Carino

Yes, Jihad is planned, duh. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXBgqa-xQwY

So basically we agree. Jihad is happening because of Islam, because the Quran is very clear in that regard, you just think there are other factors that play into it more than I do. We can disagree on some stats, that's beside the point. The site with the Ben Shapiro video used a little trick to keep the number artificially low. They multiplied 19% of Muslims who say „suicide bombings could sometimes be justified, with 945 Million, but there are 1.6 Billion Muslims in the world. So that would be around 300 Million. I know, how do I know what the others think? I'm just saying they used their own stat for their own criteria and used a little trick to keep the number low. And when you take Sharia proponents the number would be much higher. And you saw how many of them want apostates dead. What do you think they think about non-Muslims? But I don't wanna talk about some stats, what languages someone is speaking and so. I think it was stupid that Ben included those who think 9/11 was an inside job into the radical group, but this video is a good brief overview about what a lot of Muslims think. And only a few condemn all muslims, we need the peaceful ones, only they can change what's going on, but if politicians keep going on with their obfuscation tactic about Islam nothing is gonna change. I think we are done here, do you agree?

Instead of telling me how biased these people are you should tell me where they are wrong. Maybe then I could see how biased they are. Give me an example what one of them said wrong in regards to Islam. Bill Warner doesn't speak arabic? That's a new one, usually I hear that you have to speak „ancient arabic“ to understand the Quran. And if that is true almost no one understands it. The report you sent me, interesting, i skimmed through it. Page 23: „What do Sharia Supporters want?" Executing those who leave Islam: South Asia 76%, Middle East- North Africa 56% Well, that just validates my biased sources.

I really think this are the most unbiased people when it comes to Islam. And Ben Shapiro, Sam Harris, Bill Warner etc. the list is long. They all know what they are talking about. I'm always on the side of facts instead of slogans. Maybe you don't like the ironic writing on thereligionofpeace.com but you can't argue the numbers. I posted it to show that there is much more than we know about. What would you consider a credible source when it comes to Islam? An Imam? I know there was an Imam killed because he condemned suicide attacks, they do exist too, I know that, but in a religion where you have four different exceptions for lying, I really don't know who I can trust. That's why I turn to David Wood when I want to know something about Islam. He's a Christian but he knows everything about the Quran, the Sunna and the Hadiths. And I don't trust politicians. Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true as it relates to the Muslim identity. Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief." Tawriya - Intentionally creating a false impression. Muruna - 'Blending in' by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others.

You really should watch the videos I posted in this thread.

Full length discussion where the audience gets polled. I was toying with the idea of posting every Jihad attack on this site but decided it would be too tedious. Luckily there is this site http://thereligionofpeace.com I don't quite remember who did it, I think it was a British newspaper, they made an investigation for one month and they found even more. So the number of Jihadi attacks (30,891) since 9/11 might be a little too low. If someone needs help with his Western guilt fixation, scroll down on the site, on the left there's a column called“Put the Numbers in Perspective“.

We do know why this happens

The crusades were a reaction to the violent expansion of Islam, but you are right, other religions have done stupid stuff in the past too. In the past, and they pale in comparison. It's still going on with Islam. Here are the surahs: “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?” Surah 2: 106 “When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.” Surah 16:101

You can't condemn a religion/ideology that killed 270 million people in 1400 years of Jihad? A Jihadist is not an extremist, he is just an orthodox Muslim, peaceful Muslims have a twisted view of Islam, not ISIS. They just follow the rules of the Quran, the Quran is not chronological, so when there are differing surahs regarding one topic you have to look what was written last, long story short: the peaceful surahs have been abrogated. And Mohammed lived that way. You really can't compare Islam with other religions.

A lot of people who post in this thread think they know why attacks like in Manchester happen. Let's see what ISIS says. This is from the Islamic State Magazin Dabiq. You can download it here https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-do-jihadists-really-want Sorry for the long post but I think this is important. Shortly following the blessed attack on a sodomite, Crusader nightclub by the mujahid Omar Mateen , American politicians were quick to jump into the spotlight and denounce the shooting, declaring it a hate crime, an act of terrorism, and an act of senseless violence. A hate crime? Yes. Muslims undoubtedly hate liberalist sodomites, as does anyone else with any shred of their fitrah (inborn human nature) still intact. An act of terrorism? Most definitely. Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah. But an act of senseless violence? One would think that the average Westerner, by now, would have abandoned the tired claim that the actions of the mujahidin – who have repeatedly stated their goals, intentions, and motivations – don’t make sense. Unless you truly – and naively – believe that the crimes of the West against Islam and the Muslims, whether insulting the Prophet g, burning the Quran, or waging war against the Caliphate, won’t prompt brutal retaliation from the mujahidin, you know full well that the likes of the attacks carried out by Omar Mateen, Larossi Aballa, and many others before and after them in revenge for Islam and the Muslims make complete sense. The only thing senseless would be for there to be no violent, fierce retaliation in the first place! Many Westerners, however, are already aware that claiming the attacks of the mujahidin to be senseless and questioning incessantly as to why we hate the West and why we fight them is nothing more than a political act and a propaganda tool. The politicians will say it regardless of how much it stands in opposition to facts and common sense just to garner as many votes as they can for the next election cycle. The analysts and journalists will say it in order to keep themselves from becoming a target for saying something that the masses deem to be “politically incorrect.” The apostate “imams” in the West will adhere to the same tired cliché in order to avoid a backlash from the disbelieving societies in which they’ve chosen to reside. The point is, people know that it’s foolish, but they keep repeating it regardless because they’re afraid of the consequences of deviating from the script. We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; ... Furthermore, just as your disbelief is the primary reason we hate you, your disbelief is the primary reason we fight you, as we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by paying jizyah – for those afforded this option – and living in humiliation under the rule of the Muslims. Thus, even if you were to stop fighting us, your best-case scenario in a state of war would be that we would suspend our attacks against you – if we deemed it necessary – in order to focus on the closer and more immediate threats, before eventually resuming our campaigns against you. Apart from the option of a temporary truce, this is the only likely scenario that would bring you fleeting respite from our attacks. So in the end, you cannot bring an indefinite halt to our war against you. At most, you could only delay it temporarily. “And fight them until there is no fitnah [paganism] and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah” (Al-Baqarah 193).

Nothing to see here, move along, just another jihadi attack, this has nothing to do with islam, islam is a religion of peace, no reason to be islamophobic, right David?

I appreciate the kindness of your response. You are right, I should have phrased it differently. Let's leave it at that, my english isn't good enough to explain why your post hit a nerve. I'm from Germany too, so you can probably guess why.