IslamQA.info - Batshit insane Islamic rulings

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
IslamQA. A den of lolcows if ever there was one. I particularly like how they reckon you should seek refuge with God from the devils of the toilet.

https://islamqa.info/en/26816

The devils of the toilet? Isn't that a Magic the Gathering card?

122.png


Also, old enough to bleed, old enough to breed:

https://islamqa.info/en/1493

Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid said:
In summary, then, it is permitted to contract marriage with a young girl and to hand her over to her husband to stay with him before she reaches adolescence. As for consummating the marriage, this does not happen until she is physically able for it. Thus the matter becomes quite clear. Do you see anything wrong with a man living with his young wife in one house, bringing her up and teaching her, but delaying consummation until she is ready for it? We ask Allaah to show us truth and falsehood and to make each clear. And Allaah knows best.
Click to expand...

:cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood::cryblood:
 
Is it allowed to use Jinn to fly? Also yes, it is possible to fly with the help of this dude
genie.gif

https://islamqa.info/en/197463

Noises in an old house is from the Jinn
https://islamqa.info/en/42073

Ginger Piglet said:
IslamQA. A den of lolcows if ever there was one. I particularly like how they reckon you should seek refuge with God from the devils of the toilet.

https://islamqa.info/en/26816

The devils of the toilet? Isn't that a Magic the Gathering card?

122.png
Click to expand...

They will kill you when you are peeing.
https://islamqa.info/en/7871

Is it allowed to show little kids your penis?
https://islamqa.info/en/102187

If a child has not reached the age of discernment, there is nothing wrong with not covering before him. Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni (7/76): As for the boy, if he is still a small child and has not reached the age of discernment, it is not obligatory to cover before him. End quote.

The great scholar Zakariya al-Ansaari said in Sharh al-Bahjah (4/98): It is permissible to uncover the ‘awrah before a small child who cannot tell others of what he has seen.
Click to expand...

This is a good guideline. It is permissible to uncover the ‘awrah before a small child who cannot tell others of what he has seen, such as a child who is one or one and a half years old. But it is not permissible to uncover it in front of a child who can tell others of what he has seen, such as a child who is three years old. But it should be noted that this may vary from one child to another.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ICametoLurk said:
The guys who own this also own this
https://callingchristians.com

It's a site where they try to say that Christianity is worse than Islam (which is a standard tatic with these people, like with the Zealot book that was written that took everything Jesus said out of context with the most insane mental gymnastics to say that he was a murderer who wanted to overthrow the Roman rule and create an ethno-nationalist kingdom that killed anyone who wasn't Jewish and that it him being crucified was too good for him as he deserved worse)
Click to expand...

Yeah, Salafis have a huge hate boner for Christians and Jews (even though the Quran itself says that Christians and Jews, as "People of the Book," should be awarded a degree of respect). I found a long article that encapsulates most of the Salafi views on Christians and Christianity.

https://islamqa.info/en/126168

Warning: I spent like two fucking hours writing a response to this and I'm not sure why. I spoilered it so I could protect you from my autism.

We are not here to compare Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them both), because in our religion we are forbidden to compare Prophets in order to see who is superior, especially that type of comparison that involves undermining the status of the other, which is what you have done. You could not prove the superiority of Jesus (peace be upon him) over God’s creation except by impugning our Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). This is not acceptable in our religion, even if the other party is of a lower standing. As for impugning any of the Prophets, any Muslim who does that commits an act of disbelief that puts him beyond the pale of Islam. Our religion preserves the dignity of the Prophets and Messengers, holds them in high esteem and makes believing in all of them one of the pillars of faith; the one who does not believe even in one of the Prophets is not a Muslim. Our religion only speaks well of the Prophets and Messengers. In His holy Book, the Qur’an, Allah, may He be exalted, mentions their worship and praises it, and He mentions their supplication, their fear of Him, their calling their people to faith, enjoining upon them what is right and forbidding to them what is wrong. There is nothing in the Book of Allah, may He be exalted, or in the Sunnah of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) that speaks ill of any of them; rather, according to both sources, it is obligatory to venerate them and hold them in high esteem.
Click to expand...

But then

This was when our Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) led all the Prophets in prayer. That happened during his journey that is called al-Isra’ wa’l-Mi‘raaj (the Night Journey [from Makkah to Jerusalem] and Ascent into the heavens)]. He led all of them in prayer in Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem).

If this is not indicative of his virtue and superiority, then we do not know of anything else that could point to that.
Click to expand...

This is the saheeh (sound) report that was narrated from him, in which he spoke of what will happen on the Day of Resurrection when all the Prophets (blessings and peace of Allah be upon them) will refuse to intercede for the people for judgement to be passed among them. They will excuse themselves, each of them saying, “Myself, myself”, but Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) will come forward to intercede in what is known as the great intercession, saying: “I am able for it, I am able for it.” Then his Lord, may He be exalted, will honour him by accepting his intercession for the people of that gathering. That will be the station of praise and glory (al-maqaam al-mahmoud) that Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, will not bestow upon any human except him (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).

These are some of the proofs from our religious teachings that highlight the superiority of the Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) above his fellow Prophets (peace be upon them all), and they themselves would not deny that. Moosa (Moses – peace be upon him) acknowledged that in a hadith that is saheeh (sound) in our view. ‘Eesaa (Jesus – peace be upon him) will refuse to lead the Muslims in prayer; rather he will be content to pray behind an imam (of the Muslims), because he will adhere to the solemn pledge and covenant that Allah, may He be exalted, took from him. When he descends at the end of time, he will kill the pigs, break the cross and pray behind a Muslim imam.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Muslim version of Jesus isn't the peaceful hippie we all know and love.

Bolded comments are mine; comments in italics are one are ones I've added emphasis to.

We are not surprised that you impugn our Prophet and speak ill of him, for reviling the Prophets is part of your religion and impugning them is part of your way. The Jews have twisted and distorted your religion, and you blindly follow their misguidance. You believe in everything in the Torah that impugns the Prophets and Messengers, and you add to it what is in your distorted books of slander against the best of people. Lmfao, notice how they just had to include a dig at the Jews.

1.

It says in the gospel of Matthew that Jesus is one of the descendants of Solomon son of David, and that their ancestor Perez was the illegitimate offspring of Judah son of Jacob. (Matthew 1:10) According to Salafis, being the descendant of an illegitimate child is really horrible... except that Arab Muslims believe that they are the descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's illegitimate son.

2.

In the Gospel of John (2:4) it says that Jesus spoke disrespectfully to his mother in the midst of a group of people! This one is my favorite, lmao.

3.

In the Gospel of John (10:8) it says that Jesus testified that all the Prophets who had come to the Children of Israel were thieves and robbers! Jesus never explicitly refers to Prophets; it's likely that he was referring to the scribes and Pharisees, who by that point in time had almost full control of the Jewish religion.

In the Talmud – which is a huge book that is regarded as a basic source for Jewish law, and at the present time is regarded as the religious reference for fundamentalist Jews and extremists in Israel and throughout the world, and is held in higher esteem than the Torah – it says:

1. That the teachings of Jesus are heresy, his disciple Jacob is an infidel and that the Gospels are the books of the infidels.

2. It says in it – God forbid – that Jesus the Nazarene is in the pits of hell, between tar and fire, and that his mother Mary bore him illegitimately to the soldier Pandera, and that the Christian churches are places of filth and that the preachers in them are akin to barking dogs.

3. The rabbi Abarbaneel said: The Christians are infidels, because they believe that God has flesh and blood.

4. It says in the Talmud: All peoples apart from the Jews are idolaters, and the teachings of the rabbis confirm that.

5. It says elsewhere in the Talmud that the Messiah was a sorcerer and idolater, and as a result the Christians are also idolaters like him.

6. It also says in the Talmud: Bliss is the abode of Jewish souls, and none will enter Paradise but the Jews. As for Hell it is the abode of the infidels, Christians and Muslims, and they will have no share therein except weeping, because of what it contains of darkness and filth.

Compare what your books say about the noble Prophets of Allah with what you claim about our Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) having committed many sins (and you will see that what your books say is far worse)!

NONE OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY OR CHRISTIANS. The mouth-breathers who wrote this are just doing this to attack Jews. Also, of course the Torah includes parts that bash Jesus. Again, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and other sects were opposed to Jesus because he his teachings were undermining their power.
Click to expand...

There are like 15 fucking paragraphs about the Satanic Verses (not the book, but its inspiration) in there, but the commentary is so convoluted I can't really follow it.

Moreover we ask you, if you are serious about debating, which causes more pain and which is more indicative of the individual being undermined in his position: to be subjected to this magic, which is no more than a sickness that was caused by this Jewish man, or the idea that the Jews gained the upper hand over and persecuted ‘Eesa ibn Maryam (Jesus the son of Mary) – who is a Prophet in our view and is a god or son of God according to you – until they crucified him and killed him in the midst of gloating and humiliation at the hands of his enemies.

“Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads

40 and saying, ‘You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!’

41 In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him.

42 ‘He saved others,’ they said, ‘but he can’t save himself! He’s the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him.

43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, “I am the Son of God.”’

44 In the same way the rebels who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him”

Matthew 27:39-44

“45 From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land.

46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, ‘Eli, Eli, lemasabachthani?’ (which means ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’)”

Matthew 27:45-46

Please see the answer to question no. 12615

And we say: the noble Prophets of Allah, Muhammad and his brother ‘Eesa (Jesus) and all of their brethren are far above such fabrications and lies, and there is no way they could be subjected to any humiliation and degradation.
Click to expand...

This is something that comes up a lot with hardline/fundamentalist Muslims. Because they believe in a God who is prideful, wrathful, and petty, they cannot comprehend why God would allow himself to be humiliated, tortured, and sacrificed. To Christians, it's the greatest example of love in the history of the universe; God, the most powerful being in the universe, loved humanity so much that He willingly allowed Himself to be humiliated and sacrificed in order to atone for our sins. You don't have to believe in Christianity to understand that the central theme of Christianity is self-sacrificial love.

In the version of Islam that is prideful, haughty, and obsessed with honor, all of this is unthinkable. Actually, it's outright blasphemy to suggest that God would ever humble Himself. To them, Christians are denigrating and slandering Jesus when in reality they're exalting Him.

With regard to your saying: “Moreover, the best of God’s creation cannot spread his religion by the sword or by paying money”, we have discussed this previously on our website. Please see the answers to questions no. 43087 and 100521.

When you have finished looking at these two questions, it would be a good idea for you to reflect on these passages from your own books, and perhaps you will think again:

1. Christ (peace be upon him) said:

“34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35 For I have come to turn

‘a man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—

36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

37 Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.”

Matthew 10:34-39

2. Christ (peace be upon him) said:

“…and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one”
Click to expand...

There's already commentary on these verses so I won't go into them. But basically, the "not peace but a sword" verse is thought to be a metaphor for an ideological conflict brought by Jesus, not an actual sword. Jesus is not advocating violence, he's foretelling that his message will result in a sharp social division which even severs the closest family ties.

But I'm laughing at how these morons are actually trying to go the "Christianity is more violent than Islam" route. Do we even need to go over how many violent verses there are in the Quran, let alone in the Hadith?

Once again, bolded comments are mine and italicized comments are ones I've given emphasis.

History proves that religions cannot be imposed by force (but you're arguing that Christianity was?), therefore Islam could not have spread by the sword. Rather it spread by means of the call alone, and by means of the call alone peoples who had shortly beforehand defeated the Arabs, such as the Turks and Mongols, embraced Islam. The Qur’an spread throughout India – although the Arabs had nothing to do with India except as passers-by – in such a way that the number of Muslims in that land increased to fifty million.
Click to expand...

I had to break up this quote because the comment on India is so wrong it needs to be This is legitimately infuriating, not to mention a complete fabrication of history. Arabs were not "just passing by" through India, they fucking conquered it. Tens of millions of Hindus were killed (some sources even estimate that 60-80 million Hindus were killed in a 500-year period), more tens of millions were sold into slavery (fun fact: most scholars agree that slavery wasn't a big thing in India until Muslims invaded), and even more tens of millions were forcibly converted to Islam. Thousands of Hindu temples were destroyed or converted into mosques.

Here are some links that go over the devastation that the Muslim conquests brought upon the native Hindus. Some sites are clearly biased, but they cite non-biased, historical sources.
For the record, I'm not suggesting that modern-day Muslims need to take responsibility for all of this. I just think it's fucking hilarious that Muslim scholars are seriously saying that Christianity is more violent than Islam when conquests in the name of Islam killed tens of millions of Hindus.

Is it now clear to you how incorrect the accusations against Islam are, and the extent to which the Jewish and Christian scholars, and the media, have misled you?

It is as if you want to say that your religion was not spread by the sword. It is as if you want to convince people of the mercy and compassion of the followers of your religion. But none of that is true; here are some examples from your own history:

1. King Olaf slaughtered everyone who refused to embrace Christianity in Norway; he cut off their hands and feet, and banished and expelled them, until there was no other religion in the land except Christianity. That's obviously not cool, but King Olaf was just one guy.

2. In Montenegro in the Balkans, the Prince-Bishop Danilo Petrovic led a campaign of slaughter against non-Christians on Christmas Eve. I couldn't find much information on this event, but apparently it took place in the context of a war against the Ottoman invaders. Not saying it's okay to slaughter non-Christians, but gee, I thought Islam was never spread by the sword? What were the Ottomans doing all the way in the Balkans, then?

3. In Ethiopia, the king Sayf Ar‘ad (1342-1370 CE) executed everyone who refused to become Christian, or he banished them from the land. Again, just one guy. And again, I can't find much information on him.

4. Moreover we find that it was Christianity – and not Islam – that eradicated the Native people in America. While Christian missionary work definitely played a role in some of the eradication of Native Americans (and that's horrible), most of the conflict between the Natives and the European settlers had to do with land.

5. We also find that it is Christianity that uprooted the Palestinian people from their land in order to hand it over to the enemies of both Christ and Muhammad (peace be upon them). Can't pass up an opportunity to bash Jews, amiright? Also, how is Christianity responsible for that? I thought the United Nations split up Palestine?

6. Who is it that started the world wars? In the First World War, ten million people were killed, and in the Second World War, the death toll was seventy million! WWI and WWII had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, other than the fact that many combatants happened to b Christian (just like many combatants happened to be Muslim/Jewish/atheist/agnostic/etc). The World Wars were purely political. Like, in WWII, the Allies weren't fighting in the name of Christianity, they were fighting to stop Nazi Germany from overtaking the globe. And Nazi Germany was fighting in the name of racial supremacy, not religion.

7. How many humans were killed by the atomic bombs that were dropped on the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in Japan? Again, the atomic bombings had absolutely nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion. Even the most euphoric atheists don't try to argue that Christianity was responsible for WWII.

8. During the Crusades, when the Christians besieged Jerusalem and the siege intensified, and its inhabitants realised that they were defeated, they asked the crusader leader Tancred for safe passage for themselves and their wealth, and he granted that to them on condition that they all seek refuge in al-Masjid al-Aqsa (the mosque), carrying safety banners. Al-Masjid al-Aqsa was filled with old men, children and women, and they were slaughtered like sheep; their blood flowed in the holy place until it came up to the knees of the horses, and the streets were filled with crushed skulls, severed arms and legs and mutilated bodies. The historians state that the number of those killed inside al-Masjid al-Aqsa alone was seventy thousand, and no European historians deny these atrocities. I'm not even going to touch the Crusade argument. Thousands of people have produced arguments thousands of times better than anything I can produce.

9. Our own times give the best testimony to that, for they bombarded Afghanistan, then they moved to Iraq and destroyed it, bombarding, killing and spreading mischief throughout the land. Their leader even said that God had commanded him to enter Iraq! Where are the teachings of Christ that they claim to follow and speak so much about? THE WAR ONLY STARTED BECAUSE 19 MUSLIMS MURDERED 3,000 AMERICANS, YOU TWATS. Also, the War on Terror was purely political.

There are more points but I'm tired of writing at this point so whatever.
Click to expand...

Anyway, here are a bunch of convoluted fatwas on breastfeeding.
 
Cosmos said:
Yeah, Salafis have a huge hate boner for Christians and Jews (even though the Quran itself says that Christians and Jews, as "People of the Book," should be awarded a degree of respect). I found a long article that encapsulates most of the Salafi views on Christians and Christianity.

https://islamqa.info/en/126168

Warning: I spent like two fucking hours writing a response to this and I'm not sure why. I spoilered it so I could protect you from my autism.

But then





Yeah, the Muslim version of Jesus isn't the peaceful hippie we all know and love.

Bolded comments are mine; comments in italics are one are ones I've added emphasis to.

There are like 15 fucking paragraphs about the Satanic Verses (not the book, but its inspiration) in there, but the commentary is so convoluted I can't really follow it.

This is something that comes up a lot with hardline/fundamentalist Muslims. Because they believe in a God who is prideful, wrathful, and petty, they cannot comprehend why God would allow himself to be humiliated, tortured, and sacrificed. To Christians, it's the greatest example of love in the history of the universe; God, the most powerful being in the universe, loved humanity so much that He willingly allowed Himself to be humiliated and sacrificed in order to atone for our sins. You don't have to believe in Christianity to understand that the central theme of Christianity is self-sacrificial love.

In the version of Islam that is prideful, haughty, and obsessed with honor, all of this is unthinkable. Actually, it's outright blasphemy to suggest that God would ever humble Himself. To them, Christians are denigrating and slandering Jesus when in reality they're exalting Him.

There's already commentary on these verses so I won't go into them. But basically, the "not peace but a sword" verse is thought to be a metaphor for an ideological conflict brought by Jesus, not an actual sword. Jesus is not advocating violence, he's foretelling that his message will result in a sharp social division which even severs the closest family ties.

But I'm laughing at how these morons are actually trying to go the "Christianity is more violent than Islam" route. Do we even need to go over how many violent verses there are in the Quran, let alone in the Hadith?

Once again, bolded comments are mine and italicized comments are ones I've given emphasis.



I had to break up this quote because the comment on India is so wrong it needs to be This is legitimately infuriating, not to mention a complete fabrication of history. Arabs were not "just passing by" through India, they fucking conquered it. Tens of millions of Hindus were killed (some sources even estimate that 60-80 million Hindus were killed in a 500-year period), more tens of millions were sold into slavery (fun fact: most scholars agree that slavery wasn't a big thing in India until Muslims invaded), and even more tens of millions were forcibly converted to Islam. Thousands of Hindu temples were destroyed or converted into mosques.

Here are some links that go over the devastation that the Muslim conquests brought upon the native Hindus. Some sites are clearly biased, but they cite non-biased, historical sources.
For the record, I'm not suggesting that modern-day Muslims need to take responsibility for all of this. I just think it's fucking hilarious that Muslim scholars are seriously saying that Christianity is more violent than Islam when conquests in the name of Islam killed tens of millions of Hindus.

Anyway, here are a bunch of convoluted fatwas on breastfeeding.
Click to expand...

In the mid 7th century there were two powers in the Middle East. The Persian Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire.

A century and a half later, the Persian Empire was gone and was under the Abbasid Caliphate and the Eastern Roman Empire had lost Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa.

Plus, even as late as 800, the majority of people in the former Persian lands were Zoroastrian and much of Palestine and Syria were still Christian. It was a conquest, and anyone who says otherwise is either a revisionist or a liar. Now granted, the Caliphate did not merciless execute every single infidel they came across (Taxing and manpower always takes precedence over religion), but they weren't exactly invited in by the local.
 
Lorento said:
In the mid 7th century there were two powers in the Middle East. The Persian Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire.

A century and a half later, the Persian Empire was gone and was under the Abbasid Caliphate and the Eastern Roman Empire had lost Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa.

Plus, even as late as 800, the majority of people in the former Persian lands were Zoroastrian and much of Palestine and Syria were still Christian. It was a conquest, and anyone who says otherwise is either a revisionist or a liar. Now granted, the Caliphate did not merciless execute every single infidel they came across (Taxing and manpower always takes precedence over religion), but they weren't exactly invited in by the local.
Click to expand...

Muhammad and the "rightly guided Caliphs" had a downer on Persia because when he sent a letter to them inviting them to convert they allegedly replied along the lines of "lol fuck off, bloody religious callers dragging us out of bed at 6 am."

Anyhow. Here's a fatwa about how Dead Sea products are haram because that's where Sodom and Gomorrah was and if you use them you might catch the gay.

https://islamqa.info/en/110111
 
Ginger Piglet said:
Muhammad and the "rightly guided Caliphs" had a downer on Persia because when he sent a letter to them inviting them to convert they allegedly replied along the lines of "lol fuck off, bloody religious callers dragging us out of bed at 6 am."
Click to expand...

Fortunately, I learned from their mistake so if any door knockers come for me I unleash my Persian cataphract division on their asses.
 
Okay, speaking as a Protestant Christian here, so bias noted in advance, but this is one of the reasons I have a problem with the structure of Islam and Catholicism as religious institutions.

Both come with a "write your own escape clause" bypass for their religious leaders, and while Catholicism can't stray too far from the Bible and related deuterocanon (though they definitely attempted to stretch their allowances at times), this crap is more like a "make up shit entirely out of whole cloth" kind of thing.

Nothing against the adherents to these faiths, but given how the latter especially has all sorts of elastic rulings written by people of dubious sanity, I have to wonder how paranoid the average Muslim has to feel knowing the rules of their daily lives can change at anytime.
 
If you are a doctor and have a patient who is dying, do not tell them that they are gonna die so that they can prepare their affairs. Instead tell them that they are getting better cause telling them that they are going to die will hurt their feelings.
https://islamqa.info/en/188991
 
Cosmos said:
Islam's beef with dogs is honestly one of my biggest objections to the religion. How the fuck can you hate doggos and think they're filthy and impure? The only explanation I've heard that makes any sense from a secular standpoint (as in, not because "Allah said so") is that dog ownership was discouraged in order to discourage Zoroastrianism, a formerly widespread religion that revered dogs.

Anyway, I found more fatwas on dogs:

https://islamqa.info/en/377


"Non-Muslims are kind to dogs so fuck them"

https://islamqa.info/en/13356


Try to imagine hating dogs this much. It's honestly borderline psychotic. Tons of people may not like dogs, but they would never consider them so filthy and impure that they can never be "clean." Also, love the dig at non-Muslims for their "filthy habits."
Click to expand...
To be fair a lot of nuttier Christians (particularly Baptists and related groups) have equally or even more pychotic hatreds of snakes due to Satan disguising himself as one in the garden of Eden. It even gets to the point of using the Bible to justify pretty horrific animal cruelty.

On a vaguely related note I'll never get why crazy Christians and crazy Muslims hate each other so much when they advocate a lot of the same shit. At least half the shit on this site I've seen some crazy brand of Christianity saying as well, you'd think they'd be each other's biggest allies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom