Christian [sic] sharia: Oklahoma Republican Declares That Rape Is The ‘Will Of God’ By Stephen D. Foster Jr. | 22 March 2017 Women should get as far away from Oklahoma as soon as possible because Christian Sharia law is about to make their lives a living hell. If Oklahoma state GOP Rep. George Faught has his way, rape will be on the path to being legal in the state. At least that’s what rapists are hoping for after Faught made a frightening statement on the subject during a debate on House Bill 1549, which restricts abortion. Democratic Rep. Cory Williams masterfully cornered Faught during the hearing by asking him if he believes rape and incest are the “will of God” since the legislation has no exceptions for either, meaning women would be forced to give birth to their rapist’s baby. Faught’s reply is absolutely appalling and demonstrates once again why women should never vote for Republicans, especially Republicans who want to base our laws on the Bible. more at link: http://churchandstate.org.uk/2017/04/oklahoma-republican-declares-that-rape-is-the-will-of-god/ Imagine if a Muslim said that. Forum right wingers would be having a field day attacking the religion.
He is a brainwashed Christian who believes all things are the will of God. He was caught in a play on words, But I see you failed to mention that.
LOL. Yeah, sorta like when Hillary said "we will destroy all farms" - a phrase used by right wingers to get votes in the farm belt. But what the right wingers did not do was to include the phrase she used before those terms which was "unless we change and fix up the farm deals we currently have under Republicans ... we will destroy all farms". Very enterprising of them wasn't it?
Christians lied by omission. Jews lied by omission. This hatred is stupid, meaning an error not of intellect but one of being unable to change one's mind in the face of the evidence.
Christians lied by omission. Jews lied by omission. This hatred is stupid, meaning an error not of intellect but one of being unable to change one's mind in the face of the evidence. Addendum: we still see Islamophobics unable to parse the information accurately, and they can't answer the OP.
It doesn't make sense to you because you focus too much on Islam and ignore the wider context. Look at how other cultures are dealing with religious issues. Look at how Christianity manages to ignore plain text in the OT. Look at how Judaism manages to twist and reinterpret every word and even letters in its texts, until plain text is saying the exact opposite of what's written (this is what "pilpul" does). Muslims can do those things too. They're not fundamentally different from other humans, you know. I've already come across such an attempt to reinterpret Islamic texts on Ali Eteraz' now defunct blog. He managed to attract like minded fellow Muslims into a vibrant community. I found one of his old articles on Islamic reformation on Wayback Machine. Browse down to find it and click on the hyperlinks in the article for more details. https://web.archive.org/web/20080218095149/http://eteraz.wordpress.com/
I think what he was saying is the ensuing conception was God's will. Anybody here want to be killed if they found out they were really a product of rape or incest? Two crimes don't make a right.
They don't ignore them, they correctly see them as applying in specific instances to the OT theocracy of Israel, which hasn't existed for thousands of years.
Muhammeds men wanted to have sex with a bunch of women they just captured for the slave market. They told Muhammed they would pull out, so they wouldn't get pregnant. Muhammed said if they got pregnant it was Allahs will.
As someone wisely said, Islamophobia is “a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons".
Yes, KINGS, it was political and not taught by Jesus or the NT. They are alone in that the word and deed of their founder was very violent. What other religion had a founder as bloody as the 'prophet'. They would have to admit that their 'perfect man', Muhammad was wrong in his deeds and words, which supposedly came direct from God. I'd be the happiest person here if tomorrow the Muslim world renounced its mayhem, but its just wishful thinking. What's that definition of insanity? Islam is clearly moving in a more extreme direction, not the opposite that you and I wish for.
So what evidence do you have Mohamed existed? John Adams on the other hand is a well documented historical figure with plenty of first party witnesses to his existence. There is a firm historical record for Adams not so for Jesus or Mohamed.
This, "They are alone in that the word and deed of their founder was very violent. What other religion had a founder as bloody as the "'prophet'", is not the OP.
Why do you even open your mouth. There is no evidence Muhammed existed at all. someone probably did exist to set the model. Most scholars agree he is a composite character. The first time in recorded history he is claimed to be mentioned, 60 years after the fact, is by Christian sources. He is referred to as "The Mahood, ( The chosen one), a title and not a proper name. A title shared by Joseph, Mary, Jesus, and the 5th Calief Malick. No mention of Muslims, the Qur'an, Islam, just "The godless pagans" The next time is in Ishaq, 125 years after the fact. Show me this evidence you have that he existed, and saying Google, is not evidence. BTW, If you have evidence, I am sure Saudi Arabia will pay you millions for it.
I have and there is surprisingly little, but since you can offer nothing I will just ignore your silly statement. You on the other hand might chose to educate yourself, https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/8574
The reality is that we know more about Muhammed than we do George Washington. The Muhammed presented, that is. But is this really about him, or total fabrication.