ISIS playbook: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/nice-terrorist-attack-isis-leader-8426004 https://www.rt.com/news/351328-nice-truck-attack-terror-prosecutor/ Claim about links to radical Islam by French Prime Minister: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ent...nuel-valls-claims_uk_578933e8e4b0daae46fbddc5
So Muslims must follow the "code" perfectly to be a "Muslim"? With that standard nobody would be a Muslim.
Internet tough guy offering to sacrifice other people's lives. And don't act like you're changing anything in your life by 'withdrawing from the world'... what are you going to do - build a sub-basement in your mom's house?
The constant attempts to pretend that people killing in the name of Islam are not actually linked to Islam are tiring.
I think the evidence speaks of a lot of prep though, which looks very ISIS informed. Something apparently went wrong and he didn't use all his collected weaponry, (as far as I can tell by reading about it.)
Whoa crap. Okay, gonna quit posting until I get a real work break to start reading some multiple sauces. That's too odd.
I did, I just merely dismissed it as more spending and more wars that merely keep repeating. You still haven't said anything about permanent bases in Syria and Lebanon. And what about China? They buy half of Iraq's oil, where's their obligation to keep the faucet flowing? I agree about a needing a strong leader, in regards to China, but we need to get out of the Middle East. We don't need their oil and gas anymore. That's dumb. Military technology has greatly evolved. Not to mention we haven't had a need for a D-Day-esque, high causality, type of operation since WW2. You say soft, I say too smart. You just want more and more of a billion plus Muslims to have more reasons to take arms literally and figuratively against us. You don't seem to have an end game planned out too well. Needless to say, it's very easy to offer up other people's lives over a forum as a solution.
Huh Muslims don't eat pork, boss. They also don't drink, party, never go to the mosque, etc. You can't do everything the opposite of what the "code" is and then call yourself a Muslim. In Islamic terms, that makes you a "Munafiq." It's when one pretends to be Muslim only to undermine the Muslim "cause." So again.. He wasn't a Muslim. You're too simple minded to understand, apparently.
So you are saying that Muslims never do anything "bad" (even eating pork, if you see that as "bad"), because once they do, they aren't a Muslim. That way, Muslims are always perfect.
I think I get it. One of my former bosses is a Christian. She came off as an alcoholic from the time I spent on trips with her. She was a rude, mean person to most people around her. Talked so much crap about everyone we worked with when drunk. Never went to church or read the Bible. But because she said a little prayer everyday, that made her a practicing Christian. I remember her telling me one day that I pray for you. My first thought was pray for yourself.
Again.. You can't do everything that isn't allowed, not pray, not pay khums, not fast, not do jack crap that Islam says you should be doing and then pretend to be Muslim. Then mow down poor innocent folks.. Murdering them. Islam says that you are not a Muslim. It says you're something worse than the kafir word you guys hear all the time.
You are not supposed to murder anyone either, right? Screw the pork and whatever else. By your "logic", Muslims can never be murderers, because the moment they kill someone, they show they aren't Muslims. In turn, this makes all Muslims saints. Easy way to rationalize everything and keep the illusion that your ideology is perfect.
"For this reason We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whoever kills a person, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he had killed all men. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the lives of all men. And certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them commit excesses in the land." Maeda verse 32, repeated in similar fashion over a dozen of times
Exactly. Poor sammy struggles with logic. Instead he has a convenient way to excuse away any blame from Islam.
so atheists are responsible for all murders amirite sammy? I am really curious if people actually believe this crap. Somehow all of these obviously Muslim guys AREN'T Muslim.
Ideally following the same guidance in the original preserved texts From Adam though Yasa,Ayub,David and his son Solmon, Harun,Hud,Abraham,Idris,Ilyas ,Isic,Ismail,Muses,Nouh,Yahya,Yunus, ......and many other .........Jesus, Mohammed Peace upon them all
You didn't answer my question. http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/05/quran-532-nazam-and-neglecting-context.html But this is absolutely not what this verse says. In fact, it says almost the exact opposite: that Muslims can kill those who are their enemies! The only way you can conclude as Nazam has concluded is to ignore the verses that immediately follow 5:32, as well as to ignore parts of the verse itself. Here is 5:32 in its context, with all words included (emphasis mine): Salient points: 1 - It explicitly states that this was a commandment to the Children of Israel, i.e. the Jews! This is not a commandment to all people, and it certainly should not be misused as if this is Allah's command to Muhammad's people. 2 - Even if this were a command to the Muslims, there's still an escape clause: "unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land." If someone is "spreading mischief", he can still be killed. Now let's think for a moment. The would-be Times Square bomber considers Americans to be spreading mischief in Palestine and around the world (practically all Muslims I know think this, even the ones who are American citizens). Accordingly, even if this verse were to apply to someone like Faisal Shahzad, he would still be justified in his slaughter. As if this weren't obvious enough from the verse itself, the Qur'an further expounds this point in the very next verse. 5:33 says This verse is referring to the Muslims, not the Jews anymore, as we can tell in the shift from past tense to present tense. And here, the punishment for mischief is clearly prescribed: execution, crucifixion, mutilation, or at the least, exile. This is the command given to the Muslims. Quite clearly, it does not teach what the Muslims proclaim it teaches; in fact, it teaches almost the exact opposite. It is undeniably clear that, in order to make Islam seem peaceful, Nazam and many other Muslims rip this verse out of its context, take words out of the very verse itself, changing the entire message for something else. I wonder if they know they are guilty of Surah 5:13. In any case, we should not let ourselves (or anyone who might be interested) be deceived by the popular Muslim interpretation of these verses.
