A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Only if you ignore the deaths caused by Christian terror groups in central Africa (and if you can include the "non-international" Islamic attacks, which you are in your weekly accounting there, then you can include those too).
I happen to believe that they're both similarly bad, true (because the point of terrorism is the terror...it's in the name and everything). But that's an entirely separate issue from my statement above, despite your attempt to link them together so you can try to avoid them all together.
The LRA, as I mentioned before, have attacked and destroyed schools, kidnapping the students to be child soldiers and sex slaves (they often go into villages specifically demand the locations of schools), and have even ambushed school buses and killed everyone on them.
My linking of the WND article to show that the fundamentalist Christian opposition to secular education has ideological roots that exist today even in the West.
Awww, I'm touched at your concern for my well-being.
I never said Scientology was as bad as ISIS (they're just a minor cult moneyfarm). But the issues with deaths caused by Scientology, as my link and its associated sources show, go beyond merely just Lisa McPherson.
And you skipped over all the following to get there, apparently:
"A war may be fought for defending one's land or religion. Thieves may be killed in an encounter."
"Non-killing cannot interfere with one's duties. The king, or the judge, has to hang a murderer. The murderer's act is the negation of the right of murdered. The king's or the judge's order is the negation of this negation, and is enjoined by Jainism as a duty. Similarly the soldier's killing on the battlefield. It is only prejudiced and garbled accounts of Jainism that have led to its being misunderstood."
"King Atibala is described as a devout Jaina (jinepadapankaja-bharamara) in the story of Sukumarasvamnin by Poet Santinatha. At the same time, it is said that he took up the sword for protecting his land and his people (Sukumarasvamicharitam, 1. 79-80). Somadeva in his Nitivakyamtam argues that a king who does not maintain his army properly fails in his primary duties. In Janna's Yasodharacarite, the sword of king Yashodhara is described as being continually washed by the blood of his enemies."
"Wars cannot always be for the defensive. Jaina ethics has allowed kings to go out of their lands and annex fresh territories. Mention may be made here of the digvijata by Bharata in Rathnakaravarani's Bharatesa Vaibhava. Vharata worships and involves the blessings of Jina before before taking his army out of the capital for conquests."
"Jainism was not only patronized by almost all royal families of Karnatak, both major and minor, some of the rulers were themselves its devoted followers. It is recorded in the inscriptions belonging to the Ganga dynasty that it was Simhanandi, a Jaina Mink, who inspired Madhava to establish the dynasty. The advice given by this celebrated teacher is believed to contain some basic moral precepts prescribed for Jaina kings. He is said to have advised him not to run away from the battle even in times of danger. Rulers who succeeded Madhava patronized the religion to a great extent and a few of the rulers devoted themselves to its cause. Marasimha was one such who ruled during the end of the tenth century. One of the inscriptions describes in length his voluntary death by the vow of sallekhana [suicide by stopping all intake of food and drink]. He is praised as a great warrior who fought many battles and conquered many fots. It is further stated that he dedicated most of the wealth which he amassed through conquests to the cause of his religion."
My standards didn't shift, and you yourself admit you understand why I included Judaism literally right after you typed this:
See?
If a Muslim caliph was described as having his sword described as "being continually washed by the blood of his enemies", or as dedicating the vast amounts of wealth he gained through conquests to the cause of Islam, you'd be jumping up and down about how it confirmed your views.
No, it's not funny at all, since (as you admitted), you did specify all religions.
No, it's because death tolls can be random (two different attacks that are otherwise similar can end up with radically different death tolls - the 1993 WTC truck bombing killed only 6 people, while the 1995 Murraugh Building truck bombing killed 168), and a terrorist attack that kills a handful of people is still a terrorist attack. Which is why the FBI list showing that Jews, like Muslims, are responsible for a higher percentage of terror attacks in the US than their percentage of the US population lists all attacks, regardless of casualties.
Like with your other criteria, the "death toll" metric is used by you solely so you can dismiss the terrorist attacks caused by followers of other religions and pretend that therefore they don't matter because they're inconvenient for your thesis. And then you accuse me of refusing to acknowledge attacks (despite the rather obvious flaw in the assertion being that I quite openly do acknowledge all terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam.
If there's anyone here looking away from religiously-motivated terror attacks to try and make the problem they represent go away, it's you, who is working quite diligently to handwave away any and all acts of terrorism which aren't Islamic.
That's a whole lot of effort putting into finding some way, any way, to try and dismiss something that you declared couldn't happen even thought it actually did happen.
Not really. The same religion that produced Torquemada also produced Fred Rogers, after all.
No, that's pretty much exactly what it is. If Jaina, a religion that's supposed to have total nonviolence and an abhorrence of killing as one of its core precepts, can venerate as devout conquering kings with invasive armies whose swords are reputed to be covered in the blood of their enemies, I have no idea why you're so shocked to the point of refusing to accept that other religions can be equally schizophrenic.
I'm keeping a tally of the number of posters here who accuse me of being a Seekrit Muslim practicing taqiyya because I don't agree with them that Islam is the Worstest Thing Ever and ISIS Is The Only True Islam.
"On the spot" may be a bit much, but yeah, that's how religions and scriptures kinda work - adherents of the religion, especially those who dedicate their lives to the study of it and its scriptures, produce interpretations of that religion and those scriptures. And they not only far more often disagree with each other than agree, the interpretations they produce run the entire spectrum so that positions that are outwardly utterly diametrically opposed can be extracted from the same set of scriptures and traditions, and so are still part of the same religion.
The French did a whole lot of stuff to the Algerians in the years before the final declaration of independence (that whole bloody war thing, remember?). Why you keep ignoring that and harping on "retaliation" solely for what happened to the pieds-noirs is a mystery to me.
Okay, I lied. It's not a mystery at all - it's so you can absolve the French for their actions and focus only on what the Algerians did (despite the fact that I've told you that the Algerian War of Independence involved a continuing series of back and forth atrocities committed by both sides, so I'm not even absolving the Algerians for what they did), since your goal is to paint Islam as uniquely violent, and anything which contradicts that thesis is to be ignored or handwaved away at all costs.
I'm sure there are (there's a lot of Muslims out there, and almost as many interpretations). However, the Muslim who wrote that article quite notably did not use that as his justification, instead citing the actions of the Saudis and the desire to help the Syrian refugees.
Your entire purpose in bringing up the hajj passages in the Qur'an was because you were trying to use it in an analogy to "prove" your assertions that the Qur'an tells Muslims to be terrorists and Muslims have to do what the Qur'an tells them so therefore Muslims have to be terrorists. That's why you only brought up the hajj thing in response to Archie saying "Then we will move onto your points about terrorism being what Allah wants Muslims to do (i.e. you know the mind of an imaginary being)", because if (to you) the Qur'an clearly says Allah wants Muslims to go on hajj and Muslims have to follow that command, and the Qur'an (again, to you) clearly says Allah wants Muslims to be terrorists, then therefore Muslims have to follow that command too and be terrorists.
Which fails miserably as an argument not just because it begs multiple questions, but because if the hajj is not a Thing That All Muslims Absolutely Positively Have To Do Because Their Holy Book Commands Them To, that kind of undercuts your argument that terrorism is also a Thing That All Muslims Absolutely Positively Have To Do Because Their Holy Book Commands Them To.
And here you're still trying it. Except, as both Archie and I have been trying to tell you, not only are Muslims not automatons who mindlessly obey what (you think, at least) the Qur'an tells them, even that passage you think it's a totally clear-cut and straightforward direct command contains a lot of complexities which mean that the vast majority of the world's Muslims don't even follow that command.
Which is why, as Archie said, your argument failed at the first hurdle.
