So???
Even if you WERE right and there was no difference between Christianity, Judiasim and Islam, I’m not admitting there is no difference, but even if there were no differnce, the best that gets you is that they are all equally bad, not, that Islam is good or that Islam is non violent.
In other words, you (not me) are saying it is ok that Fred robbed 17 banks because Steve robbed 12 and Tom robbed 15. This is a very bizarre way to think.
If only the Caeser had seen this mountain straw man, he would have thought the claimed Gaulish habits to be less remarkable.
You can’t even bring yourself to agree with that statement! You still insist on the notion that Islam is worse than Christianity and Judaism, in the face of everything I and others have told you!
No, I’m saying that claiming Fred is evil and worse than Steve and Tom because Fred is a bank robber is kind of a bullshit statement when Steve and Tom are also bank robbers themselves and have robbed just as many banks as Fred has.
All of those are attempts by other people to clarify what Mohammed actually meant. But, if Mohammed meant otherwise, he should of SAID otherwise. Look, there are 532 passages in the Koran that refer to actual violence (the minority) or doom, hellfire and suffering(the majority of the passages). Given such a tone, given such a long list of passages that either call for violence or imply violence (doom, suffering, hellfire) then it is not at all out of line for me to assert that when Mohammed makes violent proclamation ABC he actually means ABC.
Now, you can dislike my statements, or, you can even dislike me for saying them, but 532 passages of stated or implied violence weighs HEAVILY in favor of my position and weighs HEAVILY against yours.
So then Mohammed is evil? Because I can think of no other way to define rape, murder, genocide and slavery.
sigh
No, he does not. Here is the article.
Nowhere does he state that the Taliban are the only proper Muslims.
He states that their literal interpretation is one of the multitude of interpretations that follow from doctrinal infallibility.
If they are refusing to acknowledge that their actions are scripturally justified then they *are *apologists.
What he asserts wrecks the religion is a refusal to accept criticism.
His anger against vigilantism doesn’t excuse him, I am afraid. The idea that people should be killed for criticisms of religion is a horrible thing to promote, regardless of the fact that in his mind it should be limited to official state business. The very notion that it could ever be acceptable, even in principal, is repugnant and contributes directly to the oppression and murder of religious minorities.
I know that, somehow, you still believe that you are advocating for the notion that Islam is inherently tolerant here, but you are not. That train left the station long ago. The fact that you describe advocacy for murder as a punishment for a crime of conscience as “bona fides” says it all.
Here he is referring to the propagation through time, not geographical expansion.
No where does he state that ALL violent verses were replaced. Your continuous trotting out of this and similar straw man arguments really makes it seem that you are in no way prepared for or even capable of having this discussion.
No, you are claiming that there are exceptions, which doesn’t address his arguments at all.
You are just flat out making things up. Are you really completely unable to even process these criticisms?
Here is some news for you: every bit of criticism does not have to contain it’s own in-house apology for the thing it is criticizing. It might make it easier for you to swallow if it does, but it is ultimately counter productive to coddle these sensitivities.
How would you define:
rape, murder, genocide and slavery.
In moral terms? I’m pretty sure they are all evil. I am egarly awaiting your explanation for how they are not…
Oooo, look, Lincoln was a bloodthirsty warmonger bent on revenge!
Behold, Charles Darwin opposed the idea of natural selection:
This sure is easier than actual debate, I can see the appeal.
He did say otherwise. Read the whole chapter, not one sentence cherry-picked from the middle of a speech. Really, go pull it up and read. It’s not long, and it’s not complicated.
For the umpteenth time, violence isn’t inherently immoral, and context matters. At least try to support your position with something real, instead of innuendo and the boogeyman of references to violence.
There’s also the nonsense of saying “there’s 532 passages that say X, therefore it is significant !”. Out of how many passages total ? Numbers are meaningless in the abstract !
That’s like saying “20,000 people are zapped by lightning worldwide every year, that means it’s a significant threat to life and limb” - no, it fucking well is not, not when it’s 20k out of seven billion*365 days.
Apologists are quick to claim that the unsavory parts of Islamic doctrine are “taken out of context” without ever acknowledging the elephant in the room, which is the overall context: Islam is believed by a great many of it’s adherents to be a perfect, timeless, unalterable set of instructions from God. As long as this is the case all of it’s violent portions will continue to contribute to real world violence.
Here is one random sampling from a list of 532 passages:
Some folks will be thrown into a scorching fire. 84:11-12
Disbelievers will be given a painful doom. 84:22-24
“(Self-)destroyed were the owners of the ditch Of the fuel-fed fire.” 85:4-5
Those who persecute Muslims, without repenting, will burn in hell. 85:10
Those who are flung into the great Fire will neither live nor die. 87:12-13
On that day many will be sad and weary. Scorched by the fire, drinking boiling water, with only bitter thorn-fruit to eat. 88:2-7
Please stop talking about “context”. 532 passages set up only one context: a violent one.
Look, I understand you are wrapped up in this debate and you are probably stuck on a POV. You probably won’t admit it, that’s ok, it is a general principle and I am not blaming you for it, only saying that happens sometimes in a debate.
So, I am going to give you a chance to think about whether you really want to make the assertion that 532 passages of direct or implied violence is “not enough” to constitute a violent mentality.
I agree with you here, but I also sympathize with the attempted description. Without quantification, my description of the Koran after reading it is more along the lines of “what a fucking horror show of a book, it seems like it was written by an ultra-violent male manic depressive or schizophrenic.” I have not ever read a book as violent, with the possible exception of the Bible (which I have condemned in the harshest terms in every backwater corner of the bible belt I have ever visited, and never once been lynched).
Yes, you already linked to it and I’ve already read it. That’s how I knew he talked about Malala.
Of course he does, and quite explicitly too:
“You sit there, criticize and mock the Taliban that follow your religion in its true form while you live in oblivion with your extremely palatable, but simultaneously blatantly fallacious, brand of religion and then claim that the Taliban are misinterpreting and misapprehending your ideology?”
He asserts that refusal to acknowledge his claims disguised as “criticisms” as utter fact will wreck the religion. In other words, his interpretation of Islam is the correct one, according to him, and any other interpretation (like, say, believing that the Taliban are unschooled idiots who are full of shit) will bring the entire religion crashing down like a house of cards.
Which is, y’know, crap.
It doesn’t excuse his support of Pakistan’s blasphemy law, no. But it does kind of put lie to the claim in the linked article that Qadri is merely pretending to be a moderate in his other positions (and therefore doesn’t really mean the things he says about terrorism).
sigh
No, I’m saying that Qadri describing his role in Zia-ul-Haq’s expansion of the blasphemy law was his way of establishing his bona fides to the audience he was addressing, which gave him credibility among that audience when he condemned vigilante murders for blasphemy and served to deflect criticism from his ultraconservative Deobandi opponents on his position.
Just like Nixon used his bona fides as a die-hard opponent of Communism to give him credibility among the American people when he opened relations with Mao and served to deflect criticism from his ultraconservative Republican opponents on his position.
How does that make any difference? Naskh neither served to promote the spread of Islam geographically nor served to increase its durability over time.
He says “why would they introduce the ‘Al-Nasikh-Wal-Mansukh’ doctrine of abrogation and then ensure that the commands preaching violence chronologically followed the commands of peace”.
He doesn’t say “some of the commands”. He says “the commands”. He’s making a blanket, overall assertion, devoid of any nuance.
I’m quoting his exact words. That’s kind of the opposite of a strawman.
It does, because “the commands preaching violence” not only do not chronologically follow “the commands of peace”, they former don’t all abrogate the latter (or even most of the latter - and in some tafsir, they don’t abrogate any). Such a blatantly false assertion is straight out of the Geller/Spencer/Pipes playbook, and is practically cut-and-pasted from the Islam-hating wikiislam.net entry on the topic!
And I see that despite your accusation that I’m not addressing his arguments, you’ve so far completely ignored my pointing out his errors regarding the fingertips thing and the friendship thing.
Okay, then. Where in his article does he mention those tafsir?
Christianity is very firm in its disdain for worldly wealth and its damnation of greed. Entirely explicit, which is why its adherents universally abhor materialism and the quest for wealth.
Oooh, thanks for reminding me of something, elucidator!
If “Islam is believed by a great many of it’s adherents to be a perfect, timeless, unalterable set of instructions from God” (in the words of the cited author, “*ts holy scripture is supposed to be the word of the creator; an unalterable, preset text that is supposed to be the guideline, till the deity decides to call it a day”), and “they introduce[d] the ‘Al-Nasikh-Wal-Mansukh’ doctrine of abrogation and then ensure[d] that the commands preaching violence chronologically followed the commands of peace”…how can both be true?
How can Hank Beecher (and Kunwar Khuldune Shahid) simultaneously assert that Muslims believe their scripture is perfect and unalterable, and that Muslims believe that their scripture has had some of its verses altered? Don’t those two assertions kind of contradict each other?
It’s like they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too: if Muslims believe the Qur’an is perfect and unalterable, then they have to follow the supposedly violent commands in them too. But wait! The Qur’an also has peaceful commands, meaning that if Muslims believe the Qur’an is perfect and unalterable, they have to follow those commands too! Aha, but those crafty, evil Muslims have altered their scripture to excise all those peaceful commands, leaving only the violent ones. Which Muslims have to follow, because the Qur’an is unalterable!
Tails I win, heads you lose.
Thanks for reminding me of something, Aisha:
How would you define:
rape, murder, genocide and slavery.
In moral terms? I’m pretty sure they are all evil. I am egarly awaiting your explanation for how they are not…
Yes, if my father beats me and my mom and my siblings without mercy on a daily basis… and can justify it through some twisted set of rules… but he writes 117 essays on peace and non violence… which of these two contradicting philosophies do we pay the most attention to?
Please refer to all my previous posts in this thread. Thanks.