Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

N1KF · 2016-10-13 22:43:30

Glenn21 wrote:

SmittyW wrote:
ZeldaXD wrote:
It really makes me think.
http://puu.sh/rHAB4/37b7047dd6.png
Does that mean people who went to college make less than those who didn't? Does that make the people who didn't attend college smarter?
It means that Hillary voters are more likely to do worthless studies like art and gender studies

But knowledge isn't worthless

Norwee

Glenn21 · 2016-10-13 22:49:57

N1KF wrote:

Glenn21 wrote:
SmittyW wrote:
ZeldaXD wrote:
It really makes me think.
http://puu.sh/rHAB4/37b7047dd6.png
Does that mean people who went to college make less than those who didn't? Does that make the people who didn't attend college smarter?
It means that Hillary voters are more likely to do worthless studies like art and gender studies
But knowledge isn't worthless

It's pretty worthless if you know you will waste several years of your life for this knowledge that won't make you a living. Not to mention they want the tax payers to pay for this worthless degree and after that for their welfare...

blizzard

Norwee · 2016-10-13 23:02:13

Glenn21 wrote:

"Accusation equals truth" You just proved how gullible you are and believe what you want to believe.

There's no point accusing me of this unless you are going for ad hominem. You have no way of denying that you are doing the exact same ting.

Glenn21 wrote:

The fact that you refer to the extremely biased and hypocritical Huffington Post adds up to that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tu … 23096.html

Glenn21 wrote:

It's pure coincidence that these people suddenly sue Trump after he decided to run for president, right? These people only sue Trump to damage his campaign. Hillary didn't even mention these rape accusations during the debates so I doubt even she believes them. Also, when someone signs a contract and doesn't do what he is supposed the do, of course you don't pay him (fully).
Trump wasn't bragging about how he could sexually assault a woman, he was clearly joking. I already said it was bad that he wanted to have sex with a married woman though. But if you think this is worse than Hillary's email scandal, then how can you support a woman who accepts it that her husband cheated on her? So much hypocrisy...

I'm honestly more worried about the fact that a man whose rise mirrors that of facist dictators is making debating look like a reality show and proving that the idiot culture is winning. Hillary has experience and i have faith that she would benefit America and the entire world, - even though in all honestly i would have preferred Bernie Sanders.
Trump however is genuinely frightening, he preaches xenophobia, racism, ignorance. He sounds like a televangelist scammer by the way he talks and comes with his vague "plans" for everything that "he" is the only one who can apparently fix. The entire situation would be kinda funny if he didn't actually have supporters that seem so eager to uphold his will and "take to the streets" if he loses his campaign.

Glenn21 wrote:

"All Trump supporters are sociopaths who wouldn't mind if Trump kills innocent people"
Nice generalisation, also, don't put words in my mouth, please.

I just said this to be funny. Guess you didn't like it. (Also you changed the way i worded that quote)

Glenn21 wrote:

I hope Norwegian left-wingers like you move to the already doomed Rape Capital of Europe that is Sweden, instead of ruining another great Scandinavian country with bad liberal ideas.

Sweden is a great country and it is nowhere near being a "rape capital of Europe" as you put it. Who was talking about being unbiased and not accusing again?
Why would i move to Sweden? I love my country, also "ruining another country with bad liberal ideas"? Norway is already ten times as liberal as the US is, and i can say with experience that left-wingers and right-wingers alike in scandinavia all laugh at how stupidly ridiculous Trump is. I don't know where you pulled that insult from, but it failed.

Glenn21 wrote:

I see NorwegianboyEE is yet another person who completely ignored my (and blizzard's) response to him, because he wooted these two terrible comments above mine.

How is this relevant?!

Pyromaniac

blizzard · 2016-10-14 01:22:54

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

long quote

Did you really use a huffington post link to prove your point against why huffington post isn't biased. lol.

"take to the streets" Really now? Like social justice warriors and blm activists? And where can you provide proof of this claim?

"Sweden is a great country and it is nowhere near being a "rape capital of Europe" as you put it."
http://i.imgur.com/s9UVz9I.png
Starting to get sad. There's many different sources I read (apparently you read none) and the rape in Sweden is a VERY big issue. Sad feminists like you can't acknowledge that.

"How is this relevant?!" Because you can spew crap all day long but when we hit you with valid arguements you turn tail and run.

Glenn21, mrjawapa

Glenn21 · 2016-10-14 03:20:08

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

There's no point accusing me of this unless you are going for ad hominem. You have no way of denying that you are doing the exact same ting.

Accusation still does not equal truth. You said the rape accusations against Trump are a reason not to vote for him even though they are obviously fake.

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tu … 23096.html

You seriously believe a newspaper that calls Trump racist and sexist etc. all the time and tells you never to vote for him is not biased? Do you even know what the word means? Like blizzard pointed out, the worst source to prove otherwise is an article of their own.

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

I'm honestly more worried about the fact that a man whose rise mirrors that of facist dictators is making debating look like a reality show and proving that the idiot culture is winning.

Hillary is the one that owns the Lügenpresse and whose supporters are trying to silence pro-Trump speakers and preventing others to go to Trump rallies by blocking roads, literally things the nazi's did.
Both sides are guilty of making the debates look like a reality show, but that's mostly because there isn't much time to really go in-depth certain topics and they are meant for undecided voters anyway.

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

Hillary has experience and i have faith that she would benefit America and the entire world, - even though in all honestly i would have preferred Bernie Sanders.

Hillary has a lot of experience of being corrupt. Trump has a lot of economic, job making and leadership experience because he has been running hundreds of successfull businesses for years. These qualifications are important when running for president. He knows why certain companies are leaving the USA and wants to bring them back with his policies.

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

Trump however is genuinely frightening, he preaches xenophobia, racism, ignorance.

No he doesn't. There is nothing racist about enforcing the law by deporting illegal immigrants and letting the good ones back in. There is nothing xenophobic with temporarily banning muslims from entering the USA for safety reasons. Trump won't deport muslims that have a U.S. citizenship. ISIS admits they abuse the refugee crisis to slip terrorists into western countries and some of the people involved in recent terrorist attacks were "refugees". Trump actually wants to help the muslims by building safe zones in the Middle East and getting rid of ISIS once and for all.

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

He sounds like a televangelist scammer by the way he talks and comes with his vague "plans" for everything that "he" is the only one who can apparently fix.

The real scammer is Hillary who lost all credibility by admitting she lies to her voters with the excuse Lincoln did the same.
Trump has a good reason to be vague about his plans about defeating ISIS. It's pretty stupid if you tell your enemy when and where you will attack/leave every time.

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

The entire situation would be kinda funny if he didn't actually have supporters that seem so eager to uphold his will and "take to the streets" if he loses his campaign.

Most people who say this are just trolling. SJWs and BLM already do this all the time.

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

I just said this to be funny. Guess you didn't like it. (Also you changed the way i worded that quote)

It's funny how people like you call Trump and his supporters racist because they supposedly generalise certain people, but you actually do generalise other people yourself. You also said most people here are probably from a red state, even though millions of Trump supporters live in blue states.
I know I changed your quote a little but it's basicly what you said.

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

Sweden is a great country and it is nowhere near being a "rape capital of Europe" as you put it. Who was talking about being unbiased and not accusing again? Why would i move to Sweden? I love my country, also "ruining another country with bad liberal ideas"? Norway is already ten times as liberal as the US is, and i can say with experience that left-wingers and right-wingers alike in scandinavia all laugh at how stupidly ridiculous Trump is. I don't know where you pulled that insult from, but it failed.

It's a name that people give to Sweden because of the sudden increase in rapes after they took in hundreds of thousands of muslims, because the liberals thought that was a good idea. They even cover up mass rapes.

It's no surprise that Scandinavians think Trump is stupidly ridiculous because most barely know anything about him, besides some random videos and meme pictures. The media in Europe is also mostly neutral or negative about him. You are proof that you barely know anything about Trump because you make false claims that he is racist and xenophobic.

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

How is this relevant?!

I just wanted to know whether you agreed with me or would yell "racist, sexist xenophobe!"

blizzard, Stubby

Slushie · 2016-10-14 14:52:43

Deporting refugees because you're afraid they're going to hurt you is the literal definition of xenophobia.

ZeldaXD · 2016-10-14 15:15:00

Slushie wrote:

Deporting refugees because you're afraid they're going to hurt you is the literal definition of xenophobia.

No, phobias are irrational fears.

Glenn21

Slushie · 2016-10-14 15:26:32

ZeldaXD wrote:

Slushie wrote:
Deporting refugees because you're afraid they're going to hurt you is the literal definition of xenophobia.
No, phobias are irrational fears.

How is a fear of all refugees due to crimes committed by a few rational?

N1KF · 2016-10-14 18:28:32

Slushie wrote:

ZeldaXD wrote:
Slushie wrote:
Deporting refugees because you're afraid they're going to hurt you is the literal definition of xenophobia.
No, phobias are irrational fears.
How is a fear of all refugees due to crimes committed by a few rational?

It's like being afraid of people carrying around guns because of gun crimes, am I right?

mrjawapa · 2016-10-14 18:28:38

Slushie wrote:

ZeldaXD wrote:
Slushie wrote:
Deporting refugees because you're afraid they're going to hurt you is the literal definition of xenophobia.
No, phobias are irrational fears.
How is a fear of all refugees due to crimes committed by a few rational?

There's a fear of terrorists pretending to be refugees. Not so much of refugees themselves.

Glenn21

Slushie · 2016-10-14 22:19:23

MrJaWapa wrote:

Slushie wrote:
ZeldaXD wrote:
Slushie wrote:
Deporting refugees because you're afraid they're going to hurt you is the literal definition of xenophobia.
No, phobias are irrational fears.
How is a fear of all refugees due to crimes committed by a few rational?
There's a fear of terrorists pretending to be refugees. Not so much of refugees themselves.

▼Hidden text

32OrtonEdge32dh, Onjit, Norwee, Swarth100, Jedpogi, Dencc, sthegreat

blizzard · 2016-10-15 15:14:20

Slushie wrote:

MrJaWapa wrote:
Slushie wrote:
ZeldaXD wrote:
Slushie wrote:
Deporting refugees because you're afraid they're going to hurt you is the literal definition of xenophobia.
No, phobias are irrational fears.
How is a fear of all refugees due to crimes committed by a few rational?
There's a fear of terrorists pretending to be refugees. Not so much of refugees themselves.
▼Hidden text
http://i.imgur.com/VCGxkL2.jpg

A few things to note here.
(1. This statistic does not include additional crime.
(2. If you look up Norway and Sweden, both have high rape statistics, mostly due to their refugee problem.
(3. Over 50% of the refugees England and Wales took in committed violent crimes: "Police arrest 900 Syrians in England and Wales for crimes including rape and child abuse" feel free to look that up if you wish.

Now am I saying all refugees are rapists, child abusers, and terrorists? No, of course not. Obviously, the background checks have worked relatively well. However, if you think rape and child abuse are mere phobias then I feel you have quite the hypocritical political views.

gkaby · 2016-10-16 09:44:30

Glenn21 wrote:

N1KF wrote:
Glenn21 wrote:
SmittyW wrote:
ZeldaXD wrote:
It really makes me think.
http://puu.sh/rHAB4/37b7047dd6.png
Does that mean people who went to college make less than those who didn't? Does that make the people who didn't attend college smarter?
It means that Hillary voters are more likely to do worthless studies like art and gender studies
But knowledge isn't worthless
It's pretty worthless if you know you will waste several years of your life for this knowledge that won't make you a living. Not to mention they want the tax payers to pay for this worthless degree and after that for their welfare...

i have thoughts on this but i cannot think of a coherent way to put them together in a good response so im just gonna write whatever imthinking about it rather than have it specifically addressing what other ppl said
its kind of weird like
for social sciences i feel like it would be really good if everyone had a general background understanding of them, which i dont think requires higher education to learn, you can just like google stuff and learn whatever through research on the internet
its also important for ppl to further the information in the fields with research/new studies, experiments, etc, and with in my understanding its pretty much necessary for you to get a degree to go into these fields/academics
ignoring that requirement if thats the case, i would think its perfectly possible for someone to learn enough individually to go into these fields through buying books/research on internet as long as you're dedicated enough

though they need to be able to financially support themselves during this time which i guess wouldnt be much different from learning at a college/university apart from maybe a scholarship?, and it might cost less when you dont need to pay tuition

though isnt it like most everything you can learn individually

idk there are ppl who will be able to make livings with art/gender studies degrees (tho idk how large that number would be )

idk isnt it like arts as far as higher education is concerned more focused on historical things and like analysis maybe/academic stuff

whereas if you want to make money off of selling art that isnt necessary

idk i dont have enough time to make this post coherent or come up with more but in my understanding some ppl will be able to make a living, and regarding social sciences even if it doesnt result in money being made, i feel like they're important enough that money should be put into them for no financial returns

but then maybe it would be best if there were scholarships or nonprofit organizations and things dedicated to the fields so that ppl who want to support them can donate

edit lol i actually had started a diff post and forgot to delete that portion before deciding to respond to something else - its del now tho

Abelysk · 2016-10-16 10:55:27

blizzard wrote:

Slushie wrote:
MrJaWapa wrote:
Slushie wrote:
ZeldaXD wrote:
No, phobias are irrational fears.
How is a fear of all refugees due to crimes committed by a few rational?
There's a fear of terrorists pretending to be refugees. Not so much of refugees themselves.
▼Hidden text
http://i.imgur.com/VCGxkL2.jpg
A few things to note here.
(1. This statistic does not include additional crime.
(2. If you look up Norway and Sweden, both have high rape statistics, mostly due to their refugee problem.
(3. Over 50% of the refugees England and Wales took in committed violent crimes: "Police arrest 900 Syrians in England and Wales for crimes including rape and child abuse" feel free to look that up if you wish.
Now am I saying all refugees are rapists, child abusers, and terrorists? No, of course not. Obviously, the background checks have worked relatively well. However, if you think rape and child abuse are mere phobias then I feel you have quite the hypocritical political views.

We should count all the rape and child abuse statistics in Caucasians, African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Indians, Slavics, etc.

Muslims are no different.

Norwee

blizzard · 2016-10-16 13:31:17

Kefka wrote:

blizzard wrote:
Slushie wrote:
MrJaWapa wrote:
Slushie wrote:
How is a fear of all refugees due to crimes committed by a few rational?
There's a fear of terrorists pretending to be refugees. Not so much of refugees themselves.
▼Hidden text
http://i.imgur.com/VCGxkL2.jpg
A few things to note here.
(1. This statistic does not include additional crime.
(2. If you look up Norway and Sweden, both have high rape statistics, mostly due to their refugee problem.
(3. Over 50% of the refugees England and Wales took in committed violent crimes: "Police arrest 900 Syrians in England and Wales for crimes including rape and child abuse" feel free to look that up if you wish.
Now am I saying all refugees are rapists, child abusers, and terrorists? No, of course not. Obviously, the background checks have worked relatively well. However, if you think rape and child abuse are mere phobias then I feel you have quite the hypocritical political views.
We should count all the rape and child abuse statistics in Caucasians, African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Indians, Slavics, etc.
Muslims are no different.

We already do. Just remember, the number of muslims in America to black/white people are probably less than 1%. (Didn't look it up, so don't hold me to that). Comparing the number of rape and child abuse must be compared with the ratio of each race/religion. 56% of Syrian refugees, although only 900, is a higher statistic than say(for example) 2%, being 100,000.

Tomahawk · 2016-10-16 14:04:12

Trump, by banning Muslim immigration, would be actively encouraging racism and xenophobia. You cannot deny access to an entire religious people because of a small group - Islamic terrorists aren't true Muslims anyway.

A blanket ban cannot be justified.

Slushie · 2016-10-16 14:11:26

blizzard wrote:

Slushie wrote:
MrJaWapa wrote:
Slushie wrote:
ZeldaXD wrote:
No, phobias are irrational fears.
How is a fear of all refugees due to crimes committed by a few rational?
There's a fear of terrorists pretending to be refugees. Not so much of refugees themselves.
▼Hidden text
http://i.imgur.com/VCGxkL2.jpg
A few things to note here.
(1. This statistic does not include additional crime.
(2. If you look up Norway and Sweden, both have high rape statistics, mostly due to their refugee problem.
(3. Over 50% of the refugees England and Wales took in committed violent crimes: "Police arrest 900 Syrians in England and Wales for crimes including rape and child abuse" feel free to look that up if you wish.
Now am I saying all refugees are rapists, child abusers, and terrorists? No, of course not. Obviously, the background checks have worked relatively well. However, if you think rape and child abuse are mere phobias then I feel you have quite the hypocritical political views.

1. Yep. The image was a response to JaWapa's claim of there being a fear of terrorism.
2. I actually did look it up, and after one Google search I found this article which addresses your concerns about Sweden's "rape problem" quite nicely (TL;DR it doesn't exist).
3. It turns out the majority of offences that Syrians were arrested for were immigration violations. Where are you getting this 50% statistic from?

blizzard wrote:

Didn't look it up

Oh.

Norwee

John · 2016-10-16 15:14:22

I don't like either.

Tomahawk, Norwee

ZeldaXD · 2016-10-16 18:12:58

Slushie wrote:

2. I actually did look it up, and after one Google search I found this article which addresses your concerns about Sweden's "rape problem" quite nicely (TL;DR it doesn't exist).

The quoted paper looks at children who completed school between 1990-1993 who were 28 to 31 in 2005. They were borne to immigrants who arrived in Sweden between 1985-1988 or earlier - they wanted at least five years of residence. Immigration from the Middle East, Bosnia and Somalia dominated in the 1990s.

So the connection made between this paper, recent immigrants, including Islamic ones is not applicable - this paper is based on immigrants that arrived 30 years ago, when the majority were still from Nordic countries. So I am not sure how relevant this paper and the column that refers to it, is to the controversy over more recent immigration trends - or maybe it doesn't matter because the columnist assumes most people won't read the reference.

Note that in Sweden you are not allowed to record criminal statistics that include ancestry or religion.

I am not sure what rape has to do with poverty either. I guess Arabic culture has absolutely nothing to do with it! They're the real victims here!

Sweden data wrote:

1% of population born outside Europe in 1970
11% of population born outside Europe in 2014
310% more lethal violent crimes were committed by immigrants compared to native Swedes [National Crime Prevention Council (BRA 2005: 17)]
4 in 5 rapists in Sweden serving 2+ years in prison were foreign born or descendants 535% increase in Sweden's sexual offenses

Denmark in 2009: 73% higher crime rate from male refugees and descendants compared to the whole male population as a whole, even after accounting for their financial situation.

Muslims in France -- 12% of population, 65% of prison population
Muslims in Netherlands -- 5% of population, 20% of prison population
Muslims in England & Wales -- 4.8% of the population, 12% of prisoners
Immigrants and descendants in Denmark -- 12% of population, 52% of the rape cases (Majority from Somalia and Middle East)
Foreign born in Finland -- 5.5% of population, 41% of all serious rape crimes (Majority from Middle East and North Africa)

Make sure to check what each country gives to migrants

Tomahawk wrote:

Islamic terrorists aren't true Muslims anyway.

Former Muslims United wrote:

Every “moderate” Muslim is a potential terrorist. The belief in Islam is like a tank of gasoline. It looks innocuous, until it meets the fire. For a “moderate” Muslim to become a murderous jihadist, all it takes is a spark of faith.
It is time to put an end to the charade of “moderate Islam.” There is no such thing as moderate Muslim. Muslims are either jihadists or dormant jihadists – moderate, they are not.

(Source)

Turkey's PM Erdogan wrote:

The term “moderate Islam” is ugly and offensive — Islam is Islam

(Source)

Iraqi Priest wrote:

There’s no such thing as moderate Islam…ISIS represents Islam one hundred percent

(Source)

Let's read the Quran

▼Hidden text

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous - the actual Arabic words for persecution (idtihad) - and oppression (a variation of "z-l-m") do not appear in the verse. The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle).

Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals."

Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."

Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."

Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence at the time of Muhammad was to convert to Islam: prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars. The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.

[Note: The verse says to fight unbelievers "wherever you find them". Even if the context is in a time of battle (which it was not) the reading appears to sanction attacks against those "unbelievers" who are not on the battlefield. In 2016, the Islamic State referred to this verse in urging the faithful to commit terror attacks: Allah did not only command the 'fighting' of disbelievers, as if to say He only wants us to conduct frontline operations against them. Rather, He has also ordered that they be slain wherever they may be – on or off the battlefield.]

Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "healing" the hearts of Muslims.

Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war.

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam "superior over all religions." This chapter was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.

Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).

Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.

Quran (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."

Quran (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme." How does the Quran define a true believer?

Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is "utter destruction." (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).

Quran (18:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude." He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son. [Note: This parable along with verse 58:22 is a major reason that honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.12).]

Quran (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"

Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.

Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter." This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad's biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today's terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah's eternal word to Muslim generations.

Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." Those who reject Allah are to be killed in Jihad. The wounded are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test.

Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"

Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.

Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. This verse tells Muslims that there are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' to describe Hell in over 25 other verses including 65:10, 40:46 and 50:26..

Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His cause" Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "rows" or "battle array," meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9), which defines the "cause": "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.

Quran (61:10-12) - "O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of'Adn- Eternity ['Adn(Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success." This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see verse 9). It uses the Arabic root for the word Jihad.

Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such. (There are many verses calling for Muslims to Jihad)

Sahih Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Sahih Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

Sahih Bukhari (52:65) - The Prophet said, 'He who fights that Allah's Word (Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause. Muhammad's words are the basis for offensive Jihad - spreading Islam by force. This is how it was understood by his companions, and by the terrorists of today. (See also Sahih Bukhari 3:125)

Sahih Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'

Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)

Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious

Sahih Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Sahih Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

Sahih Bukhari (52:73) - "Allah's Apostle said, 'Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords'."

Sahih Bukhari (11:626) - [Muhammad said:] "I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes."

Sahih Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."

Sahih Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"

Sahih Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.'"

Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."

Sahih Muslim (19:4294) - "When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him... He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them."

Sahih Muslim (31:5917) - "Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: 'Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?' Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: 'Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger'." The pretext for attacking the peaceful farming community of Khaibar was not obvious to the Muslims. Muhammad's son-in-law Ali asked the prophet of Islam to clarify the reason for their mission to kill, loot and enslave. Muhammad's reply was straightforward. The people should be fought because they are not Muslim.

Sahih Muslim (31:5918) - "I will fight them until they are like us." Ali's reply to Muhammad, after receiving clarification that the pretext for attack Khaibar was to convert the people (see above verse).

Sahih Bukhari 1:35 "The person who participates in (Holy Battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty ( if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise ( if he is killed)."

Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.

Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.

Tabari 17:187 "'By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.' And they returned to their former religion." The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484: - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 990: Cutting off someone's head while shouting 'Allahu Akbar' is not a 'perverison of Islam', but a tradition of Islam that began with Muhammad. In this passage, a companion recounts an episode in which he staged a surprise ambush on a settlement: "I leapt upon him and cut off his head and ran in the direction of the camp shouting 'Allah akbar' and my two companions did likewise".

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid.

Saifur Rahman, The Sealed Nectar p.227-228 - "Embrace Islam... If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if your refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all of your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship." One of several letters from Muhammad to rulers of other countries. The significance is that the recipients were not making war or threatening Muslims. Their subsequent defeat and subjugation by Muhammad's armies was justified merely on the basis of their unbelief.

Learn about Taqiya

Glenn21, blizzard

Glenn21 · 2016-10-16 19:32:11

The peaceful muslim majority is irrelevant when you know only 19 hijackers were needed for the 9/11 attacks, especially when you know ISIS is exploiting the refugee crisis.
Like I mentioned before in this topic, 60% of the refugees are actually economic migrants who have nothing to do with the war. Another reason why the USA and Europe should build safe zones, instead of taking them in, so we know the real victims of the war get help.

32OrtonEdge32dh · 2016-10-16 19:38:37

Glenn21 wrote:

The peaceful muslim majority is irrelevant when you know only 19 hijackers were needed for the 9/11 attacks

And the Oklahoma City bombing only took McVeigh and Nichols, better ban white people.

Ratburntro44

Glenn21 · 2016-10-16 20:43:42

32OrtonEdge32dh wrote:

Glenn21 wrote:
The peaceful muslim majority is irrelevant when you know only 19 hijackers were needed for the 9/11 attacks
And the Oklahoma City bombing only took McVeigh and Nichols, better ban white people.

Stop ignoring what I said by using such a bad comparison. The amount of radical muslims is way higher than any other religion.
Attacks like this one by white people are often done by people who have been bullied and who have mental problems. It rarely has anything to do with their culture or ideology.

Why do you want western countries to take the high risk of letting terrorists in so badly when we could build safe zones instead?
Because of their different culture and ideology, muslims are more likely to create problems when they are in western countries than white people.

blizzard

blizzard · 2016-10-17 02:44:25

@slushi I would reply to what you said but I couldn't do any better than Zeldaxd did.

The fact so many on here are using a few examples of white/black/asian etc crime to justify islamic terrorism and the refugee problem disturbs me. No one is saying all muslims are criminals. No one is saying ban all LEGAL muslim immigrants or refugees already in America. I do believe though, a blanket ban on muslim immigration could be of benefit, however, I'm sure there are other solutions to the problem as well.

Zumza · 2016-10-18 19:21:27

Basically you don't have anyone to vote for...
I don't know about other parties than Republicans and Democrats. Right now I'm wondering why aren't you letting other parties on those political debates.
And why are you saying no other party has the possibility to win? As I know, USA is a democratic country so if you want to change something don't expect others to do it to you.
And secondly, in my country(which also gots political problems tho) we got 2 presidential elections: In the preliminary election everyone votes whoever they want, and in the secondary election we vote only between the 2 choices that were on the top.

Tomahawk · 2016-10-18 19:57:33

For the third time: you can't physically blanket ban an entire religion, nor justify the attempt.

You're a xenophobe, Glenn, and watching you generalise the entirety of Islam into potential terrorists makes me sick. This may be a debate, but your views are not healthy or welcome.

No wonder you're defending Trump.

Norwee

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#326 2016-10-13 22:43:30

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#327 2016-10-13 22:49:57, last edited by Glenn21 (2016-10-13 22:50:40)

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#328 2016-10-13 23:02:13

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#329 2016-10-14 01:22:54

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#330 2016-10-14 03:20:08, last edited by Glenn21 (2016-10-14 03:29:57)

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#331 2016-10-14 14:52:43

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#332 2016-10-14 15:15:00

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#333 2016-10-14 15:26:32

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#334 2016-10-14 18:28:32

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#335 2016-10-14 18:28:38, last edited by mrjawapa (2016-10-14 18:29:07)

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#336 2016-10-14 22:19:23

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#337 2016-10-15 15:14:20

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#338 2016-10-16 09:44:30, last edited by gkaby (2016-10-16 09:45:36)

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#339 2016-10-16 10:55:27, last edited by Abelysk (2016-10-16 10:55:46)

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#340 2016-10-16 13:31:17

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#341 2016-10-16 14:04:12

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#342 2016-10-16 14:11:26

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#343 2016-10-16 15:14:22

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#344 2016-10-16 18:12:58, last edited by ZeldaXD (2016-10-18 19:26:17)

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#345 2016-10-16 19:32:11

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#346 2016-10-16 19:38:37

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#347 2016-10-16 20:43:42

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#348 2016-10-17 02:44:25

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#349 2016-10-18 19:21:27

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

#350 2016-10-18 19:57:33

Re: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

Board footer