This is bullshit. Half your posts are just as bad Tom.
Yep. Like discussing the Holocaust on Stormfront.
The passage in question is actually plain as day and doesn’t require study of 1500 years of history or whatever, but in any case, the above is a fine argument against religion (or at least revealed religion), and any epistemology based on revelations and visions instead science and reason. It’s not specific to Islam, but it’s a point that I’d gladly co-sign: revelation is a terrible way to know what’s real and what isn’t.
Your quasi-pacifism may compel you to apply such a crude acid test (ie, things that refer to violence = bad, things that don’t = good), but to non-pacifists it’s nonsense, and actively immoral. “Violent” isn’t a synonym for evil (an absurd concept that has no place in an argument allegedly based in reality), no matter how strenuously you insist that it is.
It is apparent from this response that not only are you failing to confront his argument, you are not even processing it, nor are you understanding the context that it is written in. (I am sorry if this sounds condescending, I am just being blunt and avoiding the soft bigotry of low expectations that dominates this discussion.)
Again for reference:
[QUOTE=Kunwar Khuldune]
The ‘Islamic Curriculum on Peace and Counter Terrorism’ can basically be summarised as the now ubiquitous apologia that ISIS ‘has nothing to do with Islam’, which is the laziest counter-terrorism argument that one can come up with.
To call it a reformist effort would be to reduce the long impending Islamic reformation to a couple of hours’ worth of Google search, during which one can find countless articles using ‘context’ and ‘misinterpretation’ to excommunicate Islamist terrorists.
Ironically this replicates radical Islamists’ favourite vocation: apostatising anyone with a different take on Islamic scriptures.
The reforms that we Muslims need is to accept that ISIS’ Islam is just as authentic a version of Islam as any other.
For literalism is another of the ‘multiple interpretations’ of Islam that we like to expound. Islamic reformation, thence, would mean revisiting our approach to the infallibility of Islamic scriptures, without conjuring apologia for ‘true Islam’, and accepting the idea that a Muslim can unapologetically condemn Islamic doctrines.
Anyone who peddles the concept of ‘true Islam’ – just like any other religion – no matter how peaceful and tolerant their version of Islam might be, inadvertently gives credence to the likes of ISIS.
For if there is a ‘true’ version, what’s stopping the radicals from believing that theirs is the one?
The monopoly of truth of any version of Islam needs to be replaced with the spread of plurality in Islam and the Muslim world, and accepting humanist, sceptic and revisionist Muslim identities, with varying stance on scriptural adherence.
Instead of excommunicating the radicals, and scrutinising the legitimacy of their actions through religious scriptures, true reform would mean giving humanistic ideals preference over any and every interpretation of Islam.
This in turn would ensure that the only acceptable version of Islam would be the one that is pluralistic and tolerant anyway.
If one believes that ‘true Islam’ actually is peaceful, tolerant and endorses pluralism, then there’s no better way to propagate it than challenging the very idea itself.
Just like with other religious communities, reform among Muslims will be brought about only by scrutinising religious scriptures, not by shielding them from criticism.
[/QUOTE]
First of all, his audience is English speaking Pakistani Muslims.
What he is criticizing is the refusal to let go of doctrinal infallibility. So when he says “your religion” to them, he is not speaking of the religion of all Muslims, but to those Muslims who refuse to scrutinize religious text. This is obvious because he is Muslim himself, just not one who refuses to be critical of scripture. If he was talking about all Muslims he would say “our religion”.
His argument is that, if one’s claim is that Islam is the one true religion who’s source texts are not to be challenged or criticized, then some of the many possible interpretations look like the Taliban or Isis (or Saudi Arabia). The more literal interpretation is one of many legitimate ones, and these interpretations are more true to the texts than some Lahorian intelligentsia drinking alcohol in a mixed gender setting while ranting about the Taliban being ignorant of religion.
This is the actual direct opposite of his position.
Again, you are completely failing to digest his assertions.
Not all Islamists wish to further their agendas extra-judiciously, no, but that doesn’t help your argument one bit.
Indeed.
How can you say this when it became so integral to Islam as a way to sort through the contradictions in the Koran? How can we know how Islam would have spread differently across time or terrain had a different method been developed?
Right, generalizations are only allowed in defense of Islam, I get it.
His assertion is generally true, the fact that their are some exceptions does nothing to detract from his point.
And the words that you quoted do not say what you claimed.
The assertion might be similar to something written by those people, but that is not the important similarity. The important fact is that hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide and throughout history understand Islam in this manner. What Reza Aslan or Pamela Geller have to say about the matter doesn’t really mean anything. They don’t have any more sway in Cairo or Riyadh or Islamabad than you or I do.
He made no error, he said that the language is provocative and that it’s violent and hateful nature are certain to have bad effects on the world in the context of widespread belief in the infallibility of Islamic scripture.
Which ones? Why would he mention them? You don’t need tafsir to know that language about cutting off people’s fingertips is provocative, violent language.
“The fact that groups like Tehreek-e-Taliban-Pakistan and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi exist is because Islam is still traversing its Dark Ages while other religions have gone through Reformation, resulting in a collective Renaissance”-Khuldune
If you are finding the small text hard to see and/or read
Just hold down your [CTRL] key while rolling your mouse roller up or down
I have made no claim of moral superiority. At most, I have noted the intellectual poverty of those attacking Islam with invented facts and distorted claims.
I’m finding your complaints that I’m taking “out of context” the writings of someone who openly derides the “taken out of context” argument when made by other people to be quite deliciously ironic.
It also leaves you in the position of trying to claim that when Khaldane writes, quite clearly, “the Taliban…follow your religion in its true form”, it’s totally wrong of me to state that Khaldane believes that the Taliban are following the True Islam, because when he writes “the Taliban…follow your religion in its true form” he doesn’t actually mean that the Taliban follow Islam in its true form.
Which is a small enough audience that I doubt that they’re the ones he’s actually writing for. I think he’s instead writing for Western Islamophobes, especially given the way he repeatedly echoes their own claims and assertions.
In other words, he believes that the Taliban follow Islam in its true form, and the modernist reformer types are getting their religion all wrong.
Which, incidentally, shows how his ostensible desire for a “reformed” Islam is nothing but a hollow lie.
Well, for one thing, there’s so much disagreement and argument about which verses, if any, have been abrogated that (far from being “integral” to Islam as a way to interpret the Qur’an) naskh has actually had very little impact on fiqh.
Thank you for conceding that he’s making a blanket generalization.
Actually, it does, because the point he’s trying to support with his generalization (that naskh is about the violent verses superseding the peaceful ones and was deliberately set up so Muslims could ignore the peaceful verses while keeping the violent ones) is torpedoed if that generalization isn’t, in fact, true.
And it just so happens that it’s not true, thus making his argument a false one, built on a falsehood.
If Khaldane writes “the Taliban…follow your religion in its true form” but doesn’t actually mean that “the Taliban…follow your religion in its true form”, then he’s a pretty shitty writer.
[citation needed]
If he has to make things up about the language he says is so provocative (like how “believers” are commanded to cut the fingertips off unbelievers or that Muslims can’t have Christians and Jews as friends, neither of which are true), then his credibility regarding his claims about its supposed provocativeness is rendered somewhat suspect.
“And the fact that groups like the Lord’s Resistance Army and The National Liberation Front of Tripura exist is because Christianity is still traversing its Dark Ages while other religions have gone through Reformation…wait a minute.”
I am willing to agree that Islam is ready for an Enlightenment-like phenomenon.
However, this claim about the Dark Ages is just dumb. It was not the Dark Ages when Virginia Protestants attacked Maryland Catholics. It was not the Dark Ages when Protestants attacked and burned Catholic churches and neighborhoods and murdered Catholics shortly before the U.S. Civil War just because the Catholics wanted to use a different version of the same bible. It was not the Dark Ages when Ian Paisley created a version of Presbyterianism to foment hatred to re-ignite and then perpetuate the Troubles of Northern Ireland. It was not the Dark Ages when Filipino Catholics enacted discriminatory laws against Muslims. It was not the Dark Ages when 19th century Italian Catholics passed laws that allowed Catholics to adopt Jewish children to convert them or when 20th century American Protestants passed similar laws to remove Indian children for the same purposes. It was hardly the Dark Ages when the Ku Klux Klan grew to several million members promoting a Protestant belief system that targeted Catholics and Jews as enemies. It was not the Dark Ages when Sri Lankan Buddhists attacked Muslims for being the “cause” of the New Years Day Tsunami. It is not the Dark Ages, today, when Buddhists are actively persecuting Muslims in Myanmar.
Your insistence on blaming everything that you believe against Islam, (factual or invented), on religion, alone, while deliberately ignoring similar actions by people of other religions and ignoring the political realities behind many of the conflicts in which Muslims are involved makes no sense.
And of course the irony of your refusal to use context to any ends other than the defense of Islamic doctrine is lost on you…
Khuldune does not believe that Islam has a true form, do you get that? Here he is referring to the subset of Muslims unwilling to criticize Islamic scripture and their religion. Your claim was:
He never asserted that the Taliban are the only proper Muslims. This claim is absurd considering he is Muslim himself and actively campaigns against the Taliban in a country where this drastically reduces his life expectancy.
If you read more of his work you will discover that this is not true, since it is loaded with references that are completely lost on anyone not familiar with Pakistani culture and politics.
He is a modernist reformer type. What he claims the Taliban are following in it’s true form is the Islam of those who refuse to put humanistic values over Islamic doctrine, and refuse to accept any criticism of Islamic scripture. He calls out those who are only able to be critical of groups like the Taliban via claims that they are un-Islamic, instead of elevating humanistic values ABOVE religious texts, and realizing that it is horrid to shoot children in the face for going to school regardless of what Islamic scripture has to say about the matter.
He wants to reform Islam by reducing it’s influence on public life and elevating human life above scripture. Or, as he says, he hopes for a time when Muslims will be more offended by dead bodies than by naked ones.
Then how is it that alcohol is prohibited when Koran 4:43 states: “O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying or in a state of janabah, except those passing through [a place of prayer], until you have washed [your whole body].” Clearly implying an allowance for drunkenness, as long as one sobers up by prayer time?
All discussions using language will contain some level of generalization. Your assertions are certainly no exception.
Not as long as it is largely true, and not if that is how it has been understood throughout the centuries.
Good to see that you are more of an authority on Islam than Abu Bakr Siddiq, Umar Bin Khattab, Ali Bin Abi Talib, Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari, Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Ibn Jawzi, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Qayyim…
He means that the Taliban follow the religion of the people he is speaking to in it’s true form. You are not understanding that he differentiates between the Muslims and uncritically observed Islam. The failure is yours.
So what you are saying here, essentially, is that your interpretation is the correct one and any understanding that differs is incorrect. I am not sure of you are aware of how widespread the belief about not having Jews as Muslims as friends is, but you are apostating quite a large percentage of the world’s Muslims here…
His CLAIM about it’s provocativeness? It is obviously provocative language, especially in the context of doctrinal infallibility.
Are you denying that Christianity ever had a Dark Ages, or are you denying that the Dark ages came to an end long ago?
There’s no “irony” in your strawman. The “context” of Khaldune’s statements is that he’s accusing liberal Muslims of following a “blatantly fallacious” brand of Islam, while the Taliban follow Islam in its “true form”. Which he then attempts to support by (falsely) asserting that Islam is so full of violence that even the peaceful verses of the Qur’an have been deliberately excised, and so the Taliban are merely following what their religion dictates.
“[T]he Taliban…follow your religion in its true form”.
If he is, he’s apparently completely missing his target.
“[T]he Taliban…follow your religion in its true form”.
How odd, if he’s a Muslim who is ostensibly against the Taliban, to then say “the Taliban…follow your religion in its true form”.
Such as?
Who seems to really hate modern liberal Muslims, and prefers the Taliban to them. He’s really bad at this “modernist reformer” thing.
Because of 5:90-91.
4:43 and 5:90-91 don’t contradict each other - one covers a specific situation (khās), while one concerns a general prohibition (āam): don’t get intoxicated, and especially don’t go to prayer intoxicated. That 4:43 implies (to you) that getting drunk outside of prayer time despite not actually saying so would be an example of dalālah nass, or inferred meaning. But since one of the rules of naskh is that the nāsikh and the mansūkh have to conflict such that it is impossible to follow both rulings at the same time, naskh does not apply here - it’s quite trivial to follow both the injunction not to show up drunk for prayer and not to drink at all at the same time, and 5:90-91 does not abrogate 4:43 (ie, you still can’t show up to prayer drunk), it merely clarifies that you also shouldn’t be drunk at other times either, plugging the “implied loophole” you see there. And, since that “loophole” was not an explicit ruling in 4:43, and the actual command in 4:43 certainly still applies (you can’t show up to prayer drunk), there’s no need for abrogation.
It’s not true, and that’s not how it’s been understood throughout the centuries. I recommend that you read Asma Afsaruddin’s Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought to see just how the violent verses and the peaceful verses have actually been viewed by exegetes and scholars over the centuries.
Your link doesn’t reference any of those individuals. Though I see it does say “he has now published “Don’t Blame the Taliban - Part III” (November 10, 2012) over at Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch”.
I’m shocked, shocked to see that Khaldane has allied with one of the most notorious and bigoted Islam haters in the West, and that his essays are so appealing to the likes of Spencer and regurgitate everything Spencer and his cohorts assert about Islam.
And I’m equally shocked to see that Khaldane, in his “part III” there, repeats verbatim the claim from the WikiIslam hate site that the Sword Verse abrogates no less than 120 peaceful verses as if that were accepted and plain truth (depending on the scholar, the number of verses in the Qur’an that have been abrogated range from 0 to 5 to 20 to 200). And I’m shocked to see that he goes into even more explicit detail about how the Taliban are following the only True Islam, and moderate, liberal Muslims are totally wrong:
“The Taliban are the product of studying Islam and nothing but Islam…The Taliban are merely striving to propagate the message of the Quran and of the prophet how it’s said to have expanded in the 7th century AD. Islam orders the true Muslims to wage war against those who spread Fitna, which is described in (2:217) as disbelieving Allah and not following his path. This basically means that the Muslims are ordered to ensure that every part of the world follows the Islamic way of life, and use violence — if need be — to ascertain Islamic supremacy. The Taliban understand the meaning and act accordingly, the Islamic scholars throughout the past 1400 years comprehend it and elaborate it accordingly in their tafsirs and literature, but the apologists are hell bent on claiming, and perhaps believing, what they want the teachings to articulate –not what they actually proclaim –at the cost of multitudinous lives.”
No wonder Spencer ate that shit up. :rolleyes:
Again, I refer you to Afsaruddin’s book (a survey of exegetical works, legal books, hadith collections, and other writings from the first century after Muhammad to the modern day), where you can see just how blatantly wrong Khaldane is.
He doesn’t differentiate between anything, as his own fucking words show.
No, I’m saying your understanding is certainly incorrect (and from what you’ve shown me so far, so is Khaldane’s).
I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say here.
If it’s so obviously provocative, why the need to “enhance” it with lies?
I’m saying that, under Khaldane’s criteria, if currently-existing Muslim terrorist groups means that Islam is still in its “Dark Age”, then currently-existing Christian terrorist groups must mean that Christianity is also still in its “Dark Age”, highlighting the absurdity and uselessness of his criteria as a means of making that sort of judgment.
Liberal Pakistani Muslims who refuse to challenge the notion of doctrinal infallibility and who persecute those who do, all while having cocktails in mixed gender settings, are following a blatantly fallacious brand of Islam.
Yes, the Taliban follow the religion of those Muslims who refuse to criticize Islamic scripture, and refuse to place humanistic values above religious ones, in it’s true form.
No, he is not. You would not be able to see whether he hit the target anyway, with your head buried in the sand.
Yes YOUR (meaning his audience, not you specifically) religion, the religion of inflexible reverence to Islamic scripture, which is one of the varieties of Islam.
Is it odd for a Catholic to tell a Mormon that the polygamous sects among them are following the Mormon’s religion in it’s true form, since the LDS church “has not abandoned the underlying doctrines of polygamy”?
A few examples:
Tsunami live in concert
Imran Khan for negotiations with dengue mosquitoes
Iftikhar Chaudhary takes suo motu action against his cook
Dear Waar critics, why so serious?
We’re all rape accomplices
And here he is pandering to right-wing bigots in the West:
I’m gay… Arrest me
No, he is actually brilliant at it.
[QUOTE=A’isha]
Because of 5:90-91.
4:43 and 5:90-91 don’t contradict each other - one covers a specific situation (khās), while one concerns a general prohibition (āam): don’t get intoxicated, and especially don’t go to prayer intoxicated. That 4:43 implies (to you) that getting drunk outside of prayer time despite not actually saying so would be an example of dalālah nass, or inferred meaning. But since one of the rules of naskh is that the nāsikh and the mansūkh have to conflict such that it is impossible to follow both rulings at the same time, naskh does not apply here - it’s quite trivial to follow both the injunction not to show up drunk for prayer and not to drink at all at the same time, and 5:90-91 does not abrogate 4:43 (ie, you still can’t show up to prayer drunk), it merely clarifies that you also shouldn’t be drunk at other times either, plugging the “implied loophole” you see there. And, since that “loophole” was not an explicit ruling in 4:43, and the actual command in 4:43 certainly still applies (you can’t show up to prayer drunk), there’s no need for abrogation.
[/QUOTE]
This is quite a leap of logic you have going on.
Ibn ‘Abbâs on 4:43:
The companions of Mo got drunk. If this verse had not been abrogated, their example could not only lead people to the ruling that drinking was Makruh (disliked but not forbidden) it could quite reasonably lead the the ruling that it was halal (legal and allowed) or even sunnah (Traditions and practices of the Prophet used as a complement to the Koran in understanding the laws of Allah).
[QUOTE=A’isha]
It’s not true, and that’s not how it’s been understood throughout the centuries. I recommend that you read Asma Afsaruddin’s Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought to see just how the violent verses and the peaceful verses have actually been viewed by exegetes and scholars over the centuries.
[/QUOTE]
I am aware of the range of meaning of the term jihad throughout history. Perhaps you should spend more time studying the sources directly, rather than through the lens of 21st Century treatments emanating from the West, which are so often designed to soften the image of Islam therein.
Some of Khuldune’s work occasionally gets taken down from it’s Pakistani hosts, presumable to lessen the chance of the staff being murdered.
The Muslim Brotherhood has articles by Obama’s aid Huma Abedin featured on it’s website. I suppose that means that all of the right-winger’s claims about her being a trojan horse are true then, by your logic…
Yes, Robert Spencer published something critical of Islam, imagine that. In other news, PETA allies with Hitler on vegetarianism.
In what way does it show that he is wrong?
His words do not show that, you are twisting his words to mean what you want them to, trying desperately to mold them into a shape that resembles bigotry, when it is simply bad ideas that are being criticized.
I am just turning your own argument back on you. You are the one who was claiming that Khuldune didn’t accept any version of Islam other than his own, simply because you do not accept his tolerant, pluralistic version.
Muslims all over the world understand the commandment not to be friends with Jews or Christians quite differently than you. The arguments I have seen concerning this was whether the prohibition was against being friends at all or just against being close friends.
Now you are just playing some silly gotcha-game. Talk of cutting off people’s fingers is violent, provocative language. There is no enhancement needed, and you have uncovered no lies.
It is not the mere existence of Muslim terrorist groups that shows this, it is the widespread agreement among Muslims generally on brutal, backwards prohibitions, codes of conduct, and punishments:
Out of context? What context do you want?
Do you deny that:
Mohammed order the death of non believers?
Mohammed order sex slaves to obey their masters without question?
Mohammed order that slaves could be captured in war?
Mohammed order that men were a degree above women?
That’s all in the Koran, right? I mean, I didn’t pull that off some Islamic hating web site, it is from the Koran.
Except that Jesus never said “Sex slaves obey your masters” Jesus never said “It’s ok to take slaves in war” Jesus never said “A woman’s testimony is worth half a man’s” Jesus never said “kill the unbeliever if they do not repent”.
Jesus never invaded anyone. Jesus did not make his living as a bandit. Jesus did not own slaves.
Quit pretending like the two figures are the same.
Christians may have committed acts of violence but they did not do them because Jesus commanded them too.
You know, if you’re a Muslim whose having cocktails in mixed-gender settings, you pretty much are challenging the notion of doctrinal infallibility.
It’s no surprise to me that actual moderate liberals in Pakistan ignore the ravings of this Western-bigot-pandering asshole and pay no heed whatsoever to his hypocritical excoriations.
(And if these Lahoris are doing things like drinking alcohol and having mixed-gender parties, aren’t they supposedly also risking their lives in shari’ah-loving Pakistan?)
I find it rather odd that he accuses the moderate, liberal Muslims he’s so mad at of refusing to place humanistic values above religious ones on one hand, and then accuses them of being “the product of studying concepts derived from other human beings and then trying to forcibly merge them into Islamic teachings” (as opposed to the Taliban, who according to him, are “are the product of studying Islam and nothing but Islam”.
No, but it would certainly be odd for a Mormon who claims to be against polygamy as practiced by those sects to declare that they’re following the true Mormonism, and that Mormons who don’t believe what those sects do (which includes all the Church Elders who condemn polygamy and those sects) are getting their own religion wrong.
I thought you meant his “criticisms” of Islam were obviously aimed at a Pakistani audience because they contained references to things only Pakistanis would understand. None of those articles have anything to do with his views of Islam or the Taliban, and so far all of the pieces which do contain his views of Islam don’t have anything in them that a Western Islamophobe like Robert Spencer wouldn’t understand.
A lame ripoff of Jonathan Swift?
It wasn’t abrogated (and you’ll note that Ibn 'Abbas does not say it was, nor in his exegesis of 5:90-91 does he say they abrogated 4:43). It was already a sin (per 2:219). The three verses are progressive clarifications, and since all three are still in force (alcohol is still a great sin, and you can’t go to prayers drunk), none of the other verses were abrogated, since naskh is (by definition) the cancellation/negation of a ruling.
I doubt it.
As opposed to trusting a liar who publishes on Robert Spencer’s Islam-hating website?
Yeah, no. I’ll stick with the academic work of specialist scholars, thanks. But suit yourself.
He managed to get the second part of his nonsense in the Torygraph (surely out of reach of angry Pakistanis). Why was his third part a JihadWatch exclusive?
Only if those articles were exclusively published on the Brotherhood’s website, the way Khaldune’s “part III” was exclusively published on JihadWatch.
Did Hitler write something that was exclusively published on PETAs website?
Because it documents that scholars and exegetes haven’t all thought about the violent verses and peaceful verses the way Khaldune asserts they did, and it shows how wrong he is about abrogation and those verses.
I’m cutting and pasting his exact words. You’re the one twisting and spinning to try to claim that he was only referring to some random Lahori moderate liberals. Something which is a wee bit hard to swallow, given that he has a whole paragraph in his “part III” published on Spencer’s hate-site about how the Taliban are what you get when you study Islam and only Islam, and that they’re merely striving to obey what the Qur’an tells them and what Khaldune claims that 1400 years worth of scholars intended to say.
Even in his concluding paragraph, in which he says he wants a reformation of Islam to better fit with the modern era, he claims that such a reformation as he desires would “still light years away from the original Islamic scriptures and their teachings”, and so “there is no point blaming the Taliban or other Muslim terrorist organizations for taking the Islamic teachings way too literally, because that is precisely how they were supposed to be taken”.
He’s not likening the Taliban to the cherrypickers of Lahore cocktail parties, he’s literally saying that the Taliban are doing Islam the “right way”.
He doesn’t, because “his version” of Islam, proper Islam the way the scriptures say it should be practiced, is the Taliban’s version, and anything else (such as modern, liberal interpretations,* including* what are the reforms he ostensibly says he wants) is explicitly “light years away from the original Islamic scriptures and their teachings”.
Uh, that actually says exactly what I said about it, that the verse isn’t about taking Jews and Christians as friends (as Khaldune asserted), but as patrons in the clientage system.
The lies are when he says believers are commanded to cut off fingers. If, as you yourself say, no enhancement is needed, why did he enhance that verse with the lie that it was a command to believers?
You know, the way you keep referring to other, completely unrelated essays of his to supposedly explain what he really meant in these essays really doesn’t say a whole lot for Khaldane’s ability to get his meaning across clearly and directly. If you have to do tafsir on this guy’s work, maybe you ought to try citing someone else. Preferably someone who doesn’t write exclusives for hate sites this time.
At any rate, once again he’s trying to trap moderate Muslims in a catch-22. If they don’t speak out against and reject the terrorists, obviously they support them. If they do speak out against and reject the terrorists, they admit that the terrorists are true Muslims after all because otherwise they wouldn’t feel the need to speak out against and reject them!
Heads I win, tails you lose again.
I am not pretending that the “the two figures are the same.” That is a straw man argument, since I have made no reference to their lives.
You are simply harping on things you do not like to avoid the reality that Islam is not the terrible movement you need it to be. Your response, (that i quote, here), totally avoids the actual point I made when you quoted my post. You simply went back to ranting about things you do not like, (many of which you do not understand), while avoiding my actual statement, even though you quoted it.
Oh, gee, I got kind of confused then I guess when you were going on and on about the Protestants and Catholics killing each other and the KKK. I guess I need to improve my reading comprehension skills!
Well, you got half of that sentence right
Hmmm… what do I understand?
I understand that murder, slavery, genocide, torture, theft, and misogyny are wrong… You simply went back to ranting about things you do not like… yes, you are correct, I do not like any of these.
You certainly did. The claim to which I was responding was that Islam was still in the “Dark Ages” while other religions had moved beyond that. I pointed out how, long after the Dark Ages, major religions continued to have adherents who inflicted violence. I did not address your subsequent attempt to compare Jesus and Mohammed. So, yes, you were confused.
Anything?
And your attempt to pretend that they are all inherent in Islam are nonsense. You keep trying to conflate Mohammed with 21st century Islam, avoid understanding the world in which Mohammed lived, and twisting actual events to make claims that are factually in error about them.
Your attempt to lay “murder, slavery, genocide, torture, theft, and misogyny” on Mohammed or Islam are a confused jumble of misunderstanding and factual errors. Once you have twisted a factoid to your misinterpretation, you continue to repeat it, even if you are shown to be wrong.
which one of these murder, slavery, genocide, torture, theft, and misogyny did Mohammed:
1- Not participate in
2- not order