Saudi Arabia executes 37 people, crucifying one, for terror-related crimes

So you admit that many Muslims don't follow most of the teachings of Islam, and isn't that exactly like the vast majority of Christians?

If you strictly follow the teachings of Christianity you will be a judgmental prig

 

The teachings are quite a bit different.

 

But most people don't follow either one very strictly.

 

Not hardly.
The teachings are completely different.
The leaders of Christianity warped the religion for the mindless sheep.
But Islam needs no warping.
It is already warped.

 

Support for your claims. part 1 and check out part 2

 

Radical Christians are annoying
Radical Muslims kill people.

what you are trying to do is equalize Christianity and Islam,
Something you shouldn't even be trying, because you know nothing about the religion.

The 2 religions are 180 degrees different.

Muhammed was a murderer, thief, torturer, sexual pervert, rapist. etc.

Jesus was none of these.

Christianity has a couple verses that can be looked at as controversial.

Islam has volumes of rob, rape, and kill.

 

So?

The fact remains that most muslims don't follow their religion, warped or not. Just like most Christians don't follow theirs. Thank god for hypocrisy

 

That's a leap of faith right there.
Most Muslims are only associated with like Muslims.
Most of Iran is Shia, and the jews are protected dhiminies.
Saudi is all Sunni, and they got rid of all the Jews a long time ago.
they have to go out of the country to commit terror.

Few Muslims live with Jews and Christians.

and here again you are trying to point my blame at Muslims.

Muslims are people, human beings, and victims themselves.
Muslims are a by-product of the problem.

The problem is the religion of Islam.

 

Oh, so the problem is muslims aren't following their religion?

Why is the problem so exclusive to people in the muslim faith then?

Or were you saying it's a good thing most of them don't follow their religion?

 

Ramadan is a time of peace for the Muslims.
Look at the stats.

How can you possibly put any religion on the same plain.

 

Radical Christians kill people too. if you go by radical sects of the most general sort, and you are if you include ISIS as Islamic, they've been responsible for some 50 million deaths from 1939 to 1945.

I think you know very little of Islam that isn't filtered through your own hatred.

 

It's a good thing NOBODY follows their religion. Not in its generally inhuman and murderous aspects at least.

And Christians kill quite as many people as muslims. If you include Naziism as a Christian sect, (and you should if you include ISIS as Islamic) then Christians have killed many, many more people than muslims have.

 

If you do. Which is a big big stretch, and probably hopelessly wishful thinking on your part.

 

Not really, Fascism borrows much from the structure of the Catholic Church and Himmler consciously designed the SS to imitate the Jesuits. ISIS is a heresy of a heresy in actual Islam

 

The problem is religions. And people hanging their own hatred and insanities onto them

 

Saudi are Wahabis and Wahabis are a heresy of Sunni. They are as much Sunni as Baptists are Catholics

 

Wahabis are just one of the schools, from Hanbail.

Their main thought is that Islam is from the original teachings, and not after words.

Well what do you know. We are back to the teachings and deeds of Muhammed.

And Sunni is not the only form of Islam that is committing terror.
They only do 70% of it.

 

Islam as a religion is one thing - Wahhabist Islam, as we're now discovering for ourselves, it quite another.

 

Somehow, the above post got mixed up. Only the first couple of lines were supposed to be quotes from Aleksander Ulyanov. The rest is my original posting.

 

Wahhabism is from the mid 1700;s. Islam has been terrorising the world for 1400 years, and did just fine without it.

LONDON – The word “Wahhabism” has become a boogeyman in the west, deemed responsible for the radicalization of Muslims around the world. And since Wahhabism is a strain of Islam that has its origins in the Arabian Peninsula and is the dominant religious doctrine of Saudi Arabia, that country is often viewed as the prime culprit in the propagation of violent extremism.

But blaming Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia for Islamist radicalism is a dangerous red herring. This single-cause explanation distracts from the complex political, economic and psychological reasons people join terrorist groups. In doing so, it impedes our ability to effectively fight terrorism.

Wahhabism is, in fact, a loaded, anti-Saudi synonym for Salafism, a puritanical strain of Islam that encourages emulating the “salaf,” or predecessors, the first followers of the Prophet Muhammad. Salafism has historically been apolitical and the overwhelming majority of Salafis are not violent.

Most Islamist militants have nothing to do with Saudi Wahhabism. The Taliban, for example, are Deobandis, a revivalist, anti-imperialist strain of Islam that emerged as a reaction to British colonialism in South Asia. Most members of Al Qaeda follow a radical current that emerged from the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement that defined itself largely in relation and opposition to the West and its values. While some terrorists do identify as Salafi, Islamic sects that are ideologically opposed to Salafism — Naqshbandi Sufis and Shiites, among others — have engaged in violent jihad in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

 

Neither Islam nor anything else has been "terrorising" the world for anything even close to 1400 years. Modern terrorism, also called Trotskyism, dates to its founder, Leon Trotsky, who first outlined it in the 1920s' as the major tool for the advancement of world communism. It depends heavily upon modern mass media, such as newspapers and radio, being at least nascent in the target polity. Modern terrorism only slightly resembles the sabotage and from which it draws some of its tactics.

Islam was in a state of overall conflict with Christianity since its inception, but so was Christianity with everything else. The borders. like in Spain, Sicily and Anatolia were never entirely quiet and there were major wars overall, like in the 730's, the Crusades and the Ottoman invasions but generally the two largest Abrahamic Faiths were in a state of uneasy peace all that time. Cold wars are far from new.

Where do you guys get your history from anyway? You sound like my 5th grade Catholic School textbook, which called Medieval Europe "Christendom", Buddhists and Hindus "heathens", muslims "Saracens", and referred to the Protestant Reformation as the Protestant "Revolt".

Is THAT where all this vitriol towards Islam comes from? Did Sister Borromeo have it in for the Prophet in the 6th grade? My cousin ran into one of them in early HS and he would have never gotten over it if he hadn't married an Arab beauty later, (love conquers all, even instilled Islamophobia).

 

I am wondering where you are getting your history from.
OK, it was the known world, not the whole world.
After Muhammeds death what would become Shia went west.
Sunni went north.
And both spent the next 1000 years robbing and killing their way through the land.

Here is a good video where you can get some stats.

 

Yasur said:

"Wahhabism is, in fact, a loaded, anti-Saudi synonym for Salafism, a puritanical strain of Islam that encourages emulating the “salaf,” or predecessors, the first followers of the Prophet Muhammad. Salafism has historically been apolitical and the overwhelming majority of Salafis are not violent."

But,,,but,,how can that be? You say that Salafis are Puritan followers of the Prophet but they CANNOT be either apolitical or nonviolent since all of Islam's teachings enjoin that one be an... well let's have you tell us

"good Muslims" are very evil people.

If you follow the teachings of Islam, you will be a murderous thug."

 

I THOUGHT you sounded familiar, but I didn't want to say so.

That guy is a known nucking fut. He's worse than the Taliban himself. One of the worst distorters of history I've ever seen. He reminds me of Velikovsky, only he applies himself to justifying Historical bigotry instead of Bible Literalism.

Like Velikovsky he's a good enough researcher that it would take a book to refute him, but believe me, he's a stinking piece of feces.

As a historian he's a fine physicist, which is where his real training is