This is what happens when you court fear...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Some people interpret the Koran a particular way so...these guys probably had it coming?

Fuck that shit. Pragmatically and tactically speaking, I'd rather have a glut of "wrong" moderates than "right" extremists (inasmuch as the subjective, personal interpretations of a vague, outdated religious text can ever be considered right or wrong).

Who remembers the media after Breivik attacks in Norway? How many media organisations were reporting that the culprit was likely to be to be a Muslim?

Then all of a sudden they find out he is instead a white, right-wing, Christian extremist and all of a sudden it is "ohh, this guy is not a Christian, he does not represent us".

Do I need to go into the campaign ran through Fox against building a "Mosque" near ground zero.

pyrate:
Who remembers the media after Breivik attacks in Norway? How many media organisations were reporting that the culprit was likely to be to be a Muslim?

Or more recently with the grenade attacker in Belgium.

Then all of a sudden they find out he is instead a white, right-wing, Christian extremist and all of a sudden it is "ohh, this guy is not a Christian, he does not represent us".

Yeah, that was fucking hilarious.

One muslim/brown guy = ALL MUSLIMS WANT US TO DIE
One white right winger = total coincidence!

Bill O'Riley did that stunt. When the Muslims army major Major Nidal Malik Hasan went amok and shot and killed 13 people at a US army base in Texas, Billo claimed Islam was to blame because on Hasan they found a card praising allah. A card <<---

When O'Riley reported on Brevik's mass murders in Norway, he stated very clearly that this man was NOT a Christian terrorist. He had nothing to do with Christianity at all. O'Riley said this despite Brevik's 1,500-page manifesto he compiled over several months and posted on the Internet, full of right wing Christian fundamentalist ideals. In other words, not a card.

Stunning hypocrisy if it weren't from Billo the redneck. Then you expect it. But people listen to him and many like him. When public people like O'Riley can indulge in such stupidity, many more will feel it is ok for them to do it to.

Katatori-kun:
...
Got evidence that the specific people who got firebombed knowingly and willingly perpetrate the yada yada yada? Or did you just decide they did because they kinda resemble people you heard do that.

Got evidence that any Islamic denomination exist that, as it's official and authoritative policy, holds absolutely nothing against practising homosexuality? 'cause if not, then there's no way to conceptually be a Muslim without holding such views.

If they wanted be be assessed as individuals, then choosing to proclaim submission - "Islam" - to an authoritative book, with a clerical body and official dogma attached, really isn't the way to go about that.

And they certainly "perpetrate the existence" of the Qu'ran by considering it "holy", which is again a conceptual part of being a Muslim.

Weak straw-man. It's kinda sad how when any discussion of the misrepresentation of Islam in our culture comes up, the only response some people can come up with is, "Are you trying to silence me?!"

Well, if your objective with these complaints is not people who honestly despise and loathe Islam becoming silent, then what is it?

And I'm not talking about respect. I'm talking about not accusing every Muslim in the US of being a disloyal extremist simply on the basis of them being Muslim.

Yeah, that one's not really theologically justified, but considering all the shit that is, I find it hard to sympathize with them.

I'm talking about not accusing every Muslim of homophobia simply on the basis of being a Muslim.

And if it's theologically a conceptual part of the religion? If it's part of the official dogma of the denomination they've joined, and they've made no individual statement to denounce it?

I'd certainly say it's in its place to "accuse" them of what they themselves have chosen to communicate then.

Are you so limited that you are incapable of seeing this as anything but a pro/anti-Muslim argument? Sad, really.

Well, the point was addressing your hypocrisy in criticizing the "tone" of the debate on Islam, while not criticizing the "tone" of a scripture from the ancient middle east, which is to this very day causing and justifying persecution all around the world.

And as you were talking about Islam, it seemed rather natural to use the Qu'ran as an example.

Comando96:

Step 1: "Us" and "Them"
Step 2: Obey Orders
Step 3: Do harm to "Them"
Step 4: "Stand up" or "Stand by"
Step 5: Exterminate.

Step 1: "Us" and "Them"

3:110
You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah.

98:6
Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.

Step 2: Obey Orders

Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, completion and bonding/joining.[16] In a religious context it means "voluntary submission to God".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Etymology_and_meaning

Step 3: Do harm to "Them"

9:29
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Step 4: "Stand up" or "Stand by"

4:75
And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?"

Step 5: Exterminate.

2:191
And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing.

All quotes from the Quran are taken from Quran.com.

Imperator_DK:
Got evidence that any Islamic denomination exist that, as it's official and authoritative policy, holds absolutely nothing against practising homosexuality? 'cause if not, then there's no way to conceptually be a Muslim without holding such views.

That's about the most absurd shifting of the goal posts I've ever seen. It's transparent even for you. And "there's no way to conceptually be a Muslim without holding such views"? Utter nonsense. People hold different views from their denomination all the time, in all religions.

Well, if your objective with these complaints is not people who honestly despise and loathe Islam becoming silent, then what is it?

That Americans, in a country where the mythology literally claims the country was founded on the principle of freedom of religion, are cheering for a guy because they believe he is making terror attacks against people whose religion they dislike.

Well, the point was addressing your hypocrisy in criticizing the "tone" of the debate on Islam, while not criticizing the "tone" of a scripture from the ancient middle east, which is to this very day causing and justifying persecution all around the world.

You are really beginning to sound obsessed with your hatred, you know that?

Danyal:
Wait, have 'islamophobics' already flown airplanes into Dubai's skycrapers? Have we already banned the Quran? Have 'islamphobic states' alread expelled all the muslims from their territories?

No, they just invaded a few countries, dropped a few bombs and shot a few people.
No biggie.

Danyal:
snip

Getting kind of creepy there... You might want to re-read your posts and put them in context.

On topic:
Christian terrorism is a real thing, just as Muslim terrorism. The biggest difference here seems to be that when a Muslim commits an act of terror in the name of Allah, it is because of Islam, but a Christian doing the same in the name of God is because he was a deeply disturbed individual.

This difference, as portrayed by the media and American media in particular, is completely understandable to me: ratings.
Stories about Muslim extremism are very interesting to certain people, but those same people would feel discriminated against if someone did a thing about Christian extremism.

The result is a very biased world view that does not correspond to reality, but who cares, money!!!

HardkorSB:
No, they just invaded a few countries, dropped a few bombs and shot a few people.
No biggie.

And, closer to home, thrown fire bombs at Mosques and whatnot. It's not like the extent is the same, but to make it sound like there wasn't such a thing would be disingenious.

Katatori-kun:
That's about the most absurd shifting of the goal posts I've ever seen

How?

Is not anything but holding absolutely nothing against practising homosexuality to be considered homophobia?

People hold different views from their denomination all the time, in all religions.

That doesn't mean they're entitled to by the denomination. I'm pretty sure that, conceptually, the authority of "god" does not defer to the whims of the flock.

If they say they go by the books, I'll assume they go by the books.

That Americans, in a country where the mythology literally claims the country was founded on the principle of freedom of religion, are cheering for a guy because they believe he is making terror attacks against people whose religion they dislike.

The part I quoted was about how the debate on Islam had caused this attack, and how people who'd done nothing but voice their contempt and loathing - "dehumanization" - would "deny" their responsibility for this criminal action, despite having no liability whatsoever.

You are really beginning to sound obsessed with your hatred, you know that?

Because clearly it is untrue that human rights are violated en masse in Islamic countries?

Imperator_DK:
Is not anything but holding absolutely nothing against practising homosexuality to be considered homophobia?

Not really, no.

People hold different views from their denomination all the time, in all religions.

That doesn't mean they're entitled to by the denomination. I'm pretty sure that, conceptually, the authority of "god" does not defer to the whims of the flock.

If they say they go by the books, I'll assume they go by the books.

You are once again presuming that all Muslims follow a very stereotypical caricature of their religion you are inventing to win an argument. Poor form.

The part I quoted was about how the debate on Islam had caused this attack,

I never claimed such.

Because clearly it is untrue that human rights are violated en masse in Islamic countries?

I'm don't know where you are from, but in America, people vaguely from the same group as you doing something in another country doesn't make you guilty of that crime, nor does it make you deserve to have your house firebombed. You're sounding as ridiculous as that FOX News poster who claimed that this was payback for 9/11, as though all Muslims were somehow responsible for that.

Danyal:
-snip-

You're making a lot of implications here without saying anything directly or providing any solutions, so I'd like to ask you to say it outright. Do you think that ALL Muslims are out to kill those who do not worship Allah, or do you think only certain ones do? And depending on which one you select, what do you want the rest of the world to do about it?

Bassik:
Christian terrorism is a real thing, just as Muslim terrorism. The biggest difference here seems to be that when a Muslim commits an act of terror in the name of Allah, it is because of Islam, but a Christian doing the same in the name of God is because he was a deeply disturbed individual.

This difference, as portrayed by the media and American media in particular, is completely understandable to me: ratings.
Stories about Muslim extremism are very interesting to certain people, but those same people would feel discriminated against if someone did a thing about Christian extremism.

The result is a very biased world view that does not correspond to reality, but who cares, money!!!

I agree, but I think there is even more to it than that. A lot of people who have bought into "othering" different groups of people for superficial differences are concerned with advancing their group ahead of others. For example, Christians who buy into othering Muslims might see anything that strikes a blow against one of their competitors as an advantage for their group. You can see this mentality on this board quite a bit. For example, Imperator_DK by his own admission can't even bring himself to care about innocent people whose houses have been firebombed, who might have escaped harm this time around but who knows if or when they will be targeted by a terrorist again- because he has othered those innocents out of his group and into a group that he has just blanket declared is a competitor of his group.

It is our modern innovation into new forms of tribalism.

Danyal:

Comando96:

Step 1: "Us" and "Them"
Step 2: Obey Orders
Step 3: Do harm to "Them"
Step 4: "Stand up" or "Stand by"
Step 5: Exterminate.

Step 1: "Us" and "Them"

3:110
You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah.

98:6
Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.

Step 2: Obey Orders

Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, completion and bonding/joining.[16] In a religious context it means "voluntary submission to God".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Etymology_and_meaning

Step 3: Do harm to "Them"

9:29
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Step 4: "Stand up" or "Stand by"

4:75
And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?"

Step 5: Exterminate.

2:191
And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing.

All quotes from the Quran are taken from Quran.com.

considering none of the quotes actually state what book they are from in the quran i cant take your post seriously since it can be the wrong book as in not the quran. also a you're taking a book out of context and posting bits to make it fit your bigotry. i can do the same with any individual and book. looked up those quotes those are from the haddith, which many Muslims wish to remove since they do not view them as authoritative and have little to do with the actual koran.

Oirish_Martin:

pyrate:
Who remembers the media after Breivik attacks in Norway? How many media organisations were reporting that the culprit was likely to be to be a Muslim?

Or more recently with the grenade attacker in Belgium.

Then all of a sudden they find out he is instead a white, right-wing, Christian extremist and all of a sudden it is "ohh, this guy is not a Christian, he does not represent us".

Yeah, that was fucking hilarious.

One muslim/brown guy = ALL MUSLIMS WANT US TO DIE
One white right winger = total coincidence!

What is your media made of O.o

This is the kind of assumptions that are never made over here. And heck if they truly are muslims you'll even have to guess it by the names because unless it was an obvious radicalist muslim attack it's the kind of stuff that won't be mentioned.

keiskay:

considering none of the quotes actually state what book they are from in the quran i cant take your post seriously since it can be the wrong book as in not the quran. also a you're taking a book out of context and posting bits to make it fit your bigotry. i can do the same with any individual and book. looked up those quotes those are from the haddith, which many Muslims wish to remove since they do not view them as authoritative and have little to do with the actual koran.

Do you see those numbers above every quote? Like 98:6? 98=Sura, 6=Verse. Go to Quran.com, enter 98:6 and you'll immediately see the quote, and you can even look up the context! They are all from the Quran, not from hadiths.

Of course you can misquote any part from any book.

If you want to give us an intelligent reply, you don't start insulting me by saying 'bigotry', you look up the context and proof to me that the verses actually make a lot of peaceful sense.

Katatori-kun:

I'm don't know where you are from, but in America, people vaguely from the same group as you doing something in another country doesn't make you guilty of that crime

image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

I think you're wrong.

Danyal:

Katatori-kun:

I'm don't know where you are from, but in America, people vaguely from the same group as you doing something in another country doesn't make you guilty of that crime

-image snip-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

I think you're wrong.

You are downright confusing me, you know that? First you make posts which seem to hint at your support of those actions against Islam, quoting the violent parts of the Koran and implying that even the nonviolent Muslims are somehow responsible for the terrorists and also deserve the blame. Then, you bring up Japanese Internment Camps, which I'm guessing you're using as an example to illustrate America's unfortunate history of punishing everybody in a group for the crimes of a few.

What are you trying to say here? Spell it out for me. Do you think all Muslims deserve the blame or not? Because unless you also believe the Japanese internment camps were right, you are making absolutely no sense.

I love how a lot of people whine the media gives us a wrong impression of islam, muslims and the Middle East but...
1. Geert Wilders say exactly the opposite, he whines about the multi-cultural propaganda
2. Those people who criticize the media never give any good arguments or examples of how they would fix it except for 'I know Muslims who aren't violent!', nor do they point to websites that correct all the mistakes that are being made about Islam. Their main argument isn't "You're wrong because the Quran advocates peace and non-violence in these verses that abrogate those other violent verses", their argument is "You're a stupid aggressive bigoted racist!".
3. Indeed, the media fails at accurately portraying Islam.

Danyal:
-snip-

You've ignored me three times now. All I've asked you to answer is two simple questions: Do you think all Muslims deserve the blame for the terrorists, whether or not they are involved in any terrorist activity, and what do you think should be done about it?

The terrorists are a vast minority. Regardless of what the Koran says, the vast majority of Muslims do not want what they do. How can you just ignore that? And how can you accept that violence toward those who haven't themselves done anything wrong is okay? That is never okay. That is exactly what the Japanese internment camps were about.

Forget the media, that isn't what I'm talking about here. You've implied throughout this whole thread that you seem to think these people deserve to be firebombed, but you've never actually said it. If that's what you think, then say it. Quit beating around the bush and just say it.

If it's any consolation, I won't see your answer or reply for another five days. I'm leaving for a trip now, so hopefully I can calm down enough by then to get over this a bit.

Lilani:

You are downright confusing me, you know that? First you make posts which seem to hint at your support of those actions against Islam, quoting the violent parts of the Koran and implying that even the nonviolent Muslims are somehow responsible for the terrorists and also deserve the blame. Then, you bring up Japanese Internment Camps, which I'm guessing you're using as an example to illustrate America's unfortunate history of punishing everybody in a group for the crimes of a few.

What are you trying to say here? Spell it out for me. Do you think all Muslims deserve the blame or not? Because unless you also believe the Japanese internment camps were right, you are making absolutely no sense.

Well, I don't know thát much about the Japanese Interment Camps but they do not sound like an extremely horrible idea to me, especially when you look at the timeframe.
Muslims can be blamed as much for their religion as the Germans who were nazi's during WOII.
What that means for me is that most nazi-Germans or Muslims are just sheep, who were forced into their ideology by childhood indoctrination and social pressure.
The masses aren't that interested in the specifics of their ideology and will claim to support it without knowing the details or the alternatives. There are huge differences in devoutness.

The Islam is a horrible ideology with horrible ideas and goals. Muslims subscribe to Islam in varying degrees but most Muslims can't be blamed for being indoctrinated or for the social pressure that made/makes them Muslims. Criticize them as much as you like, but use facts, not Molotov cocktails. Molotovs are for zombies only.

Danyal:

keiskay:

considering none of the quotes actually state what book they are from in the quran i cant take your post seriously since it can be the wrong book as in not the quran. also a you're taking a book out of context and posting bits to make it fit your bigotry. i can do the same with any individual and book. looked up those quotes those are from the haddith, which many Muslims wish to remove since they do not view them as authoritative and have little to do with the actual koran.

Do you see those numbers above every quote? Like 98:6? 98=Sura, 6=Verse. Go to Quran.com, enter 98:6 and you'll immediately see the quote, and you can even look up the context! They are all from the Quran, not from hadiths.

Of course you can misquote any part from any book.

If you want to give us an intelligent reply, you don't start insulting me by saying 'bigotry', you look up the context and proof to me that the verses actually make a lot of peaceful sense.

i read all of those in exact context and they do not promote violence, but like many religions state that you should ignore and reject those who try convince you that you are wrong. you are also showing an us against them attitude towards muslims. also nice try at an insult but im not gonna take someone seriously when they claim ayn rand to be there prophet. taking pieces from a book about peace to support your personal bigotry is quite low.

Katatori-kun:
...

Not really, no.

Well, I'd call it an "irrational aversion to homosexuality", and hence claim that it fits the bill.

Ultimately, the terminology matters little though. Anyone who holds that there's anything wrong with two consenting adults practising homosexuality am to me nothing but worthless filth, unworthy of the slightest respect or empathy.

You are once again presuming that all Muslims follow a very stereotypical caricature of their religion you are inventing to win an argument. Poor form.

Well, having never been shown any denomination whose official stance was acceptable, I'll keep presuming - from the vast empirical basis - that no denomination currently in existence within Islam is not homophobic (or, to avoid terminological bickering, "holds absolutely nothing against practising homosexuality").

Are there people who call themselves "Muslim", who could very well not do so? Undoubtedly.

Are those people actually "Muslim", when they don't fit any Islamic dogma in existence? Undoubtedly not.

I never claimed such.

linebreak

From the OP:
And most of the public will condemn him, protesting that they are nothing like him. "He broke the law!" they'll protest. "Obviously everyone should know what crosses the line." But then I think the same old voices will go back to dehumanizing anyone with a Koran and appealing to fear and ignorance. They will go back to pretending that hatred and violence are just mental disorders that arise in a vaccuum...

What is the last sentence, if not a claim that those who verbally "dehumanize" Islam am in part responsible for violence? What else should they be "pretending" about?

I'm don't know where you are from, but in America, people vaguely from the same group as you doing something in another country doesn't make you guilty of that crime, nor does it make you deserve to have your house firebombed. You're sounding as ridiculous as that FOX News poster who claimed that this was payback for 9/11, as though all Muslims were somehow responsible for that.

Muslim individuals am certainly only responsible for their own views - which I can read in the authoritative scriptures, at least if they've labelled themselves correctly - and I never claimed that American Muslims were responsible for foreign action (except as a counter to the sentence from the OP I cited directly above)

Katatori-kun:
For example, Imperator_DK by his own admission can't even bring himself to care about innocent people whose houses have been firebombed, who might have escaped harm this time around but who knows if or when they will be targeted by a terrorist again- because he has othered those innocents out of his group and into a group that he has just blanket declared is a competitor of his group.

Indeed I have othered such homophobes. If the Qu'ran accurately reflect their views, then I certainly have no interest whatsoever in forming any kind of collective with them (or with other Abrahamics for that matter).

What you call tribalism, I call standards.

Lilani:

Danyal:
-snip-

You've ignored me three times now.

I was busy replying to you... and my reply showed up ONE MINUTE! after your reply. It would be sad if you were pissed and had wrong ideas about me for five days because you missed my reply by one minute :(

Lilani:

and what do you think should be done about it?

Well, going back the Japanese internment camps, this should be done...;
image

Or a more contemporary example, a news article from exactly a week ago;

Thousands of people in Israel rallied against religious extremism on Tuesday, protesting against the way some ultra-Orthodox Jews treat girls and women.

Protesters held signs reading, "Free Israel from religious coercion," and "Stop Israel from becoming Iran."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/12/27/ultar-orthodox-jews-israel-protest.html

Muslims should make clear that they are disgusted by terrorist attacks and that they do not interpret the Quran in a literal way, but interpret everything in a historical context.
Maybe the media is extremely islamophobic and only shows the protests and riots when somebody draws Muhammad or burns the Quran, while there are exactly as much protests of the same size when terrorists strike or Sharia gets implemented somewhere.
I don't think that's the case, but if it's the case, you should give me some good sources that support that view. Show me footage of protests anti-Sharia and anti-terrorism.

Pics like this one
image
but then with the signs saying stuff like "Democracy > Sharia".
Or find me a photo like this one
image
but with Muslims burning the Al-Qaida flag and with the banner stating "We're glad Osama is dead!" or something like that.

keiskay:

i read all of those in exact context and they do not promote violence, but like many religions state that you should ignore and reject those who try convince you that you are wrong. you are also showing an us against them attitude towards muslims. also nice try at an insult but im not gonna take someone seriously when they claim ayn rand to be there prophet. taking pieces from a book about peace to support your personal bigotry is quite low.

Now please post the Sura's I've quoted in their correct context, showing how the Quran/Islam makes sense and I'm an evil out-of-context-quoter. Also, use capital letters in your next post, please.

Imperator_DK:
What you call tribalism, I call standards.

What you call standards, I call grotesquely ironic intolerance.

On topic:

Katatori-kun:
If America goes into decline, it won't be because Republicans or Democrats took office, it won't be because of debts or taxes or spending policy, and it won't be because of China. It will be because when it really mattered, we gave up. Because we enjoyed being scared, angry, and hateful. Because in the end we thought supporting our petty insular personal clubs was more important than liberty.

I understand your indignation at the comment-posters on Fox News, Katatori. I don't think it necessarily heralds the downfall of American society, though. Although hate crimes against Muslims spiked shortly after the 9/11 attacks and anti-Muslim rhetoric is still employed by politicians and media outlets, actual hate crimes perpetrated against Muslims have been on the decline. In fact, Jews are still far more likely to be the targets of hate crimes in the U.S. than Muslims.

It's always sad to see hateful people posting on the internet, but these people aren't the harbingers of America's collapse. They're just particularly striking examples of both the internet douchebag theory and peoples' reactionary, tribalistic nature in general.

Danyal:

keiskay:

i read all of those in exact context and they do not promote violence, but like many religions state that you should ignore and reject those who try convince you that you are wrong. you are also showing an us against them attitude towards muslims. also nice try at an insult but im not gonna take someone seriously when they claim ayn rand to be there prophet. taking pieces from a book about peace to support your personal bigotry is quite low.

Now please post the Sura's I've quoted in their correct context, showing how the Quran/Islam makes sense and I'm an evil out-of-context-quoter. Also, use capital letters in your next post, please.

The entirety of 2:191 since you so lovingly left out the whole phrase as i knew you would.

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

I'll also add 2:190, 2:192 and 2:193

2:190:
Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

2:192:
And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

2:193:
Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

the translation is shoddy at best but they say to attack those who attack or oppress you. If you have a problem with people defending themselves you are clearly delusional. It also states in 2:193 to stop fighting when your oppressors cease to fight or until they are all dead. so if they cease to fight and oppress the Muslims, the Muslims will stop. You clearly showed your bigotry by posting a fragmented verse and cherry picking to meet your own goals, now please leave.

EDIT: Im also going to post Sura 2:195

2:195:
And spend in the way of Allah and do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction [by refraining]. And do good; indeed, Allah loves the doers of good.

Whats this? A sura that says to refrain from destruction and violence and to do good? no fucking way!

generals3:
What is your media made of O.o

This is the kind of assumptions that are never made over here.

Well, I was exaggerating somewhat, but certainly in the UK I seem to recall there being an initial claim it was an Islamic terrorist attack, whereas when the news broke that it was a white right-wing nationalist suddenly it became an isolated incident.

Also, I'm not entirely sure where you mean by "here".

Agitated Owl:

Imperator_DK:
What you call tribalism, I call standards.

What you call standards, I call grotesquely ironic intolerance.

What are standards but intolerance of evil?

You might not consider homophobia so, but I do. Hence the intolerance of it.

Imperator_DK:

You are once again presuming that all Muslims follow a very stereotypical caricature of their religion you are inventing to win an argument. Poor form.

Well, having never been shown any denomination whose official stance was acceptable, I'll keep presuming - from the vast empirical basis - that no denomination currently in existence within Islam is not homophobic (or, to avoid terminological bickering, "holds absolutely nothing against practising homosexuality").

So you're just going to stick your fingers in your ear and just obstinately insist forever that not only must every Muslim hold their beliefs in rigid lock-step with their denomination, but that any denomination that is not vocally positive about homosexuality must hold something against homosexuality?

At this point, you are just choosing to be ignorant. People are more than doctrine, and you are insisting on judging people you've never met based on your ignorance of their religion. That is not justice. That's bigotry.

I never claimed such.

linebreak

From the OP:
And most of the public will condemn him, protesting that they are nothing like him. "He broke the law!" they'll protest. "Obviously everyone should know what crosses the line." But then I think the same old voices will go back to dehumanizing anyone with a Koran and appealing to fear and ignorance. They will go back to pretending that hatred and violence are just mental disorders that arise in a vaccuum...

What is the last sentence, if not a claim that those who verbally "dehumanize" Islam am in part responsible for violence? What else should they be "pretending" about?

That != "the debate on Islam had caused this attack"

I'm don't know where you are from, but in America, people vaguely from the same group as you doing something in another country doesn't make you guilty of that crime, nor does it make you deserve to have your house firebombed. You're sounding as ridiculous as that FOX News poster who claimed that this was payback for 9/11, as though all Muslims were somehow responsible for that.

Indeed I have othered such homophobes....

What you call tribalism, I call standards.

I can't believe that you honestly think your bigotry is defensible.

keiskay:

Whats this? A sura that says to refrain from destruction and violence and to do good? no fucking way!

Now do the same for the other quotes? By the way, Muhammad started out peaceful and ended more warlike and violent. Later verses abrogate earlier verses. And this is only sura 2.

Katatori-kun:

I can't believe that you honestly think your bigotry is defensible.

I can't believe that you honestly think islamic/religious bigotry is defensible.

Did anybody here say that Muslims should be firebombed? Nope.
Did anybody here say all Muslims are evil terrorists? Nope.
Do we attack religion, the ideology, the scripture, the ideas, the misogyny, violence, dogmatism, uncritical submission and homophobia? Yes, that's what we did, and it's not hard to defend that. It's way harder to defend the Bible/Quran in modern times.

One complaint made about some atheist activists is that they are in fact anti-religious and anti-theistic bigots who are just expressing their personal bigotry, not arguing on behalf of atheists' rights and liberty. There is a legitimate point to be made here, in that generalizing about an entire class of people for the actions of only some members is technically incorrect. What's missing, though, is an appreciation for how the "silent" majority perpetuate and benefit from injustice.

I don't think it's a coincidence that this particular disagreement is not in the least bit new. Liberation and civil rights movements in the past have recognized that there is always a "silent" majority in privileged classes who do not actively oppress or discriminate, but at the same time help perpetuate and benefit from injustice precisely through their silence and inaction. They may not intend this and they may not even be conscious it, but this does not alter their complicity and it is because of this complicity that generalizations are made.

~~~

Christians and religious believers should spend more time dealing with believers they think are giving them a bad name than with generalizations from atheists. Which is ultimately causing more harm: generalizations made by a few atheist bloggers, or the incessant privileging of religion, religious beliefs, and religious believers?

~~~

When other members of a privileged class - the ones who insist that they "aren't like that" - expend more resources and worry over the former than the latter, then they are tacitly abetting and complicit in the harm being caused. Atheist generalizations about Christians or religious theists do not lead to any religious believers being excluded from power, being denied equality, or being forced into a second-class status. Those generalizations, even if empirically incorrect, do provide strong rhetorical force behind arguments about how insidious, unjust, and indecent religious and Christians privileges really are as well as the criticism that religious theism itself is empirically and logically unjustified.
http://atheism.about.com/od/fundamentalistatheists/a/AtheistBigots.htm

Agitated Owl:
I understand your indignation at the comment-posters on Fox News, Katatori. I don't think it necessarily heralds the downfall of American society, though. Although hate crimes against Muslims spiked shortly after the 9/11 attacks and anti-Muslim rhetoric is still employed by politicians and media outlets, actual hate crimes perpetrated against Muslims have been on the decline. In fact, Jews are still far more likely to be the targets of hate crimes in the U.S. than Muslims.

It's always sad to see hateful people posting on the internet, but these people aren't the harbingers of America's collapse. They're just particularly striking examples of both the internet douchebag theory and peoples' reactionary, tribalistic nature in general.

I can see how what I wrote sounds more extreme than I intended it to be. I'm not so much talking about a collapse Fallout 3-style with super mutants and wasteland raiders. I'm talking about decline from superpower status to just being one of any number of other semi-prosperous countries. Many would say that decline is already taking place.

The source of America's prosperity has always been innovation, and a big chunk of that innovation has historically come from immigrants. And the mythology has always been that these immigrants come to the US and innovate and drive our economy because America is a place where anyone of any race or religion can fit in and make something of themselves if they're willing to work. Our citizens don't appear very poised to take the reins of scientific leadership, and from what I hear international students are increasingly choosing not to remain in the US after their studies are finished. That means in the long term other countries should be expected to gain the advantages of innovation that the US used to reap from our prosperity and status as a free society. If we are not as free as we say we are, if we are a society where the people who are superficially different get targeted for violence and are hassled for worshiping as they see fit, then what reason would any international student have for staying here?

Katatori-kun:
...
obstinately insist forever that not only must every Muslim hold their beliefs in rigid lock-step with their denomination

Yeah, that's what's religion is conceptually about: The individual deferring to a higher power, which authoritatively sets down norms to which it submits. These people don't consider themselves anything compared to "god", and hence neither do I.

, but that any denomination that is not vocally positive about homosexuality must hold something against homosexuality?

When it has the Hadiths - proclaiming that gays should be killed - as part of it's authoritative foundation?

Yeah, I think that's a reasonable assumption, barring any qualification on the issue.

People are more than doctrine

Undoubtedly. But they can only be given credit for what they manage to communicate.

They will go back to pretending that hatred and violence are just mental disorders that arise in a vaccuum...

That != "the debate on Islam had caused this attack"

Really?

Sure sounded a lot to me like you were assigning a share in the responsibility, but I guess I was mistaken then.

I can't believe that you honestly think your bigotry is defensible.

Well, I guess holding religious people to their own scriptures, and not the liking homophobia found in it, is quite an unbelievable position to take.

I, on the other hand, can't believe you find no reason to criticize Islam. Thankfully, neither of us have any actual need to understand the other.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here