Inside The Mind Of Islam's False Prophet Muhammad

[PearlHowardman]

Q. Why is Islam the only religion to kill apostates (those who wish to leave Islam)?

A. Because if Islam didn't kill apostates Islam would collapse because most Muslims would leave Islam because Islam is based on lies about barbaric thug FALSE PROPHET Muhammad. The angel Gabriel NEVER visited Muhammad in the Hira cave.

-

Q. Then is Islam really a religion?

A. No! Islam is a Godless apostate killing fascist cult like Nazism and Communism. Islam's Muhammad was as much a barbaric killer as Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin were.

[OCinBuffalo]

 

Neither do I. No one should. I've said it before: they're nothing more than a particularly vicious biker gang.

 

The point, though, isn't whether or not they're Muslim. The point is that people pick and choose the tenets of their religious beliefs they prefer to follow all the friggin' time. I just picked ISIS as a recent, convenient example (for my money, certain Baptists I know are much more fun in that regard).

Yeah, you can say that word again. Convenience is the crux of your entire argument. Whenever a Muslim, who was a Muslim yesterday, and for his entire life prior, by all definitions, suddenly does something violent today, he's no longer a Muslim, and now is nothing more than a vicious biker? I mean, literally an hour ago, he's a Muslim, but this hour, because he fires a rifle, throws a grenade, blows himself up, he stops being a Muslim? How? Define that apparatus, and please: show your work.

 

Boy, that's one hell of a transformation in such a short period of time, and what's even more amazing? Your ability to bestow it on anyone, at any time. Convenience indeed. The transubstantiation ain't got nothing on you: body and blood of Christ is just bread and wine. You can change/wipe an entire person's life experience in an instant.

 

There must be some highly funky quantum physics going on here. A 30 year old Muslim, stops being one, and apparently jumps into a new timeline, which erases the last 30 years of his life and replaces them with entirely "not Muslim" experience, and also indemnifies all his future activity as "not Muslim", as soon as he fires his first shot down range, all while he himself swears up and down he's doing it in the name of Islam, and that his is, in fact, a Muslim. He continues to act/speak/think as a Muslim.

 

But, once you've auto-converted him to "not Muslim" status, then he isn't, he has no idea he isn't, has no say in the matter, and that's all there is to it? Again, this argument is a marvel of convenience.

 

But what about if, as he approaches non-Muslimhood and is about to do something for which you will wipe his Muslimhood away, he suddenly changes his mind? I bet that's a tough one. Not so convenient. He was going to be "not Muslim"...but now? He's back to be being 100% Muslim again?

 

 

This is hilarious stupidity, and you are an unmitigated moron if you can't see the fault in your own logic here. The very notion that "people pick and chose" PROVES that terrorists ARE Muslims, by the very picking and chosing THEY, not you, do = if the guy still prays 5 times today, after blowing up a bomb yesterday? He's still a F'ing Muslim, you nitwit, just like he's been his whole life.

So is religion a buffet?

Of course it is. And just like at a buffet, some people choose to eat everything, and some don't. The fact that some people choose to eat everything doesn't mean it isn't a buffet. It merely means that they are eating everything. But, every F'er at this religion's buffet...IS part of that religion.

 

We don't get to conveniently pretend that the people who load up on crazy aren't part of the religion. They are eating at the F"ing buffet, and it's THIS buffet, not some other.

 

Why are you so surprised that I believe in everything the Quran says? If I want to leave Islam I'll do so quietly. Apostasy is a crime punishable by death. So why do it? Personally I don't like it, but I can at the same time understand why. You can believe and not like it at the same time, you know.

 

For the most part it's an outdated rule in Islam but it was very vital during the infancy stages of Islam.

 

I'd also like to add that I have been very honest in my dealings with you and everyone else. None of my opinions are popular ones so I doubt you encounter someone else that's more real than I am.

 

 

Tom summed it up perfectly.

And once again I will ask you: why was this necessary in the infancy stage os Islam? Every other religion had infancy stages. Buhda got to travel around in style. The Christians got routinely slaughtered in their infancy....but not by other Christians. There is a distinction and a difference. Intellectually, you KNOW why: Islam isn't 100% about coming to God of one's own free will, and it never will be. It will always be, at least in part, about: man's control over other men on earth.

 

That is the defintion of politics, or government, if you like, and not the definition of religion. Laws = acceptable behavior defined + application of force. The apostasy rules make Islam political, period.

 

That makes Islam a problem, because Islam can always be exploited this way, while other religions cannot. IF this was software, we'd wouldn't choose Islam because of these obvious exploit problems. Islam's other problem is that, since it is tainted by politics, separating it from politics is extremely difficult. It's somewhat incompatible with the Western notion of "freedom of religion".

 

This also explains why we see "sharia law here" signs being put up by Muslims in England, and "no Sharia law here" signs being put up too. Islam is political, and always will be.

 

Also, this is hilarious: Please set your watches forward 1400 years

 

Define whore. Because my definition of whore is any women that has premarital sex. Premarital sex is a sin in any religion. Say what you want about religion, but when it comes to sex they got it right. There wouldn't be as many bastards out there, and there wouldn't be as many STDs.

 

One out of every six people between the ages 14 to 49 have herpes. That's astonishing to me.

Oh, I'm sure there'd be plenty of bastards out there regardless of religion. Bastards have always been around, and they always will be. Hell, back in the middle ages they even had rules in heraldry(coat of arms) for bastards, and that was during the height of the Catholic Church's control over Europe. Heraldry rules mean: plenty of bastards. If the nobles were making rules, just imagine how many bastards the average bar wench was cranking out.

 

STDs? Come on. Obviously you don't know that much about military history. STDs have been a problem before Christianity and Islam ever existed, and probably before Judaism or any other religion, and they still are a problem. The term Hooker comes from a Union general officer legalizing prostitution in DC...so that he could get the hookers checked medically, and regulate them.

 

I seriously doubt that religion in general, existing or not, has had any real effect on premarital sex, adulterous sex, bastards, or STDs. Now, Communism? That's had an efffect, because you can't have sex if you've been murdered, sterlized, or imprisioned by the state. Therefore, I'd argue that Communism has had more effect here than religion.

This morning I got to read some really stupid and disingenuous posts by DCTom & FireChan regarding me being one post away from blaming all Muslims for the actions of (more than) a few Muslims. DCTom was being his usual self, trying to impress with his "above the fray" attitude. Chan, who hasn't spent much time here at PPP was just utilizing his Shoutbox mentality.Anyone who has been around awhile and is not a prick like DCTom would know that I don't blame all Muslims for the misdeedsof the 10's of thousands of them who wantonly kill others. Justice, or No Justice (his previous screen name) and I have had numerous public discussions about this. He always claimed that he abhorred violence. His recent statements appeared thathe condoned it as long as he didn't do it himself. This is the polar opposite of his prior claims. So, the "one post away"statement was right DC & Chan, but only in that I was one post away from taking Justice to the woodshed for being two-faced.

 

As I've already stated many times, the "a few don't represent all" argument is absolutely stupid when used to defend Islam. We are talking about 1.6 billion people.

 

If ony 1% of the Muslim population is nuts? That's 16 million nuts. Polls suggest that # could be as high as 25, not 1, %. Only an umitigated moron calls that # of people "a few".

 

No. A few is the Westboro Baptist Church...in comparision to all the Christians on the planet. Yes, holding those 50+ people out against the rest Christianity is nuts.

 

However, 16 million is not "a few". So here ends that dopey argument, defeated by 4th grade math.

 

We DO have a problem with more than 16 million absolute nut jobs(at least), who ARE Muslims, and DO have access to state assets. Some of them are heads of state/hold significant power.

 

So, once again, enough of the nonsense comparisons and false equivalencies.

 

You don't get to play that, when we are talking about this many nuts.

[Justice]

Yeah, you can say that word again. Convenience is the crux of your entire argument. Whenever a Muslim, who was a Muslim yesterday, and for his entire life prior, by all definitions, suddenly does something violent today, he's no longer a Muslim, and now is nothing more than a vicious biker? I mean, literally an hour ago, he's a Muslim, but this hour, because he fires a rifle, throws a grenade, blows himself up, he stops being a Muslim? How? Define that apparatus, and please: show your work.

 

Boy, that's one hell of a transformation in such a short period of time, and what's even more amazing? Your ability to bestow it on anyone, at any time. Convenience indeed. The transubstantiation ain't got nothing on you: body and blood of Christ is just bread and wine. You can change/wipe an entire person's life experience in an instant.

 

There must be some highly funky quantum physics going on here. A 30 year old Muslim, stops being one, and apparently jumps into a new timeline, which erases the last 30 years of his life and replaces them with entirely "not Muslim" experience, and also indemnifies all his future activity as "not Muslim", as soon as he fires his first shot down range, all while he himself swears up and down he's doing it in the name of Islam, and that his is, in fact, a Muslim. He continues to act/speak/think as a Muslim.

 

But, once you've auto-converted him to "not Muslim" status, then he isn't, he has no idea he isn't, has no say in the matter, and that's all there is to it? Again, this argument is a marvel of convenience.

 

But what about if, as he approaches non-Muslimhood and is about to do something for which you will wipe his Muslimhood away, he suddenly changes his mind? I bet that's a tough one. Not so convenient. He was going to be "not Muslim"...but now? He's back to be being 100% Muslim again?

 

 

This is hilarious stupidity, and you are an unmitigated moron if you can't see the fault in your own logic here. The very notion that "people pick and chose" PROVES that terrorists ARE Muslims, by the very picking and chosing THEY, not you, do = if the guy still prays 5 times today, after blowing up a bomb yesterday? He's still a F'ing Muslim, you nitwit, just like he's been his whole life.

Of course it is. And just like at a buffet, some people choose to eat everything, and some don't. The fact that some people choose to eat everything doesn't mean it isn't a buffet. It merely means that they are eating everything. But, every F'er at this religion's buffet...IS part of that religion.

 

We don't get to conveniently pretend that the people who load up on crazy aren't part of the religion. They are eating at the F"ing buffet, and it's THIS buffet, not some other.

 

And once again I will ask you: why was this necessary in the infancy stage os Islam? Every other religion had infancy stages. Buhda got to travel around in style. The Christians got routinely slaughtered in their infancy....but not by other Christians. There is a distinction and a difference. Intellectually, you KNOW why: Islam isn't 100% about coming to God of one's own free will, and it never will be. It will always be, at least in part, about: man's control over other men on earth.

 

That is the defintion of politics, or government, if you like, and not the definition of religion. Laws = acceptable behavior defined + application of force. The apostasy rules make Islam political, period.

 

That makes Islam a problem, because Islam can always be exploited this way, while other religions cannot. IF this was software, we'd wouldn't choose Islam because of these obvious exploit problems. Islam's other problem is that, since it is tainted by politics, separating it from politics is extremely difficult. It's somewhat incompatible with the Western notion of "freedom of religion".

 

This also explains why we see "sharia law here" signs being put up by Muslims in England, and "no Sharia law here" signs being put up too. Islam is political, and always will be.

 

Also, this is hilarious: Please set your watches forward 1400 years

 

Oh, I'm sure there'd be plenty of bastards out there regardless of religion. Bastards have always been around, and they always will be. Hell, back in the middle ages they even had rules in heraldry(coat of arms) for bastards, and that was during the height of the Catholic Church's control over Europe. Heraldry rules mean: plenty of bastards. If the nobles were making rules, just imagine how many bastards the average bar wench was cranking out.

 

STDs? Come on. Obviously you don't know that much about military history. STDs have been a problem before Christianity and Islam ever existed, and probably before Judaism or any other religion, and they still are a problem. The term Hooker comes from a Union general officer legalizing prostitution in DC...so that he could get the hookers checked medically, and regulate them.

 

I seriously doubt that religion in general, existing or not, has had any real effect on premarital sex, adulterous sex, bastards, or STDs. Now, Communism? That's had an efffect, because you can't have sex if you've been murdered, sterlized, or imprisioned by the state. Therefore, I'd argue that Communism has had more effect here than religion.

 

As I've already stated many times, the "a few don't represent all" argument is absolutely stupid when used to defend Islam. We are talking about 1.6 billion people.

 

If ony 1% of the Muslim population is nuts? That's 16 million nuts. Polls suggest that # could be as high as 25, not 1, %. Only an umitigated moron calls that # of people "a few".

 

No. A few is the Westboro Baptist Church...in comparision to all the Christians on the planet. Yes, holding those 50+ people out against the rest Christianity is nuts.

 

However, 16 million is not "a few". So here ends that dopey argument, defeated by 4th grade math.

 

We DO have a problem with more than 16 million absolute nut jobs(at least), who ARE Muslims, and DO have access to state assets. Some of them are heads of state/hold significant power.

 

So, once again, enough of the nonsense comparisons and false equivalencies.

 

You don't get to play that, when we are talking about this many nuts.

That's a whole lot to cover. I've been waiting for a reply from you in the other thread and yet here you are demanding I answer your question.

 

Why was it important to the early stages of Islam. Simply because Islam had to grow. If you had people going around bad mouthing the religion it probably wouldn't have grown as fast as it did. The Quran says there's no compulsion in Islam. You must come at your own free will. Islam isn't supposed to be spread by the sword.

 

Did I say there will be no more bastards? No. I said there will be far less without pre-marital sex. Same with STDs.

 

And while I'm at it I'd like to touch on your other point that wasn't addressed to me. A murderer ain't a murderer until he kills somebody. Same concept with the terrorists. Murder is strictly forbidden in Islam. Once you kill somebody, especially innocent people, you're no longer a Muslim because you went against the teachings of Islam. "Killing one man is like killing all of humanity. Saving one life is like saving all of humanity"-The Holy Quran. These people might think they're Muslim, but they're not good Muslims. I'm not permitted to say who can and can not go to heaven, only God can judge, because you never know if someone will truly repent for his sins.

[Justice]

Going back to the STDs argument. I guarantee there are far less cases of STDs in Islamic countries as opposed to anywhere else. I don't even have to look it up and I'd still be willing to bet on it. Children out of wedlock too.

[Justice]

BTW. The same goes for Christians and Jews. If you kill people you're not a true Jew or Christian.

[DC Tom]

BTW. The same goes for Christians and Jews. If you kill people you're not a true Jew or Christian.

 

If you murder people you're not a true Jew or Christian.

 

The Bible's pretty clear that killing's...not okay, but not completely frowned upon, either.

[FireChan]

 

If you murder people you're not a true Jew or Christian.

 

The Bible's pretty clear that killing's...not okay, but not completely frowned upon, either.

Thou shalt not "murder."

[Azalin]

BTW. The same goes for Christians and Jews. If you kill people you're not a true Jew or Christian.

 

 

Not true. A Christian doesn't lose his Christianity by defending his home against intruders or seeing combat in war, and it doesn't make them less of a Christian in doing so, either.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Azalin

[Joe Miner]

 

 

Not true. A Christian doesn't lose his Christianity by defending his home against intruders or seeing combat in war, and it doesn't make them less of a Christian in doing so, either.

 

Doesn't actually lose his Christianity by out right murdering anyone either. Something about forgiveness.

 

Also something about God being the only one to judge a person's heart.

 

But what STD were we concerned with again? Are we at genital warts yet?

[Justice]

 

 

Not true. A Christian doesn't lose his Christianity by defending his home against intruders or seeing combat in war, and it doesn't make them less of a Christian in doing so, either.

There are exceptions, of course, but when was the last time we "defended" our land?

 

Doesn't actually lose his Christianity by out right murdering anyone either. Something about forgiveness.

 

Also something about God being the only one to judge a person's heart.

 

But what STD were we concerned with again? Are we at genital warts yet?

Can we just stick with the context of the conversation and not dwell on which STD. Any that involves sex. Got it?

 

I can't believe OC even brought up the subject again. It should be quite obvious if no one was having pre-marital sex or committing adultery then there'd be far less STDs and children out of wedlock.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Justice

[DC Tom]

Thou shalt not "murder."

Yep.

[/dev/null]

BTW. The same goes for Christians and Jews. If you kill people you're not a true Jew or Christian.

 

Samuel 15:3

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

[DC Tom]

 

Samuel 15:3

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

 

"The Religion of Peace."

[Justice]

 

Samuel 15:3

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

It's easy to take one line out of context. Can anyone further explain this passage to me?

Edited April 11, 2015 by Justice

[/dev/null]

It's easy to take one line out of context. Can anyone further explain this passage to me?

How about reading it yourself and drawing your own conclusion

 

http://biblehub.com/kjv/1_samuel/15.htm

[FireChan]

It's easy to take one line out of context. Can anyone further explain this passage to me?

Revenge.

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2015

[....lybob]

It's easy to take one line out of context. Can anyone further explain this passage to me?

Religion is a socially accepted mental illness, and in this particular one there is an invisible sky daddy who not only excuses the most heinous acts but demands them.

[TakeYouToTasker]

It's easy to take one line out of context. Can anyone further explain this passage to me?

God, in both the Old and New Testaments, states that He never changes. God is not vengeful; rather he smites the unrepentant wicked when they become a blight on the world.

[Fingon]

BTW. The same goes for Christians and Jews. If you kill people you're not a true Jew or Christian.

What a terrible argument. Is someone not a true Muslim because they only prayed 4 times yesterday? Is someone not a true Jew because they didn't sacrifice their finest bull? There is literally no such thing as a true Muslim/Christian/Jew because EVERY one of them sins in some way.

[FireChan]

Religion is a socially accepted mental illness, and in this particular one there is an invisible sky daddy who not only excuses the most heinous acts but demands them.

How tolerant of you.