Kevin Johnston charged under Criminal Code of Canada for criticizing Islam.

Kevin Johnston charged under Criminal Code of Canada for criticizing Islam. | HOW LONG WILL YOU BE IN PRISON, DADDY? A LONG TIME, SON.  UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, I HAVE COMMITTED THE WORST CRIME OF ALL. I CRIT | image tagged in memes,finding neverland,canada,islam,blasphemy | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
15,775 views, 135 upvotes, Made by CaptainSparky 14 months ago memesfinding neverlandcanadaislamblasphemy
Finding Neverland memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
21 ups, 1 reply
Yeah it's f**king crazy, western nation are completely being f**ked over by SJWs, so much so that Englands "acceptance" of refugees has ironically brought in Sharia law, one of the most hateful, disgusting, and anti-free moral codes ever to exist.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
thumbs up RayCat | LOCK HIM UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY | image tagged in thumbs up raycat | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
No, remove his eyelids and show him crusade movies day and night.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Are you talking about me? Because I know what happened in the Crusades, this isn't a defense of Christianity whatsoever, it's an attack on Islam, I am not a Christian, the reason why I focus on Islamic catastrophes now, is because most Christians that I talk to acknowledge the fact that the Crusaders killed in the name of Christianity which was wrong. But every time I talk to a Muslim classmate or family member, it's always "ISIS is not Islamic, they don't represent Islamic beliefs."
reply
7 ups, 3 replies
The crusades were a direct result of Islam conquering the west. A lot of people don't know that.
reply
3 ups
And east and south. Remember, what we now call the Middle East and North Africa were part of Rome and Europe back then. The moslems took that all over with the sword, also into Central Asia.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
But Thats None Of My Business Meme | MAYBE WE SHOULD HOLD BACK A BIT? ...BUT THAT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS | image tagged in memes,but thats none of my business,kermit the frog | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
Also, I get where you're coming from Islam is pretty vile as many other religions, but there is no point in destroying a defeated man so to speak, I didn't like that he hid behind "Let's agree to disagree" trope, but he clearly half-heartedly expressed defeat.

He was committing logical fallacy after fallacy, making absurd claims without viable evidence, and I think he was getting the shaft here - It's a 2000-year-old book written by desert dwellers vs the perfected and well thought out principles of the western world. No contest.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
No he will not except defeat. He needs to get into the legitimacy of his comments.
The real truth needs to be expressed and Islam needs to be scrutinized. Reformation of islam is a must!
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I agree, but this man has no power of legitimacy, he was obviously defeated, (it's a man to man thing, we sense when one's pride is broken) If we pester this man who obviously has no Islamic authority and has obviously given up, then what do we gain? Use that intellectual power with caution and strike for maximum damage. I love the aggression, but it's misplaced.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
It's the people that read this. It's not about you or i.
It's about the truth. Keep it to one thread.
reply
3 ups
Most people on this site are against Islam to say that there needs to be a wake-up call for the people who use this site (which are the people who will see this)
is like telling a disabled "Oh, by the way, you can't walk." When you expose Islam on this site, people are going to say "Well yeah, no shit Sherlock"
reply
2 ups
Note the man comment was a joke just in case, I didn't make it clear, I forgot to add an emoji or a meme to the original reply.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Technically true, but it was mostly a power grab by the Pope when the Byzantines were complaining that the Islam was getting dangerously close, the Pope saw this as an opportunity to use Islam as a means to unite two denominations under one enemy. If they actually cared about the pillaging, raping, and conquering the Islamic people did, then they wouldn't have done it themselves. Don't dismiss or defend brutal aspects of Christianity. The Crusades didn't try to uphold anything, the Pope just wanted the Byzantines to keep sucking his holy scepter.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
That's an urban myth.
Sadly, there were unprovoked attacks on by some rogue Crusaders, but the Church actually spoke out against them. Again, this is comparable to modern warfare – sometimes soldiers go off and commit horrible acts during war – but that is not an indictment on the legitimacy of the war itself, nor of the ruling authority (provided it did not command nor overlook such acts). In Islam **pe etc. Is encouraged. Christians are not even comparable to the atrocities commuted by their counterparts.
The promise of ultimate forgiveness of sins required a contrite heart and was offered ahead of time as an assurance that should a faithful Crusader die while on Crusade, his final absolution (“last rites”) was already in place. The characterization of the remission of temporary, purgatorial sufferings of an already-forgiven and Heaven-bound Christian to the singular guarantee of Islamic Paradise for a Muslim assassin who dies in Jihad is fundamentally flawed. The Crusades were presented as penitential acts of devotion, not “get-out-of-hell-free cards.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I will grant you that not all the Crusaders **ped and pillaged but it was the majority, sure the Pope might have denounced these actions, but it doesn't change the fact that women were **ped, people were killed etc., I never said that the Pope ever promised to absolve anyone's sins, but historical accounts suggest that if it didn't happen, it was at least suggested (And yeah a jihadi getting into heaven for blowing people up is f**ked up). But I would say that the Old Testament was pretty comparable to Sharia law, but I have no problem with modern Christianity.

What my argument was is this - Sure, the Byzantines were feeling uncomfortable with a nearing Muslim empire, but the Pope used the Crusades to get the Byzantines to follow him again, by uniting the denominations under a common enemy.
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
The "majority" **ped lol. Show me your testable proof of that.

It has been said that when the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 they massacred every man, woman, and child in the city until “the streets ran ankle deep with the blood.” History and science show this to be poetic hyperbole. A contemporary Muslim source has been discovered that puts the number of the slain at three thousand. Was there violence? Absolutely. In that time, a city that had to be taken by force belonged to the victorious invaders – including people. This barbaric idea actually helped lessen damaging resistance (read Josephus for what happens when this goes wrong) and so served something of a cultural purpose. Thus, while it was a tragedy by today’s standards (although one might wonder at what people in that time might think of our war tactics today), it was not uncommon back then. Further, Muslim cities that surrendered to the Crusaders were left untouched, the people retained their property, and they were allowed to worship freely.
The pope used the crusades to defend their land from the muslims. Nothing more. If you want to claim politics to defend against that idea then you'd be wrong. Taking back the land the Muslims desecrated was enough. The Byzantines only needed to know that. I don't understand what the big deal is.
reply
2 ups
Easy, when referring to the Crusaders the 5 historians which work for crash course history decided to group the atrocities committed by the Crusaders as a collective, as well as many other historians, agree that the killing and raping was a collective thing.

Also, you committed a logical fallacy when you said that their barbaric ideas helped lessen damages. The lesser of two evils is still evil, and you also committed a fallacy by justifying acts that were common back in the day, this is an appeal to culture and is not a solid argument.

As well as the fact that "If they surrendered they were left untouched" That's still choosing the lesser of two evils, surrender your land or get **ped and die. That is not just, it doesn't defend the Crusaders. Wrong line of reasoning.

There were political reasons to the Crusades according to not only Crash Course and the historians behind it but this comprehensive article I found.

"The Crusades were a series of religious and political wars fought between 1096 and 1291 for control of the Holy Land. Pope Urban II initiated the First Crusade (1096–1102) in order to aid the Christian Byzantine Empire, which was under attack by Muslim Seljuk Turks.Oct 10, 2016"

"The earthly rewards included plunder from conquest, forgiveness of debts, and freedom from taxes, as well as fame and political power. Crusaders did not only fight for control of the Holy Land; they also worked to secure the Church’s power in Europe. Like the wars against the Muslims, these conflicts were promoted by various popes in Christ’s name and led by crusaders who took vows and received special privileges and indulgences. The “enemies” of the Church in Europe included people who were not Christians. It also included Christians who were labeled heretics, that is, people who challenged the official teachings of the Church or who questioned the pope’s power and authority."

(Which is what I've been saying, the popes used the Crusades to establish themselves as true leaders of Christians, plus also all of the other rewards mentioned, so now you see that the Crusaders were not people trying to protect themselves and Christian ideas, especially since they attacked and destroyed Constantinople ((a Christian city.))

http://dcc.newberry.org/collections/the-crusades-motivations-administration-and-cultural-influence
reply
2 ups
So in a sense, I guess they were encouraged to pillage if they got to keep the shit that they pillaged"
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Islam was getting dangerously close from its inception.

To claim the Crusades were a one sided Christian conquest operation is untrue propaganda which exploits Euro/Christian guilt. Defending one's territory from foreign invaders does not make the defenders into the invaders just because that territory was conquered by moslems who then forced the inhabitants to convert.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I would never use something that happened in the past to exploit guilt upon someone, everyone is an individual. However, my problem with you is that you defend something that was clearly wrong. Jihadis - wrong (we agree), Invading Jewish armies back in ancient times - wrong (we also presumably agree), but what makes the Crusaders different? Sure someone can start with good intentions, and I agree some Crusaders had good intentions at first, but they didn't keep those good intentions. The defenders became pillagers and they didn't just do it to Muslims, they did it to Christians as well. This became evident when the Crusaders took over Constantinople, a Christian city. If someone uses the Crusades to promote Euro guilt, they are assholes. But we as Europeans must not deny that what happened in the Crusades was wrong, (but don't feel guilty about it, those people were not me or you, they were their own individuals.)
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Actually your problem with me is that you read into what I said something that isn't there.

What I said was:

"To claim the Crusades were a one sided Christian conquest operation is untrue propaganda which exploits Euro/Christian guilt. Defending one's territory from foreign invaders does not make the defenders into the invaders just because that territory was conquered by moslems who then forced the inhabitants to convert."

War is bad, regardless of which side you cheer for.
That is, after all, it's purpose: Don't mess with me because I can badder than you.
That's how wars are fought and won.

War in defense of one's own is also bad. Not doing so, however, bodes worse for the pacifists.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The problem was not my interpretation of your comment, you are clearly saying that the Crusaders were acting out in defense of an Islamic invasion, but that's inaccurate. You said - "Defending one's territory from foreign invaders does not make the defenders into the invaders" and while that is true, that is not what the Crusaders did, one of their primary goals was to "Take back the Holy Land" which was never theirs, to begin with, because Israel's main occupants were Jews. But let's pretend that they didn't give a shit about taking back Israel, they still attacked Constantinople (while it was a Christian city), so the argument of "We must defend Christendom, from the invading heathens." doesn't hold up especially when you attack your own people. And yes, not going to war for your own is going to come back to bite you, but the Crusaders didn't do that, so that argument isn't relevant.

P.S - There was no indication that you were against the Crusades in the original comment, and as the speaker you have to make your message abundantly clear. If you don't and someone interprets it differently, that's on you.
1 up
How anyone misinterprets what I stated is not on me, that's ridiculous. It's THEIR erroneous interpretation. I already quoted myself, and there is nothing in the direction you claim. Further, after I explained that, you still persist.

You are claiming I made a judgement call when all I stated was what occurred.

Judea, where the Judeans (Jews) lived fell in 70AD to the Romans.
Israel, where the Israelites lived, fell in 722BC to the Assyrians.

You stated yourslf that Constantinople was Christian.
It was under siege by moslems.
Christian Crusaders went to liberate it from them.

Arguing against me by agreeing with me and backing me up is an unnecessary redundantly redundant redundancy.

Not to mention the issue had been already addressed in greater detail by others already - I should have read before posting last night.

Please don't reply, I will ignore it.

History still is as it still was, despite the PC attempts at revisioning.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
If someone interprets your message in such a way where it is not what you meant, but you specified your message it is not your fault, but if you didn't then it is your fault. The reason why I criticized your ORIGINAL POSTis because it looked as if you were supporting the Crusaders, you didn't specify otherwise. And in the SECOND POST, you BLAME ME because YOUR MESSAGE WAS LACKING!!! So I responded to that if you had just said "Hey I don't support the Crusaders, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding." like I do when people misunderstand me. (If there was no indication of my actual message.)

When it comes to Judea I must admit I'm no expert. So I will concede that point.

But I KNOW FOR A FACT, that when the Crusaders conquered Constantinople it was under Christian rule. - I mean to know this just look at the person in charge of Constantinople at the time - Enrico Dandolo - totally a Muslim right? (Also this is supported by the 5 historians that run Crash Course history which is used in schools across the country.) And no, supporting facts is not redundant, agreeing on facts can make us come to a conclusion faster. And although people have said the same things you're saying, these people have conceded, because they are not replying.

P.S History is history, (as you said) so why are you attacking common historical facts.? Also, I am not for PC, I am for honesty, you calling me PC to de-credit my argument is the same thing as me calling you an Islamaphobe, it's wrong and hypocritical. If I am an SJW, why are you getting triggered? I don't hate you, we are just having a debate, we just disagree, don't get attached, I respect you, you are expected to reciprocate, and we move on.
0 ups
tl;dr

You keep trying to put words in my mouth.
Have an issue with it, quote IT. Claiming to infer something even after I explained it is simply arguing for the sake of arguing.
reply
2 ups
If you were not talking about me then I apologize, this comment section has become mixed up and has devolved into a flame war
reply
11 ups, 3 replies
reply
15 ups, 2 replies
It did before the SJWs showed up with their feelz.
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 3 replies
How about the Jihadist who detonated a bomb in the Middle East, killed and maimed soldiers, arrested and sent to Gitmo prison. Served a sentence and moved to Canada. Their government rewards him thousands of dollars. WTF.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
No, Omar Khadr did not get thousands of dollars. He got MILLIONS of dollars. 10.5 million in fact (8 million USD).
reply
6 ups
...and an apology.
reply
6 ups
It's sickening
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I promise I won't bite... unless we're married and she's into that kind of stuff
reply
5 ups, 3 replies
No, I don't hate Muslim people, I hate all religious institutions but specifically, I hate the de-association tactics of the Islamic institutions of America and the SJW, that say "ISIS does not represent Muslim beliefs" nobody ever says that the Crusaders weren't Christians because they represented themselves as Christians, the same goes for Islam and ISIS
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
That's a good point. In fact, the Crusades are always held up as an EXAMPLE of Christian expansionism, i.e., that it was the rule and not the exception. As for ISIS, while they don't represent the vast majority of Muslims, the fact remains that their interpretation of the Qu'ran is actually a completely valid one which has been used in the past as well, and that's the problem. At its heart, Islam can legitimately be interpreted in an extremely violent way, and these days, unlike in 15th century Europe, one person can do a hell of a lot of damage on their own.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
It wasn't Christian expansionism, it was defense against moslem expansion.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Did you even read what YOU said? Asking me to apologize for you not understanding my 'stupidity' which cited facts you got wrong (Israel in the year 1025!?! Almost EIGHT centuries after it ceased to exist,,, Defending Christian Constantinople which was moslem but no, Christian, but, um, uh, ehm, the opposite of whatever I'm gonna say next) is NOT you apologizing.

"If someone interprets your message in such a way where it is not what you meant, but you specified your message it is not your fault, but if you didn't then it is your fault. The reason why I criticized your ORIGINAL POSTis because it looked as if you were supporting the Crusaders, you didn't specify otherwise. And in the SECOND POST, you BLAME ME because YOUR MESSAGE WAS LACKING!!! So I responded to that if you had just said "Hey I don't support the Crusaders, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding." like I do when people misunderstand me. (If there was no indication of my actual message.)"

You is pullin me leg, yesh?

But Okayzers, Modda bad, Modda sorry that you not understand basic documented history that millenia later is still unchangeable,,,
0 ups
All I was trying to tell you was that your aggression against me was misplaced, plus in the end I said this " I don't hate you, we are just having a debate, we just disagree, don't get attached, I respect you, you are expected to reciprocate, and we move on."

And on the topic of history, I don't know everything so in terms of Judea I conceded, but I know that the Crusader's conquered a Christian city, and I showed evidence for it, but I feel like you are meeting me halfway, are you reading my full response?

(I think it was fair that I called triggered I mean you blocked the reply button, and told me not to reply on our original chain...but either way, I apologize.)
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I know what you said, I reposted it even.
Problem is that YOU don't know what you said, even after I reposted it.
If you can't understand what you yourself said, then of course you are not going to understand my words, hence your confusion.

Words mean things.
Asking for an apology is not offering an apology.

Israel
&
Judea
Two different countries.

Don't know if you are trying to slight of hand your way out, or you really are this obtuse.
But this is boring.

I'm here for fun.
Wanna argue? Join AltScene, wait a couple of weeks, then you can get on the forum. That's where ModdaFugga is a BAD BlTCH plays. I like getting triggered there.
0 ups
No, I tried to make peace, I didn't ask for an apology, I just said that your aggression was misplaced against me, but either way, thanks for the invite.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Oh, you're Native American too now?

Don't attempt to speak for me, that's just stupid.

You are NOT American. And you sure ain't been here multi generations, let alone millenia.

I grow weary of your inane passive aggresive bs. Why don't you express this butthurt of yours at your fellow moslems who don't like 'their fellow' Americans and want to blow us up?

Later, ya ignorant troll, you begin to bore me a lot.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
You're very silly. You don't even know what my religion is, or even if I have one.

Funny how you keep playing the sweet misunderstood victim yet keep making bigoted would-be-smug snide remarks against Chritians and Jews and others.

Your so-called god and your child rapist prophet have left you the most backwards people on Earth, and other than a dwindling oil supply, the most economically undeveloped as well. No wonder you're so angry. The infidels live like Gods while you hump goats the desert. Kudos.

Why are you here, amongst us devils? Why don't you move to Medina amonst the moslems?
1 up
and live amongst* the moslems
reply
1 up, 1 reply
"I knew the putrid stench of that blood sucking cult 1400 years ago. My people were the first victims of your so-called peaceful religion in which a mere 40,000 primitive arabs invaded a Nation that had an army of 1,000,000 in the midst of civil turmoil and proceeded to convert everyone by the sword as commanded by the child rapist, mohamMad."

THAT'S what it tells me about your innocent religion of peace. You did it then, you're Trojan horsing us now.

Don't like us? Good. GO HOME.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
You really have a hard time reading, don'tcha?

And your pass/aggrev ad hominems are not only lame, but speak of your islamic mindset. One sec mr sympathy, the next, stabbing in the back, all while crying misunderstood victim.

Read REEEEEEEEEEEAL SLLLLLLLLLLLOWLY what I said about both my father then my mother's mixed backgrounds.

Gosh, you must be an embarrasment to your family, the shame you bring them.

However, you did get one thing right, this is America, a blend.

And your swipe on that was confessional:
A. You weren't born here.
B. You have no intention of being one of us.
C. You are, and always will be, as everyone here (except for your alt. Nice try with that) has stated, an anti-American moslem.

And please, if my widdle wordz doth offendeth yer delicate nature, don't go jidi on some innocent old lady or kid. Save it for me.

Later, toots.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
kristen?
Jewish occupation? Of what? They were occupied by Sumerians, Achaemenids, Greeks, then Romans who then scattered them after the rebellion in 70AD . History, ever read it?

ALL those lands were Christian, Zoroastrian, Bhuddist,,,

mohammad and the moslems 1400 yrs ago mean anything to you?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
i.imgflip.com/1i6ccq.jpg (click to show)

For those extra salty goat piss tears,,,
reply
1 up, 1 reply
You're not American.

And since me mum's ancestors have been here 35,000 years or so mixed with blood going back 500 years to Cristobal Colon colonization , Google Calculate?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Kristen Stewart?

Yahweh had many sons. Nephilim - look it up.

My documented history goes back to the 2nd oldest country on Earth.
My God spawned the Hebrew God that spawned the Christian God from which your false god was formed in the shadow of.

I knew the putrid stench of that blood sucking cult 1400 years ago. My people were the first victims of your so-called peaceful religion in which a mere 40,000 primitive arabs invaded a Nation that had an army of 1,000,000 in the midst of civil turmoil and proceeded to convert everyone by the sword as commanded by the child rapist, mohamMad.

You should look up your history instead of blatantly lying about in order to mask the terrorismyou visit upon those you are jealous of because they live in a rich modern civilized world while your fake god has gifted you empty sand and goats to **pe.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
Tell me, why a White mass murderer is labeled mentally ill, while a Muslim mass murderer is labeled a terrorist? They committed the same crime didn't they?
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
No, that is a myth, just because a few people got off claiming insanity (and those people were probably tested or had a history of mental illness) doesn't mean that all people do. And it's not just a white thing there have been many other races trying to do the same thing.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Just like police brutality and global warming are myths... open your eyes, the world you live in is more twisted than you think. Statistics speak louder than your self-instated probabilities: Muslim criminal = terrorist, White criminal = something was not right in his upbringing. I can guarantee that blueprint for any major crime news coverage.
4 ups
No, I believe in global warming, you assume I am ignorant which is a fallacy it is an ad-hominem. And where are the statistics that show white people getting excused of crimes because of mental illness? And yeah I use statistics too, back at it again with those ad-hominems. And yeah I know that the world is f**ked up, but of course, as soon as I insult your beliefs, you have to insult me personally and call me stupid.
Again Muslim is not a race, but a belief system (this is proved also by the fact that Muslim beliefs can be spread by word or text) (you can't do that with race), I can criticize Islam all I want, it's not hateful because it's not biased or hateful because Islam is not a race.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Tell me, why a White mass murderer is labeled mentally ill, while a Muslim mass murderer is labeled a martyr and hero to be celebrated by other moslems who attempt to deflect and excuse rather than express distate and condemnation for the horrific killing of innocents? They committed the same crime didn't they?

(PS: Most moslems are white.)
1 up
You really don't know? REALLY?
Not sure if the ignorance you have been spouting is real or feigned.
1 up
Of course I hate you moslems. You hate us for no reason, I hate you for murdering innocent people.
Does that prick you? Good, mission accomplished.
reply
1 up, 3 replies
ISIS doesn't follow an interpretation of the Qu'ran, if they did they wouldn't be burning people alive and killing innocent women and children. I would go as far as saying ISIS is a western-paid organization who's only motive is to de-face Islam. This is not a de-association tactic... this is simply the truth: Islam is a religion of peace. Take from it what you want. Until you find me someone who actually follows the teachings of the prophet AND promotes violence/hatred, I will continue to speak proudly about my religion.
reply
6 ups, 3 replies
1 - QUOTE - Isis doesn't follow an interpretation of the Qu'ran?

RESPONSE
*cough Allahu Akbar *cough

QUOTE
I would go as far as saying ISIS is a western-paid organization who's only motive is to deface Islam.

RESPONSE
Why where is the motive? You even contradict yourself in providing a western journalistic organization as a source (nevermind the fact that CNN is biased), so is the west trying to deface Islam or protect it?

3 - There is evidence to the contrary that Islam is not a religion of peace - ISIS + this quote: “Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out from where they drove you out. Persecution is worse than slaughter.” 2:191

4 - Your prophet consummated with a 9-year old, I hope for your sake and for the sake of western society that you don't follow the teachings of your prophet.

5 - I know many Muslims in my school, I don't hate them, I hate what they stand for which is completely valid.
reply
1 up, 3 replies
With regards to your "9 year old" theory:
"Moreover, the facts that Western age of consent was as low as 10, just 150 years ago" read this article if you actually want to learn something other than hateful rhetoric.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-Muslims-feel-about-their-Prophet-Mohammad-having-married-Aisha-as-a-seemingly-underage-girl
4 ups
Yeah it was a typing accident - Islamic beliefs are social constructs, that you can adopt, race is biological there are some differences and you don't choose the race you are born into. That's why it is hateful for me to racially discriminate, but not hateful to criticize a religion.
4 ups
Oh and someone using Allahu Akbar is only exclusive to Islam, "Jesus Christ!!" can be used to express fear, that is what is called an expression. And "how can I help?" is used in every business. But I haven't seen a Jewish person say, Allahu Akbar, I haven't seen a Christian use it either. I know that it means God is great, but the original arabic phrase is only used in Islam.
3 ups
Fallacy (Appeal to Tradition) - Just because it was normal for people back then to do it, doesn't mean that it was ok for your prophet to have sex with a nine-year-old.

Fallacy (Ad-hominem) - Assuming I have a hateful rhetoric when you don't know me personally, I am judging an idea which is Islam, criticizing ideas is completely ok.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
this is getting out of hand, neither of us agree with each other's perspective. so let's just agree to disagree and get some rest. good night random internet bro
5 ups
We'll I won't let you get of that easily. Give me your most peaceful Quran verse and I'll show you the most evil.
4 ups
Agreed! Good night.
5 ups
I know what it means my point is that ONLY in Islam you will see those words. So if they use ISLAMIC TERMS (the meaning is irrelevant) I'm just using the term to illustrate that they are Islamic because they use an Islamic phrase.

(I know I skipped the 2 it was a typing accident, but I don't hate you, so why do you insult me)

P.S A Muslim is a social construct not a race, there can be Black, Hispanic, White, or Asian.
1 up
Hatred is natural and quite justified when attacked for no reason by foreigners who were welcome in as guests.

Hatred is NOT natural and NOT justified by foreigners against their hosts who welcomed them in as guests.
1 up
A Muslim is not a social construct, but someone who follows the religion of Islam. On the other hand, race is absolutely a social construct and actually has very little biological representation (this is something I studied not too long ago). Sorry if you felt insulted by my reply. You can probably understand, that I sometimes feel like the world is against me.

My point here is, even if someone says Allahu Akbar - they may not necessarily be Muslim. Just like saying Jesus Christ doesn't make you a Christian, or saying "how can I help you?" doesn't make you a McDonald's worker. Even if they use Islamic terms, they've been proven time after time to be more politically motivated than by religion.
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
If Islam is a religion of peace, why did it largely spread by the sword? Why does it set people into different classes? You know, Muslims at the top, Jews and Christians the next rung down (pay your jizya or else), and everyone else is a complete infidel. According to Sharia Law, the punishment for apostasy is death. ISIS is merely saying that all other Muslims do not follow the correct path, therefore they are infidels and deserve to die. The Atlantic has a great article explaining how ISIS is a legitimate branch of Islam based on previous caliphates and how they also ran. You simply want to find excuses to make yourself feel better, but the fact is, YOU are not the "real" follower of Islam, you are a reformer who wishes to ignore aspects of the Qu'ran you don't find fit modern day life. Now consider that the Qu'ran is the unalterable word of God and tell me if you are really leaving it unaltered. Islam is a religion of SUBMISSION. The relationship between God and Man is Master and Slave. It's no wonder Muslim societies have developed the way they have. P.S. I hate that "mentally ill" argument, but sorry, the reason Muslims are labelled terrorists is because they have associations with terrorist organizations!
reply
5 ups
"If Islam is a religion of peace, why did it largely spread by the sword?"

Why did Christianity do the same? Christians in centuries past often spread their religion by force and violence. And yet Christianity is said to be a peaceful religion.

"Why does it set people into different classes? You know, Muslims at the top, Jews and Christians the next rung down (pay your jizya or else), and everyone else is a complete infidel."

Other religions do the exact same thing (with the exception of the jizya). In the Bible, non-Jews are compared to dogs, and non-Christians are called infidels as well.

"According to Sharia Law, the punishment for apostasy is death."

Same as in the Bible (Deut. chp 13)

"...you are a reformer who wishes to ignore aspects of the Qu'ran you don't find fit modern day life."

Same with modern Christians and Jews who ignore the parts of the Bible which aren't socially acceptable anymore, like slavery, and killing witches and disobedient children.

"Islam is a religion of SUBMISSION. The relationship between God and Man is Master and Slave."

The New Testament says that Christians are servants, or slaves, of Jesus (1 Corinthians, Ephesians chapter 5)
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Tell you something how many times and NOW it's finally beginning to sink in that backwards noodle of yours?
1 up
Oow wee, ping pong!!!
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
There is a fine difference between "to be" and "to represent"!
reply
3 ups
No, they intersect, I must be what I also claim to represent if I claim to be truthful and I act like a lying sack of shit, then I can't be truthful or represent the truth.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I am in high school.
0 ups
Shit, I forgot this is an all ages site.
I shall now have to delete my last comment and who knows what else. Damn.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
It's so simple: there are a few people who really struggle to elucidate the thread of cause and effect so as to see where the bug is, and there is a majority of people crying "burn the witch (or devil)" - because you don't have to bother your brain for that (it might hurt). And there are some who try do do the former, but don't use enough brain to do it (because it hurts).
reply
1 up
reply
[deleted]
11 ups, 1 reply
reply
5 ups
reply
4 ups
reply
11 ups, 1 reply
reply
7 ups
Lmao, ozman! :-D
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
So apparently legitimate inquiries and investigative journalism is slowly becoming illegal now.
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
reply
3 ups
Just wait until the M-103 committee makes its recommendations this fall.
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 1 reply
The next day on that same bench in the park…
https://i.imgflip.com/1t9idy.jpg via https://imgflip.com/i/1t9idy
reply
4 ups
reply
[deleted]
4 ups
https://i.imgflip.com/1tbc24.jpg via https://imgflip.com/i/1tbc24
reply
4 ups
Wow, I'm so indignant. How much time are you gonna get, five minutes?
reply
3 ups
reply
4 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Publicly and blatantly
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
[img]i.imgflip.com/1s8078.jpg (click to show)[/img]
reply
2 ups
Total cuck
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Its a bit more complicated, I also think fat pig alex jones should be locked up too for the Pizza incident..
reply
7 ups
Actually, it's quite simple. He said some things certain people didn't like. They reported him to the police. The police needed the approval of the Attorney General to lay charges under the Criminal Code. The AG just happened to be Muslim. Approval granted. Charges laid.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/kevin-johnston-hate-crime-1.4219185
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
The last place I would go for news is the propaganda arm of the Liberal Party of Canada.

http://nationalpost.com/news/christie-blatchford-the-danger-to-individual-canadians-in-not-towing-the-party-line/wcm/269a76fa-d6fb-4ce7-b08f-84b0c4eae04f
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
Ha ha ha ha... Right wing? The National Post? I guess anything that isn't full-blown leftard is considered right wing conservative in Canada these days.
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
But at the same time, you aren't really going to get flak for criticizing Islam, everyone does it nowadays, all of a sudden people seem to care about a book that has been preaching the same shit for thousands of years. Try criticizing any religion before it was a meme, funny, popular, etc. I remember I criticized not only Islam but Christianity years before this popular trend occurred and I got a lot of shit for it.
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
Yeah, but even in those days, it was unlikely a Christian or group of Christians was going to come after you and murder you for what you did, unlike what happened with the Danish cartoonists, Charlie Hebdo, etc.. I mean, Comedy Central won't even air the Muhammad episodes of South Park, even though they aren't offensive at ALL (that's part of the irony), yet Jesus is shown in a blasphemous role continuously and that's fine.
reply
9 ups
In addition, governments didn't pass laws to stop people from criticizing Christian churches. In fact, government joined in, and banned everything from The Lord's Prayer to saying the word "Christmas". But now they've jumped into bed with Islam for who knows what the f**k reason, and seem determined to ram it down everyone's throats.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
Oh yeah, I'm not arguing against that, I'm just being passive aggressive in the fact that when I was being shunned in my community for criticizing religion, (which was a normal thing to do to people who blaspheme.) Where were all these skeptics who were willing to assist me or stand by me? Now I go around town, school, etc and it seems that everybody is criticizing one belief system or another.
reply
8 ups
That would at least explain why so few would back you up on your criticism of Islam back in the day...
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
What do you think the inquisition was about? And the Crusades. They were pushbacks against a murderous Islamic regeme.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
The Inquisition was about rooting out and going after heretics, not because of advancing Muslims.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
That's what they say....
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
If it was about Muslims, why did the Inquisition go after fellow Christians? :3
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
Actually, I'm talking about the Crusades. Sorry, I got them twisted.
reply
3 ups
Ahh I see :)
reply
2 ups
And still, the Crusaders attacked Constantinople, a Christian city.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
No, I would argue those were more of a power grab than fighting an oppressive Islamic power structure, maybe if the Crusaders really cared about how barbaric the Islamic people were at the time, then maybe they wouldn't be as equally barbaric.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
It's history. You can't change history. That's what the Crusades were about, but not going to argue about it.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I'm not trying to change history, look it up, or even watch an episode of Crash Course, the Crusaders completely forgot about the "Holy Land" and started raping and pillaging and killing, even Christian cities, so there was nothing ideologically righteous or Christian to the Crusaders, it was a power grab.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Yes, they did bad things to some innocent people. Basically, they went too far in some instances. However, what started it was due to the horrid atrocities committed by Islam.
reply
1 up
It started because the Pope wanted to unite the Catholics and the Orthodox against a common enemy, a power grab.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
People have been criticizing Christianity since its creation. It's not a "popular trend" that just started recently.
reply
2 ups
Yes, but not to the degree that people are doing it now if you take one philosopher from Ancient Greece and maybe perhaps a few philosophers from later centuries that were secular. But this was nothing compared to the supposed prophets and pastors that were showing up at the time with thousands of followers, back then we were severely outnumbered, and now there are dedicated communities on the internet just to shit on the idea of God. (Which I would find really boring, yeah I hate most religious institutions but I don't let it define me.)
To say that secular ideas were just as big now as back then is kinda pushing it.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion/
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I am an American. To make a law banning criticism of ANY religion, be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc, would be against the first amendment to the constitution of the United States.
reply
0 ups
In Canada, the political class do not believe in freedom of speech. In fact they sneer at it as "an American idea".
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 2 replies
https://i.imgflip.com/1td0tv.jpg
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
If everyone went to prison for offending God, everyone would be in prison.
reply
0 ups
I think all the theology in O Brother Where are Thou makes more sense than whatever that just was. Sorry!
reply
3 ups
(trollface intensifies)
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
i.imgflip.com/1td0tv.jpg (click to show)
reply
2 ups
i.imgflip.com/vk8n9.jpg (click to show)
reply
0 ups
See, they're no different.
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
criticizing any religion (making fun of any religion or disrespecting religion) should be illegal
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Uh no, everything should be allowed to be scrutinized. Think about what you are proposing.
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
now day people think hate speech and critism is the same thing so they hate speech other religion thats why i said that (excuse my english)
reply
5 ups
Conversely, people use hate-speech laws to silence legitimate criticism.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Actually, you criticize something that you don't like. If you "don't like" something, you technically hate it, which is why you criticize it by opening your mouth and speaking (or writing the thought down). TPTB that want us all fighting coined the phrase "hate speech" to replace the word "criticism" so that any legitimate discussion is shut down, hence jeopardizing freedom of speech. You then cannot criticize something without someone who is offended by the criticism calling it "hate speech", and having you tossed in jail for opening your mouth. Criticism of something evil alerts others to the evil so it can be stopped. Not being allowed to criticize because it is "hate speech" endangers society by allowing the evil to continue unabated.
BTW, referring to criticism as hate speech is an example of neurolinguistic programming (NLP), which is designed to confuse your thinking.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
saying i dont like is different from hate disliking is less mean than hate (source google)
reply
4 ups
Pretty skillful how you didn't even address the point. Google is not the best source BTW, never trust Google. You'd be better off with an old dictionary in your hands, made out of paper.
"disliking is less mean than hate" *eye roll* Oh yes, under no circumstances say how you really feel about something because it's "mean". I think saying "I don't like..." rather than "I hate..." is being a pussy, especially if you are trying to express just how vile you find something. Wouldn't it be wimpy of me to say "I don't like Satan" instead of "I hate Satan"? Like I want to spare Satan's feelings? GTFOH!
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
Why? Why should any idea or ideology (religious or political) not be open to scrutiny and criticism?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
the way criticism is wrong they make fun of religion that is what called criticsm now a day on the other hand if critism was done 200 years ago i would be on board with that
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Your train of thought is what gave Canada M-103, and the legislation that will follow in its wake. Legislation to ban certain ways of thinking. Orwell much?

In a free society, anyone and everyone, anything and everything is open to criticism and being mocked or made fun of. Why? Because when I am allowed to say you can't, then others are allowed to say I can't. Think about that.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
making fun of a religion is called abuse of freedom of speech its ok to critise religion as long as it doesnt involve any hate speech
reply
7 ups, 2 replies
OMG, "hate speech"...that stupid phrase makes me physically ill, like "global warming", "climate change", "Hillary Clinton"...I gotta stop or I'll throw up in my mouth.
Tell me how someone criticizes something without it becoming "hate speech" in the eyes of an SJW snowflake? I HATE the phrase "hate speech" so much I want to punch the a-hole that coined it. Uh oh, I committed a "thought crime"! Better get the Pre-Crime Unit on my ass to stop me from committing another one or some delicate little snowflake will start screeching incomprehensibly!
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
If the phrase "global warming" or "climate change" makes you physically ill, it sounds like you're the delicate little snowflake.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
What do you care how those phrases affect me? You're triggered just because I used those terms in a negative light. Those concepts are not proven and are really nothing more than stupid marketing terms to sell us more BS.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I'm not triggered. I was simply commenting on what you said. If I was triggered I would have been all upset and yelling. Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they're triggered.

Climate change isn't proven? So you think the global climate constantly stays the same? Lol :)
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
"Climate change isn't proven? So you think the global climate constantly stays the same? Lol :)"
Very trollish to say a blanket statement like that. The climate changes day to day, season to season, year to year, but you're smart enough to know that, aren't you? It's a dynamic system. In my area, every 7-10 years we get a mild, rainy summer. At about the same frequency, we'll get a harsher winter. The norm here is hot, humid summers and mild winters. I'm old enough to recognize the cycles and I also recognize that weathermen on TV try to influence your thinking regarding the climate by referring to imaginary things like "heat index" (where they tell you how hot it FEELS, not the actual air temperature) and "wind chill factor" (where they tell you how cold it FEELS, not the actual air temperature). They'll quickly gloss over the actual air temperature and focus on what it FEELS like. That is subjective info, not objective, and it's meant to convince you that man-made climate change is real. I don't trust these f*cks as far as I can throw them. "Climate change" is nothing but a money-motivated scam to tax the sh*t out of the public and make humans feel like a waste of space, useless eaters, a virus on the earth, etc.
4 ups
Wind chill and heat index use the actual air temperature and factors like wind speed or humidity to give an idea of what the actual conditions are. It's not subjective. If the temperature is 20°F and wind speed is, say, 20MPH, the wind chill will be X. It's a mathematical formula, not subjective interpretation. X (in this case the wind chill) is not subjective. It's what the air feels like on exposed skin at that given temperature with that given wind speed.

I believe that some people are using climate change to influence regulations and things like that, but that doesn't disprove that it's real. Take anything, whether it's climate change, terrorism, disease, etc. Just because people will exploit these things for financial gain or political power, that doesn't mean they aren't real.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
i not going to argue with a person who doesnt believe in global warming
reply
4 ups
That's good, focus on the trigger words instead of the whole point of my post.
reply
2 ups
No, it shouldn't
Flip Settings
Finding Neverland memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
HOW LONG WILL YOU BE IN PRISON, DADDY? A LONG TIME, SON. UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, I HAVE COMMITTED THE WORST CRIME OF ALL. I CRITICIZED ISLAM
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback