Anti Mosque Rally shows the true racist colors of these idiots

Thank for the vid!

I understand you now, no need to discuss.

The only things I'd like to note:

- I don't claim anyone is or isn't Muslim, and I don't believe I can even self-certify myself as Muslim or otherwise.

- The Quran aims to spread in the world, no different than "The Secret" or "The Simpsons" or the Bible or Marxist ideology or Capitalist ideology. The one lie which I can't let slip is your proposterous claim that Islam insists on spreading by the sword:

Good day.

 

Last night as I was changing channels I only briefly glimpsed at Vince Young wearing what appeared to be a "Taqiyah" beneath his helmet..hmmm. So I started shouting at him because he was a muslim.

But to answer your question, I don't see much point in trying to differentiate between the strains of racism, xenophobia, and stupidity on display by a bunch jabbering hysterical idiots assaulting a puerto rican guy with an underarmour hat on - I similarly don't see any nobility in your "Taqiyah" defense which seems to only have the effect of making you look even stupider than they are by willfully slathering yourself in the muck of disingenuine ignorance.

 

Is it racist when Iman Feisel uses the N-Word?

<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/awISCKJzVtE?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/awISCKJzVtE?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>

 

So if I say that Christianity is inherently violent that is just criticism and not demonization?

I'm not going to deny that you have acknowledged that there is some good in Islam but your track record is primarily a negative one. In your defense though I will acknowledge this applies to most religions and not just Islam. Whereas you might acknowledge the good only about 5% of the time you seem to go out of your way to bring up the bad. That doesn't strike me as a fair assessment.

Following your own reasoning I suppose I should just say that is selective interpretation.

Anyway I actually agree with you that Trent Reznor and The Matrix weren't a direct cause of Columbine but Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were clearly influenced by them in how they dressed and how they acted. People who knew both said they were very influenced by them.

That said the reason why I brought this up is that this applies to your criticism of Islam. You say it is a direct causation yet Muslims say they are not. Then you say that you are somehow more expert than they do. Not being a Muslim I will accept the knowledge of Muslims regarding what the Qu'ran says rather than you. In this case it seems like Islam isn't so much a cause as of the violence as it is a cultural context and the cause is of men twisting the message of Islam to suit their own purposes.

If I accept though your argument that would mean that you, and not Muslims, are correctly interpreting the Qu'ran. That strikes me as being far more condescending and not rational than anything you are accusing me of.

 

Also lets not forget that for much of human history there was no disconnect between religion, science, politics, art and philosophy. I think it would be a stretch to say that human civilization could exist without having religion.

 

Don't forget McMaverick's part in all of this.

 

Interesting video. To answer your question, I would say no, not in this instance, based on that he is using that word as well as "whitey" in describing as conflicts present in humanity.

Tl;dr: No, because he uses word in specific context to make a specific point.

 

In other words: no, you have no evidence that they were being racist. Thanks, that is all I wanted from you.

 

WHAT. THIS DOES NOT MATCH MY PRE-CONCEIVED NOTIONS AND THUS MUST BE FALSE.

 

What about Quran verse 9:29?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-Tawba_29

 

Wow that's 1 out of 6,236 verses. Looks like the Quran really insists on it.
Can you find more?

 

No, let's just concede they're Epsilon Semi-Morons railing incoherently at THE OTHER rather than real racists; I'll leave the racism to you with your unique "Taqiyah"-dar and your uncanny ability to use it to spot muslims across space and time - even if you drag in the occasional Boricua or moreno building superintendent.

 

You are one of the least intelligent posters in this forum.

 

Do you have a handy dandy list of "Scary Quran verses"?

I know for sure that you have been shown previously the dangers of taking a verse out of context.

Infact, I am pretty sure I myself have responded to you posting similar posts in earlier threads.

I didnt even have to do my own research for this one...

 

And you are one of the most intelligent posters on this forum. Sadly, your intelligence is wasted.

 

personal attacks simply because you can't answer my question?

I wonder what's next for me, the gas chamber?

 

Dude, I love you for bringing it up.

1) You recall that Saudi Arabia funds all these translations. The verse is essentially saying that Christians and Jews are not persecuting the Muslims. It is the Qurayshis (tribe which worshipped statues/etc) which were persecuting them. So when it says "fight those who don't believe in Allah" it is simply referring to the tribe known as Quraysh i.e. the one who don't believe in Allah i.e. the only ones at the time who don't believe in the existance of one God.

2) As explained before, Jizya is simply tax. It is a tax that non-Muslims (excluding women, children and elderly) paid in order to NOT serve in the army. Serving in the army would eliminate the need to pay a tax. All Muslims had to serve in the army, no choice. The Jizya goes to the army, and the army is (through the constitution) obliged to defend everyone and everything, specifically mentioning non-Muslims and non-Muslim places of worship.

In contrast, Muslims paid "Zakat" and non-Muslims did not pay Zakat. It evens out. Muslims pay Zakat regardless of whether they serve in the army.

3) The verse is in self-defense against a group who refused to pay Jizya and engaged in acts of war after repeated warnings. It would be like if the state of Texas refused to contribute to the United States, rejected the constitution, and started stealing land from surrounding states after having been warned multiple times. I haven't read it, but I think adeelsiddiqui's link explains this thoroughly.

Moral of the story: there are tons of verses in the Quran which are phrased this way. But you must read the story (the "chapter") in order to know what's being said (understand the context). It's like any other book.

To illustrate, here is a modern day example of your perception of the quote:

You see, unless you were there, you will forever think that Leo Durocher meant to say that "Nice guys are doomed to finish last" when in reality, that's not what he meant.

 

So, if it's all that simple and that easy, why is there any controversy and such rampant misinterpretation when it comes to Islam? Is ATW just making all of this up?

 

This is key.

There is rampant misinterpretation because the richest family in the world is interested in the propagation of the misinterpretation. So when that very same family donates billions to Indonesia, a country short on education and wealth, and ask that they send a load of Imams and translated books to Indonesia as well, it does not bode well for Indonesian people and it's difficult to say no. They don't speak Arabic and translations are dominated by wahhabist interpretation and they have them money to spread it wherever they like. How do you fight that?

It's easy for a Palestinian boy who's parents have been killed to accept that somehow God predicted the creation of Israel and that he requested its demise - as long as this explanation is coming from the hand that feeds him (Hamas) which receives money and support on the condition that people are fed this bull****.

There are SO MANY poor Muslims/Arabs in the world. In the same way, there are a lot of poor African people, but there is no country with that kind of disposable wealth looking to sweep the continent with its ideology - otherwise they would be succesful.

Funnily, Eastern Africa is highly Islamisized with Wahabi Islam because those are places where "the family" wanted to spread their influence. Think Somalia and Sudan.

Of the 1 billions Muslims in the world, most live in Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Africa. These are all poor countries and if you have the money like "the family" then you have a buttload of people at your disposal by waving dollars in front of them.

The oil rich Muslim countries are few: UAE, Saudi, Kuwait and Qatar total citizens = 35 million. Of those 35 million, 30 million are in Saudi. Of the 30 million in Saudi, 20-25 million are dirt poor.

Basically most Muslims are poor. If you look at Turkey, these misinterpretations are rarely circulated. It's because the people make decent money, the country is free, and they do not need or want Saudi's money. They took religion out of government, essentially making it impossible for anyone to use religion as a foreign politics tool.

 

House of Saud is (likely) also funding the Dome of the Landing Gear.

of course, we can't know for sure, since Iman (Rauf) Feisel won't tell us where the money is coming from.