Thread: On Islamophobic individuals.

Originally Posted by Brewskier

And that is just the 40% that admit to wanting Sharia.

The bogus claim that this is just a small, trivial minority is getting less true by the day, which is quite an accomplishment, since it was never true to begin with. The apologists are now backpedaling and playing the "Sharia isn't so bad" defense.

I've been saying that since day one, but I didn't realize 40% of the Muslims in Britain represent all the Muslims in the West.

Then again, when you say things like "And that is just the 40% that admit to wanting Sharia." it shows that you are an irrational thinker.

Do you have any objection to the Jewish Law currently set up in America and Britain and has been there for quite some time now?

سلام

Originally Posted by OJLeb

What makes you think it's activism? Maybe he just likes praying outside in the fresh air?

He doesn't seem to be trying to influence anybody. He's peacefully keeping to hiself and praying. He's not saying "convert to Islam" or anything.

In front of one the most powerful symbols of USA? I guess the message painted on the back of his jacket is so that Allah may spot him more easily against the tarmac?

I'm not partial to any of these blokes, OJLeb. I know you are, but come on, don't become so biased that you forget to call a spade a spade. That guy praying in the middle of Pensylvania Avenue is a Muslim activist and you know it. He may not express himself in the same kind of language as those he's demonstrating against but what he does is exactly the same as those who are out, as you say, to speak out against Sharia Law.

Originally Posted by OJLeb

And is there a difference between protesting and harasing? These people were apparently there to protest Sharia Law, instead they ended up harrassing a man peacefully protesting nearby. And you think this perfectly okay? There is nothing wrong with the video?

Thank you. I'm glad you can see that the guy is indeed protesting.

The Christians are protesting. The Muslim is protesting. That's what I was saying.

Originally Posted by OJLeb

There is nothing wrong with them throwing crosses at him while he prayed? Nothing wrong with a few death threats he recieved?

Rioting or otherwise acting violently as well as inciting to violence or killing are not usually compatible with rights to protest publically.

Originally Posted by OJLeb

This is how some Christians treat Muslims in America.

This is how some Christians treat Muslims in Egypt:

If you're saying that disgusting things happen when religions rear their ugly, bloody and hateful heads then I fully agree.

If you're saying that those praying in the video clip you provided are not activists then I will not agree.

Originally Posted by OJLeb

Did you condemn the riots after the Muhammad (PBUH) carttons? Because if you did, you condemned people protesting and expressing their free speech, according to yourself, and would therefore be a hypocrite....

Funny you should use the word riot. There's a difference between speaking your mind and rioting. It's almost like you see it but don't see it.

As for myself, I condemn the violence, the insane arsons and the incitements to beheadings and other kinds of killings that sadly became a very common sight during that period. But protesting? Of course not. I couldn't dream of condemning any expression of free speech. So with the cause of that particular incidence in mind, I actually find your reference quite comical. And extremely ironic.

Originally Posted by FreeWare

In front of one the most powerful symbols of USA? I guess the message painted on the back of his jacket is so that Allah may spot him more easily against the tarmac?

I'm not partial to any of these blokes, OJLeb. I know you are, but come on, don't become so biased that you forget to call a spade a spade. That guy praying in the middle of Pensylvania Avenue is a Muslim activist and you know it. He may not express himself in the same kind of language as those he's demonstrating against but what he does is exactly the same as those who are out, as you say, to speak out against Sharia Law.


Thank you. I'm glad you can see that the guy is indeed protesting.

The Christians are protesting. The Muslim is protesting. That's what I was saying.


Rioting or otherwise acting violently as well as inciting to violence or killing are not usually compatible with rights to protest publically.


If you're saying that disgusting things happen when religions rear their ugly, bloody and hateful heads then I fully agree.

If you're saying that those praying in the video clip you provided are not activists then I will not agree.


Funny you should use the word riot. There's a difference between speaking your mind and rioting. It's almost like you see it but don't see it.

As for myself, I condemn the violence, the insane arsons and the incitements to beheadings and other kinds of killings that sadly became a very common sight during that period. But protesting? Of course not. I couldn't dream of condemning any expression of free speech. So with the cause of that particular incidence in mind, I actually find your reference quite comical. And extremely ironic.

Then what was he protesting? What point was he trying to make, because honestly I can't think of anything... And how is he praying anything like what the anti-Sharia idiots were doing? He wasn't disturbing anybody, they literally surrounded him and harassed him. He prayed or God to bless them and their families, they mocked him and threw crosses at him. He kept to himself an ignored them, they brought all the attention onto him. There is no comparison here.

Actually, that was suppose to say praying not protesting

Again, what was he protesting for or against? And they were protesting Sharia Law, what they did to the man wasn't a protest. That was harassment and I'm not sure but wouldn't that be considered a crime? If not, the death threat certainly was.

Oh, but using your logic I could argue the riots were their method of protest. There was nothing peaceful about the riots or what these people did to him. Yet one is a protest while the other isn't?

Religion isn't the only source for hate on this planet as pure religion whether it be Islam, Christianity or Judaism do not preach hate. Only hateful people try to twist the religions to justify their hatred. And there was only one man praying. Unless you were talking about the one from Egypt?

As I said earlier, riots are simply a form of protest. Using your logic.

Well, condemning the riots is condemning free speech if you really want to get technical with it. The rioters were expressing themselves because of a provocative cartoon. Their preferred method was violence, but of all protest is permitted and there is no line, such acts should be allowed no? Otherwise you are putting a limit on some bodies right to freedom of expression and speech.

I'm not surprised you find it comical or ironic because you support pure, blind, hatred....

سلام

Originally Posted by OJLeb

I've been saying that since day one, but I didn't realize 40% of the Muslims in Britain represent all the Muslims in the West.

Then again, when you say things like "And that is just the 40% that admit to wanting Sharia." it shows that you are an irrational thinker.

Do you have any objection to the Jewish Law currently set up in America and Britain and has been there for quite some time now?

سلام

You know some of us just don't fall for the "judge everyone as an indiviudal" crap. That (*)(*)(*)(*) may work within a homgenous culture, but it doesn't work when going across tribal/cultural lines. That is suicidal thinking. Humans evolved prejudice for a reason, as a defense mechanism.

Originally Posted by SiliconMagician

You know some of us just don't fall for the "judge everyone as an indiviudal" crap. That (*)(*)(*)(*) may work within a homgenous culture, but it doesn't work when going across tribal/cultural lines. That is suicidal thinking. Humans evolved prejudice for a reason, as a defense mechanism.

So do you think all British Muslims think like all other Muslims around the world? 2 billion people all think the exact same?

Wait I forget, who's full of crap again?

سلام

Originally Posted by OJLeb

How about his claim on what Taqiyah is.

He claims it gives permission for Muslims to lie about anything to non-Muslims, to decieve them, when that isn't any way true.

Taqiyah is permission to lie about your faith for one reason and one reason only: To avoid being PERSECUTED or KILLED. Not to "decieve the non-believers".

It is mainly a Shi'ite practice. And do you know why they used it, and on who they used it? They used it because they were - and still are today - persecuted. By Sunni Muslims.

Yes, Taqiyah is used by Muslims on Muslims. There are very few cases where it is actually used on non-Muslims.

It would of been used in Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) time because the Pagans were persecuting and killing any Muslims they found!

Taqiyah has nothing to do with deciet in general. Unless ones life is at stake, lying is a major sin in Islam. In a way, Taqiyah was used by Jews in Germany to save themselves from Nazi's.

So, that is the truth about Taqiyah despite the clowns misconception of it. Spencer is nothing but deciet. And this is just one example of Spencers lies.

BTW where has he been "proven wrong in this thread and exposed as a liar"?

Salam

What is one example of Spencer lying ? You have yet to show any examples of any false information from Spencer. If you think you have some, let's hear it. Enter information here >

As for Megadeathfan, he has been proven to be Hot Air with no basis for his wild accusations. I challenged him to show one example of Robert Spencer or Geert Wilders providing faulty information. He hasn't produced a single one.

Originally Posted by OJLeb

don't stop there. Please, point out the fictional parts, I can't seem to find them.

Salam

The whole OP.

Originally Posted by OJLeb

Then what was he protesting? What point was he trying to make, because honestly I can't think of anything... And how is he praying anything like what the anti-Sharia idiots were doing? He wasn't disturbing anybody, they literally surrounded him and harassed him. He prayed or God to bless them and their families, they mocked him and threw crosses at him. He kept to himself an ignored them, they brought all the attention onto him. There is no comparison here.

Actually, that was suppose to say praying not protesting

Again, what was he protesting for or against? And they were protesting Sharia Law, what they did to the man wasn't a protest. That was harassment and I'm not sure but wouldn't that be considered a crime? If not, the death threat certainly was.

Oh, but using your logic I could argue the riots were their method of protest. There was nothing peaceful about the riots or what these people did to him. Yet one is a protest while the other isn't?

Religion isn't the only source for hate on this planet as pure religion whether it be Islam, Christianity or Judaism do not preach hate. Only hateful people try to twist the religions to justify their hatred. And there was only one man praying. Unless you were talking about the one from Egypt?

As I said earlier, riots are simply a form of protest. Using your logic.

Well, condemning the riots is condemning free speech if you really want to get technical with it. The rioters were expressing themselves because of a provocative cartoon. Their preferred method was violence, but of all protest is permitted and there is no line, such acts should be allowed no? Otherwise you are putting a limit on some bodies right to freedom of expression and speech.

I'm not surprised you find it comical or ironic because you support pure, blind, hatred....

سلام

Your statements are so idiotic that I feel embarrassed to even be discussing them. ALL protest (including violence) should be allowed, "otherwise you are putting a limit on some bodies right to freedom of expression and speech". Are you nuts ? This is like saying if the government restricts you from going around killing people, they'll be restricting your right to freedom of expression and speech. Or if you go around burning cars, and you get arrested, your freedom of expression will be impinged. Well, in America, we have laws, and they sure are not Sharia law or anything close to that. Yes, your freedom to kill, vandalize, and commit other acts are violence are restricted. If anybody can't live with that, get the hell out of the place that has those laws and stay out.

Originally Posted by OJLeb

Then what was he protesting? What point was he trying to make, because honestly I can't think of anything... And how is he praying anything like what the anti-Sharia idiots were doing? He wasn't disturbing anybody, they literally surrounded him and harassed him. He prayed or God to bless them and their families, they mocked him and threw crosses at him. He kept to himself an ignored them, they brought all the attention onto him. There is no comparison here.

Actually, that was suppose to say praying not protesting.

Again, what was he protesting for or against? And they were protesting Sharia Law, what they did to the man wasn't a protest. That was harassment and I'm not sure but wouldn't that be considered a crime? If not, the death threat certainly was.

I couldn't care less what any of them were protesting. One neither chants in front of the White House holding a sign with a message painted on it nor pray at that place in a jacket with a message painted on its back without it being activist manifestations. It's as simple as that.

Originally Posted by OJLeb

Oh, but using your logic I could argue the riots were their method of protest. There was nothing peaceful about the riots or what these people did to him. Yet one is a protest while the other isn't?

Religion isn't the only source for hate on this planet as pure religion whether it be Islam, Christianity or Judaism do not preach hate. Only hateful people try to twist the religions to justify their hatred. And there was only one man praying. Unless you were talking about the one from Egypt?

As I said earlier, riots are simply a form of protest. Using your logic.

Well, condemning the riots is condemning free speech if you really want to get technical with it. The rioters were expressing themselves because of a provocative cartoon. Their preferred method was violence, but of all protest is permitted and there is no line, such acts should be allowed no? Otherwise you are putting a limit on some bodies right to freedom of expression and speech.

Rioting may be a method of expression, but not a freedom of expression. The simple reason being that rights stop at the rights of others. You are simply not exercising a right when you destroy the life or property of others. On the contrary, then you are violating the rights of others, thereby forefeighting your own rights (should you even happen to be endowed with rights in any of those places).

Originally Posted by OJLeb

I'm not surprised you find it comical or ironic because you support pure, blind, hatred....

The cartoons were an exercise of free speech precisely due to the observation that censorship was putting restraints on free speech. The response to this exercise was not only opposite but twofold opposite, namely, on one hand a demand to uphold and legitimize the censorship and on the other hand violations of rights of others by vandalizing, burning down buildings and killing people in the process.

So for you to refer to this particular incidence as if the Muslim response constituted the party that was observing, exercising and protecting rights is hilarious. It simply couldn't be any more ironic.

I did not read the OP, cause islamophobia does not exist. It is a term created by islamists after the Iranian revolution in 1979 to condemn those who stood up against murder, torture and supression. First against their own civlians, then against the infidels outside.

Everyone who uses such a term is disqualified for a discussion.