A rational look at America's first foreign engagement with Islam

[I.AM.PIFF]

yet if I mention taqiyya, ya'll say thats out of context too

I've already said in anothet thread that I don't believe in any religion anymore and I have a lot of issues with Islam or any other relgion for this matter.

But it's apparent you contribute next to nothing to any rational or serious discussion because you lack of objective debate skills. Even the OP asked you to stay the fukk out of his thread.

 

[Type Username Here]

Did the native Americans and Africans slaves in the United States know about this? Why do blacks give a fukk about the opinions of the founding fathers of the United States and trust there statements.

You making a case that there credibility comes to question on the matter because of their hypocrisy? It's a good point.

Jefferson is quoting an ambassador from Tripoli supposedly but maybe it's all bullshyt on his part. All that would show is that this propaganda about Islam predates Wahhabism

 

[Type Username Here]

yet if I mention taqiyya, ya'll say thats out of context too

Napoleon, please stop.

I'm trying to learn something, not convert people out of Islam.

I added the quotes from the Qur'an and hadith that I thought supported the case for what the ambassador from Tripoli was referring to.

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

You making a case that there credibility comes to question on the matter because of their hypocrisy? It's a good point.

Jefferson is quoting an ambassador from Tripoli supposedly but maybe it's all bullshyt on his part. All that would show is that this propaganda about Islam predates Wahhabism

Muhammad Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab was already dead when the barbary wars were taking place tbf.

Like it was said before, Islam is an expansionist religion (just like Christianity) and aimed to convert as much people as possible (either peacefully or violently). There has always been violence tied to the religion but honestly what part of the world didn't see violence.. It also had a political element from the jump thanks to the caliphs and empire and religion being tied into that.

As far as groups like ISIS/AQ..etc Well hard to find many or any counterparts before late 19th/early 20th century when wahhabism and Ikhwan (muslim brotherhood) ideologies began to be more common

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I've already said in anothet thread that I don't believe in any religion anymore and I have a lot of issues with Islam or any other relgion for this matter.

But it's apparent you contribute next to nothing to any rational or serious discussion because you lack of objective debate skills. Even the OP asked you to stay the fukk out of his thread.

I don't even think its fair for you to continue to jump through the rationalization of bullshyt.

Thats whats going on here.

And it doesn't matter if Al-Wahhab was dead already. These central core tenets have always existed...and always ignored when any outsider points them out.

Islam is a bad set of ideas. Lets just call it that and save everyone else the paragraphs.

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

@Liu Kang
@Brown_Pride

Can we ban him from the thread? It's obvious he doesn't get it and probably never will.

 

[Liu Kang]

@Liu Kang
@Brown_Pride

Can we ban him from the thread? It's obvious he doesn't get it and probably never will.

Banned him because it was obvious where the thread was heading because of his presence. But next time, please use the report button instead of @ing mods.

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

Banned him because it was obvious where the thread was heading because of his presence. But next time, please use the report button instead of @ing mods.

Thank you based Liu Kang

 

[Brown_Pride]

Wanted your opinions about the following. Jefferson wrote this:



Adams wrote the following:


Granted, Adams and Jefferson were at the time at the helm of a new nation, and dealing with Barbary Pirates so I'm sure they we're not the most objective of people (even if Jefferson spent time translating the Qur'an into English, the first in America I think). I'm sure they were salty.

What I'm curious is that they lay a lot of the same criticism we hear today, and report hearing things from a Muslim that someone from ISIS or other extremist groups might say today. Of course, these writings predate American intervention in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia (as we know it today), Israel (as we know it today) and so on.

Are we ignoring this when we simply just lay it down at the feet of America, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the wars in the Middle East? I'm not saying those things didn't play a major role, they surely did, but is it really the reason the ideology itself exists? Or has it always existed in some form.

Your thoughts please.

Napoleon, please stay out of this thread.

I think a few distinctions need to be made because the topic really isn't as simple as "the book says A so then B."

Religion has a tendency to be coopted as a control mechanism because what better way to control someone than to say "Becase God said so." this is something that has been done since religion was invented, hell if you listen to Dan Carlin's most recent history podcast you'll find that most of that shyt was a my god vs your god type of affair. So it's important to remember that religion, regardless of which one, has been used as a tool by those in control to better control, it's not an exclusive Muslim or Christian thing, hell even cults exploit the same mechanism.

So what of religions that specifically call for violence? (Islam or Christianity) I wonder why it is that there are millions of non violent muslims and Christians the world over? SO to say that either of these two religions is violent does a diservice to the millions/majority of these religious practitioners who are not blowing themselves up or beheading people? Is it possible then that there are two strands of these religions? Violent and non-violent? I would contest yes and it has to do with interpretation and more to my previous point, a desire for power.

Not only are we ignoring items like your passages when we lay things on the West and Israel, ect, we're willfully ignoring the vast expanses of human history. If you take a step back and just take it all in humanity has been using the same dance moves, most likely since the dawn of religion, with the only difference being the tune to which they are dancing it.

 

[Dr. Sebi Jr.]

We're silencing people because they won't make excuses for Islam now?

Glad to see the Zionist mods have converted.

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

I've already said in anothet thread that I don't believe in any religion anymore and I have a lot of issues with Islam or any other relgion for this matter.

But it's apparent you contribute next to nothing to any rational or serious discussion because you lack of objective debate skills. Even the OP asked you to stay the fukk out of his thread.

Do you still think the hijab is empowering for women?

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

Do you still think the hijab is empowering for women?

Not really, it should be a matter of personal choice, but I don't think it's empowering at all.

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

Not really, it should be a matter of personal choice, but I don't think it's empowering at all.

Thanks.

That's logical of course.

Have you felt empowered when you wore your hijab?

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

Have you felt empowered when you wore your hijab?

You a fool @88m3

 

[88m3]

He has a point.