hahaha Serves you right for trying to reason with him! OFCOURSE he can comment on it, DUH. Essentially, whatever he wants to do is ok, and whatever he doesn't want to do is not ok.
Ya. Seems like he makes up his own rules. His actions are very much in line with those of neo-Nazis. There's really not much I can do about it so I let it go.
Oh...the neo-Nazi cop-out because you don't know what else to say. Why don't you address this post: I find the notion that some Muslims/some Islamists demand that you immerse yourself in the teachings of their ideology before you could even criticize anything (of course, then they would still be outraged and offended) very presumptuous.
You know, every critcism of Islam is not an incident of Islamophobia. The scale of the damage done by radical Islams dwarfs the damage done by radical Christians... in this age. To be wary of that does not equate to a phobic response.
Nor does it deny phobic response. If you look at every example of Islamic terrorism a reflection of Islam then it's Islamaphobia as you put it. It doesn't matter whether it's a recognition or not.
It is clear that economic and socio-cultural aspects also play a role in many cases when looking at Islamist terrorism. But if the common theme is that the terrorists cite Islam, if it is not also a reflection of Islam, what is it? A reflection of Buddhism?
No because the more common theme among Muslims is that they are peaceful people who want to make a living, and provide for their families. That is far more common than the terrorism. But if you choose to ignore the more common theme and focus only on the rare sensationlist theme, then it is only indicative of your focus and not much else.
I focus on what affects me. I am happy with anyone that peacefully believes in whatever he believes in. But there is one sub-group of people from one religion that is not like that, and it affects me.
Oh yes it affects you. The effect it has on you is one of severe lack of perspective. Your focus on that one minor sub group while you are blind to the majority is what gets you the label of bigot.
There is no problem with what you are saying. The problem arises because you LINK the Quran to resulting actions. If you were just condemning the actions, then obviously you don't need to read the book. You are not claiming that the book caused, and at the same time you DO have the same experience as everyone else regarding those actions. But the moment you create the linkage, it is preposterous that you haven't read the book. Also, with scientology, there is a known human author of those books. There is no such thing with the Quran. Ron Hubbard's book in scientology is the equivalent of Hadith in Islam.
Once again, I believe you are misguided in finding the cause and the root. You attack the ideology rather than the other factors when the ideology produces more good than it does bad. It is often the context of those who interpret it to fit their needs that are from parts of turmoil, little education, development, or political odds with those who attack rather than just simply the religion If you want to question the ideology itself, then you can sit here and lookin the Bible as well that says we must kill people who worship any other God even if they are family : Deuteronomy 13:6-16 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. The ideologies were all made in another time. I know for example islam talks about intellect and using your knowledge intellect as one of the greatest gifts from god. So using that intellect to understand the word of god and differentiate between the common and whole message and little cherry picking that were in the context of certain times is a part of it. It is all in there, but if some guy is in war, feeling attacked, has all these issues or wahtever his agenda is, he could take what he wants from any of the books to use it towards his agenda and taht is what goes on. The difference is not the book or the ideology, but it is that guy in whatever turmoil situation he is in, and in this current time most of the turmoil is there in the middle east. If you could expand your horizon you will see times of extremism views in christianity and beyond, and you'll see the factor is unrest and turmoil rather than the religion. its almost so simply I am not sure why you are stuck on the one thing and can not see it
Not really, the sequence here (and believe it or not, I don't really discuss the topic of Islam anywhere else) went like this: Someone brought up Islamist terror and acts of intolerance like the blasphemy law. I started bringing up stuff, too, and asked provocative questions/made provocative statements, not referring to the Quran because I haven't even read it, but basically asking why a certain ideology seems to currently have a lot more of these issues, and if it is rooted in the ideology or not. Some people got very angry and said "you can't even make those statements because you haven't read the Quran". That was the first time I even concerned myself with the Quran at all (e.g., I never knew about Hadith, etc.). Not really, I am not creating the linkage, I am just asking the question how it comes that so many otherwise non-linked people seem to go crazy insofar as they kill people or do other bad stuff and then claim that their religion not only authorizes that, but that they are better followers of their religion for doing so. What difference does it make? On the one hand some dudes many centuries ago (pretty definitely more than one), on the other hand some crazy dude a few decades ago. Not sure what your point is here.
This is such a disingenuous criticism; are you saying that worldwide terrorism is failing to do its job? What is the purpose of terrorism besides the collateral damage of a few or few hundred or few thousand innocents?
got to ask why you would speak up against the "hate" aspect of the crime? are you defending the right to murder innocent Sikhs everywhere without being blamed for thinking they were Muslims?
1) The thing is dude, no one is falling for that anymore. We've seen your views regarding a variety of topics over a long period of time. I'm not sure why you are even denying it, maybe just to expose my laziness in using the search function. Let's make it simple then: have you ever claimed that the motivation for acts of aggression/violence lies in the text of the Quran? 2) You have several times cited websites with quotes of the Quran. See point 1. 3) Point is that Hubbard exists and you can blame him. Allah doesn't "exist" in that sense. The person you would have to blame for Islam is Muhammad PBUH, and he is not the author or writer of the Quran (in fact, much of the time he is being addressed directly in it), he is more accurately the author of hadith. I'm just saying you need to align your argument so that it makes sense. To compare/contrast Islam and Scientology, Hubbard's book is like hadith. The Quran is essentially the equivalent of the stuff they don't show you till you've forked over a buttload of money. Off-topic but I think that in scientology they probably feed you a lot of bull**** up until the end, and if you make it to the top level(s) they probably refund your money. Sort of like a filter for uncommitted people. The way it is currently described doesn't make sense, I can't believe any "Religion" would od that.
