… yes, by providing historical facts you weren’t aware of, I’m rewriting history. That makes sense. Thanks for pointing that out.
I shall politely disregard your opinion of what Muslims do and don’t believe however, seeing as the bulk of historical research on the Koran, and debate on the various points I mentioned, is and was the work of Muslim scholars. Christ on a crutch.
Yes. Which, for one thing, would go against the notion you put forward (i.e. that Muhammad was the one who authored it - the dogma being that he recited the exact words of Gabriel which he’d learned by heart) ; for another still doesn’t change the fact that Muhammad didn’t *write *shit. On account of being illiterate, which the Koran itself says. So he preached, he recited, and later others wrote down what he said, often from memory.
“A group not protesting an atrocity = endorsing said atrocity?”
This argument is really just “If you’re not with us, your against us” and is designed to attempt to force the listener into the position of either agreeing with the speaker or defending the maligned group.
It’s an immature argument where only two positions are provided, “black” or “white,” and no “grey” areas are allowed. Most people recognized that most situations have more than two options and that there are other positions available, but someone who presents an argument this way most likely wants either total agreement or a fight.
Certain ministers of the Catholic Church have been identified as pedophiles, and evidence exists showing that the institution facilitated and covered up these abuses. But I don’t recall anyone holding the average American Catholic believer responsible for the actions of those priests or demanding that they stand up and public rebuke them in order to prove they don’t endorse pedophilia. I do not automatically hold Catholic believers responsible for these acts–I’m certain many of them are appalled by them–and I don’t require them to publically humiliate themselves to prove their basic humanity.
Requiring a group to take collective responsibility for the actions of other group members is a short bus trip away from collective punishment, and human history is littered with enough atrocities against innocents associated with certain groups.
Well, Islam doesn’t have a Pope who can come out and say “on behalf of all Muslims, I condemn these attacks.” That’s just not the way Islam works. Various Imams of high repute have condemned the attacks; ask your friend whose opinion he would accept as a leader of Christianity if the Pope didn’t exist.
Not the that the then-Pope did not actually condemn the killing of children when Anders Breivik killed dozens of them in the name of Christianity. Anders Breivik wasn’t Catholic, but he was Christian by birth, so does that make it OK to say nothing? Islam has Shi-ite and Sunni and many factions among the two. Who, exactly, would be able to condemn these actions on behalf of the Muslim world?
A shit-ton of Muslims do not regularly slaughter people.
For those who do not wish to click on the post it’s a picture of protesters in pakistan holding up signs that say “I am Kouachi”. Kouachi being one of the gunman in Paris who slaughtered the blasphemers.
I’ll just point out that they were born in France and not an Islamic country. It wasn’t a matter of assimilating a culture after moving.