Islam is not a RACE

Here is some more. This is from Tertullian, so again, pretty early in Christian history, only slightly later than the sources i mentioned above. Here he talks about opponents of Christians calling Christianity the third race:
We are indeed said to be the third race of men. What, a dog-faced race? Or broadly shadow-footed? Or some subterranean Antipodes? If you attach any meaning to these names, pray tell us what are the first and the second race, that so we may know something of this third. Psammetichus thought that he had hit upon the ingenious discovery of the primeval man. He is said to have removed certain new-born infants from all human intercourse, and to have entrusted them to a nurse, whom he had previously deprived of her tongue, in order that, being completely exiled from all sound of the human voice, they might form their speech without hearing it; and thus, deriving it from themselves alone, might indicate what that first nation was whose speech was dictated by nature. Their first utterance was Bekkos, a word which means bread in the language of Phrygia: the Phrygians, therefore, are supposed to be the first of the human race. But it will not be out of place if we make one observation, with a view to show how your faith abandons itself more to vanities than to verities. Can it be, then, at all credible that the nurse retained her life, after the loss of so important a member, the very organ of the breath of life, — cut out, too, from the very root, with her throat mutilated, which cannot be wounded even on the outside without danger, and the putrid gore flowing back to the chest, and deprived for so long a time of her food? Come, even suppose that by the remedies of a Philomela she retained her life, in the way supposed by wisest persons, who account for the dumbness not by cutting out the tongue, but from the blush of shame; if on such a supposition she lived, she would still be able to blurt out some dull sound. And a shrill inarticulate noise from opening the mouth only, without any modulation of the lips, might be forced from the mere throat, though there were no tongue to help. This, it is probable, the infants readily imitated, and the more so because it was the only sound; only they did it a little more neatly, as they had tongues; and then they attached to it a definite signification. Granted, then, that the Phrygians were the earliest race, it does not follow that the Christians are the third. For how many other nations come regularly after the Phrygians? Take care, however, lest those whom you call the third race should obtain the first rank, since there is no nation indeed which is not Christian. Whatever nation, therefore, was the first, is nevertheless Christian now. It is ridiculous folly which makes you say we are the latest race, and then specifically call us the third. But it is in respect of our religion, not of our nation, that we are supposed to be the third; the series being the Romans, the Jews, and the Christians after them. Where, then, are the Greeks? Or if they are reckoned among the Romans in regard to their superstition (since it was from Greece that Rome borrowed even her gods), where at least are the Egyptians, since these have, so far as I know, a mysterious religion peculiar to themselves? Now, if they who belong to the third race are so monstrous, what must they be supposed to be who preceded them in the first and the second place?
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03061.htm

Also, I see that Clement of Alexandria, around the same time as Tertullian, quotes from an earlier Christian writing called the Preaching of Peter, which was probably written early in the second century, expressing a very similar view, that Christians comprise the third race, after Greeks and Jews (Stromateis 6.5).
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02106.htm
 
Being Jewish has to do with being a descendant of Judah.

"Has to do with" is nice and wide open. Sure, I guess what you say is true, as long as you don't get any more specific than that, since a person can be a descendant of Judah without being identified by anyone as a Jew, and a person can be a Jew without being a descendant of Judah. In fact, the number of Jews today who can actually trace their genealogies back to Judah is zero.
 
Well this definitely proves that your observations are stupid, because the Muslim caliphates were invading Europe since before the Catholic Crusades, including the wars over Turkey and the Balkans that lasted to, and included, World War I. And you can shrug off Muhammad's promise to kill all the Jews because "they never tried to kill me," but yet again, your ignorance doesn't protect the Jews who are in fact targeted and slaughtered by radicals who follow Muhammad's commands. All of Islam's ideological conquests were violent. You're simply ignorant about history. I'm not downplaying Jewish or Christian violence at all, btw; but you're downplaying Islamic violence on a massive, massive scale. This whole "it started in World War I" thing is a stupid leftist academic myth.


AND CATHOLIC EUROPE WAS INVADING THE MIDDLE EAST BEFORE ISLAM EVEN EXISTED! How are people so untrained in history that they don't understand this?

It is all statism and blowback, the cycle of violence and reprisal, how are people who can so clearly able to see this on other issues so blind when it comes to Islam and Muslims?

And the claim that Muhammad just order the killing of all Jews is straight up ignorance. http://www.muhammadfactcheck.org/?muhammad=prophet-muhammad-sa-murdered-700-innocent-jews

In fact through most of its history Islam had good relations with Christians and Jews living in majority Muslim areas. Whereas Muslims and Jews faced extermination and genocide at the hands of the Catholic Inquisition, Christians and Jews paid an extra tax and lived otherwise in peace in majority Muslim lands. In fact during periods of persecutions from Christians, Jews often fled to Muslim lands for protection and safety. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Muslim_rule#cite_note-2
 
Last edited:
Yes, and while I am not an Islamic scholar, it is my current understanding that not all Islamic people believe that. So it might be better to specify those people rather than including the entire group.

I think that ahimsa or non-violence for all species is one of the highest religious ideals, so I do think such violence as you describe is against religious principles.

^^^THREAD WINNER^^^

Im outta Rep, someone want to cover me?
 
This is a race:
idea_ss_nyc-marathon_001_596x334_596x334.jpg
 
It's very simplistic to simply say, "The Bible calls for this" and compare it to the Quran by leaving out context. The Old Testament law in the Bible is no longer necessary, as it was back in that day. Christians don't do it, not because they just don't care about the Bible that much, but because the teachings of Jesus made it clear that Old Testament law was covered by His sacrifice. If you can find the same kind of context in the Quran, then good for you, but I would encourage you to at least look at the context before making knee-jerk statements about the religion and saying people just don't follow it because to do so would be evil. Maybe there's a difference in the application of these scriptures that you're missing that makes a huge difference between the two.

But no, go ahead and keep painting all religions with the same brush just like some people paint all Muslims with the same brush. We all just have these books and we do somethings but not others because it's really just a guessing game which passages apply today and which ones don't. I would caution you against using this kind of dialogue since it's clear that you don't really know what you're talking about.

You know Christians aren't the only ones who believe in the Old Testament right?
 
Yes, and while I am not an Islamic scholar, it is my current understanding that not all Islamic people believe that. So it might be better to specify those people rather than including the entire group.

I think that ahimsa or non-violence for all species is one of the highest religious ideals, so I do think such violence as you describe is against religious principles.

^^^THREAD WINNER^^^

Im outta Rep, someone want to cover me?

I disagree.

I posted this in another thread, but it is appropriate here:



"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter."

Any organization that has that is their basic tenant, no matter how peacefully the majority is, is a dangerous and flawed affiliation and the followers who truly are peaceful need to leave it...
 
Last edited:
I regard Islam as more of a cult
1. The founder lived by a different set of rules than are imposed on the followers

Where the fuck did you get that shit from? LOL IM DONE

You know what did the Prophet Mohammed -peace and blessings be upon him- do when he returned to Mecca?
He forgave the people who tried to destroy his message, who opposed him, who tortured him and his followers, who tried to assassinate him.
Then he destroyed all the idols which had been set-up around the House of Abraham ( the Kaaba ) and established Islam as the religion of Medina and Mecca. The Jews and Zoroastrians and polytheists were given religious freedom; they had to pay a Jizya tax which is the equal for the Muslim tax called "Zakaat", they also had superior rights (the young men who pay Jizya were exempted from military service unless they apply on their own). So te acceptance of the Jizya establishes the sanctity of their lives and property, and thereafter neither the Islamic state, nor the Muslim public have any right to violate their property, honor or liberty.

2. It is a roach motel, you can check in but never check out

“There is no compulsion in religion — the right way is indeed clearly distinct from error.” and "Whoever wants to believe, let him do so. Whoever wants to not believe, let him do so."

So that redeems your argument completely wrong. I'm done lol.

3. Non followers are not considered worthy of any recognition of rights

"Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, curtails their rights, burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment." (narrated by Abu Dawud)

Also, when the Islamic State conquered Najran (the first Islamic State of the prophet, not ISIS), the leaders, who were Christians, are assured the security from Allah and his Apostle. Their lives, their legislation, land, wealth, near and far away people, their worship places will be protected. No priest from his religious post, no officer of his official post was removed. What would any other person ask for?


Umar (ra), the third Caliph after AbuBakr, said on slavery: Since when have you considered people as your slaves? Although their mothers gave birth to them as free living people [Kanz ul Amaal, Volume No. 4, Page No. 455]

4 Followers are to associate only with other followers

No, it is permissible for a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman if she is Christian or Jewish, but it is not permissible for him to marry a non-Muslim woman who follows any religion other than these two.



May I ask, from which planet do you come from, dear sir?
 
"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter."

OK, here's something; you give me each verse of those 109 verses so that I reply to each of them. The issue that is up with those verses is the context of the revelation.
For example, the "strike to their necks" verse is inspired to the Prophet before the first battle of Badr to motivate the Muslims before the battle.

Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Yes, they're hypocrites and collaborators with the enemy if they don't join the Jihad to defend their faith and their land from foreign attackers. Military service in the Islamic State (again, I'm not referring to ISIL) is not compulsory unless it's in case of defense against foreign invasion (refer to the first Sassanid-Rashidun war).
The "hypocrite" term is the equivalent for the modern-day "traitor" and "betrayer of the nation" in all modern states. You can begin with the American conscripts who were labelled as traitors when they refused to go on an offensive war in Vietnam.

Any organization that has that is their basic tenant, no matter how peacefully the majority is, is a dangerous and flawed affiliation and the followers who truly are peaceful need to leave it...

I beg you to read the peaceful side of the Qur'an. 109 verses of violence in the Qur'an are roughly the half of 245 peaceful verses of the Holy Book.
LOL, come on, man, I thought you knew better.
“God does not forbid you from being good to those who have not fought you in the religion or driven you from your homes, or from being just towards them. God loves those who are just.” (Surat al-Mumtahana
 
Harmonica
Posts: 4
Join Date: 12-22-2015

Where the fuck did you get that shit from? LOL IM DONE

.... I'm done lol.

You just started here 2 days ago, and your done... LOL BYE BYE.


OK, here's something; you give me each verse of those 109 verses so that I reply to each of them.

I beg you to read the peaceful side of the Qur'an.
Hmmmm.... nope. I do not wish to waste my time with either endeavor. LOL.
 
At least 40% of American Muslims think Muslims must be governed by Sharia law, and not the US constitution, while at least 40% (and probably over half) of American Muslims think it should be illegal for ANYONE to criticize Muhammad. This also means that 40% of American Muslims are too stupid to realize that they think that ALL Americans must be governed by Sharia. I don't know about the rest of RPFers, but I personally support the US constitution. If supporting the constitution makes me an Islamophobe, then so be it. Btw, the US and Canada have the most moderate Muslims in the world. The numbers in any other country are worse. Jews and Catholics used to be just as fanatical as the Muslim majority is today, but they secularized and modernized. Maybe in five million years Islam will grow up, too.

http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/pol...-want-people-who-criticize-islam-put-to-death
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/free_speech.htm
http://www.weaselzippers.us/222685-...ld-be-illegal-to-criticize-islam-or-mohammed/
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/10/4...ink-criticism-of-islam-should-be-criminalized
http://www.andrewbostom.org/2012/10/sixty-percent-of-us-muslims-reject-freedom-of-expression/



Because its an ideology. I'm not saying we should discriminate against Muslims at all; the majority of Muslims think non-Muslims should be discriminated against (let alone women, gays, adulterers, etc.). Defending bigotry doesn't make you tolerant. It makes you a bigot. You're a bigot.



Interesting.

Now what percentage of US Presidents think that they are being governed by warmongerism or Judaism ?



Harry Truman


Was he acting as an American and within the US Constitution when in 1949 he allowed the Zionist minority to dispossess 1,500,000 Muslims in Palestine? After that those unfortunate people became foreigners in their own land. The zionists plans were to disappear them by any means necessary.

Bush I, Clinton, Bush II


Were they acting as Americans and within the US Constitution when the US invaded Iraq in 1990 and allowed to remain there for 18 years? How about the act of slaughtering millions of Iraqi women and children?

Obama

Was he acting as an American and within the US Constitution when he invaded Syria and destroyed that country forcing 9,000,000 Muslims to become international refugees?

.
 
At least 40% of American Muslims think Muslims must be governed by Sharia law, and not the US constitution, while at least 40% (and probably over half) of American Muslims think it should be illegal for ANYONE to criticize Muhammad. This also means that 40% of American Muslims are too stupid to realize that they think that ALL Americans must be governed by Sharia. I don't know about the rest of RPFers, but I personally support the US constitution.



How do you know that those "40%" believe that non-Muslims should be subjected to Shariah in the United States? We already have Shariah courts in the US and they are voluntary and contractual but cannot supersede the Constitution and basic Rights. Look up the video about Judge Neapolitan discussing this matter.
 
That is one guy's interpretation of Islam that may be shared by many you are talking about, but what about my Islam? That one guy's Islam may be cult like but is that true for my own?
 
What is common between Mexicans, Obama and Muslims?

There is very high overlapping in people against all these three. Mexicans are Christians, Obama claimed on national TV that he is in Jesus camp. If Islam is not a race, why majority of GOP refuse to see Obama as a Christian?

Question open to anyone who is able to answer it.


Poll: 60 percent of Trump supporters believe Obama is Muslim
By Brenda Gazzar, Los Angeles Daily News
Posted: 12/22/15, 12:53 PM PST

Sixty percent of Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s supporters believe President Barack Obama is Muslim and only 6 percent believe he is Christian, according to a new poll.
http://www.dailynews.com/government...t-of-trump-supporters-believe-obama-is-muslim




Political science research shows that Americans who dislike Muslims also have an especially unfavorable opinion of Obama. The most anti-Muslim, in fact, dislike Obama considerably more than any other high-profile politician.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-toward-muslims-this-new-poll-will-tell-you/
 
How do you know that those "40%" believe that non-Muslims should be subjected to Shariah in the United States?

I think he's referring to the one listed here that says 58% of American Muslims believe that criticism of Muhammed should not be protected by the First Amendment. Some of the other poll results listed are more shocking than that.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm
 
I think he's referring to the one listed here that says 58% of American Muslims believe that criticism of Muhammed should not be protected by the First Amendment. Some of the other poll results listed are more shocking than that.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm


I'm interested in seeing a breakdown of that poll by age groups as well. I think guys coming here (who tend to be older than ones born here) are more Mohammedan than Muslim and the ones born and raised here are the reverse.
 
Back
Top