Muslims Burn Poppies

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mohammed was the prophet of war; Christ is the Prince of Peace
Mohammed's disciples killed for the faith; Christ's disciples were killed for their faith
Mohammed and his fellow warriors murdered thousands; Christ murdered none but saved many
Mohammed practiced FORCE; Christ preached FAITH
Mohammed said to the masses, "Convert or die!"; Christ said, "Believe and live!"
Mohammed preached "Death to the infidels!"; Christ prayed "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"
Mohammed constrained people by conquest; Christ constrained people by love
Modern day disciples of Mohammed respond to the terrorist attacks by cheering in the streets; Modern day disciples of Christ are deeply grieved at past atrocities carried out by those who were "Christians" in name only (the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, etc.).
Many Muslims are peaceful and peace-loving because they do not strictly follow the teachings of their founder; Many Christians are peaceful and peace-loving because they do strictly follow the teachings of their Founder
The Muslim looks forward to eternity in Paradise where there will be virgins who are used for eternal perpetual copulation.
Mohammed said the witness of a woman was half the value of the witness of a man; and Muhammed said a woman goes to Paradise because she satisfies her husband sexually; The Bible teaches that a husband is to love his wife and be willing to die for her.
The Koran says, "Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them" (Qu'ran 9.5); Christ said, "Preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15).
The Koran says, "I will inspire terror into the hearts of unbelievers" (Qu'ran 8.12); God inspires His terror into the hearts of believers (Isaiah 8:13).
The Koran (Qu'ran) is a terrorist manual which condones fighting, conflict, terror, slaughter, and genocide against those who do not accept Islam.

Please stop comparing Islam to Christianity.. There is no Comparison!!
 
Last edited:
Theres multiple variations of Mohamed, Mohammed, Muhamed etc. If all FOURTEEN (14) variations of the name are combined together then it's top!

It was 2nd in 2007 ffs !




"What can't be named Muhammad?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7115821.stm


FACT. You argumentative ****s!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/27/oliver-top-boys-name-jack

As in previous years, the name Mohammed, which ranked 16th, would take top place among boys if all possible spellings were aggregated. But as a spokesman for the Official for National Statistics pointed out, this is potentially misleading if no other names are similarly combined: there were still more Olivers than Mohammeds if you count the 511 Ollies, 127 Oliviers, 124 Ollys, 16 Ollis and 9 Olis born in 2009. The merging of Harry with Henry and Jack with John would produce similar disruptions to the list.

damon: Most "popular" baby boys name in the UK 2010.

Mohamed (and variations thereof).

FACT.

So you are deliberatly including variations of Mohammed, yet ignoring variations of Oliver to try and prove your "fact" correct then.

Thought so.
 
All it means is that a large proportion of muslims name their kids mohammed, anyway.

You can say what you like. 14 variations of the same name - PUT IT TOP.



And it indicates where it is in the relative birthrates in the UK. In London 5/6 children are born to foreign parents.


THANKS.

Check your facts next time.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/oct/27/oliver-top-boys-name-jack





So you are deliberatly including variations of Mohammed, yet ignoring variations of Oliver to try and prove your "fact" correct then.

Thought so.

The Guardian. They can of course be trusted to give an unbiased opinion quoting someone from the National Office of Statistics for good measure - who don't with political pressure manipulate statistics ... of course! :lol:


And trying to claim that all the ollies amount to more than Mohameds +14.

Politically trying to cover up the dominance of that in the birth rates. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. The redacted Labour migration reports - prove this happened in the early 2000's.
 
lol your response to FACT is some jank ass web site?

Why dont you read the Quran, since you seam to want to defend it so much.

EFCNIK is that you?

I'm defending decent honest Muslims against attacks on them by people who think because some people who follow the same religion as them are extremist idiots that they all are.

And that site gives actually examples of quotes from the bible does it not? Which sure, they can be twisted. Just like the quotes in your post.
 
Well worth the sacrifice made by millions then.

Our government onside? Not my government. The Brits had little choice but play along as their armed services had been emasculated by successive governments after the Great War. It would also have had a near impossible job to persuade you Brits to fight a war so so soon after the First until and unless the public could see it was really the only way forward. There was also the question of public finances being on the slide ... tricky buying bullets and bombs if you've only got three bob in the kitty.

As to being onside, politically, there were swathes of society which were anti Semitic (at that time, Jews were the Muslims - blamed for everything) and which also longed for the smack of firm government, preferably a dictatorship, and who admired both Mussolini and Hitler.

British people seem to have no very clear idea of their own history, do they? But why spoil some good prejudice with facts.

And I'm sure you also think the elite, are lizard people from other demensions. Fair enough.
 
The Guardian. They can of course be trusted to give an unbiased opinion quoting someone from the National Office of Statistics for good measure - who don't with political pressure manipulate statistics ... of course! :lol:


And trying to claim that all the ollies amount to more than Mohameds +14.

Politically trying to cover up the dominance of that in the birth rates. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. The redacted Labour migration reports - prove this happened in the early 2000's.

Links and proof please. You've been given them and refuted them, please allow me to do the same.

Thanks.
 
lol your response to FACT is some jank ass web site?

Why dont you read the Quran, since you seam to want to defend it so much.

I have read the Qu'ran and there is no point taking quotes from it to illustrate spurious points without understanding the historical context.

For example, stuff like [SIZE=-1]Sura 8.12 "Remember thy lord has inspired the angels with the message. Give firmness to the believers and instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite them above their necks and smite the fingertips of them" that is often cited by people making the same points as yourself neglect that Sura 8 - The Battle of Badr, is about an actual battle that took place. Mohammed and his followers were faced with a hostile army. They weren't just like, decending on places and forcing people to convert or die.

[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Sura 47.4 "When you encounter the unbelievers, Strike off their heads. Untill you have made a wide slaughter among them tie up the remaining captives."[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Sura 47 was revealed during the first year of Hijrah when the Muslims were under threat of extinction by invasion from Mecca.[/SIZE]

and so on.
 
EFCNIK is that you?

I'm defending decent honest Muslims against attacks on them by people who think because some people who follow the same religion as them are extremist idiots that they all are.

And that site gives actually examples of quotes from the bible does it not? Which sure, they can be twisted. Just like the quotes in your post.

Old test. is brutal.. But to say the Quran is not a war manual is ridiculous.. Mohamad himself was a warlord.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top