"Muh I'm muslim and islam it's the religion of peace"

JasGews69x said:
Yeah,ik
I was talking about the babies, what did the babies and donkeys do? :forcedsmile:

Yeah, just like you
You dont even realise it :feelshah:
Click to expand...
No I gave the exact quote with context about the reward in heaven which muhammad said you will have 72 virgins JFL.

you didn't just take out of context but just lied saying Jesus told us to kill while he was giving a story of a king who killed his servant not telling us to kill
 
childishkillah said:
Muslims who say that Islam is a religion of peace are faggots with lower testosterone than the average Christian. A good Muslim crushes his enemies no matter what the cost.
Click to expand...
hmmm
 
ngannou said:
No I gave the exact quote with context about the reward in heaven which muhammad said you will have 72 virgins JFL.
Click to expand...
? I wasnt talking about that:what:

Now address the point as to what the babies done in samuels 15:3
What did the babies do to be massacred as well as the donkeys?
stop dodging it

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalm 137:9
ngannou said:
you didn't just take out of context but just lied
Click to expand...
what did i lie about? :what:
 
JasGews69x said:
? I wasnt talking about that:what:

Now address the point as to what the babies done in samuels 15:3
What did the babies do to be massacred as well as the donkeys?
stop dodging it

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalm 137:9

what did i lie about? :what:
Click to expand...
you didn't just take out of context but just lied saying Jesus told us to kill while he was giving a story of a king who killed his servant not telling us to kill
 
ngannou said:
you didn't just take out of context but just lied saying Jesus told us to kill while he was giving a story of a king who killed his servant not telling us to kill
Click to expand...
Its talking about what will happen to those who reject his authority jfl


What did the babies and donkeys do in Samuels 15:3 to be massacred? Answer please

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalm 137:9
 
JasGews69x said:
Its talking about what will happen to those who reject his authority jfl


What did the babies and donkeys do in Samuels 15:3 to be massacred? Answer please

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalm 137:9
Click to expand...
No he never commanded us to kill other in the ruthlessly in the new testament he just gave a story and never said he will kill them immediatly if they reject his authority he shows patience until the unbeliever believes

Yeah sure God was surely scary in the old testament which killing babies we
admit the fact that is also a controversial issue.

but the role of the israelites/the jews were chosen by God in the old testament to punish and stop the human sacrificing pagans

but in the new testament we are not chosen by God to punish and slaughter other unbelievers but to persuade them in peace and love

and even tell us to endure the attacks of the world

Two different roles given.
 
Last edited:
  • Ugh..
Reactions: JasGews69x
JasGews69x said:
-:feelswah:


View attachment 3508242
Cope
Click to expand...
Is that a joke?
How is using a graph without any source, and without knowing the demographic (bias) of the researchers themselves, supposed to be authoritative, let alone rigorously persuasive? The fact that 3 idiots liked your comment is testament to how far this shithole has fallen.

Across different topics on this forum, this seems to be a trend; idiots will repost a graph (effectively a baseless meme) without giving the source and as it substantiates the pre conceived perceptions of certain users, they will then upvote it.
 
Last edited:
sub6manletnozygos said:
Is that a joke? How is using a graph without any source, and without knowing the demographic (bias) of the researchers themselves, supposed to be authoritative, let alone wholly persuasive?
Click to expand...
-:feelswah:

Anyway -
Body count
Quantitative study
 
JasGews69x said:
What is a sufficient response?

I gave you it. Go research it :feelshah:
Takes 5 minutes jfl
Click to expand...
The onus is on you to provide a clear source (link) to source (journal?) material that you use to make your arguments. A person who is intellectually honest does not post a graph without a source and expect people to believe the contention made with it.
 
  • Ugh..
Reactions: JasGews69x
JasGews69x said:
Its not that deep :ROFLMAO:

Click to expand...
Thank you. It only took 3 posts for you to do this. This gives your post context.
Your original post has now become Jordanian Islamic scholar contends that Islamic civilizations killed less than non Christian civilizations while providing no method on how they calculate this or stratify deaths by religious or irreligious belief.
Your post is now less persuasive.
This is the equivalent of asking a pharmaceutical company to assess the adverse effects of their medicine (tentative at best). This is the greatest weakness of all religion.
It's interesting that you didn't contend your graph with your source initially. A coincidence, I'm sure.
 
Last edited:
sub6manletnozygos said:
Thank you. It only took 3 posts for you to do this. This gives your post context.
Your original post has now become Jordanian Islamic scholar contends that Islamic empires killed less than non Christian forces while providing no method on how they calculate this or stratify deaths by religion or nationality.
It is now less persuasive.
This is the equivalent of asking a pharmaceutical company to assess the adverse effects of their medicine (tentative at best). This is the greatest weakness of all religion.
Click to expand...
Why dont you read all of it since you were so desperate for it? :feelshah:
Sounds like cope when your biases are proven false :feelshah:
 
JasGews69x said:
Why dont you read all of it since you were so desperate for it? :feelshah:
Click to expand...
I can't be bothered diligently going through it (as not being Islamic is an expression of the nature of my ancestors). Why would I covert to a religion that occupied Southern Spain for 700 years, engaged in the Barbary slave tried and attempted to invade Europe (my ancestors) for 1000s of years, with the Ottoman's making their way as far as Vienna? You are essentially asking me to convert to the religion of the people who attempted to kill and invade my ancestors.

However, a cursory look at the study evidenced that it misses the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna_(1529) and 20k people sold into slavery, after it.

It also seems to miss the hundreds of incursions by the Ottoman empires over its 1000 year rule like the Battle of Varna and the Second Battle of Kosovo. You have countless more battles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_wars_in_Europe, which resulted 10s of thousands of deaths and slaves.

This also begs the question what proportion of slaves are counted as 'deaths', as a proportion of slaves died during the slave trade, while they were being captured, transported. Most all died during their slavery.

If so, then we would have to consider the millions of European slaves from the Barbary slave trade.
en.wikipedia.org

Barbary slave trade - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Why does your study ignore 700 years of Islamic occupation of southern Spain and associated deaths/slaves?
en.wikipedia.org

Islam in Spain - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Most amusingly enough your study seems to not calculate (out of difficulty) deaths during Islamic occupation, of infidels who refused to not pay their jizya if they were Abrahamic, or who refused to convert if they were non-Abrahamic. Ignoring this is utterly one sided. Deriving artificial peace (conversion) from threats of death is not peace and leads to dilution of religious spirit (as conversion is not genuine).

JasGews69x said:
Sounds like cope when your biases are proven false :feelshah:
Click to expand...
Europeans consisted of ~20% of the world population for much of modern history so naturally their influence leads to more death per capita. This I suspect would of happened even if they were Islamic. Europeans were the first to industrialize (due to luck and statesmanship) and from this, the natural trajectory was the first industrialization of warfare and death.

Therefore blaming deaths on Christianity is reductionist.


********************************************************************************************************************************
Now for fun, lets see what ChatGPT says

1. Early Islamic Conquests & Massacres (622–800 CE)​

  • Banu Qurayza Massacre (627 CE) → 600–900 Jewish men executed, women and children enslaved. (Missed)
  • Rashidun-Sassanid Wars (633–651 CE) → Mass killings of Zoroastrians in Persia after Islamic conquest. (Missed)
  • Battle of Nihawand (642 CE) → Systematic killings of Persian troops and civilians. (Missed)
  • Conquest of Sindh (711 CE) → Widespread massacres of Hindus and Buddhists by Muhammad bin Qasim. (Missed)
  • Massacres of Buddhists in Central Asia (8th Century CE) → Destruction of monasteries and killings in present-day Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan. (Missed)

2. Massacres During the Abbasid & Umayyad Dynasties (750–1258 CE)​

  • Zanj Rebellion Massacre (869–883 CE) → 500,000+ Black slaves killed in Iraq by Abbasid forces. (Missed)
  • Massacres of Ismaili Shia Muslims (11th Century CE) → Systematic persecution under the Seljuks. (Missed)
  • Massacre of Aleppo (1260 CE) → Mongols allied with Muslims massacred 80,000+ residents. (Missed)

3. Islamic Conquests in India (1000–1600 CE)​

  • Mahmud of Ghazni’s Hindu Massacres (1000–1030 CE) → Estimated 2–5 million Hindus killed during invasions. (Listed as war but not genocide)
  • Muhammad Ghori’s Conquests (12th Century CE) → Mass executions of Hindus after battles. (Missed)
  • Delhi Sultanate Massacres (1206–1526 CE)→ Millions killed in forced conversions, including:
    • Chittor Massacre (1303, 1535, 1568 CE) → Three separate massacres; 50,000–100,000 Hindus killed each time. (Missed)
    • Timur’s Invasion of India (1398 CE) → 100,000 captives executed in one day in Delhi. (Listed as war but not genocide)
    • Sikh & Hindu Massacres by Aurangzeb (1658–1707 CE) → Systematic executions and temple destructions. (Missed)

4. Ottoman & Safavid Massacres (1300–1800 CE)​

  • Ottoman Massacres of Shia Muslims (16th–18th Century CE) → Systematic killings in Anatolia and Iraq. (Missed)
  • Circassian Genocide (1860s CE) → Russian invasion forced Muslim Circassians into Ottoman territory, leading to 400,000–1.5 million deaths. (Missed)
  • Greek Genocide (1914–1923 CE) → 380,000+ Greeks killed by Ottoman forces. (Included but undercounted)
  • Assyrian Genocide (1914–1923 CE) → 250,000–750,000 Assyrians massacred by Ottoman and Kurdish forces. (Included but undercounted)

5. Arab & African Slave Trade (7th–19th Century)​

  • Arab Slave Trade (7th–19th Century CE) → Estimates of 10–20 million Africans killed in transport, forced castration, and massacres. (Listed with only 1.4–2 million deaths, massively understated)
  • Zanzibar Slave Revolt Suppression (1830s CE) → Massacres of African slaves by Arab traders. (Missed)

6. Colonial-Era & Modern Islamic Massacres (1800–Present)​

  • Yazidi Genocides (1500s–Present) → Multiple massacres by Ottoman, Arab, and ISIS forces. (Missed)
  • Bangladesh Hindu Genocide (1971 CE) → 1.1–3 million Hindus killed by Pakistan Army. (Included but low estimate)
  • Darfur Genocide (2003–Present) → 400,000+ non-Arab Sudanese killed by Janjaweed militia. (Included but not labeled as religious)
  • ISIS & Al-Qaeda Genocides (2000s–2010s) → Mass executions of Yazidis, Shia Muslims, and Christians in Iraq and Syria. (Missed)

It is also interesting that it combines hundreds of incursio​

​

Key Observations​

  1. Major Omissions → Several genocides, including early Islamic conquests, Hindu massacres, and African slave trade deaths, are missing.
  2. Understated Death Tolls → The study drastically underestimates deaths in the Arab slave trade, Hindu genocides, and Bengali genocide.
  3. Mislabeling as "War" Instead of Genocide → Many Islamic-led mass killings (Timur’s invasions, Ottoman purges, etc.) are listed as war rather than genocide—a distinction not applied to Christian-led events.

Does This Mean Islam Is More Violent Than Christianity?​

Not necessarily. Here’s why:

  1. The Study is Biased Toward Framing Christianity as the Most Violent
    • Christian-led colonial massacres (e.g., Native American extermination) are classified as genocide.
    • Islamic conquests (e.g., Hindu Kush massacres) are classified as "war."
    • This double standard inflates Christian death tolls while reducing Islamic ones.
  2. Christianity Had a Larger Global Population
    • A higher death toll in Christian history doesn’t prove Christianity is more violent; it simply had more people involved in global conflicts.
    • If Islam had been the dominant faith in colonial Europe, its death toll would likely be higher.
  3. All Civilizations Commit Violence
    • Both Islam and Christianity have histories of war, conquest, and forced conversions.
    • The study fails to acknowledge secular political factors—most conflicts were not purely religious.
 
Last edited:
ngannou said:
Cope I ain't looksmaxxer nor sex seeker


Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir of Surah Al-Rahman (55), verse 72, quotes “the Prophet Muhammad saying: 'The smallest reward for the people of Paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby.”

Official canon book from islam
Click to expand...
That Verse Never Says "72" Wives tho.
 
Htnn said:
That Verse Never Says "72" Wives tho.
Click to expand...
When the Prophet was asked, “Can I have sex in Paradise?” he said, “I swear in the name of Him who holds my soul.” And when the deed is done, she will return to being a pure virgin” (Ibn-Kathir, in a footnote on Quran 56:35-37
When the Holy Prophet (Mohammad) said that believers would be granted tremendous virility to enjoy sexual intercourse in Paradise, someone asked, “O Prophet of Allah, will it be possible for him to do so?” When asked, Muhammad replied, “I will be granted the strength of a hundred people.” (Mishkat al-Masabih, English-Arabic translation, Book 4, Chapter 42, Paradise and Hell, Hadith No. 24)

So basically there will be group sex party with bunch of womens that become virgin again and again
 
  • Woah
Reactions: 666PSL
childishkillah said:
No. My religion book its the Quran. Hadiths were written by Muslim scholars to clarify the faith and some of them were biased by their political positions within the caliphate. Sahih hadiths are subject to doubt, those that are not even reliable are not taken into account.
Click to expand...
JasGews69x said:
Its talking about what will happen to those who reject his authority jfl


What did the babies and donkeys do in Samuels 15:3 to be massacred? Answer please

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalm 137:9
Click to expand...
Ngannou is a gook btw so idek why hes Christian
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: JasGews69x and childishkillah
Htnn said:
That Verse Never Says "72" Wives tho.
Click to expand...
See what Jesus tells about God’s Kingdom

Jesus said, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30).

We don’t have no marriage which means no sex but we become transcendental beings like angel that break away from all physical desires
 
JeanneDArcAlter said:
Ngannou is a gook btw so idek why hes Christian
Click to expand...
Why is it weird for a ricecell to believe in Christ because Christ clearly says the Gospel will be spread through the world?
 
ngannou said:
Why is it weird for a ricecell to believe in Christ because Christ clearly says the Gospel will be spread through the world?
Click to expand...
Gooks are usually Buddhist
 
ngannou said:
"So, when you meet (in fight with) those who disbelieve, strike at their necks till you have killed" it literally says to kill non-believers

islam ain't peace.

Jesus says forgive your enemies don't retaliate
Click to expand...
Bro that verse is in context of war. Okay let’s take your so called “forgive ur enemies” statement. If I kill your family that will make me your enemy, therefore you wouldn’t retaliate right?
 
ngannou said:
When the Prophet was asked, “Can I have sex in Paradise?” he said, “I swear in the name of Him who holds my soul.” And when the deed is done, she will return to being a pure virgin” (Ibn-Kathir, in a footnote on Quran 56:35-37
When the Holy Prophet (Mohammad) said that believers would be granted tremendous virility to enjoy sexual intercourse in Paradise, someone asked, “O Prophet of Allah, will it be possible for him to do so?” When asked, Muhammad replied, “I will be granted the strength of a hundred people.” (Mishkat al-Masabih, English-Arabic translation, Book 4, Chapter 42, Paradise and Hell, Hadith No. 24)

So basically there will be group sex party with bunch of womens that become virgin again and again
Click to expand...
İn The First Verse, There is a Translation Mistake That Leads To Misunderstanding. The Verse Saying 'You", Doesn't Point out To a One Person. İn My Language, İt Never Says Like That. I Didn't Get You At First due to this. By Saying "You", İt points out to Multiple People. Like Saying Most Of You e.g. İt Says There Are Wives For You. Means Wives For "People", Not For A Single Person. İf Someone Dies Single and Goes to Heaven, There Will Be A One Wife For Him to live together for forever. And The Verse, İt Never Mentions Any Number Like 72


Also, Hadiths Are Not A Valid Source Since They're Mostly Fake and Made Up 200 Years Later After The Muhammad's Death
 
Htnn said:
İn The First Verse, There is a Translation Mistake That Leads To Misunderstanding. The Verse Saying 'You", Doesn't Point out To a One Person. İn My Language, İt Never Says Like That. I Didn't Get You At First due to this. By Saying "You", İt points out to Multiple People. Like Saying Most Of You e.g. İt Says There Are Wives For You. Means Wives For "People", Not For A Single Person. İf Someone Dies Single and Goes to Heaven, There Will Be A One Wife For Him to live together for forever. And The Verse, İt Never Mentions Any Number Like 72


Also, Hadiths Are Not A Valid Source Since They're Mostly Fake and Made Up 200 Years Later After The Muhammad's Death
Click to expand...
They are considered canon in islam
 
JeanneDArcAlter said:
Mainly buddhist tho
Click to expand...
According to a 2024 Korea Research's regular survey 'Public Opinion in Public Opinion', 51% identify with no religion, 31% with Christianity (Protestantism with 20% and Catholicism with 11%) and 17% with Buddhism and other religions 2%.
 
ngannou said:
According to a 2024 Korea Research's regular survey 'Public Opinion in Public Opinion', 51% identify with no religion, 31% with Christianity (Protestantism with 20% and Catholicism with 11%) and 17% with Buddhism and other religions 2%.
Click to expand...
Zen?
 
It is considered valid officially though
 
Muslims, at the end are just coping shizo-cucks who want to destroy all the beautiful things in this world.
 
JeanneDArcAlter said:
Did not know that
Click to expand...
Even the social studies they consider why are there so many churches in Korea. Korea has the highest rate of Christian in the whole asia except Philippine
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: JeanneDArcAlter
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Discussion Muslims get your shit together
2
Replies
71
Views
848
IOS
IOS
20/04/2008
Rage Debunking Christianity
2
Replies
55
Views
655
yex
yex
puniteking
JFL My crush turned out to be a blackpiller incel
Replies
15
Views
448
Gamerspyy786
Gamerspyy786
E
My crush turned out to be a blackpiller incel
Replies
8
Views
197
ingram33
ingram33
NorwoodAscender
JFL My crush turned out to be a blackpiller incel
Replies
10
Views
398
MoggerGaston
MoggerGaston

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (Looksmaxers: 0, Bluepillers: 3)
Back
Top