I don’t see what “good” there would be in for me to answer once more the stupidities of yet an other one who declares to know it all while demonstrating to know nothing.
I explained in my previous post that I am not interested in going into posts made by someone who clearly is not here to discuss/question anything at all.
If I am Muslim or Catholic or Satanist or non-religious or An Alien From Mars has nothing to do with that.
I explained also that if anyone wants to post questions about AQ or hadith and does this with the intention to post questions, that I shall be most ready to answer/explain/debate, whatever.
See, that is what I asked you to explain about your comment and hence my interpretation was indeed correct.
So what is “volatile” (?) and “unreasonable hostile” and “quite as bigoted” in taking your comment for what you now indeed show it was intended to be?
Can I have a drawing because this is far too difficult for me to comprehend just like that.
I have no idea what you mean exactly with “strong-willed” but what I do see is that once again you make a comparison between the OP and myself in an attempt to make us look “equal” =competible.
For the rest: I am not interested in spending time and energy at stunts of “clashing” with other members in order to give in to your longing for such dubious amusement.
Let be alone that I would be interested in “clashing” with a poster who so far never showed any interest in any form of discussion or debate. And who in addition to that is not interested in posting something that eventually - with the use of a fair amount of your fantasy- could be considered as showing some form of existing intellect and intellectual curiosity behind it.
I don’t think the SDMB is intended to be a circus Roman Style with members performing “gladiator-wise” to the amusement of other members. But if you do think it is then maybe you could provide for the spectacles yourself and “clash” with the OP as much as you like.
I shall not be amused but maybe others will.
Salaam. A
I don’t think so (and I do not take as a critcism to be compared with what is incomparable).
As for giving explanation. Yes, I can do that, but what everyone here always forget is that I am not scholared in the English language.
Writing Quranic exegeses in English is something I did not do ever. So whenever I give here exegeses or whatever other explanation on the issues (any issue, for that matter) it asks a lot of concentration/translation from me.
If I then start writing on such issues that are part of my studyfield I can not afford it (even if it were only for my own satisfaction and my own dignity) to be inaccurate or unclear/be in error in my comments.
Hence I my decision to only do this when the poster asking for it/provoking it is worth the effort for me.
So far I saw nothing in any of the posts of the OP to place him anywhere else then on the level of the average anti-Islam spammer only out on the spamming and not interested in anything else.
It doesn’t really matter what the response to the OP is. The OP’er is unlikely to ever be called on it (referring to his posting behaviour) by the mods. After this dies down he’ll probably come back with yet another GD that isn’t a constructive debate, merely more rhetoric. And the cycle of this style of posting will continue. I’ve seen posters be banned for considerably less, so how come this guy gets such a special pass all the time?
(Note: This wouldn’t apply if this had begun in the PIT)
PaulFitzroy, I’m interested in how you square your sweeping statements about Islam with the hundreds of millions of Muslims who live relatively peacefully and non-aggressively in the many secular Islamic and non-Islamic states around the world?
Sometimes I get the feeling that when certain people on this board say “Muslims” they are actually referring only to a) violent b) male c) Islamist d) Sunni e) Arabs.
Mmmmmmmmm… You overlook the peaceful non-agressive millions living in Islamic states.
I always get the feeling that such posters are not even aware of the existence of “other” Muslims.
By the way: There are some Shia Muslims who are not all that docile and peace-loving.
And now that I look at your list: How many points does one have to match for receiving the Terrorist Diplome? (Just in case I want to switch camp.)
Yeah, I didn’t mention them because posters like PaulFitzroy brand them as guilty-by-default for not speaking out while living under oppressive governments, theocracies, and/or shari’a law. And of course PF already knows what they all believe and think - they support the terrorists.
Yup, me too. However, if one takes the word “Muslim” from these posts and substitutes instead my five-point definition to a lot of these posts, they start to make a little bit of sense.
Sorry about that, mea culpa.
Well, I’d say the ‘violent’ point is the crucial one, but of course that can apply to all fanatical ideologies, not just religious ones.
God… I must be constantly in danger and don’t even know it…
Maybe because I always get the remark that nobody can make a thing of what I say or write. That is called self-protection. Smart move, no? History shall describe me as the Second Coming of Nostradamus
Call to the OP: Yes. OK. You are correct.
Now go away rejoicing… Your mission here is completed.
Who… I barely escape… I had already 3 out of 5. (And the “violent” point is never excluded since it depends on the subjectiveness of personal observations.)
Maybe the OP should tell the Friends of the CIA that I need to be put on a few lists because the FBI was not ready to do that in the past.
(This is no joke : Right after 9/11 a poster on a message board did send notice by phone and fax to the FBI that there was a raging Muslim Terrorist on their board and gave them my membername. The FBI is still recovering from that confrontational shock.)
Salaam. A
Well, PaulFitzroy, if you are still around, here you go: one of those whom you perceive to be your implacable enemy. Now, as you can see, Aldebaran pretty much treats anyone who responds to his posts with a deep-seated hostility (he’s even, a few times, made statements that some interpreted as threats), but you shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking that his attitude means anything along the lines that all infidels should be killed, as you claim in this thread. In fact, if you actually have the slightest interest in debate, here is your chance; a self-described scholar who has in the past provided many interesting insights into Islam.
You know, it’s bloody easy to make sweeping statements about people you know only as abstracts, but in Aldebaran there is a real, living person who does not in fact behave as you claim all muslims do, or seem to believe what you claim all muslims do. Despite what he said in a previous post, he dearly loves to talk, and if you manage to get past the blistering hostility, he’s actually a fairly intelligent guy. So, my question to you is, can you be enough of a man to attempt a dialogue with him, or do you choose instead to remain a child and hide behind your blind prejudices?
First of all, Muslims and their apologists often cry “Baruch Goldstein!” at any mention of terorism. Let’s know that that’s one very isolated incident; Jewish or Christian terrorism is very rare in the modern day (which is why some have taken to labeling all actions by the Israeli military “State Terrorism” in an attempt to level the playing field.)
I’m talking about whole societies, massive nations with millions upon millions of people, adhering to a very violent religious doctrine.
Now, if you’re telling me that some of what’s in the Koran doesn’t apply, then let me ask you, are you really a Muslim? Do you think that whoever wrote the Koran put all that jive about killing the infidel and very descriptive, specific examples of torture and brutality (none of which have been addressed, by the way,) in there for no reason at all?
You’re calling Mohammed a liar? You’re calling whoever pieced together the Islamic scriptures a deciever?
Or are you conveniently sidestepping the objectionable parts of your own religion?
Give it a rest Paul, even I, Ryan_Liam knows not all Muslims adhere to global Jihad, some of them have more pressing matters to attend too, like finding a job and feeding their family, or getting laid because yes, Muslims tend to be Human and have the same needs as the rest of us.
So yes, give it a rest. Try making a Muslim friend, you’ll be surprised when all your stereotypes melt away.
In that case, you are arguing from a position of complete ignorance. It reminds me of the bullshit espoused by Jihadists, who think that innocent Americans are legitimate targets because of the actions of their governments.
I would dearly love you to go, as I have, with eyes, heart, and mind open, to Islamic countries and communities - in the Mid-East and elsewhere - and realise that your perception (wherever you got it from) is utterly fallacious. You’re arguing from a position of prejudice and untruth, and thus nothing you say on the subject can be taken seriously until you actually inform yourself. Fight your ignorance.
PF:Muslims and their apologists often cry “Baruch Goldstein!” at any mention of terorism. Let’s know that that’s one very isolated incident
As I pointed out, the people who put up a tombstone to Goldstein describing him as a “righteous and holy saint” and “martyr” obviously aren’t repudiating such “isolated incidents” in any way. You won’t get away with trying to paint Goldstein, Amir, and various Gush Emunim murderers as completely anomalistic lone nuts. There is a small but nonzero minority of Jewish Israelis that strongly supports their barbaric actions. Just as there’s a small but nonzero minority of American Christians that strongly supports Christian terrorists murdering doctors.
In any case, nobody’s talking about the actions of the Israeli government here, or attempting to argue that there isn’t, in the present day, more Islamic terrorism than Jewish or Christian terrorism. The point is that you have failed completely to demonstrate that Islam per se is more “naturally” or “essentially” terroristic than any other religion. And the continuing presence of Jewish and Christian terrorism (even in Jewish and Christian societies that have many more advantages in terms of wealth, education, privilege, etc. than many Muslim societies, and so ought to be more resistant to the barbarities of terrorism) makes it clear that other religions aren’t immune from “terror theology”.
PF:I’m talking about whole societies, massive nations with millions upon millions of people, adhering to a very violent religious doctrine.
Then you’re simply talking out of your ass, as others here have noted. You can’t substantiate a false assertion just by continually repeating it.
Thank you so much for the effort made to paint a picture of my “cyberspace character”.
By the way: since when do you court my nice and beautiful SDMB stalker? (that she is beautiful has no doubt in my mind as all women who ever stalked me were Absolutely Fabulous).
This proves that despite the effort you made to reach a conclusion about me, you are still completely wrong.
Correction: I’m a completely innocent and extremely harmless genius.
Salaam. A
where I wrote among others the following answer to an identical question (see post 39)
If I recall well, there was in that same thread at least one poster who brough up links to some publications of statements that where available online and in English.
So if you refer to the existence of such reactions I think you can find them whenever you want to find it.
I’m curious. Alde, have you ever heard of Archie Bunker?
Archie Bunker provides some insight into some of these characters who start these sorts of threads. Except, as a general rule, the modern day counterparts are not as funny.
No, says nothing to me.
But I have the feeling there is not much insight needed. People who start threads like this one need no other example but their own.
Aldebaran, I want you to refute the Koran quotes I posted and tell me that they don’t more or less condone terrorist behavior. Tell me that’s not a violent religious doctrine. There are dozens more like them in your holy scriptures.
However, I do not understand why you suspect all Western media of “hiding” what both of us consider to be the normative reaction to terrorist attrocities - why should, say, The Guardian – or even the BBC or CNN – want to hide such POV’s (Fox I understand all too well…)? I still think that the sane and normal voices among Muslim leaders are fewer and fainter than should be expected, and I doubt that this is due solely to selective media coverage.
