Jump to content
Rozalia

Apostasy, part 2

Should we protect "Apostates"?  

21 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

People remain the same and history is repeating itself. We are becoming as we were when we put "Japs" (for the love of jesus, dont warn me for that. It's only a reference to the mentality of that time) in concentration camps.

 

How do you differentiate between the actions of a religion/nationality and the actions of a race (ie BLM)? How many BLM terrorist attacks must occur before we begin to look at sending all blacks to concentration camps, like the Japanese? (This is a question, not my suggestion or opinion. None of this is intended to be racist towards any demographic. I'm just comparing similar situations)

 

If it's not about race, but religion, then we can just let all Semites immigrate and just don't ask them their religion. If you had two people flying to the west from Israel and one had a big nose and uncut corners and the other was brown, one of them would be targeted by tsa and the other not.

 

I understand there is a problem. And, I am a practical person. I have found myself in the middle of a race riot once, by no choice of my own. You have no choice, but to fight along racial divides. My companions and I left. They wanted to return to the fight. I left their company. That's the difference I see. Shit is [email protected]#$ed up, but I don't have to choose to attack someone because of their race, nationality, religion. If I were in prison or Yugoslavia 20 years ago, sure I'd get in where I fit in to survive. I choose to not condemn every black person for the actions of BLM and I choose to not condemn every muslim for the actions of jihadists. If I were personally touched by islamic terror, I wouldn't change my mind regarding all muslims. I have absolutely no fear or hate. They might have gained a shock and awe victory in yours' and Trump's heart and mind, but I'll jack imaginary dongs in the air and say, "see ya later gay boys". Cuz, idgaf. See, you have already lost, because they have forced you to make an enemy of all muslims.

 

They're not equivalents.

 

BLM is a hate group that has incensed criminals and other angry people by making out that there is a war on black people waged by white people/White Cops, something that the stats do not reflect and have to be cooked as a result. Every thug they can find who gets killed they'll with the help of the media portray as an angel to this end, and the President Obama being the idiot he is helps them at every turn. 

 

Islam is different. BLM is not a culture, it ain't a religion, it ain't a club whose membership believes you should get killed if you leave it. How many Maajid Nawazs are there? How many can openly speak in their communities of such things without fear of reprisals be they physical or social? I don't want a crack down on Muslim's hate crimes because I despise Muslims in their entirety, on the contrary I want for there to be an environment where the good people in Islam over here (those in the middle east can do whatever) can rise up and take over the faith (here, not worldwide), ridding it of it's Conservatism which is what nurtures and keeps radicalism alive. 

Allowing the good Muslims to without fear defeat the bad ones is how you keep us (and them) safe, and bring about good things. Doing as it is currently, which is to shield the bad ones fixes nothing and will only lead to terrible things. In the future when it's even worse people will not say things like I have, they will have time for talk of good Muslims, they'll want all of them gone be it via mass deportation or death. 

 

As for your "See, you have already lost, because they have forced you to make an enemy of all muslims" you're incorrect. That is on the level of the ridiculous "If you kill your enemies, they win". There is a problem which needs fixing and we put forward solutions. Being in fear would be to say there is no problem and Muslims will change if we all kowtow to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BLM is to black people as alqeida is to muslim people. They're groups of those people that don't represent the whole.

 

You make a lot of presumptions of muslim culture and arrive at conclusions you're not willing to make regarding black culture. Maybe, black culture does encourage cop killers. Every statistic indicates it is a violent, criminal culture. There's 1000% more violence and crime from the black communities than from the Muslim communities. How come you refuse to speak thusly against blacks? I think it's because blacks aren't an acceptable target.

 

I don't believe I'm incorrect. The purpose of terrorism is not to kill. It's to win a moral victory. To strike fear. To drag you down to their hateful level. To pull their whole demographic(replacement for race, religion, etc.) into their fight. Terrorists could kill a million good people and never succeed. But, they succeed when we lose our morality and behave badly. Should we fight, prevent, kill terorist? Of course. But, we must not make every muslim an enemy. That's wrong in every moral and practical sense.

 

Eventually, all religions, nations and races will be erased by the shrinking of the world. It is a certainty if we don't destroy humanity before then. I choose to live that ideal of one human race, without -isms. I will resist any conservatism that seeks to hold us in past shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People remain the same and history is repeating itself. We are becoming as we were when we put "Japs" (for the love of jesus, dont warn me for that. It's only a reference to the mentality of that time) in concentration camps.

 

How do you differentiate between the actions of a religion/nationality and the actions of a race (ie BLM)? How many BLM terrorist attacks must occur before we begin to look at sending all blacks to concentration camps, like the Japanese? (This is a question, not my suggestion or opinion. None of this is intended to be racist towards any demographic. I'm just comparing similar situations)

 

If it's not about race, but religion, then we can just let all Semites immigrate and just don't ask them their religion. If you had two people flying to the west from Israel and one had a big nose and uncut corners and the other was brown, one of them would be targeted by tsa and the other not.

 

I understand there is a problem. And, I am a practical person. I have found myself in the middle of a race riot once, by no choice of my own. You have no choice, but to fight along racial divides. My companions and I left. They wanted to return to the fight. I left their company. That's the difference I see. Shit is [email protected]#$ed up, but I don't have to choose to attack someone because of their race, nationality, religion. If I were in prison or Yugoslavia 20 years ago, sure I'd get in where I fit in to survive. I choose to not condemn every black person for the actions of BLM and I choose to not condemn every muslim for the actions of jihadists. If I were personally touched by islamic terror, I wouldn't change my mind regarding all muslims. I have absolutely no fear or hate. They might have gained a shock and awe victory in yours' and Trump's heart and mind, but I'll jack imaginary dongs in the air and say, "see ya later gay boys". Cuz, idgaf. See, you have already lost, because they have forced you to make an enemy of all muslims.

 

Its a bit of a stupid question since the governments don't have the balls to deal with problematic people, one day maybe when the destruction becomes too much, although it might be too late by that point. 

 

Not being afraid of Islam is like a women walking alone at night not being afraid of getting attacked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BLM is to black people as alqeida is to muslim people. They're groups of those people that don't represent the whole.

 

You make a lot of presumptions of muslim culture and arrive at conclusions you're not willing to make regarding black culture. Maybe, black culture does encourage cop killers. Every statistic indicates it is a violent, criminal culture. There's 1000% more violence and crime from the black communities than from the Muslim communities. How come you refuse to speak thusly against blacks? I think it's because blacks aren't an acceptable target.

 

I don't believe I'm incorrect. The purpose of terrorism is not to kill. It's to win a moral victory. To strike fear. To drag you down to their hateful level. To pull their whole demographic(replacement for race, religion, etc.) into their fight. Terrorists could kill a million good people and never succeed. But, they succeed when we lose our morality and behave badly. Should we fight, prevent, kill terorist? Of course. But, we must not make every muslim an enemy. That's wrong in every moral and practical sense.

 

Eventually, all religions, nations and races will be erased by the shrinking of the world. It is a certainty if we don't destroy humanity before then. I choose to live that ideal of one human race, without -isms. I will resist any conservatism that seeks to hold us in past shit.

 

Fine lets go with what you're putting forward. How do you stop people joining or supporting BLM? You target their lies and destroy them. How do you stop people joining radical groups? You target the religion they get their strength from. Conservative Muslims believe gays/apostates/so on should be killed, that women deserve little rights, and so forth... they just don't do it themselves. However they'll not really hate the radicals who act on it, and from one moment to the other they can radicalise themselves easily (no need for a Imam). So you must destroy those ideas and let Liberalism win out in the faith. You like Liberal ideas of equality and such yes? Then whats your problem with letting Liberal Muslims win?

 

No presumptions were made, you simply refuse to see that the middle point, the "moderate", "Conservative", or whatever you want to call it is vile. It's followers will confront (violently if need be) those who go down the Liberal path in their faith, but when it comes to radicals surprise surprise they don't feel as willing. We do not have time for pathetic platitudes anymore.

 

Racial based cultures are generally poisonous so I'd rather "black culture" disappear yes, not sure why you'd think I'd not be able to talk against that. We can speak about black people if you wish but that ain't what the thread is about is it? 

 

Bunkum. Terrorism has different goals to start with so to make such a blanket statement is folly. Some wish to establish a state (be it a brand new one or an old one), some wish to unify a country, some want to bring about the apocalypse, so forth. In the case of Islamic terrorists... it involves a lot of things. Tell me something, why does a Islamic terrorist kill someone in say... Pakistan. Lets say when one of them pops off a Muslim who wants to outlaw pedophilia. He does it not to provoke this nonsense "moral victory" you speak of, but to stop the implementation of something that the damages the absolute correctness of Islam in the country. When a terrorist in a country like that pops off a Muslim who became an atheist why does he do it? To provoke a "moral victory"? No, he does it to do as he believes is his duty and to send a message to all other Muslims to not become an atheist, or more specifically an apostate or they will hunt them down and kill them. 

 

The correct response is to stand up to them, something you propose is cowardly. Your solution? Saying pathetic platitudes and doing doing. I've given you the solution, it's not an ugly thing by any means.

 

Look, we're talking about real things here so leave the fantasies at the door. The "world without borders" where we all exist as one generic group is a fantasy and funnily enough even if it were to happen it would likely be under a corporation ruled world (sound good?). The nation state is the true foundation for happiness and harmony, simple as that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The liberalization of everyone is already proceeding. It's happening through "bread and circuses". Wars, tyranny, double digit unemployment undermines and reverses that progress. Attacking isn't the solution to prevent radicalism. You make them fat and lazy. Wherever we attack them, radicals win followers and ground.

 

It's not an empty platitude to judge each person individually. The radical interpretation of Islam is vile and an enemy to civilization. Not all Muslims adhere to that trash. In general, people of whatever faith are decent and view their religion as a means to personal discipline and happiness.

 

"Moral victory" was more in relation to attacks in the west. But sure, making someone an example to make everyone afraid to defy radical islam is intended to gain a "moral victory".

 

It's not cowardly to fight those that would harm you. It is cowardly to fear a whole demographic.

 

It's not a fantasy to say that the reduction in isolation of the races will cause increased intermingling that will eventually result in the elimination of races. Eventually is a long time.

 

We won't make much progress towards an utopian future until the current economics are rejected and replaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great so you have some fantasy economics in mind where everyone is a commie probably. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The liberalization of everyone is already proceeding. It's happening through "bread and circuses". Wars, tyranny, double digit unemployment undermines and reverses that progress. Attacking isn't the solution to prevent radicalism. You make them fat and lazy. Wherever we attack them, radicals win followers and ground.

 

It's not an empty platitude to judge each person individually. The radical interpretation of Islam is vile and an enemy to civilization. Not all Muslims adhere to that trash. In general, people of whatever faith are decent and view their religion as a means to personal discipline and happiness.

 

"Moral victory" was more in relation to attacks in the west. But sure, making someone an example to make everyone afraid to defy radical islam is intended to gain a "moral victory".

 

It's not cowardly to fight those that would harm you. It is cowardly to fear a whole demographic.

 

It's not a fantasy to say that the reduction in isolation of the races will cause increased intermingling that will eventually result in the elimination of races. Eventually is a long time.

 

We won't make much progress towards an utopian future until the current economics are rejected and replaced.

 

HAHAHAHA, you serious? Those Muslims are not becoming more liberal, on the contrary as there are more and more of them present and they are all well protected by apologists and fantasists they are becoming more and more Conservative/fundamental. However we don't even need to talk about Muslims, large segments of the population is moving towards Conservatism/Fascism and see Liberalism as a pathetic suicidal mental disorder. 

 

I'm against war. I am liberal enough for the usual things such as homosexuality, women's rights, and so forth but you can even add things like Polygamy/andry on to that which is not of the norm. I am also for providing for all citizens (which fixes the unemployment matter). Thats all the counter position to all the negatives you listed yet with all that... why am I not agreeing with you? Because you do not yet realise the simple truth that relativism and Internationalism or whatever you want to call it is absolute garbage. You will never reach the promised land, literally impossible for you to because humanity will not allow it. 

 

And again what is your solution? You'll not target the root of the matter so what exactly can you do to solve the issue? Wait for this magical "one world" ideology to win the day? 

 

Again, we're talking about the real world and not the fantasy you have in your head that will never manifest. There are always barriers, you can shift the barriers somewhat but there are limits. 

 

What is wrong with having a strong nation state that puts it's people first and takes in smaller amounts of immigrates to be integrated instead of being shuffled into ghettos? That not close enough to your utopia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great so you have some fantasy economics in mind where everyone is a commie probably.

You know that 500 years ago people were burned at the stake for being capitalists? You would be arguing that the Sun revolves around the Earth about that time. And, calling me a heretic. We learn new truths. Knowledge progresses. It's already been shown that capitalism is unsustainable, without socialistic intervention. Capitalism is flawed at best as an economic theory and system. Proven by the fact that it cannot maintain itself through its own functions. No, communism isn't a good alternative.

 

Roz, I talk online to muslims all the time. Few of them are nearly as conservative as you are.

 

I suggest vigilance, security, and any means necessary to eliminate terrorists. You mock my fantastic dreams, but how do you suppose you will affect a reform of a religion and its various churches? The US couldn't destroy a few hundred Mormon radicals within its own borders. The best they could do is outlaw polygamy in exchange for giving them statehood. How do you suppose we can make a dent in the religion of 1b people spread throughout nearly every country? That is a fantasy. You could enact laws in your country, sure. What exactly would those laws be?

Edited by SoS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that 500 years ago people were burned at the stake for being capitalists? You would be arguing that the Sun revolves around the Earth about that time. And, calling me a heretic. We learn new truths. Knowledge progresses. It's already been shown that capitalism is unsustainable, without socialistic intervention. Capitalism is flawed at best as an economic theory and system. Proven by the fact that it cannot maintain itself through its own functions. No, communism isn't a good alternative.

What is the alternative? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the alternative?

Something off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither....unless they ask for protection

 

Many have such as the example in other thread of a Christian convert asking the police to do something about him and his property being attacked. Was told to leave town instead. 

If you don't support giving them protection and hold the middle position then you support the status quo which is lacking in protection. 

 

You know that 500 years ago people were burned at the stake for being capitalists? You would be arguing that the Sun revolves around the Earth about that time. And, calling me a heretic. We learn new truths. Knowledge progresses. It's already been shown that capitalism is unsustainable, without socialistic intervention. Capitalism is flawed at best as an economic theory and system. Proven by the fact that it cannot maintain itself through its own functions. No, communism isn't a good alternative.

 

Roz, I talk online to muslims all the time. Few of them are nearly as conservative as you are.

 

I suggest vigilance, security, and any means necessary to eliminate terrorists. You mock my fantastic dreams, but how do you suppose you will affect a reform of a religion and its various churches? The US couldn't destroy a few hundred Mormon radicals within its own borders. The best they could do is outlaw polygamy in exchange for giving them statehood. How do you suppose we can make a dent in the religion of 1b people spread throughout nearly every country? That is a fantasy. You could enact laws in your country, sure. What exactly would those laws be?

 

Burned at the stake for being capitalists? 

 

Many of them are very dishonest people (you have to be a Islam apologist), while I'm as honest as they come (you seen some of the stuff I've said on here? You need honesty for that). Also not a Conservative in any form, considering even if you mean it simply in the Nationalist sense then... Nationalism is in the past, Conservatives/Liberals/Socialists have successfully pushed it back and obey Multiculturalism so if you're calling me a on Conservative on that then in reality what you're looking for is Reactionary, but even that isn't fully accurate as I want something beyond even what we had in the past.

 

Alright then lets do this then. Christian convert from Islam asks police to do something about the Muslims attacking him and his property and threatening his family. Status quo has the police tell him to leave town as they are too scared to protect him from the Muslims. My response is to have the police protect him by jailing the guilty and sending a message to the rest that such things are unacceptable. Your response? As I am so wrong then surely you won't be having the police jail the guilty so come on, whats the alternative you got? Telling him to leave town?

 

I could not care less for those outside the country so your talk of a billion is irrelevant, you effect those within your borders. You can do that in numerous ways, some more ugly than others. A nice way to do it is to empower the good ones and let them wipe out (not physically) the bad ones. Your error is you run off the assumption that only radicals are bad Muslims but that is incorrect, every Conservative/Fundamentalist/"Moderate" Muslim is a bad one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern day left has massive problems with very toxic ideologies such as Islam.

 

The time is right to scrap it, remove the Muslims from America, preferably back to their own countries where they belong and block any from entering the nation. Then things will be great. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many have such as the example in other thread of a Christian convert asking the police to do something about him and his property being attacked. Was told to leave town instead.

If you don't support giving them protection and hold the middle position then you support the status quo which is lacking in protection.

 

 

Burned at the stake for being capitalists?

 

Many of them are very dishonest people (you have to be a Islam apologist), while I'm as honest as they come (you seen some of the stuff I've said on here? You need honesty for that). Also not a Conservative in any form, considering even if you mean it simply in the Nationalist sense then... Nationalism is in the past, Conservatives/Liberals/Socialists have successfully pushed it back and obey Multiculturalism so if you're calling me a on Conservative on that then in reality what you're looking for is Reactionary, but even that isn't fully accurate as I want something beyond even what we had in the past.

 

Alright then lets do this then. Christian convert from Islam asks police to do something about the Muslims attacking him and his property and threatening his family. Status quo has the police tell him to leave town as they are too scared to protect him from the Muslims. My response is to have the police protect him by jailing the guilty and sending a message to the rest that such things are unacceptable. Your response? As I am so wrong then surely you won't be having the police jail the guilty so come on, whats the alternative you got? Telling him to leave town?

 

I could not care less for those outside the country so your talk of a billion is irrelevant, you effect those within your borders. You can do that in numerous ways, some more ugly than others. A nice way to do it is to empower the good ones and let them wipe out (not physically) the bad ones. Your error is you run off the assumption that only radicals are bad Muslims but that is incorrect, every Conservative/Fundamentalist/"Moderate" Muslim is a bad one.

I should specify christians involved in lending were imprisoned, tortured, killed. That is kinda the life blood of capitalism, though. They were somewhat free to engage in certain cottage "industries". Although, they didn't really even have rights to own their cottage. They could pay the crown for an uncertain privelege to trade. And, to work in most industries they were required to be guild members. And, there were strict quotas on imports/exports. Ironically, they were still killing bankers around the same time the first corporation was formed, in the 14th century. It took centuries for capitalism to become synonymous with democracy. My point being, capitalism was once a hated concept that took many generations for us to accept and it isn't the be all end all of economic thought. And, imo it's nothing less than a corruption of human affairs that should and will be done away with like slavery.

 

Yeah, we should certainly pass laws in our western nations that prohibit shitty rights of any religion. There's religions that are allowed to let their children die for lack of medical care. I'm all for doing what we can to make religions conform to minimal standards of civilized conduct. Won't do us much good regarding radicalizing domestic muslims, since there's the internet and whatnot, but you do what you can.

 

Believe me, I hate the direction of our culture more than you. But, it is what it is. I hope it evolves into a more practical form. I don't believe holding to old ways is any better. We need modern values founded in policy that works in the real world. Humane, with rule of law that protects all equally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should specify christians involved in lending were imprisoned, tortured, killed. That is kinda the life blood of capitalism, though. They were somewhat free to engage in certain cottage "industries". Although, they didn't really even have rights to own their cottage. They could pay the crown for an uncertain privelege to trade. And, to work in most industries they were required to be guild members. And, there were strict quotas on imports/exports. Ironically, they were still killing bankers around the same time the first corporation was formed, in the 14th century. It took centuries for capitalism to become synonymous with democracy. My point being, capitalism was once a hated concept that took many generations for us to accept and it isn't the be all end all of economic thought. And, imo it's nothing less than a corruption of human affairs that should and will be done away with like slavery.

 

Yeah, we should certainly pass laws in our western nations that prohibit shitty rights of any religion. There's religions that are allowed to let their children die for lack of medical care. I'm all for doing what we can to make religions conform to minimal standards of civilized conduct. Won't do us much good regarding radicalizing domestic muslims, since there's the internet and whatnot, but you do what you can.

 

Believe me, I hate the direction of our culture more than you. But, it is what it is. I hope it evolves into a more practical form. I don't believe holding to old ways is any better. We need modern values founded in policy that works in the real world. Humane, with rule of law that protects all equally.

 

In my searches I see some "woe is us, how Capitalism is such a big victim". I consider it mostly nonsense, the church was concerned in putting down heresy and showing itself the dominant power. "Capitalism" was not something they were concerned with. 

 

Well this sounds better but then why am I wrong then? You can't say I'm wrong and then say I'm correct. 

 

So you agree that giving special treatment to minorities, special treatment may I add that has allowed the likes of Muslim thugs, rapists, criminals, and terrorists to inflict their terror upon people, is wrong or at least not practical. Alright, thats something then. The only ones deserving of special treatment ultimately is the nation's people but obviously you don't believe that, but hey, the rest sounds good enough.

 

Nationalism is that modern and practical value that you're looking for that works in the real world. You like most, likely are considering it to only consist of Ethnic Nationalism (which is the wrong path I'd say). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may misunderstand you, but I believe you're wrong in proposing to prevent all muslims from immigrating and from living in places of their choice (ie ghettos, which is what they can afford but if you only allow in professionals that's solved). Problem is there's lots of asylum seekers, whom we make severe exceptions for. Always have.

 

Religion must conform to the law. We can prevent domestic religious leaders from espousing jihad or capital punishment for apostates etc. We just can't do anything to reform the global religion. And, it is a church by church situation. If you know the legal difference between a religion and a church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may misunderstand you, but I believe you're wrong in proposing to prevent all muslims from immigrating and from living in places of their choice (ie ghettos, which is what they can afford but if you only allow in professionals that's solved). Problem is there's lots of asylum seekers, whom we make severe exceptions for. Always have.

 

Religion must conform to the law. We can prevent domestic religious leaders from espousing jihad or capital punishment for apostates etc. We just can't do anything to reform the global religion. And, it is a church by church situation. If you know the legal difference between a religion and a church.

 

The thing is you're not consistent then. I know you believe ghettos to be terrible things... but you're all for sticking them there really. You lament their inevitability but it ain't really inevitable is it? I believe ghettos to be terrible things and am all for preventing them from manifesting, I'm not scared to support such a thing. It may sound mean but so what?

 

I told you already I could not care less what happens elsewhere (globally), however locally we can easily handle such things, just takes a little bit of courage and firmness. The Anglican church existing is I think evidence enough that you can tame a religion easily enough if you set your mind to it. 

Edited by Rozalia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What else can you do, but lament poverty and free choice? Ghettos/projects exist as a solution. Haha. It'd be nice to have everyone in a nice, upwardly mobile neighborhood. But, people already resent what little welfare does. How could we spend enough on welfare to make the poor neighbors of the middle class?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What else can you do, but lament poverty and free choice? Ghettos/projects exist as a solution. Haha. It'd be nice to have everyone in a nice, upwardly mobile neighborhood. But, people already resent what little welfare does. How could we spend enough on welfare to make the poor neighbors of the middle class?

 

Ghettos are not solutions, just producers of fear and hatred both for those outside the ghettos and in. 

 

As for making it possible it's all quite possible. Cut down on the numbers coming in and both currently here which will free up a good number of space. You undertake housing projects to produce more housing. The landlords/agencies can be regulated to offer good prices on housing so it ain't all so expensive. Empty housing which is an issue and may become a bigger one under that can also be sorted if need be by threat of nationalisation if they don't allow someone to rent. Though like I've said, along with all this the government should treat minorities as they should be treated, which is to absorb them, not create all these insular poor violent 5th columns everywhere.

 

Of course I'm talking from a European perceptive, America is a different beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the man in question was not a muslim he was an ahmadiyahh and they are not muslims.

However you can't kill just like that. You must use reasoning. If a muslim said happy easter he has committed a sin as the prophet said "he who copies the [email protected]#$ becomes one of them." Even then only kill an apostate if he is aggressive towards you i.e.. betrayed you in battle, spreading lies and hate and becomes your enemy in war. So basically treason. Tell me one nation were you are not killed or imprisoned a long time for treason?

 

The khuwarij killed everyone litteraly everyone no jizya or anything if you we are not one of them they kill you. Before you say ISIS, khuwarij would not give you chance to convert like the mujahideen they would kill you.

By protecting ones enemies that is an act of war.

Welllll technically its a sin because Muslims only worship god and not the holy triumvirate, plus the whole "don't worship other idols, only god" plus easter is about the whole resurrection of jesus and blah blah blah, so worshipping or whatever jesus is a sin. So on and so forth.

 

The rest of your post is a thumbs up though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's an apostate?

Anyone not associated with the Circle of Mages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's an apostate?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

 

It has a general meaning but it's the Muslim one thats relevant as it's more long reaching. Punishment for it is naturally death and is a powerful tool in Islam's goal of retaining members (cracking down harshly on this idea in the west would collapse their numbers in the west). 

 

For those who don't get the picture, many are atheists who likely have parents who were a Christian of some kind. Imagine if by being born to Christian parents that meant you were eternally in Christianity's grasp and if you did not at the very least pretend to be a Christian then your family was expected to exile you at best (kill you at worse), other Christians in the area would despise you and attack you, and the authorities in fear would advise you to leave town instead of protecting you... actually scratch that as that happens here for Muslim apostates and such people in Muslim countries get worse, so instead of the authorities advising you to leave town instead of protecting you imagine they jailed you instead and then put you up for execution via cutting off your head.

 

In short. Protect Apostates and let them grow stronger and Islam will become what it'd be without all it's horrible protections of itself, a powerless joke, at least in the west which is all that matters. Muslim countries can do as they like. They can cut the heads off children for showing disbelief, no concern of ours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.