And yes, the people who respond to every attack with “these victims were racists, they were punching down, they should have been thrown in prison for their hate speech…but they didn’t deserve to die” probably think that the point of Antony’s speech was that Brutus was an honorable man. Explaining everything wrong with a murder victim from the perspective of the murderer is and always will be an endorsement of murder.
*“Racism” being the new word for “blasphemy,” something self-proclaimed liberals used to endorse the right to engage in.
Ya, definitely hindu-supremacist when i dont even call myself a hindu (tend to see myself as ‘spiritual but not religious’, haven’t visited a temple in like 5 yrs. Visiting a temple is also cool of course.) I am irrelevant anyhow.
BTW copied frm someplace, the following is stated in a hadith, “He who knows himself knows his Lord.” A prominent Islamic philosopher says: “O man who considers himself a human! Read self…” In this sense, one has to try to get to know himself. Starting from ourselves, we are going to reach Him!
So plenty of good stuff in Islam too like in other religions. But overall it preaches hate and intolerance which is reflected in real world.
More flailing away at your poor battered strawman. Who in this thread has claimed that any criticism of Islam, or even hateful/racist smears against Muslims in general, warrants throwing the smearers “in prison for their hate speech”?
Why, nobody, that’s who. Nobody here has suggested that even you, Haberdash, frothing and illogical Islamophobe bigot that you are, should be liable to any legal penalties whatsoever for your hate speech.
I’m 0% surprised to learn that you don’t think a “secularist” can also be a Muslim or the legitimate leader of a Muslim country. The fact is, though that both Bangladesh as a whole and the Awami League have been cozying up more and more to Islamists lately, including a lot of foot-dragging on investigating the blogger murders.
Where on earth did you get the completely backwards notion that A’isha “doesn’t think a secularist can also be a Muslim or the legitimate leader of a Muslim country”?
Of course A’isha knows full well that Sheikh Hasina Wazed is both a Muslim and the legitimate leader of Muslim-majority Bangladesh.
Honestly, Haberdash, I often have to wonder if much of your persistent irrationality and factual misrepresentation isn’t the result of outright reading incomprehension. It seems inexplicable how somebody who’s able to successfully process written text in their own native language could fundamentally distort or fail to grasp the straightforward meaning of unambiguous statements as much as you do.
Cognitive dissonance. He is literally incapable of considering his opponents might not be the caricatures he strongly believes them to be. Therefore, when confronted with information that contradicts this belief, he has to twist them into reinforcing the belief.
Indeed. And my point was that Hasina’s secularism motivates most of her political actions, not her Islam, to highlight the idiocy of Haberdash’s “She’s a Muslim, she did a bad thing, therefore Islam is to blame for bad things!” nonsense logic.
His bigoted ideology is blinding him. It literally won’t let him see anything outside of what would confirm his hateful biases. Anything that contradicts it is ignored and/or “reinterpreted” accordingly.
The people who believe the invisible sky man told a prolific rapist-pedophile to fly his magic horse to heaven don’t think I’m interpreting reality correctly? I must be doing something right.
There is no other reason that “she’s a secularist” would be a rebuttal to "here is an example of a Muslim leader of a Muslim country doing X"unless Aisha thinks that being a “secularist” somehow excludes being a Muslim or a Muslim leader. Of course, we could already assume that a Muslim apologist thinks this, but now we have specific confirmation.
Land sakes, Haberdash, it appears that you don’t even understand the straightforward meaning of your own posts, much less other people’s. A’isha was responding to your attempting to paint Sheik Hasina with the “increasingly hardline” Islamist brush by pointing out that she is, on the contrary, a political secularist.
“Rapist-pedophile”? Gosh, one can only imagine how upset you must get over all those gay rapist pedophiles in classical antiquity. (Since clearly “rapist pedophile” to you means “adult person in an ancient culture who’s maritally or romantically linked to a person younger than what modern cultures deem an appropriate age of consent”.)
If there was a major world religion that institutionalized its atrocious attitude towards women and children based on the actions of the ancient Greeks, I’d care more. The current horrible situation for the sex objects of Muslim men has a lot to do with the fact that the guy who is so revered that you can’t even draw his picture without someone shooting at you is, according to their own scriptures, a serial rapist of victims including a nine-year-old. Which, I’m not surprised I have to tell someone with so little moral sense as to approve of Islam, is wrong at any time, place, or culture.
