Darn I wonder which other religions would qualify under that? Hmm, all of them?
What insinuations? The man says in one of his posts above: “I very strongly hope I’m wrong so I’ll ask if you think I’m actually a radical Muslim pretending to be a moderate?”
So I would assume he claims to be a “moderate” Muslim. Then why does he adopt as his user name the name of a famous author who is definitely NOT a Muslim, moderate or otherwise, but an apostate?
I said I was confused. I did not insinuate anything.
Mohammed clearly said that he had been ordered to fight until all worship is for Allah alone.
Yes, other religions have a similar “world plan”. Jesus tells his apostles to go out unto all nations, etc. But he does not say “fight”.
Nor does Buddhism.
I have no information on Hinduism in that regard.
With realization comes salvation.
I am willing to admit I am uncertain about a lot of things. Try it some time. Humility can be very liberating.
looks through his “Gay Conspiracy Handbook” to see if there’s some way to excommunicate someone
BTW, I am pretty sure Shinto, the traditional religion of Japan, has no military mandate to fight until everybody is Shinto.
And I have never heard that Jews are called upon to fight until the whole world is Jewish.
Never heard of Mormons saying you had to fight to make everbody Mormon. Ditto for Jehovah’s witnesses. Even if those two DO tend to annoy you at home, I have never heard of them fighting a holy war to spread their beliefs.
You had me until right here.
“I come not to bring peace, but a sword.” - Jesus.
Not that it matters; neither Jesus nor Mohammad are in charge of what the religions they founded do, so their opinions are besides the point. You might as well be claiming that because Mickey Mouse is a mouse the main goal of the Disney corporation must be to corner the cheese market.
And Christianity got to its present position because it conquered and genocided and destroyed entire cultures in the name of spreading itself. I live on a continent that is majority Christian because the original population was genocided by Christians, in part for the purpose of spreading Christianity. And then slaves were brought in, in part in a successful effort to destroy their own culture and Christianize them. Christianity is in no way innately more peaceful than Islam.
Yes, but the good thing about Christianity is that it is a dying ideology that has less and less power in the so-called “Christian” west. No “Christian” country that I know of punishes apostasy. Many countries in Europe are to all intents and purposes atheist/agnostic.
When was the last time Christians hijacked planes and flew them into buildings as part of their world-wide spread of Christianity?
Crashing planes into buildings, of course, is universally acknowledged as the only form of religious violence.
No, murdering or trying to murder authors, translators and cartoonists who offend your religion also qualifies. Also burning embassies and killing passers-by because of cartoons about your prophet. I would count arresting and jailing a poor woman teacher who allowed a kid to name a teddy bear Mohammed. Also laws that impose the death penalty on apostates who choose to leave your religion, laws that provide for the stoning of consenting adults who have sexual relations the religion disapproves of. Also hanging and flogging of gays and cutting off the hands of thieves in the name of God.
Also killing people in Mumbai, blowing up busses in London, trains in Madrid.
Well, frankly, I don’t have time to mention them all. You get the idea.
Now, here is the big PRIZE. If you can mention some form of violence committed by another religion, no matter how small or localised, under the rules of moral equivalency arguments, EVERY VIOLENT ACT DONE BY MUSLIMS IN THE CAUSE OF ADVANCING THEIR RELIGION (AND SOME ESTIMATES RUN TO THE THOUSANDS FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS ALONE) IS SUDDENLY IRRELEVANT AND ISLAM IS NO MORE OR LESS VIOLENT THAN, SAY BUDDHISM.
When you’re trying to hammer facts into a pre existing narrative, don’t expect people to suddenl fall down on their knees and marvel at your Holy Light.
This isnt a Tea Party crowd.
They don’t need to, they have bombers and missiles which Al Qaeda didn’t. The terrorism you are complaining of is a strategy of weakness.
You were not Warned, you were admonished to refrain from breaking the rules. However, this claim
is simply a not very subtle attempt to game the system by calling him a liar while pretending you are not. That line, directly violating a Mod’s instructions, in conjunction with the rest that I have quoted that is, basically, nothing more than a personal attack on another poster has now earned you the official Warning that you seem to have desired.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
Can you please respond to my question about your claim regarding Islamic immigration into the UK and its links to the Blair regime?
With the exception of a surface sprinkling, MacTavish’s porridge is sugar-free.
When Christian preachers come down my street handing out leaflets I tell them to piss-off too. And what would you expect the response to be if Muslims started door-to-door leafleting in a similar heavily Christian area? Would they be met with positive feeling?
Those preachers got moved on for being shit-stirring pricks, and religious intolerance is not unique to Muslims. That does not a ‘no-go area’ make.
Actually, you’re showing more ignorance of a religion and a culture you despise. I didn’t choose to name myself after the man you’re thinking of.
Ibn Warraq is a pseudonym that many Muslim dissidents have been using for centuries to honor a 9th Century critic of the idea of God’s existence. The most famous(at least in the West) is, as you’ve said, the author of* Why I am not a Muslim* who tends to focus most of his criticism on Islam. That said, since he begins his book by saying that he believes that “all religions are sick men’s dreams” and “demonstrably false”, so he’d be more than a little confused by your letting other religions off the hook by for example claiming that Islam is “homophobic” while Christianity merely “has some members who are homophobes”.
As I’ve said before, and as you constantly seem to ignore, while Islam and Christianity are both excellent at enabling homophobia, neither is inherently worse than the other. What’s more important is the culture one grows up in and is led to think of oneself being a part of.
For example, I can assure you that Christians in Egypt, Syria and Palestine are just as homophobic as their Muslim neighbors. Similarly, Muslims in Bosnia and Albania are at least as tolerant, if not more so than other Europeans. I’ve heard that Sarajevo has some fairly thriving gay night clubs and a friend insisted that Albania is less homophobic than their Bulgarian and Greek neighbors.
I thought when I referred to homophobic laws as being “disgusting” it was pretty obvious that I don’t support homophobia.
You’ll also notice that I mentioned the Quran having many parts that are “bigoted” and “xenophobic” which I’d think would lead most reasonable people to presume I’m not exactly an apologist.
You’re grossly distorting his message. He said it was necessary to struggle “in defense” of God, but he repeatedly told his followers they were not to be aggressive, that they were not supposed to attack those who didn’t attack them.
Obviously and unfortunately, many Muslims have ignored these parts of what Muhammad said just many Christian conquerors ignored similar commands.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to stop sounding like some crank who thinks Osama bin Laden is representative of most Muslims.
If you genuinely believe the above statement then you don’t know what the word “insinuate” means.
You said
I could be wrong, but I think most reasonable people reading through this would think that the “T word” you’re referring to is “terrorist” or possibly “traitor”(which isn’t much better).
I don’t know what it’s like where you’re from, but where I live it’s considered bigoted to imply of a Muslim person that he’s a terrorist, a black person that he’s a rapist, or a gay person that he’s a child molester, unless they’ve done something to warrant such a suggestion which no reasonable person would think I had.
I hope that I was mistaken and that the “T word” was something else.
So Iran has no problems in Sistan or Khuzistan or in Kurdish area where tens of thousands of Iranians soldiers are not engaged in IS Duties? Furthermore Iran does not have a large security apparatus which is engaged in clamping down on any dissent. Tell me, does the Iranian opposition have rallies? Or is Iran even allowed an opposition?
And what political leader from Pakistan has been executed since the fall of the Shah, Bhutto was before the Shah’s fall.
Stick to what you actually know (which on evidence seems to be quite a lot) and not what you have heard second hand
So kindly refrain from pretending you have knowledge on the subject when you clearly do not and