Nothing could be more irrelevant than what a bunch of apologists have to say about the Koran. Your “one interpretation of the book” is the correct interpretation of the book. The interpretation that actually does what the book says.
Or, to put it another way, could they find the same justification in the writings of Buddha? Or do they have to turn to Mohammed to find justification to kill people and blow stuff up?
What does my opinion of Islam have to do with the fact that the members of these groups are uneducated in Islam?
“Blasphemy laws” didn’t have anything to do with the violence over the cartoons, and (again) those who committed that violence were likewise uneducated in Islam.
Of course there is. There are more than enough terrorist groups from other religions: Christian, Jewish, Hindu, even fucking Buddhist.
Really? And what is your solution to the problem?
You are illegitimately conflating democracy with those other things. Greece, for instance, is a democracy, but it also still prosecute people for blasphemy. And just look at all the theocratic Republicans here in the United States whose theocracy is part of their campaign to the electorate.
No, actually, it is your logic that is faulty. All of these other books in the past, if they were being used today, I would be just as vocally against them.
See, I can admit that there are evil bad people using the Koran for perverted purposes. What you do not want to admit is the Koran takes bad people and makes them evil and takes evil people and makes them into horrible horrible monsters. People corrupt the book, and, the book corrupts people. Both dynamics are taking place. You want to pretend like there is only one dynamic at play.
Please refrain from talking about how ignorant I am and just tell me how many of those countries:
1- Have basic rights in terms of civil rights and safety, the same level of protection we have in the USA and Europe
2- Have fair and free counts of law, courts of law - in no way whatsoever - influenced directly or indirectly by the Koran?
Well, the victims are still exactly the same amount of dead.
What you do not want to admit is the bible takes bad people and makes them evil and takes evil people and makes them into horrible horrible monsters.
What do you mean “uneducated”. Do you mean they spent 5 minuets reading the Koran and then decided to become terrorists? Or do you simply mean their view of the Koran is different form the Muslim apologist view of the Koran? Because, I find it very very hard to believe that a member of ISIS or Al Qaeda would not spend a lot of time reading the Koran.
A) The problem with those countries isn’t Islam, it’s autocracy. Why not take a look at the actual democratic Muslim countries out there?
B) There are countries in Europe with corrupt, repressive court systems and enforced religious law, like Greece and Spain
C) Syria was ruled by a hereditary dictator who was both secular and non-Muslim, and the latter aspect certainly didn’t help with the former.
Simply reading the Qur’an does not make you educated in Islam any more than simply reading the Bible makes you educated in Christianity.
I’d be glad to admit that. It just happens a lot lot lot less often, here in 2015.
In the United States, violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort; Seven murders occurred in the 1990s.
8,886 people were killed by Muslim terrorists in just one year, 2011.
Why do you not want to admit to the GLARING difference between the two set of data.
Bullshit.
So, in other words, to prevent the Koran from being a corruptive force that encourages bad people to become evil and evil people to become monsters, in order to keep the book from influencing people in such a manner, you have to have a bunch of apologists come along and tell people to ignore the violent, oppressive, misogynistic passages.
Hmmmm
I think we have said all that needs to be said.
I think I really have nothing left at all to say on the topic. Seriously.
It was nice chatting with you. (It was).
Not subscribing to your explanation for the difference is not the same thing as not admitting the difference exists.
Here’s a serious question for you: How many times, in this thread alone, have you said some variation of, “Okay, I was wrong about that?”
And a follow up: how many time will you say it before you recognize that you’re not sufficiently informed to opine on the subject?
The Christian Lord’s Resistance Army has killed over 65,000 in Uganda alone.
Based upon what biblical passages have they done this?
I really am done… type what you want and I’m not replying, because those passages will not be form the New Testament.
It was nice talking to you. Well, I will reply if you want to respond to this (short) paragraph. I’m just not debating the topic anymore.
Why is it important? Islam has not always had today’s level of violence, and Christianity has not always had today’s absence of violence. You seem to think that the only important fact is at this time in history, Islam is experiencing more violent extremism. You are cherry-picking history and pretending that it is representative of Islam at large. It is not, and we all see the fallacy of that argument.
8,886 is not cherry picking. Your argument is the one that suffers from a fallacy. I’d be perfectly happy getting rid of ALL religion, but we need to start with the one that is currently causing the most problems.
Take that as my final comment.
You’re cherry picking time periods, not people.
Thank you for at least not calling me stupid (in whatever form) this time. Not to be arrogant or anything but that is why I am responding to you now. My closing remarks. To answer your question:
Islam had a violent beginning and it is violent now in 2015. The founder was violent, excessively and horrifically violent. That is more than enough confirmation for me that it is a dangerous religion. Periodic lapses into peaceful periods in the past probably were a very large benefit for the planet as a whole. To that, I agree.
