"Muslims are Masters of the world" - A Deluded drone and Propoganda (4 Viewers)

[PrinceHarry]

"The vast majority of Muslims support terrorists"

Where did you pull that one out of Prince Harry?

I've never met a Muslim in my life who does. I've only seen them on TV.

Am I correct in guessing that you don't know any Muslims? And that the only ones you see are on TV, too?

I read reliable news sources like this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=472791&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030_2.html and I also came across various people in this board alone who justified terrorist acts. Which does not surprise me.

And quoting the Mohammad pedophile thing isn't exactly a strong arguement either.

It perfectly suit the argument on hand regarding priest paedophilia and muhammad's paedophilia.

Firstly, I'm not sure that's even true, I've only ever heard Christians talking about it, never Muslims. I'm pretty sure it's not in the Qu'ran either.

Obviously you wont hear muslims talking about it, because it wil be considered blasphemy and maybe stoned to death if you are lucky enough to live in the mid east, iran or pakistan.

Secondly, it's out of context. Members of every religion have done things in times past that would be considered immoral today. The Church of England was founded on the basis of Henry VIII wanting to be able to divorce his wife. He killed a few of them. Should I then claim that his actions represent what all of Anglicans today stand for? That's loudicrous. I don't see any Muslims being pedophiles today.

Henry viii was neither a priest nor a prophet, muhammad was a prophet, But rather defender of the faith from the political power of Rome. If you want a comparison, its Jesus, his life and history was spotless compared to that of Muhammad.

Thirdly, if Mohammad did marry a 9 year old girl, I don't see how that has anything to do with Muslims today. That's obviously not an accepted action in our day, nor is it an integral part of the religion. I'm not sure I even believe in God. But because I'm born into a Muslim family I should be treated differently?

How does that make any sense to you?

Why don't you ask that question to your fellow muslim who claimed muslims are masters of the world and treated as such. If you are treated differently because you are muslim, you could only blame your fellow muslim idiot like this author and yourself.

 

[Ademir]

I read reliable news sources like this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=472791&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source and
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030_2.html and I also came across various people in this board alone who justified terrorist acts. Which does not surprise me.

It perfectly suit the argument on hand regarding priest paedophilia and muhammad's paedophilia.

Obviously you wont hear muslims talking about it, because it wil be considered blasphemy and maybe stoned to death if you are lucky enough to live in the mid east, iran or pakistan.

Henry viii was neither a priest nor a prophet, muhammad was a prophet, But rather defender of the faith from the political power of Rome. If you want a comparison, its Jesus, his life and history was spotless compared to that of Muhammad.

Why don't you ask that question to your fellow muslim who claimed muslims are masters of the world and treated as such. If you are treated differently because you are muslim, you could only blame your fellow muslim idiot like this author and yourself.

Mainstream Western news outlets are not a reliable source of information.

Jesus was spotless? No. He was just as much a victim of his time. He condoned stoning; it's perfectly acceptable in Christianity. But most Christians now don't condone it. Why? Time's change, irrespective of religious texts. Similarly, most Muslims do not agree that a marriage of a 9 year old would be appropriate. So attacking a faith based on something that is a) not a part of the religion itself, but rather the action of a man, and b) something that no member of that faith agrees with today, is stupid. How can you not see that?

I used to the priest example, and you defended yourself, rightly. That's a stupid arguement to make. But saying all Muslims are evil because a few terrorists are and because a Muslim 1400 years ago married a 9 year old is equally stupid.

I give you the same response to the creator of the "Muslims are the masters of the world" article. That guy is an idiot. But he doesn't represent Islam. He represents his own personal beliefs.

 

[wrxsti]

Mainstream Western news outlets are not a reliable source of information.

Jesus was spotless? No. He was just as much a victim of his time. He condoned stoning; it's perfectly acceptable in Christianity. But most Christians now don't condone it. Why? Time's change, irrespective of religious texts. Similarly, most Muslims do not agree that a marriage of a 9 year old would be appropriate. So attacking a faith based on something that is a) not a part of the religion itself, but rather the action of a man, and b) something that no member of that faith agrees with today, is stupid. How can you not see that?

I used to the priest example, and you defended yourself, rightly. That's a stupid arguement to make. But saying all Muslims are evil because a few terrorists are and because a Muslim 1400 years ago married a 9 year old is equally stupid.

I give you the same response to the creator of the "Muslims are the masters of the world" article. That guy is an idiot. But he doesn't represent Islam. He represents his own personal beliefs.

The dude that made the "muslims are the masters of the world" isnt a muslim. hes jewish.

 

[Ba'al Shem Tov]

Mainstream Western news outlets are not a reliable source of information.

Jesus was spotless? No. He was just as much a victim of his time. He condoned stoning; it's perfectly acceptable in Christianity. But most Christians now don't condone it. Why? Time's change, irrespective of religious texts. Similarly, most Muslims do not agree that a marriage of a 9 year old would be appropriate. So attacking a faith based on something that is a) not a part of the religion itself, but rather the action of a man, and b) something that no member of that faith agrees with today, is stupid. How can you not see that?

I used to the priest example, and you defended yourself, rightly. That's a stupid arguement to make. But saying all Muslims are evil because a few terrorists are and because a Muslim 1400 years ago married a 9 year old is equally stupid.

I give you the same response to the creator of the "Muslims are the masters of the world" article. That guy is an idiot. But he doesn't represent Islam. He represents his own personal beliefs.

Please read my other post as to how you are incorrect in this.


And wrxsti - the quote was by Dr. Hamza Dhib Mustafa, member of the Palestinian Authority Supreme Fatwa Council. Not Jewish.

 

[wrxsti]

Please read my other post as to how you are incorrect in this.


And wrxsti - the quote was by Dr. Hamza Dhib Mustafa, member of the Palestinian Authority Supreme Fatwa Council. Not Jewish.

i misinterpretted what he said :S.

can we just agree that you have a minority of idiots in both religions in let it be?

 

[Ademir]

Please read my other post as to how you are incorrect in this.


And wrxsti - the quote was by Dr. Hamza Dhib Mustafa, member of the Palestinian Authority Supreme Fatwa Council. Not Jewish.

You haven't invalidated my claim at all. It's a matter of interpreting the Bible. Evidence by the fact that some Christians, even today, don't just leave it up to God - the death penalty still exists. Just like you can interpret Qu'ran any way you want.

The point is, the actions of individuals, and the rules of religions, do not necessarily represent the actions of ALL individuals who are part of a religion.

 

[Ba'al Shem Tov]

You haven't invalidated my claim at all. It's a matter of interpreting the Bible. Evidence by the fact that some Christians, even today, don't just leave it up to God - the death penalty still exists. Just like you can interpret Qu'ran any way you want.

It is not a matter of interpretation where it explicitly says stuff.

The point is, the actions of individuals, and the rules of religions, do not necessarily represent the actions of ALL individuals who are part of a religion.

The concept makes perfect sense just that the example was wrong

 

[wrxsti]

It is not a matter of interpretation where it explicitly says stuff.

plllease.............................

 

[Ademir]

wrong, Science and maths owes nothing to islamic world. All Indian and persian advance in science and maths were PRE-islamic. In fact, islam stunted scientific advancement and that was one reason of the downfall of Ottoman empire, their backwardness in science and technology compared with Christian empires such as British, Austrian-Hungary, Russia and Prussia.

there might be a handful of terrorists, a vast number of muslims support terrorist and sympathise with their ideals, a vast majority of christians are disgusted with childmolester in fact they are jailed for their crimes. When the word muslim is heard people naturally think murder, terrorism, suicide bomb etc and I do not think when the word christian is said, people naturally think childmolesters, unless of course you are a childmolester.

Where is Iran or Saudi arabia ? Let's see how those master of the world fare in other categories in the next few days.:rofl:

Your understanding of history is extremely limited at best. How do you think those scientific advancements made it to Western Europe? Do you think scholars came to Baghdad and begged to be taught? The expansion of Islam into Europe and Iberia is what brought that knowledge to Europe.

Furthemore, you seem to think imperial Russia was an advanced nation technologically. The industrial revolution had barely made it to Russia by the time WW1 started. In this war, and in the previous Ottoman-Russian conflict, they had their butts handed to them by the Turks, partly due to superior Ottoman technology.

The Empire was regarded as the sick man of Europe because the values conflicted with newly emerging European values. Did you even know that until a few years into the 20th Century most Western nations held the exact same values that you despise in the Middle-East today? Women weren't given much rights to move freely or do engage in their own activities. It was called the Victorian Era, and Victorian values. Read about it.

Furthermore, every major world empire, including the British, collapsed as a result of WW1 (some more slowly than others though). The Ottoman collapse was not unique and had little to do with technology.

 

[Ademir]

It is not a matter of interpretation where it explicitly says stuff.

Yes it is. Everything is interpretation.

Islam says God created Adam from clay. It sounds fairly explicit.

There are iberal Muslims though, that will argue that clay is simply a metaphor of sorts for the basic elements of life, carbon and what not. They believe it simply means that man was created from natural constituents.

There are others who will believe that it literally means clay.

Nothing in religion is explicit.

 

[Ba'al Shem Tov]

Yes it is. Everything is interpretation.

Islam says God created Adam from clay. It sounds fairly explicit.

There are iberal Muslims though, that will argue that clay is simply a metaphor of sorts for the basic elements of life, carbon and what not. They believe it simply means that man was created from natural constituents.

There are others who will believe that it literally means clay.

Nothing in religion is explicit.

Actually, the Koran says a lot of conflicting ways of how Allah created man.

All from the Koran:

96:2 - "Created the human from a (blood) clot"

21:30 - "...and that We made every living thing of water..."

15:26 - "We created mankind from clay, molded from mud..."

3:56 - "Truely, the likeness of Jesus with Allah, is as the likeness of Adam, He created him from dust then said to him "Be" and was."

16:4 - "He created mankind from a sperm drop..."


Much of religion is explicit some isn't. It is utterly stupid to say that nothing in religion is explicit. This obviously demonstrates your inadequacy to discuss such a topic as you are ignorant of what constitutes religion and those in question. Refuting the discipline of history using physics is, analogiously, what you did.

 

[PrinceHarry]

Your understanding of history is extremely limited at best. How do you think those scientific advancements made it to Western Europe? Do you think scholars came to Baghdad and begged to be taught? The expansion of Islam into Europe and Iberia is what brought that knowledge to Europe.

No european scholars didn't go to baghdad and begged to be taught. The west was always scientifically more advanced than the middle east. In fact the Greek predates Muslim by almost 1000 years and Romans by 500 years, the greek science and mathematics were more relevant today than those of islamic fake science. Can you mention those great islamic scientific inventions?

Furthemore, you seem to think imperial Russia was an advanced nation technologically. The industrial revolution had barely made it to Russia by the time WW1 started. In this war, and in the previous Ottoman-Russian conflict, they had their butts handed to them by the Turks, partly due to superior Ottoman technology.

Russian Empire expanded considerably before the 1st WW at the expense of ottoman empire. I do not think Russia was an advanced nation to the leve of Britain but Britain, Austrian-Hungary and Prussia were million years ahead of Ottoman Empire. What previous Russian-Ottoman conflict were you talking? If you have any knowlege of Russian Expansion in the Balkan and Caucusus, you would know it is all at the expense of ottoman empire. Serbia, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Romania, Crimea all lost by ottoman Empire thanks to Russians. if thats a win for you, i wonder what a lose for ottoman would be like

The Empire was regarded as the sick man of Europe because the values conflicted with newly emerging European values. Did you even know that until a few years into the 20th Century most Western nations held the exact same values that you despise in the Middle-East today? Women weren't given much rights to move freely or do engage in their own activities. It was called the Victorian Era, and Victorian values. Read about it.

Sickman of Europe was NOT about conflicting values but rather the weakening of once powerful ottoman empire, becoming the source of all sorts of nationalist sentiments and uprising with a weak empire trying to hold on to its territories in Europe.

The phrase "sick man of Europe" is commonly attributed to Tsar Nicholas I of Russia, referring to the Ottoman Empire, because it was increasingly falling under the financial control of the European powers and had lost territory in a series of disastrous wars

From wikipedia. Where is Values ? LOL

Did you even know that until a few years into the 20th Century most Western nations held the exact same values that you despise in the Middle-East today? Women weren't given much rights to move freely or do engage in their own activities. It was called the Victorian Era, and Victorian values. Read about it

My point exactly, where as the west moved forward to the 21st century islam is still stucked in a sea of backwardness those seen in Victorian Era.

Furthermore, every major world empire, including the British, collapsed as a result of WW1 (some more slowly than others though). The Ottoman collapse w.

British empire didnt collapse, it evolves into commonwealth. where as Ottoman empire was weighed down by its own backwardness unable to withstand the western power who are technologically advanced. While Germany, britain, france , America and Austria hungary were rolling out tanks, ottomans came to fight with horses. No wonder there is no ottoman empire today.

 

[MaNiElla]

My point exactly, where as the west moved forward to the 21st century islam is still stucked in a sea of backwardness those seen in Victorian Era.

"is still stucked"...lol :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Ademir]

No european scholars didn't go to baghdad and begged to be taught. The west was always scientifically more advanced than the middle east. In fact the Greek predates Muslim by almost 1000 years and Romans by 500 years, the greek science and mathematics were more relevant today than those of islamic fake science. Can you mention those great islamic scientific inventions?

Russian Empire expanded considerably before the 1st WW at the expense of ottoman empire. I do not think Russia was an advanced nation to the leve of Britain but Britain, Austrian-Hungary and Prussia were million years ahead of Ottoman Empire. What previous Russian-Ottoman conflict were you talking? If you have any knowlege of Russian Expansion in the Balkan and Caucusus, you would know it is all at the expense of ottoman empire. Serbia, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Romania, Crimea all lost by ottoman Empire thanks to Russians. if thats a win for you, i wonder what a lose for ottoman would be like

Sickman of Europe was NOT about conflicting values but rather the weakening of once powerful ottoman empire, becoming the source of all sorts of nationalist sentiments and uprising with a weak empire trying to hold on to its territories in Europe. From wikipedia. Where is Values ? LOL


My point exactly, where as the west moved forward to the 21st century islam is still stucked in a sea of backwardness those seen in Victorian Era.

British empire didnt collapse, it evolves into commonwealth. where as Ottoman empire was weighed down by its own backwardness unable to withstand the western power who are technologically advanced. While Germany, britain, france , America and Austria hungary were rolling out tanks, ottomans came to fight with horses. No wonder there is no ottoman empire today.

Values had a part to play in it. That other stuff you say about the sick man in Europe is correct too. But in your previous post you emphasised technology more than necessary.

I'm not gonna bother listing Islamic scientific/mathematical contributions because I'm not trying to prove they are greater than Europe. Why anyone would waste their time trying to prove things like that is beyond me. But you're claiming that they did virtually nothing significant, because you're a prejudiced ignoramus. Are you aware that the writing system you use today was created by Arabs and Indians? That should be a significant enough achievement beyond the Roman Numerals which didn't even have the number 0 for you drop your superiority complex.

There are many Russo-Ottoman conflicts throughout the last few hundred years. The ones in and just before WW1 (the seemed to happen every few decades) were largely in the Ottoman's favour.

Ottoman withdrawal from the Balkans was more the result of local insurgencies in Bosnia and Serbia than any direct conflict with Russia. Austro-Hungary, an Ottoman ally, moved into the region after they left, not Russia. Though Russia did have a vested pan-Slavic interest in the region, which was one of the main causes of WW1 though no need to go into that.

So your point is that because some Middle-Eastern nations haven't been able to secularise and adopt more liberal values, Islam is evil and Muslims are moral degenerates that should be treated suspiciously and denied entry into Western countries? That doesn't make any sense. It's just as much a generalisation as all black people are savages, all Asians are smart, all Indians smell bad, all etc etc

 

[Ba'al Shem Tov]

Are you aware that the writing system you use today was created by Arabs and Indians?

English is a West Germanic language that originated from the Anglo-Frisian dialects brought to Britain by Germanic settlers and Roman auxiliary troops from various parts of what is now northwest Germany and the Northern Netherlands

Arabic:

Indian:

English:

HI THERE!!

I see what you mean...

 

[PrinceHarry]

I'm not gonna bother listing Islamic scientific/mathematical contributions because I'm not trying to prove they are greater than Europe. Why anyone would waste their time trying to prove things like that is beyond me. But you're claiming that they did virtually nothing significant, because you're a prejudiced ignoramus. Are you aware that the writing system you use today was created by Arabs and Indians? That should be a significant enough achievement beyond the Roman Numerals which didn't even have the number 0 for you drop your superiority complex.

Arabs and Indians did not create our writing system. Greeks and Romans and the west already have countless historical records and mathematical advance long before there was Islam in the middle east. By the way this is not Indian/Arab vrs the west, it is Islam vs the west. Such numerical advance like the use of Zero etc were invented or developed many centuries before Islam as a religion or culture exist. How can islam take credit for something that exist hundreds or thousands of years before its own creation?

There are many Russo-Ottoman conflicts throughout the last few hundred years. The ones in and just before WW1 (the seemed to happen every few decades) were largely in the Ottoman's favour.

Ottoman withdrawal from the Balkans was more the result of local insurgencies in Bosnia and Serbia than any direct conflict with Russia. Austro-Hungary, an Ottoman ally, moved into the region after they left, not Russia. Though Russia did have a vested pan-Slavic interest in the region, which was one of the main causes of WW1 though no need to go into that.

you mean largely in favour of russia? That is if you ever read those european history. Russia played the biggest part in the destruction of ottoman empire, starting from catherine the great , russia was able to interfere deep into ottoman affairs such as making itself the protector of christian faith inside ottoman empire and expelled ottomans from southern russia as you would remember ottoman empire completely surrounded the black sea, but lost most of it except the side of turkey by 19th century. Austria-Hungary was never a friend of ottoman it was its biggest enemy since the foundation of ottoman empire until its collapse, it was them who stopped ottoman expansion into europe stopping them at the outskirt of vienna. It was Austria-hungray who occuped Bosnia-herzegovina after russo-turkish war, eventhough they formed an unfortunate alliance during the 1st WW.

So your point is that because some Middle-Eastern nations haven't been able to secularise and adopt more liberal values, Islam is evil and Muslims are moral degenerates that should be treated suspiciously and denied entry into Western countries? That doesn't make any sense. It's just as much a generalisation as all black people are savages, all Asians are smart, all Indians smell bad, all etc etc

where did I said anyone should be denied entry into the west?

French scientist Albert Fert and Peter Grunberg of Germany have won the 2007 Nobel Prize in physics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7035247.stm
two american, one british, french and german (all western countries) have won the 2007 Nobel Prize so far, i'm impatiently waiting a reciepient from these people who call themselves master of the world . :mad1:

 

[wrxsti]

mmhm..... so muslims have cotributed nothing to society?



oh wait... suicide bombings..... yes....

Once again i love the balanced, unprejudiced emotion in these forums.

i Feel the love people

 

[Ademir]

Arabic:

Indian:

English:

HI THERE!!

I see what you mean...

The writing system for numerals, smartass. But if you really want to go into it, you might be surprised that the Latin writing system that English uses descends from the Greek, which in turn descends from the Phoenician, which is the father of virtually every alphabet in existence sans Korean Hangul. And the Phoenicians were a middle-eastern people.

And let's not even get into the amount of loanwords English has from Arabic.

 

[Ademir]

Arabs and Indians did not create our writing system. Greeks and Romans and the west already have countless historical records and mathematical advance long before there was Islam in the middle east. By the way this is not Indian/Arab vrs the west, it is Islam vs the west. Such numerical advance like the use of Zero etc were invented or developed many centuries before Islam as a religion or culture exist. How can islam take credit for something that exist hundreds or thousands of years before its own creation?

you mean largely in favour of russia? That is if you ever read those european history. Russia played the biggest part in the destruction of ottoman empire, starting from catherine the great , russia was able to interfere deep into ottoman affairs such as making itself the protector of christian faith inside ottoman empire and expelled ottomans from southern russia as you would remember ottoman empire completely surrounded the black sea, but lost most of it except the side of turkey by 19th century. Austria-Hungary was never a friend of ottoman it was its biggest enemy since the foundation of ottoman empire until its collapse, it was them who stopped ottoman expansion into europe stopping them at the outskirt of vienna. It was Austria-hungray who occuped Bosnia-herzegovina after russo-turkish war, eventhough they formed an unfortunate alliance during the 1st WW.

where did I said anyone should be denied entry into the west?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7035247.stm
two american, one british, french and german (all western countries) have won the 2007 Nobel Prize so far, i'm impatiently waiting a reciepient from these people who call themselves master of the world . :mad1:

You've yet to show me how technology and superior Western intellectual brilliance has anything to do with the Ottoman collapse. The Ottomans were primarily driven out of Europe by their own former subjects, ie the people of Serbia and Bosnia etc. I'd venture to say that they did not have superior technology to the Ottomans. And the Russians certainly did not.

Following WW2, the USSR had some of the most advanced technology in the world however. But look at it now. I'd live in Turkey any day before I lived in one of those Eastern European countries, especially Russia.

And Orhan Pamuk, a Muslim, won a nobel prize in 2006. Seriously, hop off your high horse.

 

[A High Way Man]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Khowarizmi