[Merged] General Criticism of Islam/Islamophobia Topics

[Cleon]

Don't dodge the question!

LOL.

Do you think you could win a theological debate against him? Who of the two of you is better grounded in Islamic theology?

Wouldn't that depend on who's judging?

 

[Cleon]

Here.

Nope, sorry. Nothing in Chaos' highlighted text said anything about you. Unless your RL name is "General Trend," which I rather doubt.

 

[elbe]

Nope, sorry. Nothing in Chaos' highlighted text said anything about you. Unless your RL name is "General Trend," which I rather doubt.

Especially when you look at the post Chaos was responding to.

 

[A'isha]

Don't dodge the question! Do you think you could win a theological debate against him? Who of the two of you is better grounded in Islamic theology?

In kalam? I have no idea how much his courses at a Baghdad university under Saddam's rule covered that, but given his apparent extremist Salafist bent and long association with al-Qaeda groups, I wouldn't necessarily bet against myself or anything.

Still, that'd be a better task for the experts in the matter like Walid Saleh or A. I. Sabrah (had he not passed away last year).

 

[GlennB]

Have your explained that to France and other countries that have tried to restrict or ban the wearing of religious garb in public?

They didn't do any such thing. They banned the wearing of certain face-covering garbs in public, including balaclavas and motorcycle helmets.

Years back in the UK biker crash helmets were banned on entry to public places like POs, banks etc. For obvious reasons.

Would anybody be happy if a passport photo showed a load of cloth with only eyes showing through a small gap?

 

[Dissolution]

The French decision to ban certain items of clothing was clearly driven by religion, but I'd feel fairly uncomfortable describing them as religious garb, as they're clearly not explicitly defined as such by the Quran.
Cultural garb might be a better description.

 

[tsig]

delete

 

[Belz...]

What's there to comment on? It certainly confirms the absolutely true statement (not "allegation") that, despite your assurances that you understand that not all Muslims are violent jihadist extremists, you absolutely believe that the vast majority of Muslims who aren't violent jihadist extremists are practicing their own religion incorrectly and that if they were good Muslims they'd be violent jihadist extremists too.

...all of which is also true of Christianity, when you think about it. They're all violent, except the ones that ignore the biblical commands to be violent.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Don't dodge the question! Do you think you could win a theological debate against him? Who of the two of you is better grounded in Islamic theology?

According to your own link, this self-proclaimed heir to Bin Laden executes prisoners by beheading and then posts the videos on the Internet. This isn't the kind of person you can sit down with and have a theological debate. He's interested in killing all those who oppose him and using his religion as a flimsy excuse to justify his actions (though it shouldn't be too hard to tell). Have any news reporters been allowed to interview him? Does he listen to dissenting points of view?

Your "question" is about as ridiculous as a dare that someone go up and kick him in the dick.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Where exactly did tsig demonstrate the truth of anything?

Here.

Errrr....No!

Here is what Chaos said in context:

I have some books about how the UK media, mostly the Harmsworth Press, in the early 20 th Century portrayed Judaism and the adherents of Judaism, generally in fully negative terminology, extremists, dirty, all the same, all have the same values and outlooks, threatening to destroy western culture. What I have seen in the early 21st century is the same language and style this time directed at Islam and Muslims, while dressed up as reasonable discourse.

I have noticed the same general trend.

All I´m waiting for is the suggestion that Muslims be made to wear yellow crescents on their clothing, so everyone can recognize them and be careful around these dangerous people.

Both Chaos and Dcdrac are referencing a overarching historical shift from blaming Jews for the corruption of Western society to blaming Muslims. You seem to have completely missed the point that Islamophobia is the new anti-Semitism.

 

[tsig]

According to your own link, this self-proclaimed heir to Bin Laden executes prisoners by beheading and then posts the videos on the Internet. This isn't the kind of person you can sit down with and have a theological debate. He's interested in killing all those who oppose him and using his religion as a flimsy excuse to justify his actions (though it shouldn't be too hard to tell). Have any news reporters been allowed to interview him? Does he listen to dissenting points of view?

Your "question" is about as ridiculous as a dare that someone go up and kick him in the dick.

Then he's not a true Muslim?

 

[A'isha]

Then he's not a true Muslim?

Are the civilians he's murdering not "true Muslims", then, since they weren't out beheading other people before he got to them?

 

[mijopaalmc]

I'm not sure how tsig can honestly go from "not all Muslims" to "no true Muslim".

Of course, maybe my problem is the "honestly" part.

 

[A'isha]

I'm curious to know, if Humes fork and others think that al-Baghdadi has such impeccable and convincing theological credentials, do they also believe that the Sunni of Tal-Afar and Tikrit and other towns were failing in their duties as Muslims because they weren't executing the town's Shias as mushrikun and kufr before ISIS got there to show them how true Muslims properly follow their religion?

 

[Humes fork]

In kalam? I have no idea how much his courses at a Baghdad university under Saddam's rule covered that, but given his apparent extremist Salafist bent and long association with al-Qaeda groups, I wouldn't necessarily bet against myself or anything.

Still, that'd be a better task for the experts in the matter like Walid Saleh or A. I. Sabrah (had he not passed away last year).

Can we then conclude that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi probably knows more about Islamic theology than you do?

 

[Humes fork]

A common piece of misinformation spread by our local Islamic apologists is that only Salafi/Wahhabi Islam is problematic, or violent. This is not true. The following groups are not Salafis/Wahhabis, yet they are violent and/or repressive and driven by their religious fervor:

- The Taliban
- The Muslim Brotherhood
- The Iranian regime
- The Afghan regime
- Hezbollah

 

[elbe]

Can we then conclude that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi probably knows more about Islamic theology than you do?

What an odd argument path to take. Who knows more about Christianity, Martin Luther or Thomas Aquinas? Would the victor of that hypothetical debate decide which major branch is the correct one? Why must there be one singular correct interpretation of a religion that all members must therefore be rated against?

 

[Cleon]

Can we then conclude that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi probably knows more about Islamic theology than you do?

That's a complete non-sequitur, but it seems obvious that you've already concluded what you've decided to conclude.

 

[A'isha]

Can we then conclude that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi probably knows more about Islamic theology than you do?

Er, no?

Did you even read what I wrote?

A common piece of misinformation spread by our local Islamic apologists is that only Salafi/Wahhabi Islam is problematic, or violent. This is not true.

Yes, you are correct when you say that it's not true that that's a "common piece of misinformation spread by our local Islamic apologists".

The following groups are not Salafis/Wahhabis, yet they are violent and/or repressive and driven by their religious fervor:

- The Taliban
- The Muslim Brotherhood
- The Iranian regime
- The Afghan regime
- Hezbollah

All of those groups are modern revivalist fundamentalist religious movements, and most of them have been deliberately influenced by the Saudis to "guide" them more towards the Wahhabist line.

And if you actually think that al-Baghdadi and his expertise in "Islamic theology" are the way "true Islam" is done, then two of those groups in your list don't even count as Muslim by his standards.

 

[Chaos]

Can we then conclude that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi probably knows more about Islamic theology than you do?

A common piece of misinformation spread by our local Islamic apologists is that only Salafi/Wahhabi Islam is problematic, or violent. This is not true. The following groups are not Salafis/Wahhabis, yet they are violent and/or repressive and driven by their religious fervor:

- The Taliban
- The Muslim Brotherhood
- The Iranian regime
- The Afghan regime
- Hezbollah

Here we go again... rather than address one of the dozens posts that point out how wrong your claims are, you dish out some new nonsense.

Are you trying for an atheist counterpart to the Gish Gallop?