I am not sure if this post is addressed to me because you are quoting me. I haven't watched the video in the OP.
No, it's not addressed at you. It was for the OP. I just used your question because it's a good one. Too many never question or research other world religions. Though, there are some of us that do, and my post meant to show that being a member of a religion does not always mean ignorance of other faiths.
I will likely be arguing in this thread when I get home from work tomorrow, just too tired right now, but as a Middle Eastern Studies major, I can tell you this is not what I have learned in the multiple classes on Islam I have taken. Pluralism isn't allowed? What about people-of-the-book? and isn't a Muslim technically someone who submits to God? To lie and deceive? I understand that the Qur'an changes from the Medinan to Meccan verses in the sense that the early years were more protective and the later years they were more open and dominant, but I don't ever remember learning anything about anything demanding to deceive and impose Sharia. Maybe that is just because it is not practiced? I dunno, or maybe I never heard about it because the god damn Muslims wouldn't stfu in class always bickering amongst each other about which sect believes what, annoyed the crap out of me and usually made me turn to clutchfans in the middle of class. btw, I can contribute clutchfans to nearly failing like 4 classes in college. a contribution of clutchfans and the ridiculousness of my professors. it kept me awake in "Human Action as Rational Behavior: An inside look into Game-Theory" f me registering late for classes ftw
Very best thing conservatives can do for liberals is keep attacking other cultures. Tax cuts and phony wars can be rationalized all day long, but when it comes down to it you can't spin bigotry.
I just want to illustrate something which I'm not entirely sure is intentional or unintentional. Try to follow the direction of this conversation and see where it goes off track: I don't know if ATW notices this, but that last post is completely irrelevant but it seems it's quite common for him to direct any conversation into that kind of discussion regardless of what the initial point was. So over here, people were questioned about whether they have read the texts they're discussing before making comments. The response to this is the first problem. We all know that for ATW, the answer is no, but he doesn't say it's "no, I haven't". Then rather than answering the question, he actually questions the validity of the claim that it's important to read something in order to attack it. Carl Herrera then quite rightly points out that reading these materials is not a duty on anyone. But that it makes logical sense that having read a book is critical to actually being a credible critic of that book. So if I haven't read, for example, The Secret, I would not be the most vocal and aggressive critic of the book based purely on my perception of the book, snippets and my unverified assumptions about the link between the book and the behavior of its followers. Now there are two logical responses to this. (1) Yes, that's probably a fair thing to say. or (2) No, I disagree that reading a book is essential to me being able to attack it and its followers day in, day out, socially, politically and sometimes personally. Instead the response is to show a list of terror attacks. Which is my point really, that his goal is always, intentionally or unintentionally, somehow get to this point even if it's irrelevant to the discussion. Any logical person can see that the final response should have carried on the discussion about whether reading a book is important to constantly attack it aggressively. Even in the twisted world where terrorism is as big a threat as he makes it out to be, statistics about terrorism in Islam are completely irrelevant to whether it's ok or not to attack a book viciously without having ever read it. Even if the world is being anihilated by Islamic terrorists and millions are dying everyday, it wouldn't alter the answer to: do you need to read a book to hold yourself out as a vocal critic and attacker of it? There's a reason ATW always ends up in this spot, and it's usually to create a diversion. In this case, IMO, the diversion is clear and I'll illustrate with another example: Just imagine for a second that ATW had "I have never ever read the Quran cover to cover in my entire life" as his sig. How does that make him look given his posting history? Anyways, that was a great way to kill time. lol To everyone who thanked me, you're welcome, was mostly a copy/paste job. To dmc89 great post, and I want to add that I had absolutely no intention of discussing this topic with OP since I've raised facts and there's really nothing to discuss when it comes to facts.
The answer is clear: I see the results. I do not need to read the book cover to cover to see the results. I do not need to immerse myself in all the logical fallacies of a book written by some dudes and re-written by some other dudes many hundred years ago. I read parts of it, and I see the results. I attack the results. Indirectly that means: If the book is supposedly so great, why does it lead to these results? And some parts I read, I personally don't find great at all. What do you expect to change about that if I read the rest of this ancient collection of stories and advice? If I know Scientology's bad practices, and criticize them, what does it change if the people of that cult keep telling me "yes but read the book by L. Ron Hubbard"? I am not going to read it, and I don't need to read it to know that Scientology is a cult with bad practices.
Edit: I don't know if you noticed, but this should have been your answer before my last post. You still haven't commented on why you brought up the terrorists attacks despite no one questioning you about it. Carl Herrera simply stated that you are highly critical of certain things, which is a fact that you have admitted. He did not say, in this specific instance, that you are wrong to attack Islam. He simply said that you are wrong for attacking Islam without having read the Quran. It's just odd how you react. Thanks for admitting this. As for the part I bolded, you will never know. Which, in theory, is fine. Many people don't ever want to bother reading it. But when you hold yourself out as a vocal critic of one particular topic, you are putting the responsibility on yourself to actually know what you are being critical of from something other than biased cliffnotes and youtube videos without a source. Essentially, you are happy to admit that you do not fully know what you are being critical of. Think about that for a second. What kind of people share this opinion? My experience is that it is usually extremists of any ideology who are happy to engage in this behavior. Like Muslims who don't read the bible because it's "corrupt", yet have no problem attacking it left and right. Like I said, put this in your sig: I have never ever read the Quran cover to cover in my entire life. Let's see how that looks for you. If you truly believe that reading the book is not important to your attitude and criticism of Islam, then it shouldn't mean anything. If you don't want to put it in your sig, just write it at the bottom of every Islam-related post.
Dear Mr Lefty, Please continue to bury your ass..err your head in the sand, one day and it will be in the very near future, when the Islamo facists are coming for you, your head will roll for no amount of crying and begging will stop that. You will be awaken in alysium and find out that your attitude of appeasement and cowardice did not work, and you said to yourself " IF ONLY I'VE BEEN BRAVER, SANER AND LISTEN TO THOSE CONSERVATIVE PATRIOTS, I WOULD HAVE BEEN ALIVE TODAY TO KISS MY SPOUSE(GAY OR STRAIGHT) AND HUG MY CHILD". Sincerely yours, Esteban AKA "The Blind Zoro"
No. You keep harping on about your book. It's not my book. I am critical of what the followers of the book do, and this does not only mean the terrorists, but also those who squeeze their women into mobile jails of all kinds, who are intolerant of followers of other religions to a degree that they want to kill them, who believe in sharia law which includes medieval punishments, etc. etc. etc. I fully know what they do. I don't need to read the book to be critical of all of this. Your line of argumentation is that of someone who would say to someone who fights against the Nazis: "But have you read "Mein Kampf"?" "If you have not read "Mein Kampf", then you must admit that you do not fully know what you are being critical of." Your line of argumentation is silly, but it can be explained because you still have that brainwash chip firmly implanted in your head.
Do you believe that you are in danger of enslaved by Islam "facists"? Do you really think that's a serious threat?
I am comparing bad actions to bad actions, killing people in the name of an ideology to killing people in the name of an ideology. Mathloom's argument is that you have no right to criticize if you have not read the book that is the basis of the ideology. I merely demonstrated the absurdity of that line of argumentation.
Translation to English: Herpa Derp Derp Islamo Facists, Herpa Derp Derp Head Will Roll, Herpa Derp Derp Conservative Patriots, Herpa Derp Derp Gay. Sincerely yours,
lol....look who is talking. In response to your line or argument, I shall refer you to one of my old posts: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5726448&postcount=50
the larger reality is there is a war for islam itself. within the muslim world, the segregation between the rich and poor, the educated and not, coupled with the different factions and ethnicities, make islam far from a coherent ideology. those in power shift the battle lines outward and blame western influence. this is a tactic to keep the oppressive status quo that so many live under. i hope what happened in egypt turns out well. muslims need to look at the muslim world, clean house there, and then worry about the rest of civilization.
It is absurd. First of all, you are critical of the actions, the people AND the book. You wouldn't dare refute this, you are fully aware. Second of all, you link it to the book. So if you had restricted your criticism to the actions, rather than create a link to the book, then reading it would be less important. But since you are actually insisting there is a link, then it is absolutely important. But if you were saying "I don't care where he read his beliefs, this guy is a terrorist" then the book becomes less important. But it's fine. You keep arguing. I just wanted it to be plain obvious to people here.
But whether the Nazi's commit genocide or not, their ideology is atrocious. I have a problem with the ideology of the Nazis. It seems like you are basically saying you have a problem with Islam itself whether we are talking about the good done in the name of Islam or the bad.
What is there to dare? Do you think it should be forbidden to be critical of the book? Should it be punished by the death penalty? Not surprising that you should follow this line of thinking, as the second Surah spends a lot of time bad-mouthing those who do not share your beliefs. The brainwashing starts early in the book ("in their hearts is a disease, deaf, dumb, blind"...etc. etc. etc.).
I have a problem with the bad done in its name, and I want to understand how much of this is to be traced back to its roots. But when you look at the roots and cite from them (the book), then people will say you are misunderstanding, misinterpreting, taking things out of context, even if the wording is crystal clear and one could certainly see how crazies use that wording as justification for their actions and actually believe that it justifies what they do, which is what in fact happens.
