vedaxcool: Lagosshia see why you should stop paying lip service to what your ayatollah say? Now that you have made a fool of yourself how do you feel?

LagosShia:

not like I did not see your foolish attempt above in trying to portray my effort as been at odds with what "my ayatollah" said.i did see your post but I decided to ignore it because with your likes,the thread would only be derailed and end up going in circles.i have no doubt that what the ayatollah said is true,and that the west hates islam be it sunni or shia.no doubt about that.but this message you are bringing to my attention should be presented to the takfiri Wahhabi/salafist groups who have declared muslims as "unbelievers" and justified killing them.again Pakistan is an example,where tens of thousands of shia muslims have been killed.tell the retards deepening the rift between muslims that their evil effort would only play to the advantage of the enemies of islam as a whole.in fact this is what I have all along said in this thread,that the americans are benefitting from the division that retar.ded group is causing between sunnis and shia.but ofcourse,instead of saying it as it is,we want to deny the problem existing and causing harm,in order to live in denial and pretend every muslim must be an angel who follows islam to the dot.ofcourse that is not the case.anyone who fails to see the imperfection,shortcomings and even satanic tendencies of some muslims,and instead wants to blame islam for any of it all,are retards themselves who should be ignored.

vedaxcool: ^
After making a fool of yourself, you come back here like a frustrated woman blaming thaba for your own actions; lies and slander! Get out of here, did u ever condemn the killing of any sunni in Syria, haven't you been calling them terrorist like Ayatollah berstard Assad? Like I said GET OUT OF HERE, you are no different from the enemies of Islam Khaminaie spoke of. Labeling an entire group for the sin of a few people who have been condemned by the majority of the same people is nothing new, it makes u in the fold of an Islamophobe, or are you any different from Spencer? I hope you know your shia brothers in Iraq and Syria are also killing Sunnis there, did you ever start a thread documenting shia sectarian violence against sunnis? Pls shut your mouth up! And save us your hypocrisy and lies, saying thaba is justifying the bombing in Boston shows how LIES are what shiasm is made of or do now work for the CIA who try to frame muslims for crimes they never thought of? Ok CIA will even find you repulsive! Again keep joining hands with the kafir against Muslims, it isn't new your ancestor shias did the same thing, but still Islam prevailed, after kissing the Kafir's feets what did he pay you with? Insults and belittlement, and that is what you will keep earning as long as you follow falsehood and mistake lies to be the way to get the truth! Please do it more often and see the wages you will earn!

LagosShia:

bla bla bla....I am not getting out of here and I am not shutting up.keep crying and lying,while you talk about frustration.

shia are not killing sunnis in Iraq and Syria.not at all.show me one instance where a "Shia suicide bomber" enters a "sunni mosque" and blow himself up.liar!

it is not us Shia who are allying ourselves with the kaffir.it is your sunni brothers in Syria who have taken up arms and have also come from the corners of the sunni world to perpetuate evil in Syria.it is the higest ranking sunni scholar in the world (Yusuf al-qaradawi) calling for the kaffir and "crusaders" to attack Syria and get rid of bashar al-assad.it is Saudi Arabia and tukey (majority sunni countries ruled by sunnis) who are collaborating with the west to destroy Syria.you can keep crying against the shia for what your own brothers are committing,instead of admitting of how unpleasant their actions are even to you,and confessing that you have found yourself in the wrong boat.

LagosShia:

stop rambling like a drunkard.whats in the above that is academic that I can really give my time to,to refute?

my ancestors by the way were sunnis,not shia.i chose to be shia.

LagosShia:

May Allah (swt) guide you.i pray you make use of your ability to read to find where the truth lies.

and here is a Shia scholar, Sayyid Hassan Qazwini,the imam of one of the largest mosques in north America,defending Islam on Fox News against an Islamophobe,after Wahhabism/Salafism display in boston:

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=140538849466380

vedaxcool: thaba nice one!



One thing I have come to learn is that there is a lot of similarities between alqaeda, a terrorist and the same anti - Muslim bigot, they all have deep hatred for everything they do not understand

cleanvessel:

''.....they all have deep hatred for everything they do not understand''

You people talk as if the non-muslims don't understand islam. What is there in islam that is secret that could not be understood? Quran is interpreted to many languages. What for? Is it not for people to understand? Are you saying the interpretations are not the same with the arabic meaning?

Let us look at terrorism by muslims from spiritual point of view:

No defence for islam on terrorism and violence. The religion started on a violent note. Gabriel did not come to Muhammad with love or peace. He started his revelations with tormenting his messanger, showing him an example.

What is terrorism? There are over four score of injunctions in the Quran where muslims are commanded to kill the unbelievers. Who is an unbeliever? The non-muslim. You say not unprovoked? What is your definition of your provocation?

[b]The Bible says Ishmael (Muhammad's ancestor) and his descendant shall be wild people. Their hands shall be upon everybody and everybody's hand shall be upon the[/b]m.

vedaxcool:
Thank God you hold the old testament (The Bible) to be valid, then the following statement are just as true the statement in bold shows teh racial psyche of the writer of the bible;

Initially, there was no such movement called LRA against the Ugandan government. On the contrary, it was the Ugandan government army who operated under the name NRA National Resistance Army before they changed their name to UPDF Uganda People's Defence Force. They terrorised the civilians by burning homes, looting livestock, killings, rapes, spreading HIV disease, genocide.[9][10] The Ugandan army were also the first to recruit children, and they continued to do so unabated. In June 2006, Radhika Coomaraswamy, the UN's special representative for children, found more than 5000 children recruited in the Ugandan government army.[11] The insurgency by the government's NRA led to the formation of the rebel group called the Lord's Resistance Army. Ideologically, LRA believe in African mysticism, Christian fundamentalism, and Islam.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] It claims to be establishing a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments and local Acholi tradition.[23][24][25]

Christian terrorism comprises terrorist acts by groups or individuals who claim Christian motivations or goals for their actions. As with other forms of religious terrorism, Christian terrorists have relied on idiosyncratic interpretations of the tenets of faith – in this case, the Bible. Such groups have cited Old Testament and New Testament scriptures to justify violence and killing or to seek to bring about the "end times" described in the New Testament,[1] while others have hoped to bring about a Christian theocracy.[2][3]

Some scholars, such as Steve Bruce, a sociology professor at the University of Aberdeen, argue that the conflict in Northern Ireland is primarily a religious conflict, its economic and social considerations notwithstanding.[8] Professor Mark Juergensmeyer has also argued that some acts of terrorism were "religious terrorism... – in these cases, Christianity".[9]:19-20 Others, such as John Hickey, take a more guarded view.[10] Writing in The Guardian, Susan McKay discussed religious fundamentalism in connection with the murder of Martin O'Hagan, a former inmate of the Maze prison and a reporter on crime and the paramilitaries. She attributed the murder to a "range of reasons," including "the gangsters didn't like what he wrote". The alleged killers claimed that they killed him for "crimes against the loyalist people".[11]

The Orange Volunteers are a group infamous for carrying out simultaneous terrorist attacks on Catholic churches.[12]

Self-styled pastors[13] Clifford Peeples, previously convicted under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, John Somerville, and their associates, were dubbed by RUC chief constable, Ronnie Flanagan "the demon pastors" – specialising in recounting lurid stories of Catholic savagery towards Protestants, and in finding biblical justifications for Protestant retaliation.[11]

India
Tripura and Assam

The National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), a rebel group operating in Tripura, North-East India, has been described as engaging in terrorist violence motivated by their Christian beliefs.[14] The NLFT is currently proscribed as a terrorist organization in India.[15][16] It is classified by the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism as one of the ten most active terrorist groups in the world, and has been accused of forcefully converting people to Christianity.[17][18] The insurgency in Nagaland was originally led by the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), and it is continued today by a faction named "NSCN–Isaac Muivah", which explicitly calls for a "Nagalim for Christ".[19] The state government reports that the Baptist Church of Tripura supplies arms and gives financial support to the NLFT.[17][18][20] In April 2000, the secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, Nagmanlal Halam, was arrested with a large quantity of explosives.

vedaxcool:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army



More terrorism from Christians read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Ignorance is not an excuse to yap rubbish in a public forum! thank you

E.O.D

alexis:

Using wikipedia as evidence on a public forum - I don't know if I should laugh at you. What you are doing is not new, you always do it but what you don't realize is this - EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU TRY AND FIND FAULT WITH CHRISTIANITY WHEN IT COMES TO VIOLENCE - YOU CONFIRM THAT ISLAM IS A RELIGION THAT LEGITIMIZE VIOLENCE.

What you are doing is not new - it is called:

The Fallacy of Force: The Qur'an commands Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims and apostates (Surah 5:33; 9:5, 29).

Some Muslims use a false analogy to answer this argument. They respond by saying, "Well, what about the Crusades? You Christians use violence just like Muslims.". Now it is the Lords Resistance Army and some NLFT group in India

It is logically erroneous to set up a parallel between Muslims killing people in obedience to the Qur'an and Christians killing people in disobedience to the Bible. While the Qur'an commands Jihad, the New Testament forbids it.

Moving on - let me ask you this question:

[size=20pt]Would Northern Nigeria be a better/safer/peaceful place if Boko Haram were Evangelical Christians?[/size]

AbdH:

Question should be: Would Northern Nigeria be a better/safer/peaceful place if Boko haram were demented crusaders?
Answer would be: NO! Northern Nigeria would have been worse.

tbaba1234:




So killing more women and children is the perfect response, and you expect that there will not be more muslims angry enough to want to retaliate??


You are one of the bigots, i see.

divinereal: The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
The above passage is not a reference to a declaration by al Qaeda or some Iranian fatwa. They are the words of Thomas Jefferson, then the U.S. ambassador to France, reporting to Secretary of State John Jay a conversation he'd had with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Tripoli's envoy to London, in 1786 -- more than two and a quarter centuries ago.

That is before al Qaeda and the Taliban, before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, before Khomeini, before Saudi Arabia, before drones, before most Americans even knew what jihad or Islam was, and, most importantly, well before the United States had engaged in a single military incursion overseas or even had an established foreign policy.

At the time, thousands of American and European trade ships entering the Mediterranean had been targeted by pirates from the Muslim Barbary states (modern-day North Africa). More than a million Westerners had been kidnapped, imprisoned and enslaved. Tripoli was the nexus for these operations. Jefferson's attempts to negotiate resulted in deadlock, and he was told simply that the kidnapping and enslavement of the infidels would continue, tersely articulated by Adja in the exchange paraphrased above.

Adja's position wasn't a random one-off. This conflict continued for years, seminally resulting in the Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by President John Adams in 1797. Article 11 of the document, a direct product of the United States' first-ever overseas conflict, contained these famous words, cementing America's fundamental commitment to secularism:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext, arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Yes, the establishment of secularism in America back in the 18th century was largely related to a conflict with Islamist jihadism.

So where did Abdul Rahman Adja's bin Laden-esque words come from?

They couldn't have been a response to American imperialism (the start of the conflict precedes the presidency of George Washington), U.S. foreign policy, globalization, AIPAC or Islamophobia. Yet his words are virtually identical to those spouted ad nauseum by jihadists today who justify their bellicosity as a reaction to these U.S.-centric factors, which were nonexistent in Adja's time.

How do we make sense of this? Well, the common denominator here just happens to be the elephant in the room.

In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings and the foiled al Qaeda-backed plot in Toronto, the "anything but jihad" brigade is out in full force again. If the perpetrators of such attacks say they were influenced by politics, nationalism, money, video games or hip-hop, we take their answers at face value. But when they repeatedly and consistently cite their religious beliefs as their central motivation, we back off, stroke our chins and suspect that there has to be something deeper at play, a "root cause."

The taboo against criticizing religion is still so astonishingly pervasive that centuries of hard lessons haven't yet opened our eyes to what has been apparent all along: It is often religion itself, not the "distortion," "hijacking," "misrepresentation" or "politicization" of religion, that is the root cause.

The recent attack on "new atheists" like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens by Nathan Lean and Murtaza Hussain have been endorsed by renowned liberal writers like Glenn Greenwald, who has also recently joined a chorus of denialists convinced that jihad and religious fervor had nothing to do with the Tsarnaev brothers' motive, despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary. (HuffPost Live recently had a great segment holding Murtaza Hussain accountable for his claims.)

In a way, these attacks on Dawkins et al. are a good thing. Typically, resorting to ad hominem attacks and/or labeling the opposing side "bigoted" is a last resort, when the opponent is unable to generate a substantive counterargument.

This phenomenon can be wholly represented by loaded terms like "Islamophobia." As an atheist Muslim (I'm not a believer, but I love Eid, the feasts of Ramadan and my Muslim family and friends), I could be jailed or executed in my country of birth, the country I grew up in and a host of other Muslim countries around the world for writing this very piece. Obviously, this is an unsettling, scary feeling for me. You may describe that fear as a very literal form of "Islamophobia." But is that the same thing as anti-Muslim bigotry? No.

Semantics matter here. As much as I have differences with the contents of Islam's canonical texts, I know that most Muslims are good, peaceful people who have barely read the Quran and seldom follow it except for the occasional cherry-picking and hearsay, much like the adherents of any other religion. Most of the 1 billion Muslims in the world (with the largest populations in Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) don't even understand Arabic.

I also understand that extremism in any ideology isn't a distortion of that ideology. It is an informed, steadfast adherence to its fundamentals, hence the term "fundamentalism." When you think of a left-wing extremist, do you think of a greedy capitalist? Would you imagine a right-wing extremist to be dedicated to government-funded social welfare programs? The "extremists" and strict followers of the Jain faith, which values the life of every being, including insects, don't kill more than their average co-religionists. Instead, they avoid eating foods stored overnight so as not to kill even the microorganisms that may have collected in the meantime. In a true religion of peace, the "extremists" would be nonviolent pacifists to an extreme (and perhaps annoying) degree, not the opposite.

Too often in the aftermath of these tragedies, whether they occur in Boston or Karachi, I notice people rushing to defend the faith from judgment instead of acknowledging the victims. If a link is considered or even discovered, everyone from the Western media to Hollywood deems that person "Islamophobic" for linking Islam to terrorism.

But the number-one reason that terrorism is linked with Islam is not the media or "Islamophobes." It is that jihadi terrorists link themselves with Islam. Timothy McVeigh (also a terrorist by any definition of the word) didn't yell "Jesus is great!" before carrying out the Oklahoma City bombing. His brand of terrorism wasn't linked to Christianity, because it wasn't carried out in the name of it. (In contrast, the bombing of abortion clinics is terrorism universally acknowledged as being linked with Christian religious extremism.)

This is not to say that anti-Muslim bigotry doesn't exist. As a Pakistani-born man raised in Libya and Saudi Arabia, I'll be the first to acknowledge that it does. Yes, racists and bigots do pop up, not just attacking peaceful Muslims but pushing Hindus into subways or murdering Sikhs because they wear turbans or have beards like some Muslims. Ignorance can have immensely tragic consequences.

However, denialism does not adequately counter it. As Asra Nomani has bravely and effectively argued in her article praising the attitude of the Tsarnaevs' uncle, the onus is on the Muslim community, not just here but the world over, to start dealing honestly with the parts of their religion that undeniably promote armed jihad.

This does not lose an individual any Muslim cred. Jews frequently profess their faith without justifying or defending passages in the Old Testament calling for the stoning to death of homosexuals, non-virginal brides or blasphemers. In fact, most of them condemn these ideas. Religious Catholics still identify with their faith in large numbers without agreeing with the pope on birth control, abortion or premarital sex. Like them, almost all Muslims cherry-pick the contents of their faith as well. Why not be honest about the parts you don't like? If you're being discriminated against, why not protect your people first instead of jumping to protect your beliefs, books or religion every time someone driven by them commits mass murder?

This is a key difference for "new atheists." To us, the fight against religious ideology isn't a struggle against human rights but a struggle for them. Human beings have rights and are entitled to respect. Books and beliefs don't and aren't.

Instead of judging these religions by the actions of a few, we judge them more objectively: by the contents of their sacred texts (revered by fundamentalists and moderates alike). To us, a simple reading of the Abrahamic holy books reveals endorsements of virtually all the oppressive and discriminatory systems that civil and human rights movements have tried to dismantle over time: patriarchy, misogyny, slavery, tribalism, xenophobia, totalitarianism and homophobia, all rolled into one.

Our critical words aren't an attack on people. They are a challenge to what we consider bad ideas that drive bad behavior. Saying "smoking is bad" does not translate to "all smokers are bad people."

It is also important to understand why criticism, satire or mockery of any ideology isn't bigoted or racist. Criticizing capitalism does not make you an anti-capitalist "bigot." Criticizing religious ideology is no different. No one is born pre-circumcised or pre-baptized with a hijab or a yarmulke sewn to their heads. It is clear now, as it always has been, that ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, educational status, financial status, citizenship status, marital status and family background have little to do with Islamist terrorism. Before the Russian Tsarnaevs from North Caucasus, we've had Richard Reid, the Hispanic Jose Padilla, the Nigerian underwear bomber, California's Adam Gadahn and others. The only common denominator among them is Islamic belief and religious fervor, which is not a race or ethnicity.

For the longest time, Arabs and Muslims have rightly complained that labeling them anti-Semitic for legitimate criticism of Israeli policy was the Israeli government's ploy to shield itself from accountability. Today, Muslims (along with liberal apologist allies like Greenwald) are doing the same thing with their generously broad use of the "Islamophobia" label against the likes of Dawkins and Harris, both of whom have spoken against all religions equally, even if they contend (rightly so) that Islam poses a unique threat at this time because of its greatly increased influence on (and integration into) world politics, as Christianity had for centuries in Europe.

The most revolutionary human rights struggles in history have faced violent opposition, ostracization, alienation, insult and often injury and death for those engaged. The fight for women's rights took much more courage for women in the 1800s than for those born in the 21st century. Civil rights activists who spoke out at a time when lynchings were accepted and commonplace took on a much more dangerous task than those born in the America of Barack Obama. Countless LGBT activists have faced discrimination and cruelty throughout history (and continue to today) for openly advocating what 70 percent of America's youth now believe to be the right thing, no matter what it says in Leviticus 20:13.

Overall, "new atheists" think of religion the same way. It is considered sacred and untouchable now like white supremacy and patriarchy were less than a century ago. The consequences for speaking out against it are often as dire as they were for those who spoke out against white or male authority back then. But the secularist struggle is bearing fruit, here and elsewhere, particularly among America's youth.

To us, the "root causes" of jihadist terrorism are the same today as they were when Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja said those historic words to Thomas Jefferson. We want to be honest about it so that we can actually do something about it.

For the fast-growing secularist/humanist movement, criticism of religion isn't a demonstration of bigotry but a struggle against it. To us, bigotry against bigotry isn't bigotry, and intolerance of intolerance isn't intolerance.

[b]CNN recently published an article entitled Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/06/muslim.radicalization.study/; according to a study released by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “the terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslim-Americans has been exaggerated.”

Yet, Americans continue to live in mortal fear of radical Islam, a fear propagated and inflamed by right wing Islamophobes. If one follows the cable news networks, it seems as if all terrorists are Muslims. It has even become axiomatic in some circles to chant: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.” Muslims and their “leftist dhimmi allies” respond feebly, mentioning Waco as the one counter example, unwittingly affirming the belief that “nearly all terrorists are Muslims.”

But perception is not reality. The data simply does not support such a hasty conclusion. On the FBI’s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005. That list can be accesse[/b]d here http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum (scroll down all the way to the bottom).

vedaxcool:



https://www.nairaland.com/1267598/all-terrorists-muslims-except-94

In the heart of every Islamophobe, Ignorance is King!

vedaxcool: Reality stings . . . CNN, FBI are lying . . . In the heart of every Islamophobe, Ignorance is King!

Kairoseki77:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks

vedaxcool:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Christian_terrorism

vedaxcool: so u are monkeyst? The lows christians would go to avoid scrutiny . . . Keep fooling yourself! evangelism by lies carry go . . .

alexis:

Hmmm, it must be christians working in Northern Nigeria. vexacool is the head of CIA and FBI . It must be Christians that blew up the world trade center, attacked the pentagon etc. Oh Christians! Una don suffer oh!

Kairoseki77:

These foolish cowards like to puff their chest out online, but support Boko Haram when no one is looking.

GEJ will fish you out and kill you all. You have killed many people I know, you will not get off without punishment.