Eight Stand Trial in France Over Beheading of Teacher Samuel Paty

[Nick Carter icp]

11 hours ago, Purdey said:

Oh come on.1859, by Russia, which was seen as a western country at the time. 

 

 

   Oh I see, Russia colonised Chechnya in 1859 and and  that caused an 18 year old to behead a Frenchman in France 160 years later , I see now

[Purdey]

14 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Oh I see, Russia colonised Chechnya in 1859 and and  that caused an 18 year old to behead a Frenchman in France 160 years later , I see now

If you create hate then you would get it.

[Nick Carter icp]

2 hours ago, Purdey said:

If you create hate then you would get it.

 

   The reason for this attack was because the Teachers actions in the classroom, nothing to do with colonisation 

[300sd]

On 11/7/2024 at 4:10 PM, pacovl46 said:

It's some of the individuals that are bad, not the religion itself. There's bad apples amongst every single race and religion. But obviously you can't see that.... 

 

Do you tell kids that get molested by priests how much better catholicism is? 

Yeh right. But the peaceful Muslims are silent. Obviously you can't see that!

[pacovl46]

On 11/8/2024 at 1:34 PM, Evil Penevil said:

 

I don't know how you judge between "good" and "bad" religions.  I'm not trying to label Islam as a "bad" religion.  I am calling attention to the fact that use of violence to achieve religious  and secular goals- such as punishing what Islam considers blasphemy- is one of the core tenets of Islam.   The killer of Samueel Paty wasn't a "bad" Muslim, he was a "good" Muslim acting as his faith commanded him.

 

This isn't the right thread (or board) for lengthy quotations from the Quran, Sunna and Hadiths.  But here's what a mainstream academic type says about violence and Islam.   Dr. Tina Magaard -- a Sorbonne-trained Danish linguist "specializing in textual anal­ysis -- published detailed research findings in 2005 (summarized in 2007) com­paring the foundational texts of ten major religions. Magaard con­cluded from her hard data-driven analyses:

"The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with."  LINK

 

You can find extensive proof of Islam's inherent advocacy of violence in these books available from Amazon:

 

 

 

That's an absurd comparison.  Catholic priests who molest children are acting AGAINST the tenets of Catholicism and, according to Church doctrine,  will burn in Hell for eternity for their sins.  Muslims who behead blasphemers are acting IN ACCORDANCE with their faith and will be rewarded in Paradise.

 

xxxx

 

It's not at all wrong, pragmatically or in principle.  In a secular country like France with both freedom of religion and freedom of religion, Muslims are free to obey and venerate the Prophet Mohammad.  However, they can't force their beliefs on others.  The prohibition against images of the Prophet is part of Islamic dogma and doctrine which non-believers don't have to honor or follow.

Muslims have to accept that it's perfectly legal in France to criticize or caricature any religious figure.  If they don't like it, they should live in a country which does prohibit such caricatures.

 

 

Paty was following a lesson plan that had been approved by school authorities.  He gave Muslim students the opportunity not to look at the images of the Prophet.  He did nothing wrong.

Obviously a good human being is one that doesn't kill others, regardless of what the delusional people that got him to be a terrorist think of that.

 

The passage to kill all infidels stems from the age of crusaders when they had a massive conflict with the Christians. No Muslim in their right mind still adheres to that, just like Christians don't stone men that lay with other men anymore. There's also lots of other really questionable stuff in the Bible that's totally outdated now. 

 

What's worse? A 1400 year old passage in the Quran no normal people still take seriously or the fact that the catholic church is a safe haven for pedophiles that actively protects them, instead of disrobing and handing them over to the cops,  as they should?! 

Edited Sunday at 10:19 AM by pacovl46

[pacovl46]

23 hours ago, 300sd said:

Yeh right. But the peaceful Muslims are silent. Obviously you can't see that!

Have you ever asked one what they actually think about these horrible le attacks? 

[Evil Penevil]

 

22 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

The passage to kill all infidels stems from the age of crusaders when they had a massive conflict with the Christians. 

The Quran was compiled in written form by 650 CE and no text was added or taken away after that date.  The First Crusade occurred between 1096 and 1099 CE, so nothing written in the Quran is directly concerned with Crusades.  The famous "Sword Verse" (Surah 9:5) about killing polytheists "wherever you find them"  referred to pagan Arab tribes with whom Mohammad's armies were at war at the time.  

 

This is by no means the only verse in the Quran which deals with violent conflict and warfare; there are many.  Muslim scholars through the centuries to today are split over whether these verses are intended as historical descriptions of the times of the Prophet or are "universal directives" which Muslims are always bound to obey.  No objective method exists of determining which opinion is "correct" because  such a determination involves interpretation of divine revelation.

 

22 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

No Muslim in their right mind still adheres to that, just like Christians don't stone men that lay with other men anymore. There

 

 Hundreds of thousands of Muslims, maybe millions, still use Quranic verses and hadith to justify acts if terrorism.  Only a tiny fraction are active terrorists, but many support, sympathize with or excuse terrorism in the name of Islam.  Al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood,  the Houthis and hundreds of lesser known groups all claim to be obeying the Quran.

 

22 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

There's also lots of other really questionable stuff in the Bible that's totally outdated now. 

 

The difference is that the "outdated" stuff in the Quran  and hadiths has been collected in Sharia law, which forms the basis of the legal system of 19 Muslim majority countries and influences the legal systems of all countries with Muslim majorities.

 

22 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

What's worse? A 1400 year old passage in the Quran no normal people still take seriously or the fact that the catholic church is a safe haven for pedophiles that actively protects them, instead of disrobing and handing them over to the cops,  as they should?! 

 

It's hard to know what you mean by "normal,"  but millions upon millions of Muslims still take the Quran very seriously as Allah's revealed  word and the literal truth.

 

Because of language difficulties, you may have confused "disrobe" with "defrock."  The notion of a naked priest  led away by a cop made me smile. 

 

 

The failure of the Catholic Church to deal appropriately with pedo priests has to do with the Catholic hierarchy  trying to protect itself and nothing to do with the  Christian Bible.  It would be more relevent to ask which is worse: the actions of the Catholic Church in the pedo scandal or the actions of the government of Iran in aiding terrorist groups?

Edited Monday at 08:55 AM by Evil Penevil

[pacovl46]

12 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

 

The Quran was compiled in written form by 650 CE and no text was added or taken away after that date.  The First Crusade occurred between 1096 and 1099 CE, so nothing written in the Quran is directly concerned with Crusades.  The famous "Sword Verse" (Surah 9:5) about killing polytheists "wherever you find them"  referred to pagan Arab tribes with whom Mohammad's armies were at war at the time.  

 

This is by no means the only verse in the Quran which deals with violent conflict and warfare; there are many.  Muslim scholars through the centuries to today are split over whether these verses are intended as historical descriptions of the times of the Prophet or are "universal directives" which Muslims are always bound to obey.  No objective method exists of determining which opinion is "correct" because  such a determination involves interpretation of divine revelation.

 

 

 Hundreds of thousands of Muslims, maybe millions, still use Quranic verses and hadith to justify acts if terrorism.  Only a tiny fraction are active terrorists, but many support, sympathize with or excuse terrorism in the name of Islam.  Al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood,  the Houthis and hundreds of lesser known groups all claim to be obeying the Quran.

 

 

The difference is that the "outdated" stuff in the Quran  and hadiths has been collected in Sharia law, which forms the basis of the legal system of 19 Muslim majority countries and influences the legal systems of all countries with Muslim majorities.

 

 

It's hard to know what you mean by "normal,"  but millions upon millions of Muslims still take the Quran very seriously as Allah's revealed  word and the literal truth.

 

Because of language difficulties, you may have confused "disrobe" with "defrock."  The notion of a naked priest  led away by a cop made me smile. 

 

 

The failure of the Catholic Church to deal appropriately with pedo priests has to do with the Catholic hierarchy  trying to protect itself and nothing to do with the  Christian Bible.  It would be more relevent to ask which is worse: the actions of the Catholic Church in the pedo scandal or the actions of the government of Iran in aiding terrorist groups?

Ok, islam is bad and Christianity is the best! Happy now? 

[Evil Penevil]

1 hour ago, pacovl46 said:

Ok, islam is bad and Christianity is the best! Happy now? 

No, I'm not happy because I wasn't making the point slam is bad and Christianity is violencebest.  I stated the core tenets of Islam condone violence as a means of achieving religious goals and those responsible for the death of Samuel Paty were acting in accordance with Islam.  I am happy you don't dispute that point.