tell me again about islam

tell me again about islam | SO YOU SAY CHRISTIANITY IS OPPRESSIVE TELL ME AGAIN ABOUT THIS ISLAM THAT YOU'RE SO FOND OF | image tagged in big willy wonka tell me again,islam,radical islam,liberal hypocrisy,libtards | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
1,613 views, 64 upvotes, Made by anonymous 8 months ago big willy wonka tell me againislamradical islamliberal hypocrisylibtards
Big Willy Wonka Tell Me Again memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
. | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
Futurama Fry Meme | JESUS SAYS LOVE YOUR ENEMIES AND PRAY FOR THOSE WHO PERSECUTE YOU YEP, CHRISTIANITY IS SUPER OPPRESSIVE. | image tagged in memes,futurama fry | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Good meme. You are very correct :)
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
Steve Harvey Meme | THE MESSAGE OF JESUS IS PEACE BUT NOT ALL OF HIS FOLLOWERS LISTEN | image tagged in memes,steve harvey | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
All sorts of things have been done in the name of Jesus through out history. It is just men doing their own shit and then try to justify it with religion. The same pattern repeatedly happens in all religions.
reply
2 ups
Creepy Condescending Wonka Meme | I BELIEVE YOU MEAN JESUS_MILK | image tagged in memes,creepy condescending wonka | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
3 ups, 3 replies
The Bible may say to love YOUR enemies, but historically speaking, Christian religious authorities have always had the tendency to differentiate between personal enemies, and the enemies of God, or heretics. Perhaps temperance and forgiveness would be ideal for personal disputes, but (particularly in the middle ages) heretics were seen as criminals like any other, whose acts were severely damaging to the good of society; they had to be suppressed at all costs. Indeed, the crime of heresy would often be seen as worse than murder, since the latter destroyed only the body, while the former ultimately doomed souls to an eternity in hell by corrupting the morals of society.
reply
2 ups
Religions do become machines that serve their own fearful ends rather than the Greater Good.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Lol what is that picture from?
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
mel brooks- history of the world part 1
reply
0 ups
haha thanks!
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Excellent point
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Lol.
reply
2 ups
reply
5 ups
Whoever posted this needs to make himself/herself known. This is imgflip! Conservatives don't have to hide here!
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Is that a picture of the guy from the "Black KKK member" comedy skit about blind black man who thinks he's white?
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
You're very own pepe. Cherish it. <3
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
LOL this meme is actually part of the reason why I chose my name XD
reply
4 ups
Yea, I laughed my butt off when I first saw it.
reply
1 up
Haha :)
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
All religions stank but I don't hate the people. Just the ridiculous misconceptions they have had instilled in them.
reply
2 ups
Coooooooool.......
reply
3 ups, 3 replies
Who was hitler and mussloini then?
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
- "Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers [...] then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world.", alleged remark by Hitler.

- To ease relations with the people of Lybia, recently added to Italian Empire, Mussolini proclaimed himself "Defender of Islam". in 1937 or so.

With this, I'm not saying that these two guys were Muslims, nor that their evil made them have those inclinations towards Islam, because they saw potential for their machinations in that religion. That's ridiculous, but saying that their actions had a root on Christian belifes, like you're implying, is much more.
reply
1 up
Exactly my views! Religion is just another means for the politicians to achieve their selfish ends.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Also, i comprehend your call for "hitler", since he has, unanimouslly, a sort of "Anti-Christ" status (pun intended), but what about Mussolini, the guy is nothing on Stalin or Mao, the former, an atheist, and the latter, well, i guess a "non-aligned" believer, if that makes sense.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2 replies
The only thing that makes sense to me is this… https://imgflip.com/i/1s6b3o ;)
reply
3 ups, 3 replies
btw, i'm hoping that this "YusufBaig" guy answers me, i din't write all that stuff to be ignored.
Although i should quit the idea, since he's most likely those guys that come here to cry over "offensive" memes and think that posting short comments like that has a lot of merit. Probably a liberal sophist, who falls for the narrative of «the crusades were orchestrated by evil christians to take off the land of innocent muslims», or the classical «europeans stole land from the natives»
reply
2 ups
Drive-by hits of the one-liner variety have been largely taken over by Centrist/Right Wing thinkers, who employ satire, humor, evidence, and reason to create eye-catching and resonant memes. The far Left has no path to meeting this new standard because, frankly, their core arguments are generally emotional (or, at the very least, utopian) and so they don't hold up to scrutiny.

It's like all those horrifying war photos from Vietnam and other conflicts, showing civilans and children being ravaged by the horrors of war. They don't show facts about the situation, or make comments to flesh out the situation. They just show some disfigured child, woman, elderly person, etc.. which, if the viewer has any kind of basic human decency, evokes an extremely powerful emotional response. We've all got kids, olds, and loved ones whose faces we can paste over those in the pictures; none of us wants that to happen to them.

It's been fully fifty years of media doing *literally nothing* but providing such heart-wrenching imagery in order to steer public opinion. And hey, who can blame them for sticking with a tried-and-true formula? But memers have improved on the method dramatically.

The next era of opinion manipulation, however long it lasts, belongs to them.
reply
1 up
So native people just happily gave their land to Europeans?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Well then, how would you characterize the Crusades?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I would characterize them as a series of military entrepreneurships by several European states and religious orders that ultimately ought to retake Jerusalem from Muslim control and convert it to Christianity (Jerusalem itself being the core of Christianity, the Holy City*).

Unlike marxists, I do not see the Crusades as somehow of a "prelude" to the global expansion of the 1400's/1500's (you know, Portugal and Spain seafaring activities and respective empires), with the Middle East being a "lab stage" to colonization (**).
Also, "Muslisms = good" and "Christians = bad" is not correct; by the time of the First Crusade (1095-1099), half of the Iberian Peninsula was under Muslim rule. The Seljuk Turks (Sunni), the same ones who held Jerusalem, were also imposing a great threat to the Christian (Orthodox, nevertheless) Bizantine Empire, the "stronghold" of Christendom in the East.

Here's my answer, be free to refute it, now the footnotes:

*Jerusalem was indeed the Holy City for Christians, but the same for Jews and Muslims.

** Although it should be said that what the Crusaders did in the East Mediterranean islands served as an inspiration to the Portuguese in the colonization of Madeira and the Spanish in the Canary Islands - they established sugarcane plantations (the most rentable form of using the land, being sugar a really valuabe expenditure) just like the Arabs had done in Cyprus, for example, which then came into the Crusaders hands, allowing them to bring the product to Europe.
This is more of a curiosity, though
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Your characterization of the Crusades is essentially correct, but at the end of the day, I don't see how they were anything but evil in their actions. The war fought to retake Jerusalem went above and beyond a simply geopolitical campaign in it's brutality, even for its time. When the Crusaders took Jerusalem, they proceed to massacre the Jewish and Muslim populations en masse, as well as most of the Eastern Orthodox Christians (though most of them had fled the city before the city fell.) Almost every non-Catholic to be found in the city was either killed or captured for ransom. They bragged that, "the streets ran with blood up to their ankles" and that the dead were so numerous, that they could be stacked into piles and burned without wood being needed for a pyre. The main reason for this was that it was thought by many Christians at the time that the second coming of Christ would not occur until the Holy City had been purged of all infidels. Other conquered cities faced the same fate, leaving the city littered with thousands of dead men, women and children. And these Crusades in the Middle East weren't all; at time of the first Crusade, for example, there was a campaign lead by a number of various clergymen to eradicate the Jews, who were massacred by the hundreds in many of Europe's largest cities. Many later Crusades singled out other groups for slaughter, such as Eastern Orthodox Christians when the Crusaders conquered Byzantium, or Cathars during the Cathar Crusade, which culminated in a movement to eradicate the homosexual population as well. But all these other atrocities aside, The (first) Crusades did in fact endeavor to take the Holy land from innocent Muslims, as well as Jews an other non-Catholics; the fact that the city of Jerusalem was conquered by Muslims first has no baring on the fact that the Crusaders indiscriminately killed nearly a million innocent Muslim men, women, and children who had little of nothing to do with the Caliphate's earlier conquest of the city.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Hi, thank you a lot for your reply, it's actually really nice to see people like you who can hold a discussion to such a high level, especially when it comes down to these themes which usually generate some of the most (if not THE MOST) classless debates on the Internet.

I tried to be as impartial as possible in my brief characterization. I tried to be as neutral as possible and trying to open the heads of those who are only aware of one side of the story, and dismiss the urge for a Crusade in its historical circumstances, only accounting the victims and forgetting the many ideological, geopolitical and religious reasons that were behind it and surely should be studied and understood (different from accepting them as valid in our time, of course).

However, while trying to discredit those who, in a Manichaean way put Christians versus Muslims, I ended up using the very same blocs in my analysis, without realising that I was omitting by a large part the bases of the population, the majority of those religious groups, while referring only to the warlords and clergymen (the elites, to whom historians usually tend their attention and critic to).

It wasn’t actually correct; and like you just said, the vast majority of the Muslims killed were innocent, alienated from everything that was behind. Period. I was mistaken in just ignoring those human expenses, but still think that the approach led by many on the subject of the Crusades, judging it exclusively it by modern standards is wrong. So, while this was actually a lot of morally-bad Christians perpetrators killing innocent muslims, I'm not very fond of putting this in big collectives, especially when if it fits one's political interests thinking that the roles of bad-guy and good-guy haven't changed.

Also, while what you’ve written is actually very well put (and it surely hit me by surprise, since I was expecting an authoritarian and patronising response with zero factual arguments, like I said in the beginning of the text), had a lot in-depth, I’d just like to clarify that the "the streets ran with blood up to their ankles" thing has already been disproven by studies and calculations, and was most likely a hyperbole on part of the (anonymous) author (these words cited are from the chronicle “Gesta Francorum”, by the way”).
reply
0 ups
Thank you very much for your reply, and your compliment to my capacity for "high level discussion." The last time I tried to have a discussion, it was on a meme about how Blacks are free in modern American society, while many of the cultures in Africa that sold prisoners of war into Europe's slave trade in the first place still practice slavery to this day. I simply asked him what his point was, and he responded with something along the lines of "You're a liberal, aren't you?" Not a great way to start a discussion. I then proceeded to waste my breath explaining that I didn't see the relevance of his question, and that I don't even think of conservatism and liberalism in terms of "right or wrong" or "left vs right," but rather as a set of political theories that each have their own appropriate time and place for application. Apparently that was still too "liberal" for him.

As for the Crusades, I agree that trying to compare a medieval holy war to modern standards is problematic and not especially relevant; I mostly just argue for how bad the Crusades were when people try to justify them by modern standards, or go so far as to claim that there should be another one.

Also, I do understand that the claim regarding ankle-deep blood is an exaggeration. My main reason for citing it is to exemplify how deliberately genocidal they were being. Normally, it is the enemy that exaggerates civilian casualties for propagandist reasons, while for the Crusaders, it was the other way around; their Muslim enemies recorded a much more accurate representation of what happened, whereas the attackers were the ones who tried to exaggerate the number of people they killed. It wasn't just Medieval people being Medieval, it was a very deliberate attempt to kill as many innocent Muslims, Jews, etc... as possible, something they intended even to glorify. After all, as far as the Crusaders were concerned, there was no such thing as an "innocent Muslim."

Thank you for reading :)
reply
2 ups
yeah, there's a big truth in it.
reply
1 up
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Well, I'll be praying for you :/.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Do you listen to any vloggers on youtube?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I don't know if I would call them vloggers, but some YouTube atheists, yes.
reply
1 up
Check out this dude: styxhexenhammer666 he's pretty legit
reply
1 up
reply
1 up
reply
0 ups
Good idea . . .
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Most people who think Christianity is oppressive are atheists and wold rather that all that religion nonsense just go away.
reply
4 ups, 2 replies
Guys like Thomas Jefferson and, to a lesser extent, Niccolo Machiavelli, drew the map for how to minimize the undesirable facets of religion without 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater.' We all need to do a better job assimilating such writings.

If you're a rational, empirically-driven person, you *have* to concede that all of the evidence supports the thesis that, yes, Christianity is *less undesirable* than Islam in this day and age. There was probably a time when the reverse would have been true, but that time is at least centuries in the past--and it might have been completely anachronistic with the actual timeline of Islam's existence.

So the people who decry Christianity without shouting at least as loudly against Islam are not adhering to empiricism. One is associated with the rise of the greatest human civilization ever to exist (the contemporary West) while the other is associated today with poverty, violence, despotism and, perhaps most importantly, social instability (the great Caliphates pretty much all flared out 100-200 years into their various existences, whereas Rome and, to a lesser degree, Feudal Europe maintained stability and fostered ongoing scientific, artistic, philosophical and humanitarian progress for thousands of years).

That isn't to say Christianity is without fault. Truly staggering atrocities and horrors can be laid squarely at Christianity's feet. But if you had to pick one society to live in, a Christian one or an Islamic one, the world's migrant patterns demonstrate which option humans overwhelmingly prefer.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
1. I will admit that Christianity is "less undesirable" than Islam, but as you said, that only applies to how both of them present themselves in modern times. In the not-too-distant past, both of them were about equal as far as barbarity (supporting slavery, killing heretics, oppressing women, etc). I believe it was the rise of secular ideas and values that began to temper the savagery of Christianity. I may not agree entirely with what you said, but your comment was well-written, and I respect that.

2. I would caution against looking at Islam today and thinking that Islam has always been that way. Islam does have periods in its past of profound and amazing advances in science, art, literature, poetry, math, etc. And, yes, Christianity is the same way.

3. Similar to what I said above, if I had to pick a society in which to live, I would prefer Christianity, but it would be the Christianity of the United States, one whose teeth have been removed by our secular Constitution and whose bark is worse than its bite.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
To your point #3, my primary reply is simple: Christianity, for whatever reason, was conducive to the development of the Secular Humanist movement of the early USA. Islam, for whatever reason, has not been conducive to such a development. This observation is based on empiricism, pure and simple; I *do* care 'why' this contrast exists, but what I care about *more*, at least in the immediate sense, is that it does, indeed, exist.

To your point #2, I've run into point-counterpoint arguments about this but I stumbled upon a Reddit where a long, detailed, and calm post by Raptorbite explained some of the misconceptions about the so-called 'Golden Age of Islam.' The link is here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/5x42fl/golden_age_of_islam_not_a_myth/

I'm not 100% convinced of the legitimacy or lack thereof for the claim that Islam did indeed have such a period (or periods) in its history but, again, what's less important to me than the particulars is the long-term outcome. Islam, for whatever reason(s), did not play host to the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, the American Secular Humanist Movement, the Abolition of Slavery, etc..

And I think I co-sign your point #1 down the line. Large structures with centralized authority (like the Catholic Church) will invariably have that power subverted for nefarious ends (like the Catholic pedophilia rings) or, less usually, the power will be employed in a blatantly inhuman and antisocial fashion consistent with the founding principles of the structure itself (persecution of minorities based on identity/phenotype/gender/etc..).

But I 100% agree that it's the temperance of Christianity, made possible primarily by the successful 'heresies' throughout its history (The East/West Roman Empire split which resulted in the Eastern Orthodoxy splintering off into Byzantium; Luther's Heresy, which brought the Bible into the homes and native tongues of Christians everywhere; the Church of England's split; the American Separation of Church & State; etc..), which has softened the most jagged bits of its two thousand year old constellation of ideas and traditions. *Every* religion should be open to revision; no information or doctrine can ever be perfect or represent a comprehensive understanding of humanity, let alone reality. It's only by undergoing ongoing revisions and challenges to the veracity of claims that ideas can be refined to anything approaching 'perfection.'

Good stuff :-)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"Christianity, for whatever reason, was conducive to the development of the Secular Humanist movement of the early USA."

If you mean conducive in the sense that Christianity has pushed some people away and into secularism, I would agree. If you mean conducive in the sense that Christianity has supported and promoted secular humanism, I would disagree. I wasn't sure which you meant.

I'll have to check out that Reddit link.

"I'm not 100% convinced of the legitimacy or lack thereof for the claim that Islam did indeed have such a period (or periods) in its history but, again, what's less important to me than the particulars is the long-term outcome."

The extent and scope of it may be debatable, but I'm not sure its existence is.

"Islam, for whatever reason(s), did not play host to the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, the American Secular Humanist Movement, the Abolition of Slavery, etc.."

But Christianity doesn't get all the credit for those things, either. Yes, Christians fought to end slavery. But they were fighting against other Christians who wanted to keep it.

"Large structures with centralized authority...based on identity/phenotype/gender/etc..)."

Well-stated

"But I 100% agree that it's the temperance of Christianity...its two thousand year old constellation of ideas and traditions."

Splintering doesn't necessarily soften or temper strongly-held beliefs. Protestantism broke away from Catholicism 500 years ago, but Protestants are just as hardline as Catholics.

"*Every* religion should be open to revision; no information or doctrine can ever be perfect or represent a comprehensive understanding of humanity, let alone reality. It's only by undergoing ongoing revisions and challenges to the veracity of claims that ideas can be refined to anything approaching 'perfection.'"

Religion, by its very nature, does not encourage revision or change. It is dogmatic and not to be questioned, and that is the exact opposite of science and freethought.

And yes, good stuff :)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I'm not declaring causation in terms of Christianity's role in 'driving' societies further in the secular direction (I would suggest it is less an active process and more a passive one based on the principle of 'tolerating' apostasy significantly more than other religions). I'm saying there's an undeniable correlation and, in the absence of strongly suggestive evidence demonstrating precisely why that is the case, a correlation is enough to make any reasonable person lean in the direction of the system with the superior (or less inferior, if we're still going that way with it) associated track record.

And of course religion doesn't encourage revision or change. It's all based on authority, and if authority gets undercut the whole thing comes crashing down. You're absolutely right about that. But! ;-) There's a difference between *tolerating* revision and change, and consistently crushing apostates' heads with rocks. Again, it's all a matter of derees and, in this particular arena, seemingly minor doctrinal differences can result in pretty major differences in behavioral outcomes.

It's refreshing to interact with rando's on the internet without it devolving into a flame war three moves in.
reply
1 up
And yes, I'm well aware of the bloodiness of the various Reformations. I'm not arguing so much from the perspective of the centralized church authority as I am discussing the societies which put Christianity at the heart of their respective cultures.

Obviously no Pope wants to reside over a wave of apostasy which results in competing churches springing up to challenge Holy Mother Church for supremacy. The Papal Armies existed for several reasons, after all...
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Baby, bath water, blah blah blah. Congratulations on your Philosophy / Religions / Creative Writing degree. Trying to preserve the more desirable parts of a religion while eschewing the less desirable part's is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end. Any story based on divinity can be easily dismissed out of hand. All of it.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I think it's entirely possible--even inevitable--that humanity eschews superstition *almost* entirely, and that by doing so the general human condition is elevated dramatically.

The trick is getting from here to there. Thomas Jefferson's argument how to do so was simple: make the religions stand on their merits in the marketplace of ideas, and once they're competing for the attention of would-be adherents, the inexorable forces of competition would whittle away the worst bits while leaving a higher concentration of helpful information/doctrine.

He referred to the unwanted, superstitious material as 'artificial scaffolding' in need of being knocked down by freedom of thought and reason so that the 'primitive and genuine doctrines' could be preserved and promulgated, effectively for the betterment of makind.

As for the degree...pretty epic whiff right there. But I am an indie author with fifteen novels e-published at present.
reply
0 ups
Islam was never meant to be used for hate.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I'm a Muslim, I find this meme and comment section hilariously misguided - if you think ISIS is Islam your argument is over - they've killed more Muslims than they have any other religion.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
It's absolutely true that the vast majority of radical Islam's victims are Muslims. Great input.

A truly boggling disconnect for Christians, or even most contemplative atheists, is that such radical splinters are permitted to form, foment, and fester with such apparent regularity within the Islamic world.

Why is there an apparent difference in how such divergences are tolerated within these respective communities? It's a truly interesting question for which I've yet to encounter a reasonably satisfactory answer.

Obviously there are structural differences between Islam and Christianity, and some of those differences contribute to the differences in their respective cultures/civilizations. But it doesn't seem to be a simple matter to identify which differences are key.

All of that said, the only way Islam undergoes meaningful improvements (as Christianity has done) is if its moderates are empowered and emboldened to excise such radical,violent subsets of the Islamic world before they gain sufficient power to become significant concerns. To that end, we all need to embrace the reformers and do our best to support their efforts to refine Islam in meaningful ways going forward.

These are human problems, not solely Muslim problems.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
Such welcoming words Caleb, although I wouldn't proclaim these extremists as Muslims. I'm a believer that they are paid mercenaries - as part of a constructed scheme - to turn the west against the middle east. You have to understand, just because we live in a 'modern' world, doesn't mean that the wars of biblical times have drawn to an end; so let me rephrase, what's going on is a war on Islam.

I spent a lot of time trying to figure out why the world, and politics, functioned the way they do. That conclusion simply made the most sense!

Then again, we're all meant to have our own perspectives and conclusions in life, so that we can learn from one another. I have my faults, every Muslim has their faults, but so does the rest of humankind. I've went through phases of questioning my identity, even my own reality. Only my religion could give me the peace of mind, body, and heart that I had been seeking.

Which baffles me, I walk with peace and offer nothing less... yet so many people assume aggression, anger, etc. I guess people only see what they want to see.
reply
1 up
Why wouldn't you call them muslims?
Your prophet commands what they do. Does he not?
If anything they are the good muslims, following the quran.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
In a way, I think you're right: there *is* a war on Islam--and it's got plenty of similarities to the 'wars' which have been waged on Christianity over the last thousand years. The ultimate outcome of those wars on Christianity was a series of reformations which undercut religious authority (which had the inevitable 'side effect' of promoting reason over authoritarianism, upon which all religious is based).

It could be that the intentions for this 'war' on Islam are essentially evil,and it could be that they are essentially noble. But which of those it may be is largely immaterial since the war is ongoing, and no one involved seems interested in backing down.

It's an old-fashioned culture clash; humanity's had plenty of them before, and this certainly won't be the last one.
reply
1 up
Natalie: the Prophet, PBUH, does not command the slaughter of women and children, let alone burning people alive (which is exactly what ISIS does). But you're actually right, who am I to judge whatever they are? It is not my judgement to make.

To tie that into what Caleb was saying, Muslim, Christians, and Jews all had Prophets - these Prophets, and their stories, are all mentioned in the Quran.

How could an illiterate man, who had no teacher and no knowledge of history, tell their stories in the verses he spoke? Muslims believe that these verses were sent down to correct the reformations of the earlier monotheistic religions, and to be signs for those who believed.

If you don't believe in monotheism, you just don't... to each their own. Why should our religious beliefs disallow us from coexisting? I would go as far as saying our beliefs never disallowed coexistence, but those who stand to profit from us fighting all the damn time, have instigated blood feud, hate, and war that's lasted the better part of human existence.

Cultures fight, yes, but listen... Islam is not a culture. Modern day Muslims definitely act like it is - which is why it is one of the most misinformed religions on Earth. The true face of Islam is simple, for it is the better part of your soul. To see it, just look within yourself. The word "Islam" itself means submission, and is derived from the root word of peace. All Islam means is that you surrender yourself to a higher power. The religion that follows, is a means for holding onto that peace in this world of calamity. As you said Caleb, humanity has clashed plenty before, and will continue to until days end. Let's just enjoy the time we have on this planet, is what I'm saying.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Get your facts right yo.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
False. Muslims have killed soooo Many more!! Show me facts or Fake news.

Lol. FAKE NEWS!!!
IT'S CALLED THE USA AND IT'S NOT UNDER ISLAMIC RULE!!
Side note fellow patriots and crusaders..

Muslims will say anything and lie to further their "caliphate." ^^
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I think you misread his second point...
reply
1 up
I did. Lol. But the only reason they don't live in peace now is because the Muslims aren't the authority. They can't stand being told what to do by a jew, because the are very bigoted.
Flip Settings
Big Willy Wonka Tell Me Again memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
SO YOU SAY CHRISTIANITY IS OPPRESSIVE; TELL ME AGAIN ABOUT THIS ISLAM THAT YOU'RE SO FOND OF
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back