-----faith-related subjects inbound, you've been warned-----

I was reading about Islaam and Christianity, and I was disgusted by loads of things, in the Book and the Reading and the Hadeeth, but a few things stood out, especially about the faiths' governments.

In Sunni Islaam, it's taboo to extents to draw any living being that has a soul, most weightily, to not draw God, nor Mohamet, nor humans, nor any other beasts. However, even from the beginning, this rule was lax and often ignored, and this is the grounds why Islamic art was generally abstrat and not-representative, like Iranian rugs or typic geometric designs inside typic mosks, and this was ignored especially in Shia, where it's not unoften to see bilds of Mohamet and Ali; Iran is actually the only Islaam-majority country to have governmentally funded public drawings of Mohamet. Photography and videi were crafted, and most Muslims agree that it's nothing wrong, and no Muslim government has fully banned photography or videi of living folk, though it's iffy. Sunni aren't allowed to put photographes of the dead on tombs, while Shia are, leading to the grossly exaggerated Sunni-spread rumours that Shia worship graves.

Anyhow, so background to that. The Arabian government has banned making snowmen (and yes, it does snow sometimes in Arabia; Medeena got snow this year), on grounds to stop any idolatry. Ok, yeah, that's not even shocking, just your regular nuttership from the Arabians. But I used to think of the Arabian government as just a bunch of nutters, but they're not nutters, actually. They're just really oppressive hypocrites. The Arabian Riyal, you know who's on it? In 5/6 the banknotes, it's king Abdulla (the one that died in 2015), and on the other, Ibn Saud (the one who founded the Saudi Kingdom in 1932). I'd say they're in much much higher risk of getting falsely idolised than some snowmen, for three main grounds:
*Banknotes is where governments put the most respected and weighty folk to the country, if any (the Belarusian Rooble doesn't and hasn't put any politicians on it, although until 2001, they put some common beasts of Belarus on the banknotes - I think the best drawn currency, even today. Look it up. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_ruble#First_ruble).
*Arabia doesn't really allow for criticism of the government...(https://rsf.org/en/saudi-arabia). Insulting the king is a grave crime, and the last bloke who really publically spoke out against him was sentenced to 10k flogs from a whip (not kidding at all).
*Ibn Saud faffing built today's government!

In a country where you can get killed for apostatising from Islaam, or for being gay (forbidden in Islaam), and a country where churches and synagogs and other temples are banned, along with any public show of faith other than Islaam, that's awfully hypocrtic, but it doesn't end there. For such a big fan of Islaam, they'd be fans of early Islaamic past, right? Welp, nope. This article basically covers it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_early_Islamic_heritage_sites_in_Saudi_Arabia), but the government even bulldozed the house where Mohamet is believed to have been born in 570. Just great.

I realise now that the Arabian government aren't just faithful nuts - at best, they're oppressive hypocrites.

And in Christianity, you've the same thing. Abortion is nowhere protested or forbidden in the book, however, it is fully allowed if a wife has sex with another man, or as punishment to the mother, or as punishment to the father, and the eye-for-eye life-for-life rule is specifically said not to apply to unborn babies. Yet churches still keep saying that abortion is against Christianity, so that it fits in with their own outlooks. Another example of this ignoring of the Book is pretty much any serious drawing of Jesus in a Christian country. In most everywhere except Ethiopia, he's drawn like a whiteskin European-looking man, even though this bloke comes from the same land as oliveskin Arabs. He's also generally drawn as very pretty, but really, it says in the Book that he was a pretty ugly bloke, actually. More ignoring or unknowledge paving the way for what fits in someone's mind, I hate it.

On a last note, there's apparently a "draw Mohamet day" on May 20. Why isn't this more popular? When folk get shot up for drawing Mohamet like they do in Charlie Weekly or earlier happenings like that, that's wrong. They were violently censored by Muslim extremists, and now some folk are even afraid to draw Mohamet. We can't let folk be silenced like that. At the very least, we need to give a middle finger to them, since those pigshaggers killed innocent folk - and what better way to flip a finger on them than to do the one thing they hoped to end?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d2/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day.jpg

The English Wikipedia board said, when they were asked by a big petition signed by 450k Muslims to take down all drawings of Mohamet on the website, "Wikipedia does not censor itself for the benefit of any one group.". Neither should anyone.

Edited 6/13/2016 05:23:04

Well, X summed this up pretty good.

Small addon to the rant: Islamophobia.
---

It's a big hoax. Yeah, you heard me, liberalists, it's not real, it doesn't exist, there's no hate against it. You know why? Since there's no such thing as an "Islamo" in the first stead. Also, what's a "phobia"? This is a word in Greek, and in English, it's translated to "fear", so I think what they mean is Islamofear. But I still don't get what an Islamo is, is it some kind of bird or camel? Oh wait, if you take out the "O" at the end, it spells Islam. Double the A so that you say "Islaam", not "is lamb", although that's just spelling liking for me. So "Islaamfear", that's what it should be called.

One thing that liberalists often forget is that Islaam is not some golden or tolerant faith today. You can make the same argument against Christianity, but the difference is, most Christians are more irreligous about their faith than Muslims, for a great bunch of historic grounds that are hard to evaluate and study, and that's really grouping Muslims all into one categroy, which shouldn't be done. In countries like Kazakhstan and Azerbaijnan, with an irreligous past, Muslims are much less faithful than Christians in America and Europe, with a much lower rate of the population believing in creationism as outlined in their holy book as opposed to what the scientific proof points to.

Most Muslims are not for imposing Islamic theologic law ("sharia" is a misnomer - in Arabic, it just means "law" (secular or not)) on those who are not Muslim. In truth, in a Pew poll on Muslims in loads of countries, such as Tajikistan, Bangladesh, and Russia, only Muslims polled in Afghanistan and Egypt were majority for Islamic theologic law being applied to everyone. It's a great study, everyone should read this before commenting about Islaam (http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/). The practice of Islaam is not as bad as conserves think, but not as good as liberalists think.

Now, Islamfear is still a bad word. Well, it's good, but it doesn't really describe all of what it categorises. Some folk fear that Islam will ruin Europe or some junk like that, but then some folk just hate Islam (Reading-burners) and some folk hate Muslims. So the right words need to be wielded. And Islamhater, that is something that it is totally fine to be. I am one, since I'm very much against what is practised and supported by some Muslims, like the death penalty for apostates, or application of Islamic theologic law to those who are not Muslims (both in the minority, so more specifically, against those understandings of Islaam). And to fear Islam, yeah, you can fear it, too. You can fear the folk that twist Islaam to meet their own violent ends - another example of hypocrisy from dreadknights. Islaam only allows violence in self-defence, and specifically says not to go past grounded retaliation (in other words, don't do any unneeded violence), something that I think burning an innocent man alive definitely does not agree with.

Muslimfear and Muslimhate, on the other hand, not really grounded. Muslimfear, yeah, I guess you can believe that Muslims are somehow going to wreck Europe by going and living there and making things better for everyone, but you'd have to be pretty fearmongered to believe that. Muslimhate, on the other hand, is bad to be. It means that you hate Muslims, if you didn't already know that somehow. Islaam is the second biggest faith in the world, and the great majority aren't going to kill you or rob you or your friends or anyone, nor mandate their outlooks on you, so why should you care? And recall, always try to hate the thoughts folk believe, not the folk themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_GYLxe3Vuk

Also, yes, racism against Muslims is possible, but you really shouldn't be using the word racist, since it's outdated. Just wield the word "prejudist" or "Muslimhating". I mean, what is a "race"? It's basically any group that has a cultural commonality of some kind, in this case, Islaam.

I approve this message

Race is biological. Ethnicity is cultural.

In Sunni Islaam, it's taboo to extents to draw any living being that has a soul, most weightily, to not draw God, nor Mohamet, nor humans, nor any other beasts. However, even from the beginning, this rule was lax and often ignored, and this is the grounds why Islamic art was generally abstrat and not-representative, like Iranian rugs or typic geometric designs inside typic mosks, and this was ignored especially in Shia, where it's not unoften to see bilds of Mohamet and Ali;

From what I can tell there are only a few hadiths teaching to not draw pictures of people or animals, and this isn't actually anywhere is the Quran. I'm not sure what importance muslims place on the Hadiths, but AFAIK they are considered less important than the quran, which is considered the literal word of God contrasted to the hadith which is considered the sayings of the prophet muhammad.

I realise now that the Arabian government aren't just faithful nuts - at best, they're oppressive hypocrites.

Not trying to defend the saudi state, I agree they're horrible and oppressive.

And in Christianity, you've the same thing. Abortion is nowhere protested or forbidden in the book, however, it is fully allowed if a wife has sex with another man, or as punishment to the mother, or as punishment to the father, and the eye-for-eye life-for-life rule is specifically said not to apply to unborn babies. Yet churches still keep saying that abortion is against Christianity, so that it fits in with their own outlooks.

All of these things are found in Mosaic law as far as I can tell (let me know if you actually have any Christian rather than Jewish laws "condoning abortion"), and they aren't even necessarily about abortion. "Having your baby die as a punishment to you" is a fundamentally different idea from "Having the freedom to kill a fetus (which is definitely not a baby) at any time for any reason".

In most everywhere except Ethiopia, he's drawn like a whiteskin European-looking man, even though this bloke comes from the same land as oliveskin Arabs. He's also generally drawn as very pretty, but really, it says in the Book that he was a pretty ugly bloke, actually. More ignoring or unknowledge paving the way for what fits in someone's mind, I hate it.

I mean it makes sense, most christians are either white dudes or people who were converted by white dudes. It makes sense that churches which have their roots in white dudes use a white jesus and churches which are independent of white dudes don't (and in fact, a lot of black churches here in america use a black jesus).

Edited 6/13/2016 15:20:55

TL;DR

TL;DR

No, ethnicity is cultural, and race is biological.

From what I can tell there are only a few hadiths teaching to not draw pictures of people or animals, and this isn't actually anywhere is the Quran. I'm not sure what importance muslims place on the Hadiths, but AFAIK they are considered less important than the quran, which is considered the literal word of God contrasted to the hadith which is considered the sayings of the prophet muhammad.

You've pretty much got it down, but it's still usually highly recommended to follow the hadeeth as well.

All of these things are found in Mosaic law as far as I can tell (let me know if you actually have any Christian rather than Jewish laws "condoning abortion"), and they aren't even necessarily about abortion. "Having your baby die as a punishment to you" is a fundamentally different idea from "Having the freedom to kill a fetus (which is definitely not a baby) at any time for any reason".

I'm not sure how it all works, how Christians can deny that the old testament is Christian. As far as I know, Christians just put less priority over it than the new testament, which is what Jesus('s teachings) added on. Creationism is in the old testament, not the new, but anyhow. Nowhere in the New Testament is abortion at all forbidden, so there's no conflit. Also, yeah, mandating abortions is far worse than what even the most for-choice folk want, but it's still for-abortion, and it's a clear ignoring or unacknowledgement of the babies' lives. You have to recall, this is written in a time when murder of a child didn't count until the first tooth grew.

I mean it makes sense

It makes sense, but that's not at all how it is in the Christian creed.

Race is biological.

Frankly, there's so much genetic mixing about these days, it's just pointless.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/R1a1a_distribution.png;
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29.PNG

It seems like Hindus and Moskvans are one race, or Brits and Bashkirs. If race is as you mean it, it's a pointless concept.

Religion is hope in a world torn apart by Religion. Self perspective has been manipulated.

I'm not sure how it all works, how Christians can deny that the old testament is Christian.

This was actually a really huge controversy in early christianity, due to the fact that according to mosaic law everyone has to be circumcised. It was decided that christ had fulfilled mosaic law, and therefore it was no longer necessary, and that gentiles could become christians without having part of their dick cut off.

Creationism is in the old testament, not the new, but anyhow. Nowhere in the New Testament is abortion at all forbidden, so there's no conflit

Creationism is, theologically speaking, a historical account, not a law. You can't really "fulfill" a historical account and make it untrue.

While abortion isn't specifically condemned in the New testament, this is probably because it wasn't really a very common practice 2,000 years ago. There are passages in the new testament (Luke 1:41 comes to mind) which refer to unborn children as "babes", which is an archaic term for "babys".

Also, yeah, mandating abortions is far worse than what even the most for-choice folk want, but it's still for-abortion, and it's a clear ignoring or unacknowledgement of the babies' lives. You have to recall, this is written in a time when murder of a child didn't count until the first tooth grew.

It is not the same, as most people who are pro-abortion use the logic that the child is not really a human and therefore it's not wrong to kill him. This is very different from the Mosaic approach of "You did this bad thing so your childs blood is on your hands".

Ok, so then are the 10 Commands invalid, as well?

Anyhow, at best, abortion is not talked about in the Christian creed, and to authoritatively be against abortion on faithful grounds is crap, even for faithlords like Franciscus, and the Roman stance on this changed over the times.

Christian thought was divided as to whether early abortion - the abortion of an "unformed" embryo - was in fact murder. Different sources of church teachings and laws simply did not agree on the penalties for abortion or on whether early abortion is wrong.

Most are not invalid, since a lot of them are found in the new covenant as well.

Practically all major christian denominations condemn abortion. It's interesting to note that there were some historical christian thinkers who supported it, but it's really irrelevant if today no churches follow these doctrines.

Most people aren't actually against abortion for religious reasons, but rather are against it for personal reasons and justify their opposition using religion. And there is sufficient justification in scriptures to form a theological opposition to abortion.

Oh my gosh....not religion please

Ok, well, that would be a fault to the Orthodox Jew government then.

Also, I really hate Judaism. WHO launched a big campaign trying to stop woman genital mutilation in Sudan and south Egypt. Yet they did nothing to the genetial mutilations of Jews about the world, who violently cut off parts of their dick since that's their faith. What the hell is this? I'm for freedom of faith up to the point that you're imposing something that others don't want, and furthermore, that's just messed up that you have to cut off part of your dick to join some cult.

In Europe, Jews who refused to become Christian were often burned alive - but not only that, but they took their children with them, too. First of all, if you care about your faith so much that you can't even bear to lie, yeah, you're fanatic, noone will miss you. Second, they're violently killing innocent folk who didn't want to die. And frankly, I don't think I hate Jews, but it's the Jews' blame if they're burnt. They can just convert to Christianity. All the Christians' blame is that they're mandating folk to say they convert, but it's the Jews who chose the path of death, but that's a big philosophic outlook I have, so won't deviate.

But c'mon, end this barbaric practise of cutting off part of your dick at birth, just as the barbaric practice of sewing up the slit was ended.

Kazoo

KAHzooooo mmmmm?

Not really relevant but non-Saudi Muslims as well as non-Muslims generally despise Saudi Arabia, viewing them as uncultured filthy upstart nomads who got lucky to strike oil. This has been true since the inception of Islamic expansion. Arabia - except for Yemen and Oman - has been a backwater throughout history, relying on the annual pilgrimages to bring trade and wealth.