They won't admit it in Stockholm, but Donald Trump is right about immigration in Swed

That's why Saudi is one of the world's biggest violators of human rights.

 

You always dodge questions like the following, but I'll repost it again, to make my point:
Notme, if, repeat if, hypothetically here, for argument's sake (he might NOT have approved of rape of captives - we'll never know 100%), Mohammad DID approve of rape of captives, would you condemn Mohammad in no uncertain terms for that, notme? I would of course, if, repeat if, it was true. Would you?....or is rape of captives acceptable to you?

 

You seem more concerned about REPORTING on the approval of rape of captives in the Islamic texts than the ACTUAL APPROVAL itself!! Incredible. Can we agree that if any approval of rape of captives can be found in the Islamic texts that that would make Islam an immoral belief system, notme? This is a very very clear-cut question.

 

They won't even let "filty", "unclean" non-Muslim spouses of Muslims into Mecca - clearly supremacists. Like me, can you condemn the Muslims, and Islamic texts, for the supremacy, notme?

 

When a web site points out Qur'an 4:34's (Shakir's) instructions to BEAT women, it's not out of "hate", it's out of LOVE for innocent Muslim female victims of Allah/Mohammad's brutality towards them. Can we agree that the world would have been a better place if Q4:34 had not existed?

 

I see by your evasive reply that you can't logically, intellectually, defend my claim that "Jews of Israel generally being blatant racists, and the Zionists being outlaws. More UN resolutions have been against ISRAEL than even most any MUSLIM nation, if you can believe that!"

 

FreedomSeeker wrote:

The feminists cover for the Muslim rapists by trying to blame Swedish men. And jews are overrepresented among Sweden's feminists.

 

The heck?
I said from the start that rape is only permitted according to hate sites, and not according to strict sharia ruled nations like Saudi Arabia who got the death penalty for that. And what did you do? You start quoting from Stormfront like hate sites and avoiding my argument demanding your hate site needs to be rebuked first. lol

 

Uh... you're totally focused on your hate site and deny the reality of the interpretation of the Quran according to sharia law abiding nations. Seems you are going THAT far, that you claim a known hate site knows the Quran better than a muslim religious legal system of Saudi Arabia. lol

 

Oh pff... why not just drop your entire argument, and hop on a whole new wagon, why don't you? lol

It is a muslim hate site.

 

But the Islamic texts DO say those things it objects to and points out, so whether there are guilty of hate or not the religion of Islam is barbaric for having those things in its texts. I'm more concerned about the lack of morality among 1.55 billion people (Muslims) than I am about the small handful of administrators of a particular obscure web site.

 

So you can't condemn the Saudis for their blatant bigotry against non-Muslims since they won't even allow non-Muslim spouses of Muslims into Mecca? I can....can you?

 

Mohammad approved of rape of captives, that's why ISIS, Boko, Taliban, etc. approve of it. Can you condemn Mohammad for approving of rape of captives, notme?

 

Can we agree that the world would have been a better place if Q4:34 had not existed?

 

You can't condemn the Saudis for following the Sharia provision to punish people who leave Islam, can you?

 

The approval of rape is according to your hate sites who "cite" the Quran, buddy.
Strict Quran following countries installed the death penalty for it.
I haven't seen you respond to this. And I stated this from the start.

 

I'm not going to comment one bit on your islamophobic hate sites when they claim the opposite of reality.

Hang on. Lets get back to your hate sites first. Lets see you condemn your islamophobic hate site for raping the truth.

 

Of course it's the Koran which has kept these people behind other groups for centuries. They can study the thing until able to recite it backwards and forwards but they understand little more than that, and any curiosity beyond those religious teachings are discouraged or outlawed. People born in islamic countries were not born ignorant, they must just be maintained that way so those in power can retain their authority.

And 'the West' has somehow become responsible for the ignorance within Islam which begs the question as to Why? What can we possibly owe these people when we recognise the problems they create everywhere they go?

We can follow through with your plan perhaps but it should be financed by the oil rich middle eastern countries. However it would not be to their advantage to have a liberated, free thinking population. Those whose families have managed to keep their power over the decades would certainly baulk at such an idea.

 

We disagree.
The Baathist held their nations together, controlled anyone who did not support them equally including the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamist of their day. Their nations were not Shia or Sunni nations or this or that tribe. Baathist were pan Arab nationalist and not nice to cross.
The blessings of Not A Tyrant, government has resulted in the fragmentation of those nations and the simultaneous rise of an Islamist military. Loss of cities, infrastructure, housing, and the rise of refugees and just people, deaths.
That was the wisdom of Bush the First. Not removing Saddam. Let Iraq be Iraq on the inside.

 

The one thing that binds these people together is Islam. If they were of another faith I doubt they'd be having these problems. And of course these problems were there, and international, long before either Bush became president and will continue long after they're gone.

 

You can't say "yes" when I asked this question, and that is very very telling about your morality (or lack thereof) - in other words you can't condemn Mohammad if he hypothetically approved of rape of captives. You might want to take a hard look in the mirror, my friend. The question was: "Notme, if, repeat if, hypothetically here, for argument's sake (he might NOT have approved of rape of captives - we'll never know 100%), Mohammad DID approve of rape of captives, would you condemn Mohammad in no uncertain terms for that, notme? I would of course, if, repeat if, it was true. Would you?....or is rape of captives acceptable to you?

 

You can't even say that the world would be a better place if a verse that teaches WIFE BEATING was never included in the Qur'an.....how sad....how sad for the world that religion removes the ability of reasonable people to say the right thing. I blame religion and the fear it instills in people's hearts. Your fear has overcome your morality. Modern Secular Humanists don't suffer from this malady.

 

You simply can't bring yourself to condemn the Saudis for punishing people who leave Islam. This shows one of the big problems of religions - they remove the ability for critical ethical reflection. You just proved that.

 

I told you from the start: You took that "truth" from hates sites claiming it's in the Quran. While devoted Quran following nations have put the death penalty on rape. You have yet to condemn your hate sites.

 

Let's stick to your hate sites you quote who aren't true, and who you refuse to condemn, instead of changing the subject.