Merged Terror attack on German Christmas market

[McHrozni]

I think I've already proven this just be saying it. Isn't that how argument works?

Nope. Neither is pretending I didn't give evidence while quoting that same evidence.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I do NOT claim that Papon was "representative of French Christians", and I did not and do not hold Christianity responsible for his deeds. I hold him to blame, and the state which appointed him, knowing his previous record of anti Jewish atrocities. If Christians abetted his deeds, these individuals are personally responsible, not their religious community as a whole, let alone its sacred texts.

ETA I'm really baffled. How do the following words make Papon a "representative of French Christians"?

Because you mentioned about whether or not you should demand Christians to march against him.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11670414&postcount=533

If you wanted to make an analogy with Muslims, this is what your claim amounted to. If you didn't you're in violation of Rule 11. Please explain which one it is, so I can respond accordingly.

McHrozni

 

[Matthew Best]

If you wanted to make an analogy with Muslims, this is what your claim amounted to. If you didn't you're in violation of Rule 11.

McHrozni

The last several pages have been one big Rule 11 violation, as nobody has even mentioned the attack on the German Christmas market for ages.

 

[McHrozni]

The last several pages have been one big Rule 11 violation, as nobody has even mentioned the attack on the German Christmas market for ages.

We're discussing reasons and context of the attack. An incident with entirely different reasons and context fifty years prior is off topic. An overreaching ideology that contributed a lions' share of reasons for this attack and others like it is not.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Because you mentioned about whether or not you should demand Christians to march against him.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11670414&postcount=533

If you wanted to make an analogy with Muslims, this is what your claim amounted to. If you didn't you're in violation of Rule 11. Please explain which one it is, so I can respond accordingly.

McHrozni

I did no such thing: I was talking by analogy with your own demands of Muslims, which are that they should denounce their own religion and its sacred texts. I asked

Now, must I demand organised Christian public demonstrations of penitence for these misdeeds?​

And I responded

What utter nonsense.​

So how am I making these terrorist French government acts the collective responsibility of French Christians? They are clearly not.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Nope.

Cool, we agree on something. Perhaps stop doing it now?

Hint: Claiming something is proven and/or self-evident is not the same as providing evidence especially when you have spent this entire thread providing contrary evidence with your actions. When presented with information showing that the vast majority of Muslims do oppose violence you reject it, when given examples of the very thing you denied Muslims were doing you find ways to discount them or simply claim it's not enough.

As for your question around the pilgrimages. I believe the thing that causes Muslims to go to Mecca is that it has been adopted as an ongoing tradition by a vast majority of Muslims.

We've already discussed there are plenty of things in the book that Muslims and all other religions don't do and plenty of things not in the book that Muslims and other religions do.

So I would say the reasons for these pilgrimages are almost entirely cultural. They do them because that is what 'good' Muslims do in their eyes.

If the tradition had died out ages ago then they wouldn't do them even though the words in the book would still be there.

I would further argue that even if you somehow took the words out of the book the behaviour wouldn't change.

 

[McHrozni]

I did no such thing: I was talking by analogy with your own demands of Muslims, which are that they should denounce their own religion and its sacred texts. I asked

Now, must I demand organised Christian public demonstrations of penitence for these misdeeds?​

And I responded

What utter nonsense.​

So how am I making these terrorist French government acts the collective responsibility of French Christians? They are clearly not.

Then why are you pointing this example out in the first place? What is its relevance?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

As for your question around the pilgrimages. I believe the thing that causes Muslims to go to Mecca is that it has been adopted as an ongoing tradition by a vast majority of Muslims.

And those traditions have nothing to do with the fact they follow a holy book that explicitly orders them to do so, and that they're doing the pilgramage in the name of that book and its author?

We've already discussed there are plenty of things in the book that Muslims and all other religions don't do and plenty of things not in the book that Muslims and other religions do.

So I would say the reasons for these pilgrimages are almost entirely cultural. They do them because that is what 'good' Muslims do in their eyes.

If the tradition had died out ages ago then they wouldn't do them even though the words in the book would still be there.

Yeah? Prove it.

I would further argue that even if you somehow took the words out of the book the behaviour wouldn't change.

Taking it out would require changing or removing one of the five pillars of Islam. It's a humongous change.

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

Yes, good catch. You're supposed to demonstrate what Myanmar is doing amounts to a behavior bad enough to be associated with ISIS.

Mass murder verging on genocide.

There are organizations, states and the like that would fit the criteria that aren't Muslim: Khmer Rouge, DPRK and Nazi Germany are three examples that would fit the criteria.
The thing is, none of those are what we might reasonably call religious organizations or followers of religion.

Indeed. Which only shows that, just as Islam doesn't have a monopoly on mass violence among the world's major religions, neither does religion in general have a monopoly of its own on mass violence.

The only fault with my criteria is that it doesn't suit your biased needs.

The fault with your criteria is that they change chimerically depending on your need to ascribe religious violence to Islam while absolving the other major religions of any hint of it.

We're discussing Christianity now? That's new. And you were wondering why I keep insisting your only tactic is to sling feces and hope it'll stick

This would be the second time you demanded I address your specifically chosen religion and I responded with examples, and the second time you mocked me for bringing up the religion that you specifically chose in your demands, so you can avoid actually dealing with the examples I provided.

I would say this is again one of those examples of widespread ignorance so pervasive in Islam. Few enough knew this to be the case, the ones who did kept their mouth shut for whatever reason, so the motion was passed.

This doesn't even make any sense. As near as I can figure, you're declaring that the 2008 law in Egypt raising the minimum marriage age was passed out of "widespread ignorance", and yet it was no less an authority than al-Azhar which ruled that child marriage was illegitimate before Egypt's civil code was altered to be in line with al-Azhar's ruling.

Why yes, I do that. This is because both religions endorse the fact a later scripture overrides the earlier scripture, Islam even explicitly so. The early teachings in the Bible are often violent, latter ones are not. The early teachings in the Koran are often tolerant, latter ones are not.

You appear to have no more than a superficial knowledge of naskh, how it's used, and the major differences in how it's applied and by who.

Your knowledge of the role and influence of the Old Testament in Christian theology, both historically and in the present, doesn't appear to be any better.

This is about as bad as you're doing with Islam to make it seem acceptable and to Christianity to make it seem as bad as Islam.

As I recall, I've actually quoted the opinions of Muslim scholars, from medieval times to the modern day. Whereas I've only ever seen you cut and paste random quotations from the Qur'an and the ahadith and put your own interpretation and spin on them.

When Algeria declared independence, it essentially exiled it's native-born French population through a campaign of threats and violence. France was beset by a wave of refugees, numbering in hundreds of thousands. Please list the French retaliatory measures and how were they excessive for that genocide.

The native-born French population in Algeria was carrying out its own campaign of threats of violence, specifically to prevent France from granting Algeria its independence. They murdered thousands of Algerian Muslims, especially in the period after the casefire of the Évian Accords in March 1962 and before the official declaration of Algerian independence in July 1962. They carried out almost one attack every day during the height of their terror campaign in May, with the goal of forcing the French government to rescind the Accords either directly or by trying to provoke a violent response from the Algerians so they would violate the Accords.

This news item, from the Cincinnati Enquirer on May 3 1962, is typical:

Secret Army Kills Scores In Algiers

ALGIERS, May 2 UP - The outlaw European Secret Army today perpetrated its worst Algerian bloodbath since before the March 19 cease-fire, killing a reported 96 Moslems in a dock-side booby-trap bomb blast here and shooting six dead in Oran. French soldiers and police looked on without making a move at the Oran massacre. At midnight official sources reported that 110 persons had been killed and 147 wounded in the day's terrorist attacks in the Algiers area alone as European extremists desperately sought to provoke civil war. Eight Moslems at first were reported killed when a booby-trapped automobile packed with about 40 pounds of explosives blew up near a dockside where 1500 ragged Moslems were crowded around a hiring office. But the toll mounted as rescue workers searched in the debris, and unofficial sources said it finally reached 95 dead and 140 wounded. The Earth-jarring blast hurled jagged pieces of metal and chunks of stone, nearly touching off the anti-European mob reprisals the Secret Army seems determined to provoke. The extremists hope that widespread violence will force the French army to step in and block independence for Algeria. The explosion dug a crater 10 feet across and left the dock area littered with dead, wounded and dying. The massacre in Oran occurred after the Algiers explosion. European snipers had been firing from rooftops into the Moslem quarter of Algeria's second largest city while crowds cheered them on. A truck loaded with Moslem workers halted at a traffic light in view of the European gunmen and the Moslems, in panic jumped down and started running for their quarter. Shouts of "Kill them! Kill them!" rose from the crowd. A hall of fire from bystanders and rooftops cut into the fleeing men. Those who fell were finished off by shots fired point-blank. A uniformed policeman stood calmly near the traffic light while the shooting went on and a truckload of French troops rolled by without stopping. Altogether it was the worst series of terrorist attacks since European extremists began their bloody booby-trap bombing attributed to secret army terrorists.

The Algerian War of Independence was a bloody, violent, horrible affair, with atrocities committed by both sides (and with the atrocities committed by each side justified by the atrocities committed by the other side). Reducing it to nothing more than "the Algerian Muslims declared independence and threw out the non-Muslims" evinces very little understanding of the war, its causes, its conduct, and its consequences.

 

[Craig B]

Then why are you pointing this example out in the first place? What is its relevance?

McHrozni

What on earth are you on about? You asked for examples of atrocity by the French government. I gave you one, and have stated that it was not the responsibility of French Christians, who bear no collective responsibility for it. For some reason you have decided otherwise, that I blame it on these Christians; so I have been citing my own words which plainly say the opposite.

 

[A'isha]

Yeah? Prove it.

The parts of Q 2:196 and 2:197 you leave out (as well as Q 3:97) already make provisions and exemptions for those Muslims who can't make the journey. The hajj is not like Confession or Communion in the Catholic Church, where if you don't do it you're in a state of some kind of sin.

The hajj, incidentally, actually predates Islam - the Banu Hashim clan that Muhammad was born into had a prominent position in Meccan society at the time of his birth, due to their hereditary role as stewards for the pilgrims who would travel to Mecca on pilgrimage to worship at the Ka'aba.

Taking it out would require changing or removing one of the five pillars of Islam. It's a humongous change.

Not really. Most Muslims almost since the very beginning of Islam have never been on hajj for one reason or another. A thousand years ago, it was because the distance using the travel methods of the time was insurmountable for most people. These days, the Saudis place a very strict quota limit per country on how many people can make the trip to Mecca each year (and cuts to the quota have been used and threatened by the Saudis for political reasons). A little over one million Muslims are allowed in each year (1,325,372 foreign pilgrims were allowed into Saudi Arabia for last year's hajj) meaning it would take about 1600 years at that rate for all of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today to be able to make the trip once in their lives. Assuming they could afford the trip in the first place, that is.

EDIT: The "official" quota is 1,000 pilgrims allowed from a country per one million Muslims in that country. Which is better than the above; at the official rate, it would take only 1000 years for all of the Muslims living today to be able to complete the hajj.

 

[McHrozni]

Indeed. Which only shows that, just as Islam doesn't have a monopoly on mass violence among the world's major religions, neither does religion in general have a monopoly of its own on mass violence.

You do realize I never claimed it did and that this is a straw man, right?

The fault with your criteria is that they change chimerically depending on your need to ascribe religious violence to Islam while absolving the other major religions of any hint of it.

It does nothing of the sort. Religious violence takes many forms and it is not possible to adequately describe it. Suffice to say that a campaign of international terrorism is one aspect that is all but unique to Islam, as is a systematic campaign against education. If you think another religious group is involved in something comparable please point it out.

Both ISIS and Boko Haram are involved in a mass campaign of genocide plus have other aggravating circumstances or bad actions that put them above and beyond anything happening in Myanmar. If you're going to compare Myanmar to ISIS you need more points of similarity.

This would be the second time you demanded I address your specifically chosen religion and I responded with examples, and the second time you mocked me for bringing up the religion that you specifically chose in your demands, so you can avoid actually dealing with the examples I provided.

Can you point out where I specified you need to address Christianity? As I recall I said you should try Jain or Scientology. Neither is Christianity, or indeed even related to Christianity. Neither has committed a genocide as far as I know either, but that's your problem.

This doesn't even make any sense. As near as I can figure, you're declaring that the 2008 law in Egypt raising the minimum marriage age was passed out of "widespread ignorance", and yet it was no less an authority than al-Azhar which ruled that child marriage was illegitimate before Egypt's civil code was altered to be in line with al-Azhar's ruling.

Ignorance of most Egyptian Muslims plus a guy in power simply arbitrarily deciding what was 'true' either due to his personal convictions or convenience (external pressure), yes. What of it?

You appear to have no more than a superficial knowledge of naskh, how it's used, and the major differences in how it's applied and by who.

Yes, you have made it completely clear that the only ones who are allowed to 'interpret' Islam are the people you yourself designate and that their arbitrary positions are the only ones we should listen to. That they're contradictory doesn't bother you one bit.

There is a word for an ideology that can mean two opposite things to two people and it is impossible to determine which of them is correct. That word is "nothing". Your claim amounts to Islam being nothing.

In doing so you implicitly agree with my claim that most Muslims are utterly ignorant of their religion. I'm sure most think they're following the world of God and his messenger on Earth, called Mohamed. If you're correct they're following nothing and nobody and are completely ignorant of that.

As I recall, I've actually quoted the opinions of Muslim scholars, from medieval times to the modern day. Whereas I've only ever seen you cut and paste random quotations from the Qur'an and the ahadith and put your own interpretation and spin on them.

Opinions of said 'scholars' are only relevant if they prove the teachings I quoted are incorrect. Opinions are not proof, regardless of who they come from.

The native-born French population in Algeria was carrying out its own campaign of threats of violence, specifically to prevent France from granting Algeria its independence. They murdered thousands of Algerian Muslims, especially in the period after the casefire of the Évian Accords in March 1962 and before the official declaration of Algerian independence in July 1962. They carried out almost one attack every day during the height of their terror campaign in May, with the goal of forcing the French government to rescind the Accords either directly or by trying to provoke a violent response from the Algerians so they would violate the Accords.

French were unwilling to give up their empire. What of it? As I recall this was significant in Vietnam as well.

The Algerian War of Independence was a bloody, violent, horrible affair, with atrocities committed by both sides (and with the atrocities committed by each side justified by the atrocities committed by the other side). Reducing it to nothing more than "the Algerian Muslims declared independence and threw out the non-Muslims" evinces very little understanding of the war, its causes, its conduct, and its consequences.

In other words, you're unable to list French retaliatory measures to the exile of over half a million of French Christians from their native land. Funny, that.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

The parts of Q 2:196 and 2:197 you leave out (as well as Q 3:97) already make provisions and exemptions for those Muslims who can't make the journey. The hajj is not like Confession or Communion in the Catholic Church, where if you don't do it you're in a state of some kind of sin.

The claim Archie made is that the said teaching, which calls for Muslims to make the pilgrimage, is not a reason why Muslims make the pilgrimage. You're supposed to be proving that, not repeating what I explicitly stated to be the case later in the post.

Good luck with your quest.

The hajj, incidentally, actually predates Islam - the Banu Hashim clan that Muhammad was born into had a prominent position in Meccan society at the time of his birth, due to their hereditary role as stewards for the pilgrims who would travel to Mecca on pilgrimage to worship at the Ka'aba.

Yes, I know. And Mohamed made it a point to destroy most of old traditions, but he preserved some. Hajj is one of such traditions. You need to prove that the call to Hajj in the Koran does not inspire Muslims to make the pilgrimage, or else agree it does. There are no third options that I can see.

Not really. Most Muslims almost since the very beginning of Islam have never been on hajj for one reason or another. A thousand years ago, it was because the distance using the travel methods of the time was insurmountable for most people. These days, the Saudis place a very strict quota limit per country on how many people can make the trip to Mecca each year (and cuts to the quota have been used and threatened by the Saudis for political reasons). A little over one million Muslims are allowed in each year (1,325,372 foreign pilgrims were allowed into Saudi Arabia for last year's hajj) meaning it would take about 1600 years at that rate for all of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today to be able to make the trip once in their lives. Assuming they could afford the trip in the first place, that is.

As you noted Saudis place quotas and threaten reducing those quotas as a form of political leverage. What makes this a useful leverage in the first place?

Well, a fairly explicit command in the Koran that a Muslim is supposed to make the trip once in their lives is a pretty good candidate to the point of being self-evident. A holy book calls for a religious pilgrimage and the faithful want to make the pilgrimage. Some might do it for other reasons, but some will do it because the book they consider to be the literal word from their God says they should make the pilgrimage.

If you think that it has no effect on anyone you're free to prove that, but the burden of proof is entirely on you. I know I repeat myself, but good luck with that.

Once we agree on that we can proceed.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And those traditions have nothing to do with the fact they follow a holy book that explicitly orders them to do so, and that they're doing the pilgramage in the name of that book and its author?r



Yeah? Prove it.



Taking it out would require changing or removing one of the five pillars of Islam. It's a humongous change.

McHrozni

Obviously those traditions have their roots in that book but we are talking about modern day Muslims. Muslims in general do some things that are in the book. Dont do others. Therefore its trivial to show that merely being in the book is not the reason for it.

Most Muslims are not the mindless automatons you portray them as

 

[McHrozni]

Obviously those traditions have their roots in that book but we are talking about modern day Muslims. Muslims in general do some things that are in the book. Dont do others. Therefore its trivial to show that merely being in the book is not the reason for it.

Most Muslims are not the mindless automatons you portray them as

They certainly aren't, but it's up to you to show this or any other passage in the Koran, stating Muslims should make a pilgrimage to Mecca, is not a reason for any Muslims to make the pilgrimage or else that this passage is not why some Muslims don't make the pilgrimage. In other words, you need to show that all Muslims who follow this passage in the Koran don't do it because of this passage. You made an extraordinary claim, back it up with extraordinary evidence.

As I said repeatedly, good luck with that.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

They certainly aren't, but it's up to you to show this or any other passage in the Koran, stating Muslims should make a pilgrimage to Mecca, is not a reason for any Muslims to make the pilgrimage or else that this passage is not why some Muslims don't make the pilgrimage. In other words, you need to show that all Muslims who follow this passage in the Koran don't do it because of this passage. You made an extraordinary claim, back it up with extraordinary evidence.

As I said repeatedly, good luck with that.

McHrozni

I don't need to do anything to jump through your hoops. Nor do Muslims. You may do well to remember that in your interactions with both. It may also help correct your misapprehension that everything you say is beyond reproach and is fact merely by your stating of it as your position.

You had an argument to make and it fell at the first hurdle. As usual you then blame the hurdle.

 

[A'isha]

It does nothing of the sort. Religious violence takes many forms and it is not possible to adequately describe it. Suffice to say that a campaign of international terrorism is one aspect that is all but unique to Islam, as is a systematic campaign against education. If you think another religious group is involved in something comparable please point it out.

A) I've already pointed out that Christian Identity groups have carried out a campaign of international terrorism, and B) I've also already pointed out how you carefully craft your criteria to include only Islam and exclude anything not-Islam (which is where your "systematic campaign against education" thing just so you could justify lumping Boko Haram with ISIS came from, despite Boko Haram's actual goal being something quite different).

Oh, and C) The claim that elements of Christianity are not involved in a "systematic campaign against education" is laughable - there are entire evangelical organizations dedicated to encouraging parents to refuse to allow their children to be educated in secular schools (even labeling sending kids to public schools a sin), and publishing Biblically-approved textbooks for use by religious homeschoolers.

Can you point out where I specified you need to address Christianity?

True, it was more of a demand leveled at Archie than it was at me. You merely demanded I address all religions besides Buddhism.

Scientology is still a cult right now (one former leading Scientologist calculates their number as less than 20,000 worldwide) and so the religiously-motivated deaths they cause are still small-scale, but the precedent and obviously the will and intent are there. As for Jainism, the famous concept of ahmisa, even according to Jaina scripture, makes plenty of accommodation for "just" killings and wars of conquest (the very name of the religion comes from the Sanskrit word jina, "conqueror"). And, as with Scientology, their numbers are minuscule (there are about 7 million Jains, which is 0.4% of the number of Muslims).

Interesting that the two "other" religions you picked to compare to Islam (1.6 billion adherents worldwide) and Buddhism (half a billion adherents worldwide) are two of the tiniest religions around.

Let's see, what else...Christianity I've already covered. In Sikhism there was a group called the Babbar Khalsa (also called "Tigers of the True Faith") who carried out numerous terrorist bombings and targeted killings in Japan, Canada, and India. For Judaism, the same FBI terrorist bombing report that you like to cite to show that Muslims carry out terrorist attacks in the US at a higher rate than their population percentage should imply also shows that Jews carry out terrorist attacks in the US at a higher rate than their population percentage should imply. For Hinduism, there are a ton of Hindutva militant and terrorist organizations like the Bajrang Dal and Abhinav Bharat carrying out terror bombings and massacres of non-Hindus (including Christians). Shinto, of course, had this little thing.

Ignorance of most Egyptian Muslims plus a guy in power simply arbitrarily deciding what was 'true' either due to his personal convictions or convenience (external pressure), yes. What of it?

You believe that al-Azhar ruled that child marriage was impermissible in Islam due to ignorance about Islam, and that the Egyptian Parliament passed a law banning child marriage after al-Azhar's ruling on the subject because Mubarak either decided to do so entirely on his own, or was merely acceding to non-Muslim pressure?

Yes, you have made it completely clear that the only ones who are allowed to 'interpret' Islam are the people you yourself designate and that their arbitrary positions are the only ones we should listen to. That they're contradictory doesn't bother you one bit.

I believe that the only ones who can interpret what Islam means for Muslims are Muslims themselves. That these interpretations are contradictory only means that the interpretation of Islam for practicing Muslims isn't nearly as straightforward and clear-cut as you claim it is.

You certainly have zero standing to declare that Muslims are practicing their own religion incorrectly when they have an interpretation that differs from yours.

There is a word for an ideology that can mean two opposite things to two people and it is impossible to determine which of them is correct. That word is "nothing". Your claim amounts to Islam being nothing.

In doing so you implicitly agree with my claim that most Muslims are utterly ignorant of their religion. I'm sure most think they're following the world of God and his messenger on Earth, called Mohamed. If you're correct they're following nothing and nobody and are completely ignorant of that.

Not having the same interpretation you do of their own religion does not make those Muslims ignorant of their religion. It just means they don't have the same interpretation you do of their own religion.

And I've already told you that I'm not Muslim and don't even believe in God.

Opinions of said 'scholars' are only relevant if they prove the teachings I quoted are incorrect.

No, they're relevant because the opinions of said scholars (nice use of scare quotes, though) are followed (or not followed) by practicing Muslims. Whether or not you think these scholars prove the teachings you quoted incorrect (which you never will, since it's pretty clear that to you any interpretation of Islam that contradicts yours is a priori wrong) is what's irrelevant.

French were unwilling to give up their empire. What of it? As I recall this was significant in Vietnam as well.

It wasn't the French who carried out this campaign of terrorism, it was the European-descended Algerians, whose ancestors came from all over Europe, not just France. They mostly targeted Algerian Muslims with their attacks, but after the cease-fire they did also carry out some attacks against the French in Algeria and in France itself (even including trying to assassinate de Gaulle) because they were trying to first stop, and then retaliate for the French government giving Algeria its independence.

In other words, you're unable to list French retaliatory measures to the exile of over half a million of French Christians from their native land.

I wasn't trying to. I was pointing out what those European Algerians were doing in Algeria before they were exiled from Algeria.

The claim Archie made is that the said teaching, which calls for Muslims to make the pilgrimage, is not a reason why Muslims make the pilgrimage. You're supposed to be proving that, not repeating what I explicitly stated to be the case later in the post.

As Archie said above, the fact that you can find something in their scriptures does not mean that all, or even most, Muslims do what is in their book. The hajj is just one case in point, since the extremely limited willingness, ability, and opportunity for the vast majority of the world's Muslims to complete the hajj has resulted in Muslims not just accepting the fact that most of them will never be able to, but many of them are even making the conscious decision not to go on hajj because the resources they would spend on the trip would better serve their faith by being used elsewhere (such as helping Syrian refugees).

As you noted Saudis place quotas and threaten reducing those quotas as a form of political leverage. What makes this a useful leverage in the first place?

Because, given the huge number of Muslims in the world and the tiny size of the quotas, there will inevitably be many more Muslims who want to go on hajj than are able to.

The official quota is 0.1% of the Muslim population a year. Even if just 10% of the world's Muslims wanted to go on hajj, and 90% didn't, it'd still take one hundred years for all of them to be able to make the trip just once, meaning that most of those who wanted to go would still not be able to in their lifetime. So any cut in the already-tiny quota is still a big deal.

Well, a fairly explicit command in the Koran that a Muslim is supposed to make the trip once in their lives is a pretty good candidate to the point of being self-evident. A holy book calls for a religious pilgrimage and the faithful want to make the pilgrimage. Some might do it for other reasons, but some will do it because the book they consider to be the literal word from their God says they should make the pilgrimage.

Perhaps selecting something that only 0.08% of Muslims do each year as your example of The Thing That All Muslims Absolutely Positively Have To Do Because Their Holy Book Commands Them To was not the wisest choice on your part.

 

[A'isha]

Oh, and speaking of both abrogation and the hajj, according to Louay Fatoohi's Abrogation in the Qur’an and Islamic Law, Mustafa Zaid's exhaustive survey of naskh, An-Naskh fi al-Qur'an al-Karim, apparently found at least one scholar who considered the requirement in Q 3:97 that all Muslims must perform the hajj to be abrogated by the declaration that the duty of the hajj is only laid on those Muslims who are actually able to undertake it.

Though Fatoohi also notes that most scholars consider this to be an example of takhsis, "specification", and not actual naskh.

 

[McHrozni]

I don't need to do anything to jump through your hoops. Nor do Muslims. You may do well to remember that in your interactions with both. It may also help correct your misapprehension that everything you say is beyond reproach and is fact merely by your stating of it as your position.

You had an argument to make and it fell at the first hurdle. As usual you then blame the hurdle.

Just so you know, denying evidence does not amount to disproving it.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

A) I've already pointed out that Christian Identity groups have carried out a campaign of international terrorism,

Yes, with a death toll of any single decade no more than half of that of a common Islamic terrorist attack that occurs on a weekly basis (several times a year in the West), after I mentioned the severity of the attacks or campaign needs to be taken into account as well.

But you made it patently clear that a terrorist attack that kills no one is just as bad as a terrorist attack that kills a hundred. This is of course necessary, because any honest standard has Islam as way, way worse than any other major religion.

and B) I've also already pointed out how you carefully craft your criteria to include only Islam and exclude anything not-Islam (which is where your "systematic campaign against education" thing just so you could justify lumping Boko Haram with ISIS came from, despite Boko Haram's actual goal being something quite different).

I mentioned several options other than Islam, and you continue to say this with a straight face, eh? You really should learn shame.

Oh, and C) The claim that elements of Christianity are not involved in a "systematic campaign against education" is laughable - there are entire evangelical organizations dedicated to encouraging parents to refuse to allow their children to be educated in secular schools (even labeling sending kids to public schools a sin), and publishing Biblically-approved textbooks for use by religious homeschoolers.

Sure, Christianity has it's problems there too. Unless you're going to name schools bombed by Christian anti-education fanatics however, you have precisely zero case.

Unless of course you think a Christian-friendly textbook at plays down evolution and whatnot is an evil similar in scale to killing a few dozen children, because they go to school at all. If you think that seek professional help.

True, it was more of a demand leveled at Archie than it was at me. You merely demanded I address all religions besides Buddhism.

Scientology is still a cult right now (one former leading Scientologist calculates their number as less than 20,000 worldwide) and so the religiously-motivated deaths they cause are still small-scale, but the precedent and obviously the will and intent are there.

One woman with clear psychiatric problems is prevented from receiving proper care, dies as a result and Scientology is as bad as ISIS?

I think your should seek professional help.

As for Jainism, the famous concept of ahmisa, even according to Jaina scripture, makes plenty of accommodation for "just" killings and wars of conquest (the very name of the religion comes from the Sanskrit word jina, "conqueror").

The last paragraph of the paper you posted mentions:

"it is remarkable that for scores of instances that could be cited for persecutions directed against the Jains, there is hardly any single instance of retaliation by the latter".

In other words, your own source disproves you. Would you like to try again perhaps?

Interesting that the two "other" religions you picked to compare to Islam (1.6 billion adherents worldwide) and Buddhism (half a billion adherents worldwide) are two of the tiniest religions around.

Judaism is compatibly sized to Jain, but you have no trouble bringing it up later on. It's rather funny how your standards shift based on what you want to claim. Still, you said all religions, without any qualifiers. You might argue that 20 thousand people is indeed too few to count (although again, all religions is all religions, even Jedi would count), but 7 million is plenty. Jainism is a religion of millions who, in the past, were renown for their skills of conquest and immense levels of religious tolerance and restraint. They directly disprove your claims.

For Judaism, the same FBI terrorist bombing report that you like to cite to show that Muslims carry out terrorist attacks in the US at a higher rate than their population percentage should imply also shows that Jews carry out terrorist attacks in the US at a higher rate than their population percentage should imply.

It's funny how 7 million Jain is too tiny to count, but ~15 million of Jews is plenty and should be included, isn't it?

The total number of deaths by Jews in the US in 25 years is 1/4 of the single Islamic terrorist attack in the OP, which by the way was radically reduced in severity by built-in automatic breaks on the truck. Why do you refuse to touch this part of the subject? It is because it makes Islam look so horrific, isn't it? Looking away doesn't make the problem go away.

You believe that al-Azhar ruled that child marriage was impermissible in Islam due to ignorance about Islam, and that the Egyptian Parliament passed a law banning child marriage after al-Azhar's ruling on the subject because Mubarak either decided to do so entirely on his own, or was merely acceding to non-Muslim pressure?

No, I believe al-Azhar ruled that child marriage was impermissible in Islam due to personal convictions or convenience or foreign pressure. I said as much earlier. I and am unable to distinguish between the factors. Additionally it could be any combination of the factors as well, and there could be other factors unknown to me (corruption?) at play as well.

I believe that the only ones who can interpret what Islam means for Muslims are Muslims themselves. That these interpretations are contradictory only means that the interpretation of Islam for practicing Muslims isn't nearly as straightforward and clear-cut as you claim it is.

It's a bit of a far cry to claim that religious tolerance and peace on one hand and massive religious repression and perpetual war on unbelievers on the other are a result of two competing interpretations.

Two utterly dissimilar religions whose only common point is that they pretend to follow the same book are not issues of interpretation. An issue of interpretation is whether Muslims should pray three times a day (as in the Koran) or five times a day (as in Hadith). As I've said earlier, if it were an issue of interpretation, Islam would have to be synonymous with nothing.

And I've already told you that I'm not Muslim and don't even believe in God.

My post didn't imply you did. That said, given how desperate you are to defend Islam from any and all criticism, I don't believe you. You definitely harbor a deep emotional attachment to Islam itself. Whether this is because you're a Muslim committing Taqiyya to try to convert unbelievers or just because you grew up in a Muslim family, committed apostasy and still believe Islam is great is something only you can know.

No, they're relevant because the opinions of said scholars (nice use of scare quotes, though) are followed (or not followed) by practicing Muslims.

Well, again, if you consider 'scholars' have the exclusive right to determine on the spot what Islam is, regardless of it's scriptures and traditions or essentially anything else, then Islam is synonymous with "nothing". Do you agree that Islam is basically meaningless, and simply used to control people a lot?

I wasn't trying to. I was pointing out what those European Algerians were doing in Algeria before they were exiled from Algeria.

And yet, French didn't retaliate against Algerians in France, but are just as bad as Algerians, because they didn't fully accept them as French non-French?

It's funny how this works with you, really.

As Archie said above, the fact that you can find something in their scriptures does not mean that all, or even most, Muslims do what is in their book. The hajj is just one case in point, since the extremely limited willingness, ability, and opportunity for the vast majority of the world's Muslims to complete the hajj has resulted in Muslims not just accepting the fact that most of them will never be able to, but many of them are even making the conscious decision not to go on hajj because the resources they would spend on the trip would better serve their faith by being used elsewhere (such as helping Syrian refugees).

I see you're not willing to answer the question. Let's move to something easier - the same passage also explicitly tells Muslims they aren't obligated to go to Hajj if they're unable to, and lists legitimate reasons for not going. Do you agree that this passage is a reason some Muslims are able to make the conscious decision not to go on Hajj as a result of this passage?

Perhaps selecting something that only 0.08% of Muslims do each year as your example of The Thing That All Muslims Absolutely Positively Have To Do Because Their Holy Book Commands Them To was not the wisest choice on your part.

That's entirely your fabrication. I never said that Hajj is The Thing That All Muslims Absolutely Positively Have To Do Because Their Holy Book Commands Them To, which you had to know because I explicitly mentioned the passage also allows Muslims not to attend it in certain circumstances (the contents of which are irrelevant for this discussion), and you furthermore were fully aware it did, because you warned me about that for reasons I don't understand nor particularly care about. This is your straw man, nothing more.

Again, the passage tells Muslims to go to Hajj, unless they legitimately aren't able to. Do you agree this results in some Muslims going to Hajj and some make a conscious decision not to, because they fit the criteria that tells them they are allowed not to go? Millions of Muslims follow this passage every year, either by going on Hajj or abstaining from it because the passage tells them they may abstain in certain circumstances. Do you agree they do both at least in part of this passage?

It's really not that hard of a question you know.

McHrozni