No problem. For anyone who actually clicked on the link, the study is very interesting in explaining prejudicial behavior and how/why they correspond to lower cognitive abilities. Unfortunately, it also explains why rational approaches typically fail to dispel those beliefs...
I could have said Islamohaters, or islam haters, or Association for the People who deign to protest softly about the harsh violence imposed by Islamists. Islamist itself has a negative connotation of strict adherence. not that i really give a s***. anyways, you didn't address any point at all. replace Islamophobe (which is the current running trend) with something that offends your sensitive soul less. AFTPWDTPSATHVIBIer?
Firstly, the translation of the Quran is off, I went through the one I have and its quite different than the one being quoted. Secondly, amazing how people continue to quote a couple lines without considering it in context, if you are going to fairly criticize something at least provide full disclosure. Then again people have agendas and will do whatever is needed to make their point, so I see why it is done. Thirdly, there is plenty of fabricated stuff in that post. I found a website which tries to give context about these quotes, I haven't read it completely nor do I know the qualifications of the author, but at least if provides a different and more informative point of view. I doubt anyone will actually read it, cause lets be honest nobody here is really interested in learning. I'm sure this stuff has probably been answered/posted at some point before. http://norasensation.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/misquoted-violent-verses-in-the-holy-quran/
The context is provided by the actions of some of its followers. If nobody acted upon it, it would not be a problem. Too many do - they act exactly as described in the article.
Because the followers follow an ideology that tells them what to do (or at least that is how they understand it).
If something can so easily be understood in that way by so many, then the fault lies with the ideology itself.
so Christianity and Judaism should be abolished as well, correct? given the interpretations these have been given historically, and sadly in some cases, in the present. I'm just curious why you have this certain fixation with Islam given that this is your rationale.
Are Christians or Jews currently killing people because of cartoons? No. Islamists do. Are Christians or Jews currently stoning people because of adultery or homosexuality? No. Islamists do. Are Christians or Jews currently forcing women into mobile jails or depriving them of basic human rights? No. Islamists do. Are Christians or Jews currently bombing civilian planes, flying planes into buildings, bombing subway stations, attacking hotels and killing innocent people in terrorist attacks? No. Islamists do. There is your answer.
what, so virtually the same base of ideology that spawns Islamists should be given a pass because of this moment, even though SO MUCH VIOLENCE was caused by these ideologies, they aren't festering at the extremes in particular countries during a particular time? what is your definition of currently anyways, because I could look back about 10 years and find mass atrocities fueled by Judeo-Christian ideology (Rwanda, Burundi, Serbia), and I certainly don't have to look far to find the same on a smaller scale happening now (Lord's Resistance Army). Your logic makes no sense. To be consistent with your position is to seek closure from all of the flawed elements of Abrahamic religions. Until you do, you're just a cheerleader for one side, nothing more.
AroundTheWorld, please read "Dying to win", by Ropert Pape. As you seem interested in these things, I highly recommended you read it, thanks...
It's sad to see intelligent liberals committing the mistake of reacting to out-of-context quotes the same way intellectually dishonest conservatives misquote the left or the Obama administration. On Sura 8 (Al Anfal/The Spoils of War) alone, that whole passage is directed either at Muhammad or his early entourage who were veterans of a one-against-many desert battle. It is not by an means a universal prescription for Muslims in later centuries. Meg's assertions on Islam and females and homosexuals are just as empty when analyzed with Quranic passages taken in context. Obviously, that's just my interpretation as an educated Muslim, and I admit others out there disagree with me. ATW brings up a good point that too many wrongly interpret Islam, and that shouldn't be ignored. Why wouldn't an omniscient god phrase his final message to be ultra clear and transparent so extremists wouldn't even exist because a literal translation would be okay? I don't know. But it's possible that an entity that has existed/exists/will always exist outside of space-time is so (bored?) that it creates good vs. evil, intentionally conveys a message that can be interpreted many ways by creatures he gives quasi-free will, and proceeds to watch this cosmic chess game play itself out. As pawns of this chess game, we can act in myriad ways. I rely on education, traveling, meeting people of all creeds, and my gut to interpret the Quran so I can be a Muslim. My family is living proof of what happens when Muslims are given certain conditions to live in (namely freedom of expression). I know that it bothers other people that we need these conditions to be the non-extremists we are, but I believe this is a test designed by someone higher up on Muslims and non Muslims. God is un-humanly merciful. If someone has lived his life using the best of his knowledge and reasoning (to embrace or reject Islam), having made a sincere effort to understand all sides, then all should be well with that person on the Day of Judgement.
Strange? Liberals make their bread and butter by protecting the disenfranchised, the persecuted, the minority group, etc. How is it strange to you? It plays right into how their values.
You are clutching at straws. The Rwanda genocide was "fueled by Judeo-Christian ideology"? WTF? At least try something slightly better than making up ridiculous lies to support your stupid statements. Rwanda was an ethnic conflict between Hutus and Tutsis. They had the same religion.
http://www.newsfromafrica.org/articles/art_10231.html NDAHIRO TOM, a Rwandan human rights commissioner, paints a picture of deep historical and political complicity and calls for the Church to restore its credibility by contributing to the process of justice.
Religion Main article: Religion in Rwanda The Roman Catholic Church affirms that genocide took place but argues that those who took part in it did so without the permission of the Church.[29] The Marian apparition, known as Our Lady of Kibeho, was seen in 1982. The Virgin Mary was said to have shown three visionaries a future blood bath and called for prayer and repentance. In 2001 the diocese approved the vision as "worthy of belief", indicating the Catholic Church's attitude regarding the Massacres. Reports indicate the percentage of Muslims in Rwanda has doubled since the genocide due to Muslim sheltering and protection of Tutsis and Hutus during the genocide.[30] Though religious factors were not prominent (the event was ethnically motivated), in its 1999 report Human Rights Watch faulted a number of religious authorities in Rwanda, including Roman Catholic, Anglican, and other Protestants for failing to condemn the genocide directly - though that accusation was belied over time.[31] Some in its religious hierarchy have been brought to trial for their participation by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and convicted.[29] Bishop Misago was accused of corruption and complicity in the genocide, but he was cleared of all charges in 2000.[32] Others Catholic and Protestant clergy, however, gave their lives to protect Tutsis from slaughter.[31] The majority of Rwandans, and Tutsis in particular, are Catholic, so shared religion did not prevent genocide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#Religion
