call it degeneracy? idk i don't like thinking like that), and islam helped them reclaim some security over the chaos they were lead to

as for the verse you quoted, you have got to realise that english translations are only one interpretation of the meaning; the qur'an in arabic contains the actual meaning.

so when it says "fight against", this is not just a lone phrase, but it is something that all who read the qur'an understand it is a statement within context, relating to a certain conflict and certain people.
it is also clarifying that in that circumstance, where the muslims were being warred against, and driven from their homes, captured tortured and slaughtered, that there is not a third path of inaction.
taghut is a very broad word and is not easy to translate to english.
so when it was initially revealed that they were prescribed by Allah to defend themselves from the aggressors, but not initiate aggression or warfare or violate peace, then some of them questioned this order, and it was further explained.

i agree, that if you remove that verse from context, it could be taken and mistaught in a violent manner. but that would no longer be teaching the context it was revealed in, and would no longer be teaching the verse itself, but an innovation.

and as you stand against that, you will find muslims are already standing against this misinterpretation as well.

i will give you another example; you can quote from the new testament where "Jesus said, 'all who do not believe in me, bring me their head (via cutting it off)'". this removed from context sounds like christianity claims jesus calls for believers to behead those who do not believe in jesus. but jesus was telling a parable, and so it is incorrect to attribute such a statement removed from context to Jesus, as it is patently not even what is conveyed in the source.


I'm not going to read your friend's post because it is too long and I don't care that much.

I'll also accept your claim for now because I admittedly don't know an extensive amount of Islamic history, and you may be right, but that's hardly a single call of violence in the book.

Quote:
O you who have believed, if you obey those who disbelieve, they will turn you back on your heels, and you will [then] become losers.

But Allah is your protector, and He is the best of helpers.


We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.

And Allah had certainly fulfilled His promise to you when you were killing the enemy by His permission until [the time] when you lost courage and fell to disputing about the order [given by the Prophet] and disobeyed after He had shown you that which you love. Among you are some who desire this world, and among you are some who desire the Hereafter. Then he turned you back from them [defeated] that He might test you. And He has already forgiven you, and Allah is the possessor of bounty for the believers.


Now you may argue that this also calls for a defensive war, but doesn't that still mean Muhammad is advocating the use of terror to spread his message?


the only call of "violence" is solely for active self-defense -- those who are actively warring against you. not even proactive warfare (i.e. im scared these guys are about to attack me) is permissible. and if the ones who are warring against you ask for peace, you are not allowed to refuse it or initiate anything afterwards.
pre-islamic arabs knew how to kill their children, war with and kill each other (there was one tribal conflict for generations over the question of who was responsible for slaughtering a donkey), and beating their wives. Islam came to teach the arabs and all of mankind. they did not need to be taught how to beat and abuse or commit warfare -- they were GOOD at it. they needed to be taught to be GOOD at better behavior, and to forbid such horrible behaviour, and that is what Islam did. it elevated them from humiliation and ignorance to righteousness, steadfastness, and contemplative inquiry (i.e. fostering science, that muslims fathered)

"advocating the use of terror to spread his message?"

i'm not understanding how you are getting such a thing is being advocated. the Qur'an is not the words of Muhammad, peace be upon him, so it is not his message; the Qur'an is entirely the words of Allah, that Muhammad, peace be upon him, was made to spread.

so while my understanding is that you may be thinking this is from the perspective of Muslims or Muhammad, peace be upon him; i.e., that "We (Muslims) will cast terror into the hearts of those non-Muslims"; but this is an incorrect interpretation.

this is not the case or what the verse is establishing. In Islam, Allah hates sin, and we are also instructed to dislike sin, but to love the sinner. i'm sure you can imagine a new court jester arriving in front of the monarchy, making a bad joke, and the singular King/Queen says, "We are NOT amused!", even if everyone in the court but the monarch is stifling their laughter. in this case, "We" is a majestic plural that is singular in quantity. the Qur'an does the same thing with a majestic plural; although "We" typically denotes multiple, in this instance, it is a way of addressing a singular with respect.

so it is not "We (Muslims) will cast terror". it is Allah promising something to the Muslims who, quite understandably, witnessing people brutally tortured and executed for their religion, while their family and other Muslims are forced to watch even vaginal impalement, Allah is giving them reassurance that ALLAH will show them what they chose to believe over their Creator, the Most Merciful, and to what extent they committed their acts of worship (even so much as torture and execution of their own children that they viewed as permissible), and it is such individuals that will have terror cast into their hearts.

if u do something majorly wrong, thinking it was right -- and are then shown the truth in a way you can't deny or turn away from, you can describe this as "terror" filling your heart.

Allah is promising in this verse that He will recompense all of those who disbelieve. this is the worst act imaginable, in islam, to worship others as Allah deserves worship. behaving good is what Allah sent down and ordained. if you are coming to a similar morality via contrived means, even deified, then you are essentially infringing and committing theft against what has been ordained by the Creator. if this is such a major mistake, why should Allah have them recognize it in a way that makes them happy, and not regret their deeds?

if you believe in another deity other than Allah, then there is no reason this verse will terrify or offend you; it is a promise to those who do believe in Allah that He will help them against those who are persecuting them. in fact, if you are simply allying with your tribe and are questioning their transgressions against the Muslims, this verse serves as a warning and may be enough to save you from any terror. ultimately, these associations were done not for a higher or ideal sense of morality or philosophy, but rather, social, tribal, and economic gain. by doing this of their own free and informed will, they are deserving of the terror their actions merit according to the criterion of judgment between good and evil that has been sent down by the one casting the terror in the hearts of the wrong-doers

_________________
Imam al-Shafi’i ( رحمه الله ) wrote:
It does not befit the lion to answer the dogs.

Steam: Talixxo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic
Reputation: 77

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 249

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So he was saying "We" meaning that himself and the Muslims will cast terror? Otherwise why not just say "Allah" will spread terror?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cheat Engine Forum Index -> Random spam All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 10 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

CE Wiki   IRC (#CEF)   Twitter
Third party websites