1 hour ago, Ben said:

The matter here is that of the 1.8 billion Muslim's you'll find less then 1% believe in, support or partake in acts of violence against people whom do not believe in Allah or the teachings of the Qu'ran. I think this might be of some interest, a Stack Exchange topic specifically relating to the killing of  non-believers/infidels:

 https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/7421/does-the-quran-urge-persecution-of-the-infidel

 

If we are for Human Rights - is this the pick and choose version. Article 25 of the Universal Declarations of Human Rights states

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

 

Yet the CDC has statistics from 2016 stating that 4.4% of Americans failed to obtain needed medical car due to cost. I guess based on your logic I should be 'against' the United States due to it failing to provide an adequate standard of living as required by the Human Rights Declarations, since I believe in Human Rights.

5

Even if a minority of Muslims don't support violence, it's definitely much higher than just 1%. I don't really care what Muslims think of violence, I am against the violence that Islam encourages and commands. It doesn't take much research to find the verses of violence. It's far from a religion of peace.

Quote

I never said that Islam in my opinion wasn't a particularly nice religion, not something I believe in. The quotes above though do not prove anything, the matter of the fact is that the large amounts of Muslims do not agree nor support violence against 'non-believers' it's also worth nothing that 2:191-193 relates to killing those who have oppressed you and taken your land and that 8:65 relates to soldiers being strong in combat. 

Ironic, considering that Islam has generally always been the aggressor throughout history.

1 hour ago, Hystery said:

All those come from the Bible. They're commanded to slaughter non-believers, gays, etc. Does that mean religions using the Bible as their holy book have their ideology flawed and should be eradicated? Should I keep going or do you catch the drift? Stop shouting "QURAN!" everytime a discussion is about religion and its adepts,

 

1

2

What you're doing is called "strawman". The subject matter isn't Christianity, it's Islam. Therefore, none of what you've posted is relevant to the discussion at hand, because no one said anything about Christianity. 

 

There's also a fundamental difference between the Qu'ran and the Bible. The violent verses of the Qu'ran are based on commands to slaughter non-believers. The violent verses of the Bible are direct consequences of sins, such as adultery, theft, etc.

Quote

a religion is much more than a thousands years old book. 

I hope you realize that the religion is literally based entirely on the book that is thousands of years old....

1 hour ago, Ben said:

You have just countered the exact declaration of Human Rights with an opinion, regardless of your opinion on the matter, in the eyes of the United Nations and the Declarations of Human Rights, it is a right that you be able to access Health Care - it doesn't say that you can't still have insurance, but those who are unable to afford Health Care are required to receive it. 

Healthcare isn't a right, by the way. No one has the right to a service provided by another person because you can't force that person to provide their service. Speech and religion are rights, healthcare is not.

Edited March 17, 20188 yr by TheDivineHustle

8 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

What you're doing is called "strawman". The subject matter isn't Christianity, it's Islam. Therefore, none of what you've posted is relevant to the discussion at hand, because no one said anything about Christianity. There's also a fundamental difference between the Qu'ran and the Bible. The violent verses of the Qu'ran are based on commands to slaughter non-believers. The violent verses of the Bible are direct consequences of sins, such as adultery, theft, etc.

 

No, it's called showing your double standards by comparing two similar things that share common points you're against and proving that you're discriminating one over the other, therefore it's perfectly relevant. Whether you personally think it's relevant or not is up to you, but it'd just prove the point I'll make right below. 

 

Both Islam AND Christianity have verses about slaughtering non-believers, you can check those above, I posted them. So, both Islam and Christianity prone violence against non-believers. Now, you say you're against all form of violence. Fine by me, so am I. So technically you should be against Christianity as well, since the Bible prones violence against non-believers just like Islam ( or any religion really ). But, unsurprisingly so, you don't, and focus only on Islam. Why? Because you purposefully choose to discriminate one religion over the other even though both share common characteristics when it comes to violence. That's called having double standards. And when you have double standards, you can't discrimate a religion and think people will take you seriously, because all the arguments you can make will be by definition null and void.

 

8 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I hope you realize that the religion is literally based entirely on the book that is thousands of years old....

 

The fundamentals are. But over time people grew away from many of them, understandably so. And it's easy to prove. Qu'ran says to kill non-believers. Have you been killed by a muslim for not being one? I don't think so. And me neither, even though Islam is the second most common religion here right behind Catholicism. So, could it be that muslims don't follow every single precept of a book? No, that'd be preposterous...

 

You've to understand that a religion is much more than the book it originated from. Things have evolved and changed. You can say whatever you want about Islam, the Islam religion is no more violent than all the other religions around the globe. So if you want to cleanse Islam, you gotta cleanse all religions without discrimination. But again, that won't happen, because double standards.

Edited March 17, 20188 yr by Hystery

19 hours ago, CathbolBagel said:

You are the issue.  Islam is not a religion of violence.  To say so would show a lack of understanding of the Holy Qu´ran.  Have you read it?

Why have you started an argument in a thread that's just over five or so months old...

8 hours ago, Hystery said:

The fundamentals are. But over time people grew away from many of them, understandably so. And it's easy to prove. Qu'ran says to kill non-believers. Have you been killed by a muslim for not being one? I don't think so. And me neither, even though Islam is the second most common religion here right behind Catholicism. So, could it be that muslims don't follow every single precept of a book? No, that'd be preposterous...

 

You've to understand that a religion is much more than the book it originated from. Things have evolved and changed. You can say whatever you want about Islam, the Islam religion is no more violent than all the other religions around the globe. So if you want to cleanse Islam, you gotta cleanse all religions without discrimination. But again, that won't happen, because double standards.

3

That is completely false, and anyone of any religion (except for reformists) would disagree with you. The Bible and the Qu'ran are literal teachings and commands of the respective God. No Christian or Muslim would blatantly disregard the teachings of the Bible or the Qu'ran. Scripture from both books is still preached, taught, and followed by followers of both religions. I encourage you to walk into a Church or Mosque and ask them if they've grown away from their holy book or if they still follow the teachings of it. As previously stated, the only people that don't follow the teachings of the book are reformists, and they're a tiny minority of both religions. Reformists a practically disowned by a majority of the religion's followers.

Quote

No, it's called showing your double standards by comparing two similar things that share common points you're against and proving that you're discriminating one over the other, therefore it's perfectly relevant. Whether you personally think it's relevant or not is up to you, but it'd just prove the point I'll make right below.

 

Exposing a (supposed) double standard doesn't render the former argument invalid. What you're doing is saying, "Hey, this is similar to what you're saying is bad but no one is criticizing this."

 

Okay, that's fine, but it doesn't make the former argument invalid. Islam is still a violent religion regardless of if Christianity or other religions are violent. Most terrorist attacks worldwide are committed by Muslims. Most countries that punish non-believers are Muslim dominated countries. 

Quote

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.(Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

A man or woman that acts as though they can accurately determine a person's future, or act as a middle connection between the individual and the Lord, will be put to death. Nothing about being a non-believer.

Quote

“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

If a man commits a homosexual act, both men will be put to death. That sounds about right with any major religion, and this is already known. Homosexuality is a sin in practically every major religion on the planet. Nothing about being a non-believer.

Quote

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

This one is self-explanatory. Anyone that rejects the verdict of the Judges or Priest (who represent the Lord) will be put to death. If you violate the law of Israel and reject the verdict that the Priest or Judge's give you, then you will receive the death penalty. Nothing about being a non-believer. 

Quote

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.”  When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through.(Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

This is similar to something else you posted. If a man tries to tell the future on behalf of the Lord, he will be put to death. He is lying in the name of the Lord. Nothing about being a non-believer.

Quote

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods.  In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully.  If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.  Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it.  Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.  That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt.  Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.  Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you.  He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors.  “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

This is saying that if a fellow citizen decides to leave and take other citizens to worship some other god, carefully ensure that that's actually what's transpiring. If that's the case, completely destroy the civilization that they have created in offering to the Lord, while not keeping any of the valuables for yourself. Then the Lord will forgive them and turn them into a great nation. That's just me interpretation though. This can be interpreted in several different ways depending on the denomination of Christianity, and it's also written differently throughout the various versions of the Bible. It's all a matter of which Bible you read and which denomination you speak to. 

Quote

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.(2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

This isn't a command to slaughter non-believers, this isn't even a command at all. This was a decision that followers of the Lord made.  When they were in the presence of the Lord, they came to an agreement to kill anyone also in the presence of the Lord that did not desire to seek the Lord. This isn't commanding Christians to go out and kill non-believers. This was a decision that they made at that moment, hence the past-tense of the verse.

Quote

2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden.  When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

If someone does evil or worships other gods in a town that the Lord has given you, then investigate and ensure that that's what's actually true. If it is true, exile them from the town and kill them.  This doesn't command Christians to go out and slaughter non-believers. This is saying that if you do something evil or worship another god in a town that the Lord has provided to you, you are to be removed from the town and killed. Don't do evil or worship a false god in a town that the Lord has given to you.

Quote

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

If you worship another god, you are doomed. Self-explanatory to me. Doesn't command Christians to kill non-believers.

 

A lot of the verses that contain violence are directed towards Christians doing wrong, rather than a non-Christian doing wrong. Most of what you've posted is also in the Old-Testament, which is before Jesus Christ died for everyone's sins, protecting everyone from the wrath of an angry and displeased God. That's where the whole cross thing comes into play. Jesus died so that people who violate the teachings can ask for forgiveness and salvation for their wrongdoing, rather than suffer the harsh consequences that the Lord had originally put forth.

Edited March 17, 20188 yr by TheDivineHustle

36 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

That is completely false, and anyone of any religion (except for reformists) would disagree with you. The Bible and the Qu'ran are literal teachings and commands of the respective God. No Christian or Muslim would blatantly disregard the teachings of the Bible or the Qu'ran. Scripture from both books is still preached, taught, and followed by followers of both religions. I encourage you to walk into a Church or Mosque and ask them if they've grown away from their holy book or if they still follow the teachings of it. As previously stated, the only people that don't follow the teachings of the book are reformists, and they're a tiny minority of both religions. Reformists a practically disowned by a majority of the religion's followers.

 

You're telling me "They follow the precepts of the book". Which tells them to kill non-believers. Alright, let's put that in practice. I'm not believing in Allah (or any god for that matter), yet no muslim has come to slaughter me. You're a believer of the christian god I suppose, yet no muslim has come to slaughter you. The church of my town has a mass every sunday, I haven't seen any muslim going there to slaughter the people there. How do you explain that exactly, if it's not them not following every word of their book? And don't tell me it's a minority.

3 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

You're telling me "They follow the precepts of the book". Which tells them to kill non-believers. Alright, let's put that in practice. I'm not believing in Allah (or any god for that matter), yet no muslim has come to slaughter me. You're a believer of the christian god I suppose, yet no muslim has come to slaughter you. The church of my town has a mass every sunday, I haven't seen any muslim going there to slaughter the people there. How do you explain that exactly, if it's not them not following every word of their book? And don't tell me it's a minority.

That's because none have come to slaughter you, that's exactly right. Fly over to Afghanistan or Syria and it'll be a different story.

5 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

That's because none have come to slaughter you, that's exactly right. Fly over to Afghanistan or Syria and it'll be a different story.

 

As mentioned before, Islam has ~1.8 billion believers across the world. How many Syria and Afghanistan have? A couple millions? Integrists for the most part, meaning -they- are the violent minority, and not the other way around.

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

 

As mentioned before, Islam has ~1.8 billion believers across the world. How many Syria and Afghanistan have? A couple millions? Integrists for the most part, meaning -they- are the violent minority, and not the other way around.

Do you understand that not committing a violent act doesn't necessarily mean that you don't silently agree with violent acts?

2 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Do you understand that not committing a violent act doesn't necessarily mean that you don't silently agree with violent acts?

 

So you're condemning them for something they didn't commit, just because they are muslims. That's the definition of discrimination.

3 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

So you're condemning them for something they didn't commit, just because they are muslims. That's the definition of discrimination.

No, I'm condemning them for their religious beliefs. I have no issue with the person, I have an issue with their ideology. 

11 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Reformists a practically disowned by a majority of the religion's followers.

 

And extremists are not? I don't really understand the argument here. Terrorists who attack in the name of their religion are extremists. That doesn't make the religion the problem. Plus, I've seen "rights" thrown around here. How can anyone believe so strongly in their God (and constitution) given rights, and yet discriminate against a religion? Last I checked, freedom of religion is one of the founding principles of the USA.

 

I also find it hilarious that the same people who say "it's my right to own a gun" (SECOND amendment allows) and "guns are not the problem" after every shooting, also say "islam is the problem" and "ban islam" (FIRST amendment disallows) after every terrorist attack. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the constitution you defend and which parts you ignore.

1 hour ago, willpv23 said:

 

And extremists are not? I don't really understand the argument here. Terrorists who attack in the name of their religion are extremists. That doesn't make the religion the problem. Plus, I've seen "rights" thrown around here. How can anyone believe so strongly in their God (and constitution) given rights, and yet discriminate against a religion? Last I checked, freedom of religion is one of the founding principles of the USA.

 

I also find it hilarious that the same people who say "it's my right to own a gun" (SECOND amendment allows) and "guns are not the problem" after every shooting, also say "islam is the problem" and "ban islam" (FIRST amendment disallows) after every terrorist attack. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the constitution you defend and which parts you ignore.

Because the Bill of Rights is ultimately the most rights any government has ever granted its people. The entire goal of Islam is to implement Sharia Law worldwide.

 

Name one Islamic country you would like to live in. The only ones with decent standards of living are deplorable for human rights, including other religions, minorities and women.

Edited March 18, 20188 yr by c13

2 hours ago, willpv23 said:

You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the constitution you defend and which parts you ignore.

 

 

I don't get why people insist on doing this in general.  It doesn't matter what the topic is, people always pick and choose what they like, and ignore everything else.

 

12 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

No, I'm condemning them for their religious beliefs. I have no issue with the person, I have an issue with their ideology. 

 

Someone's beliefs are part of them, so yes, you do have a problem with the person.  All religions have part(s) in their bible/etc name that has good and bad in it.  It truly is unfortunate that some people are brainwashed to the point of "I must listen to every single word written in my religious book!", but that is only some people.  You do understand that there are plenty of peaceful Muslims living everywhere, right?  There's a Muslim girl by the name of Malala Yousafzai who was shot in the head by Taliban, survived, and is now an activist for females to receive education.  Are you really going to condemn a little girl for her beliefs?  There's a reason they are called Taliban and not just "Muslims". 

 

Everyone has a choice.  Some choose to be religious radicals that are violent and some follow their religion as faithfully as possible without violence.    I don't see religion ever going away, so there's no point in trying to criticize people for what they believe, especially when religion truly isn't the problem here.  People are going to be violent and cruel even without it.  People use religion as an easy way to blame something else.

10 hours ago, willpv23 said:

 

And extremists are not? I don't really understand the argument here. Terrorists who attack in the name of their religion are extremists. That doesn't make the religion the problem. Plus, I've seen "rights" thrown around here. How can anyone believe so strongly in their God (and constitution) given rights, and yet discriminate against a religion? Last I checked, freedom of religion is one of the founding principles of the USA.

 

I also find it hilarious that the same people who say "it's my right to own a gun" (SECOND amendment allows) and "guns are not the problem" after every shooting, also say "islam is the problem" and "ban islam" (FIRST amendment disallows) after every terrorist attack. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the constitution you defend and which parts you ignore.

Yes, freedom to practice your religion so long as it does not impede the freedoms of others that don’t practice your religion. You’re free to be Muslim, but don’t share your Quran with me and don’t talk about Sharia Law. Last I heard, those of you in Europe were having some issues with that stuff.  I’ll have you know that my view of Islam wasn’t always this extreme. The more research I conducted on Islam, the more I read the Quran, the more I witnessed how aggressive and violent the religion commands its followers to be, the more I began dislike the religion. It’s far from a religion of peace. Even Christianity is more compatible with the developed world. 

 

Islam is, by far, the most incompatible religion in the developed world. Muslims are commanded to live how the Quran directs and practically all Muslim majority countries do. God forbid you reveal yourself as being anything other than Muslim, because in some of those countries that’s an offense punishable by a painful death. I also find it ironic that you support freedom to practice a religion where women have no freedom. That’s why that girl that @Giordano mentioned was shot in the head. Because she went against what the Islamic faith dictates on women receiving education. I’d love to see statistics on the number of women that convert FROM Islam after being educated. That probably has a direct link to the statistical fact that those who know least about Islam show a more favorable opinion of Islam. Funny how that works, huh. 

 

I also challenge you to answer @c13    Go ahead and name one Muslim country that you’d love to live in. 

 

Well, that’s because there’s plenty of statistical evidence that restricting guns won’t solve the problem. That evidence has been presented numerous times and all we, gun supporters, receive in rebuttal are nasty ad-hominem attacks, responses generated through sentiment, irrational hypothetical scenarios, and outrageous comparisons between gun control systems.... rather than logic and sound reasoning. 

Edited March 18, 20188 yr by TheDivineHustle

I don't see how "Islamic" countries matter in this argument. The countries are not run by the religion, they are run by leaders who interpret the religion in a certain way, and decide to run the country that way. Is it right? No. Is it the religion's fault? Maybe. But I fail to see any relevance to Muslims practicing their religion in America, or other countries with basic freedoms.

 

That's the same as saying the internment camps where we sent the Japanese in WWII were perfectly okay, because Japan was the enemy, therefore all Japanese people were the enemy.

 

I have also never, not once in my life, saw a Muslim who was not an extremist trying to force their religion on anyone. I have, however, experienced Christians (and its denominations) trying to force Christianity on me. Granted, it wasn't by force, but if it was then they would be extremists just like Muslim terrorists.

 

52 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Yes, freedom to practice your religion so long as it does not impede the freedoms of others that don’t practice your religion. You’re free to be Muslim, but don’t share your Quran with me and don’t talk about Sharia Law.

 

I can turn this right around and say you are free to be Christian, but don't share your bible with me, and don't talk about God. But, "In God we trust" is on our currency, "One nation under God" is in our Pledge, we swear to tell the truth on a Bible, etc. 

4 hours ago, willpv23 said:

I don't see how "Islamic" countries matter in this argument. The countries are not run by the religion, they are run by leaders who interpret the religion in a certain way, and decide to run the country that way. Is it right? No. Is it the religion's fault? Maybe. But I fail to see any relevance to Muslims practicing their religion in America, or other countries with basic freedoms.

 

That's the same as saying the internment camps where we sent the Japanese in WWII were perfectly okay, because Japan was the enemy, therefore all Japanese people were the enemy.

 

I have also never, not once in my life, saw a Muslim who was not an extremist trying to force their religion on anyone. I have, however, experienced Christians (and its denominations) trying to force Christianity on me. Granted, it wasn't by force, but if it was then they would be extremists just like Muslim terrorists.

 

 

I can turn this right around and say you are free to be Christian, but don't share your bible with me, and don't talk about God. But, "In God we trust" is on our currency, "One nation under God" is in our Pledge, we swear to tell the truth on a Bible, etc. 

It’s the fact that those countries are ran based on what’s literally written in the Quran. Like, literally written word for word.... and millions of Muslims are perfectly content in residing within those countries. The countries are controlled by leaders that run their countries by what the Quran literally has written. It’s not an interpretation, it’s based on what’s being commanded. 

 

You say any other countries with basic freedoms. That’s the thing, a lot of those Muslim countries have no basic freedoms, hence women receiving no education and non-Muslims being punished by death and imprisonment. Sounds like Sharia Law to me, you know, what the Quran commands. 

 

I don’t believe that comparing the Japanese imprisonment is valid. That was a World War and an attack on US soil, for starters. Secondly, the Japanese didn’t have some book or God commanding them to attack Americans. There’s nothing wrong with being Japanese, and someone can’t control if they’re born Japanese. You can’t obey Japanese, or follow Japanese or worship Japanese. That’s an outrageous comparison. 

 

I challenge you to show me some scripture of the Quran that can help prove your point that they’re not violent. All you seem to be doing here is pointing the finger at something else as a double-standard. 

 

The Lord commands us, Christians, to educate people on his word and allow the final decision to be up to the individual. He does not want us to force our religion on others, and that’s where Islam and Christianity split. Any Christian that forces Christianity on you is in violation of the Lords will, and they'll answer for that when they die. Because that's not what God wants us to do as Christians.

Edited March 18, 20188 yr by TheDivineHustle

6 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

The Lord commands us, Christians, to educate people on his word and allow the final decision to be up to the individual. He does not want us to force our religion on others, and that’s where Islam and Christianity split. Any Christian that forces Christianity on you is in violation of the Lords will, and they'll answer for that when they die. Because that's not what God wants us to do as Christians.

 

They must have missed that part in the Bible when they launched the crusades and slaughtered millions of jews and muslims then.

11 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

They must have missed that part in the Bible when they launched the crusades and slaughtered millions of jews and muslims then.

Did you know that the Crusades were in response to Islamic aggression?

12 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Did you know that the Crusades were in response to Islamic aggression?

 

I don't think it gives anyone an excuse to slaughter millions of people based on their religion (Judaism and Islam in those cases), but I'm not christian so what do I know about massive genocides. In the end there will always be an excuse to say "No but Islam is worse so it's bad." because you arbitrary decided that this was the enemy, even though it isn't.

 

Yeah, there are Islamic extremists in the world. Just like there are Christian extremists, Jew extremists, so on so forth. But you arbitrary decided to focus on islamic ones.

Yeah, there are bits of violence in the Qu'ran (even though the book isn't entirely based on this as there are plenty of passages talking about peace of mind and body, helping hand, etc), just like in other holy books of the other main religions around the globe. But you arbitrary decided to focus on the Qu'ran.

Yeah, there are countries run by extremists who try to rule with a very barbaric approach of Islam over their people. But I don't see how it's your business to deal with that, unless you want another rendition of the Irak war (we all saw what pathetic results it gave for the geopolitical situation in middle-east).

Edited March 18, 20188 yr by Hystery

This is one of those situations where I guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree. I take issue with parts of the Qu'ran, that being said I do not think that all 1.8 billion Muslims are violent people or people who want to force strict Islamic rule over us. I have no problem with Muslims as a whole, and I find it pretty disgraceful that people have no problem in supporting acts such as banning Muslims for the acts of a few, which are largely unsupported by all other Muslims.