Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[Carn]

Do you really think that is justified?

It does not even matter, whether its justified.

It matters that:
- few people of Japanese heritage went on revenge killing spree in US
- few people of Vietnamese heritage went on revenge killing spree in US
- few people of German heritage went on revenge killing spree in US
- few people of Korean heritage went on revenge killing spree in US
- few people of any South or Middle American heritage went on revenge killing spree in US (while the US did not drop many bombs there, interference in the internal affairs of south and middle american countries has been OFFICAL US policy for decades)
- few people of any Chinese heritage went on revenge killing spree in US (while it is not official policy, unofficially the US has since decades been prepared to go to war in regard to the by many Chinese considered as separatist Taiwan)

So going on a "you bombed the country my grandparents came from, therefore i now mow down civilians with a truck"-killing spree is something pretty unusual and out of scope; the logical thing to do, would be to look for characteristics such people have and which all those non-murdering Japanese, Vietnamese, Germans, Koreans, Chinese or Latin Americans in the US do not have; and then look closer into these charateristics to understand whether they are relevant for this realy, realy unusual behavior.

 

[Carn]

So going on a "you bombed the country my grandparents came from, therefore i now mow down civilians with a truck"-killing spree is something pretty unusual and out of scope;

Somehow creepy; i wrote that before the latest news from Manhatten.

But we will have to wait and see whether it was a Japanese Buddhist or Shintoist who concluded from some of Shinto or Buddhist scripture that he had to revenge Hiroshima. That is just as likely as any other possibility that one could suggest.

 

[IanS]

It does not even matter, whether its justified.

It matters that:
- few people of Japanese heritage went on revenge killing spree in US
- few people of Vietnamese heritage went on revenge killing spree in US
- few people of German heritage went on revenge killing spree in US
- few people of Korean heritage went on revenge killing spree in US
- few people of any South or Middle American heritage went on revenge killing spree in US (while the US did not drop many bombs there, interference in the internal affairs of south and middle american countries has been OFFICAL US policy for decades)
- few people of any Chinese heritage went on revenge killing spree in US (while it is not official policy, unofficially the US has since decades been prepared to go to war in regard to the by many Chinese considered as separatist Taiwan)

So going on a "you bombed the country my grandparents came from, therefore i now mow down civilians with a truck"-killing spree is something pretty unusual and out of scope; the logical thing to do, would be to look for characteristics such people have and which all those non-murdering Japanese, Vietnamese, Germans, Koreans, Chinese or Latin Americans in the US do not have; and then look closer into these charateristics to understand whether they are relevant for this realy, realy unusual behavior.

Well this seems to be a side-issue about the use of words, but just to be clear - it was TubbaBlubba who raised that issue as if he thought it was justified ... and that's what I was putting to him, i.e. asking him "did he think such mass murder attacks on the streets of London, Paris, Madrid etc., were somehow justified?".

But quite obviously those Muslims who are carrying out the attacks in Europe, i.e. so-called "home grown terrorists" (they were all living in UK, France, Spain, Germany, Belgium etc.), did/do believe that their mass murder attacks are fully justified; otherwise they would not have been going to such extreme lengths to do it!

So I think that a "believed justification" actually is the problem. E.g.; if you as a UK Muslim (or as anyone else, of any faith, or of no faith) genuinely do not believe that such attacks are ever justified, then almost by definition you will not be carrying out any such attacks ... and you are unlikely also to be (honestly) answering opinion polls by saying that the attacks are for some reason “justified”.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I'm reasonably certain this is untrue....

My memory, it is true, can fail or misconstrue. However, my recollection is derived from the source I have already cited in this thread, addressing precisely policies regarding war and conflict, written largely by practicing Muslims, not apostates. Some, professors in Western countries, meaning they write with decent scholarship. Back in the day, I was searching purposefully for the refutation of my current position in honest fashion, and wishing to give a precise definition to "moderate Islam." This search also lead me to the 1990 Cairo Declaration, as it is one of the few statements on religious matters that one can say is at least a minimum common denominator to the sects and views represented; i.e., institutional or "official" Islam.

What I found instead is that moderation is derived from human tendencies toward vices and virtues, either because the cost is deemed a bother, or the empathy toward others impedes dehumanizing them.

As for the teachings, one can gleefully cherry-pick as an outsider, and find plenty to admire in the books of Mecca, but because the Koran is held to be divine dictation, its contradictions must be managed by making the last word said on any topic the definitive one (principle of abrogation). In come the books of Medina, and matters progressively worsen as an initial philosophy of peaceful religious teaching transforms into a dogma to be imposed, by the sword if needed.

As a literate man, I suggest you take a look at, yes, some YouTube videos, but not the usual grist, but statements made by Salman Rushdie. I hadn't listened to him on the topic until recently, and find he is quite succinct and noticeably well-informed.

Thus, with all the foregoing, you needn't take my word for it. Beyond that, I welcome you to your own due diligence.

 

[David Mo]

https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists#ali
"The Profiles: 15 Anti-Muslim Extremists"

"Ayaan Hirsi Ali"

(...)
At least she should be put under the header "Anti-Islamic Extremists".
(...)
But its not that hard; when it comes to capitalism, Christianity or socialism everybody is at once able to distinguish between criticizing the idea itself and the adherents of the idea; just when the word "Islam" pops up that ability is lost at once.
(...)
Nontheless you assume a current superiority.

As we had it about Dawkins earlier in this thread:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/12/richard-dawkins-slams-islam-as-most-evil-religion-/
"“If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world, it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.”"
So Dawkins holds the same position as you, that currently Christianity and other religions are superior to Islam in being at present less evil than Islam.
(...)
So you see, your position about a only at present superiority of Christianity is also Islamophobic according to the islamophobia crowd.


That avoids the question what someone should do who thinks some religions not being a danger for freedom and who thinks that some other religions are a danger to freedom.
And i think that actually many people are convinced that only some religions are a danger to freedom.
Reason is that there is the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster which is a recognized religion in Netherlands and New Zealand:

I followed Ayan Hirsi Ali’s stunning and ephemeral political career in Netherlands and I can say that she was provocatively anti-Muslims at that moment. I think that Hirsi Ali’s big problem was that her joined bad companions —conservative racists— and liked too much making news headlines. Yes, “we are at war with Islam” or Islam is “the new fascism” and a “destructive, nihilistic cult of death” don’t seem to me the best way to respect the freedom of beliefs. It sounds like a call for extermination.

A similar thing happens with Dawkins. I am not an enthusiastic supporter of his writings, although I agree with many things of them. But when he becomes a public personality he frequently seems to be a loudmouth. To say “I think Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today. I've said so, often and loudly” is not the best way of aiding Muslims’ integration in a democratic society. He is encouraging whose that claim for iron walls and inner ghettos and indirectly those that are putting bombs.

I never would say things as these and I am surprised that you don't be aware of it. My position is avoiding this kind of global disqualifications and rankings of perversion. My position is analyze the political and social conditions —neo-colonialism and discrimination— that link intolerance and violence with this or that Islamism. A conservative anti-Islam never would put it on the table. I don’t know if many Muslims would consider my position an outrage or worse. The extreme Islamists and many ulemas will do, of course. But I am not speaking for them.

And I am sure that my tactic is better for reaching a seriious criticism against Islamic religion that can be listened by Muslims than to blame them for fanatical, violent and stupid without distinction.

NOTE: Please, don’t take me for a ride. When I speak of religions I mean religions; not an ironical religion like the worship of Spaghetti Monster and its Beer Drinkers. Of course, little religions being not violent and tolerant may exist, but I am speaking of the big influential religions.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

My memory, it is true, can fail or misconstrue. However, my recollection is derived from the source I have already cited in this thread, addressing precisely policies regarding war and conflict, written largely by practicing Muslims, not apostates. Some, professors in Western countries, meaning they write with decent scholarship. Back in the day, I was searching purposefully for the refutation of my current position in honest fashion, and wishing to give a precise definition to "moderate Islam." This search also lead me to the 1990 Cairo Declaration, as it is one of the few statements on religious matters that one can say is at least a minimum common denominator to the sects and views represented; i.e., institutional or "official" Islam.

What I found instead is that moderation is derived from human tendencies toward vices and virtues, either because the cost is deemed a bother, or the empathy toward others impedes dehumanizing them.

As for the teachings, one can gleefully cherry-pick as an outsider, and find plenty to admire in the books of Mecca, but because the Koran is held to be divine dictation, its contradictions must be managed by making the last word said on any topic the definitive one (principle of abrogation). In come the books of Medina, and matters progressively worsen as an initial philosophy of peaceful religious teaching transforms into a dogma to be imposed, by the sword if needed.

As a literate man, I suggest you take a look at, yes, some YouTube videos, but not the usual grist, but statements made by Salman Rushdie. I hadn't listened to him on the topic until recently, and find he is quite succinct and noticeably well-informed.

Thus, with all the foregoing, you needn't take my word for it. Beyond that, I welcome you to your own due diligence.

You're the one making ridiculous claims, like a single treaty causing 1400 years of mayhem. Determinism much?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

You're the one making ridiculous claims, like a single treaty causing 1400 years of mayhem. Determinism much?

I prefer a researched approach, as well as consideration of dogma and behaviors in a framework recognizing their relation, so I think we have now formally agreed to disagree and end discussion.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I prefer a researched approach, as well as consideration of dogma and behaviors in a framework recognizing their relation, so I think we have now formally agreed to disagree and end discussion.

And yet your "researched approach" is apparently nowhere near thorough enough to allow you to support your incredibly broad claims.

 

[Carn]

I followed Ayan Hirsi Ali’s stunning and ephemeral political career in Netherlands and I can say that she was provocatively anti-Muslims at that moment. I think that Hirsi Ali’s big problem was that her joined bad companions —conservative racists— and liked too much making news headlines. Yes, “we are at war with Islam” or Islam is “the new fascism” and a “destructive, nihilistic cult of death” don’t seem to me the best way to respect the freedom of beliefs. It sounds like a call for extermination.

Whether it is a sensible way of arguing her point does not change the slightest bit that you again - like the SPLC - only offered quotes against Islam.

You understand that to show someone is anti-Muslim it is insufficient to show that the person is anti-Islam?

Or are anti-Muslim and anti-Islam synonyms?

I never would say things as these and I am surprised that you don't be aware of it. My position is avoiding this kind of global disqualifications and rankings of perversion. My position is analyze the political and social conditions —neo-colonialism and discrimination— that link intolerance and violence with this or that Islamism. A conservative anti-Islam never would put it on the table. I don’t know if many Muslims would consider my position an outrage or worse. The extreme Islamists and many ulemas will do, of course. But I am not speaking for them.

That you would not use the words of Dawkins does not change that you hold a similar position: that Islam at present is somehow a bit lacking compared to other religions.

How would you voice such a position in the public square?

NOTE: Please, don’t take me for a ride. When I speak of religions I mean religions; not an ironical religion like the worship of Spaghetti Monster and its Beer Drinkers. Of course, little religions being not violent and tolerant may exist, but I am speaking of the big influential religions.

Spaghetti Monster was only the first thing coming to mind.

There are literally thousands of religions; claiming they all are at odds with freedom sounds hard to believe; but as you modified to "big influential", well maybe.

 

[Carn]

Well this seems to be a side-issue about the use of words, but just to be clear - it was TubbaBlubba who raised that issue as if he thought it was justified ... and that's what I was putting to him, i.e. asking him "did he think such mass murder attacks on the streets of London, Paris, Madrid etc., were somehow justified?".

But quite obviously those Muslims who are carrying out the attacks in Europe, i.e. so-called "home grown terrorists" (they were all living in UK, France, Spain, Germany, Belgium etc.), did/do believe that their mass murder attacks are fully justified; otherwise they would not have been going to such extreme lengths to do it!

So I think that a "believed justification" actually is the problem. E.g.; if you as a UK Muslim (or as anyone else, of any faith, or of no faith) genuinely do not believe that such attacks are ever justified, then almost by definition you will not be carrying out any such attacks ... and you are unlikely also to be (honestly) answering opinion polls by saying that the attacks are for some reason “justified”.

The so wise and learned scholar Tubbla implied that its human norm that such sort of justifications leads to polling affirmative about terrorist attacks.

But that is again completely at odds with data and observation; just because the US or someone else bombs or overthrows governments in some country immigrants to the US from that country do not cheer killing of innocents in the US. Only if the country happens to be an islamic one, the treasonous cheering for terrorist attacks against FELLOW citizens happen.

Hence, Tubblas attempt at "It has nothing to do with Islam" falls flat independent upon whether such justifications exist and whether they make any sense.


And furthermore, at least for Islamists there is anyway a true permanent ongoing justification.

All non-islamic countries agreed that human rights should be globally respected in every single country (though there is a lot of disagreement to which extent and regarding interpretation). That means that all non-islamic countries want any ideology incompatible with that goal to be gone from Earth's surface one way or another.

As what islamists consider to be Islam IS INCOMPATIBLE with human rights, the islamists are correct if they assume there is an ideological war against what they think Islam is aiming for destruction of what think Islam is.

And hence they always have their justification for acting in "self-defense" of what they think Islam is, in case another justification like some US war or some Israel military activity is currently unavailable.

Therefore the justifications are for fundamental matters irrelevant, although they are "tactically" relevant in the ongoing propaganda warfare.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

And yet your "researched approach" is apparently nowhere near thorough enough to allow you to support your incredibly broad claims.

No. What I won't do is more of your homework for you. We are down to one-liners; this is over.

 

[Carn]

You're the one making ridiculous claims, like a single treaty causing 1400 years of mayhem. Determinism much?

That is the issue you do not understand:

While it is not the hyperbolic "determinism" you try to ridicule it, a single treaty 1400 years in the past can have considerable effects upon today, if it involved the founder or the founders of some religion, which today adherents try to emulate.

Simply accept it, when "devout" islamists would consider either to sign a 20 year or a 10 year peace treaty with some infidel enemy, the issue of what treaties Muhammed or some of his close consorts or sucessors signed would be looked into and discussed by such islamist; for they would want to avoid acting contrary to the examples set by their religions founder or founders, as acting contrary to the religions founder usually means one acts contrary to the respective god.

But you and many others somehow cannot accept that some religious people think like that.

And i cannot understand why.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

That is the issue you do not understand:

While it is not the hyperbolic "determinism" you try to ridicule it, a single treaty 1400 years in the past can have considerable effects upon today, if it involved the founder or the founders of some religion, which today adherents try to emulate.

Simply accept it, when "devout" islamists would consider either to sign a 20 year or a 10 year peace treaty with some infidel enemy, the issue of what treaties Muhammed or some of his close consorts or sucessors signed would be looked into and discussed by such islamist; for they would want to avoid acting contrary to the examples set by their religions founder or founders, as acting contrary to the religions founder usually means one acts contrary to the respective god.

But you and many others somehow cannot accept that some religious people think like that.

And i cannot understand why.

Could you direct me to the sources across 1400 years which document this phenomenon? Sounds pretty groundbreaking. I'm not interested in arguments by analogy, vast extrapolations or first-principles reasoning about "the minds of believers" and how you assume they understand their texts. Direct me to the sources that document the phenomena you consider central to your thesis or a dedicated study of them.

Unless you're just making assumptions based on 20th century radicalism and your personal reading of the Quran?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

No. What I won't do is more of your homework for you. We are down to one-liners; this is over.

What's over? You made some incredibly broad claims which you failed to back up with examples across history, or dedicated studies of these particular phenomena.

 

[Carn]

Could you direct me to the sources across 1400 years which document this phenomenon? Sounds pretty groundbreaking.

The phenomenon of some believers considering what their religions founder would do in their situation?

That is so well known it is a wide spread meme:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_would_Jesus_do?

Just with Buddhists or Muslims its not Jesus, but Muhammed or Buddha with modifications due to differing theologies.

And the oldest religious organization seems to teach that literally since some 1500+ years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imitation_of_Christ
"The ideal of the Imitation of Christ has been an important element of both Christian ethics and spirituality.[4] References to this concept and its practice are found in the earliest Christian documents, e.g. the Pauline Epistles.[3]"

Its pretty crazy you are not aware about the concept.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The phenomenon of some believers considering what their religions founder would do in their situation?

That is so well known it is a wide spread meme:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_would_Jesus_do?

Just with Buddhists or Muslims its not Jesus, but Muhammed or Buddha with modifications due to differing theologies.

And the oldest religious organization seems to teach that literally since some 1500+ years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imitation_of_Christ
"The ideal of the Imitation of Christ has been an important element of both Christian ethics and spirituality.[4] References to this concept and its practice are found in the earliest Christian documents, e.g. the Pauline Epistles.[3]"

Its pretty crazy you are not aware about the concept.

Read what I wrote again:

I'm not interested in arguments by ... first-principles reasoning about "the minds of believers" and how you assume they understand their texts. Direct me to the sources that document the phenomena you consider central to your thesis or a dedicated study of them.

You have a _hypothesis_ at best. If you want to demonstrate that it is true, you need to show that Islamic society has actually worked the way you assume with some degree of consistency throughout history. That ultimately means looking at, contextualizing and interpreting primary sources from various eras (and no, Wikipedia calling something "important" does NOT demonstrate anything). That's the only way you can show that a phenomenon exists. Anything else is little better than a guess.

 

[David Mo]

Whether it is a sensible way of arguing her point does not change the slightest bit that you again - like the SPLC - only offered quotes against Islam.
You understand that to show someone is anti-Muslim it is insufficient to show that the person is anti-Islam?
Or are anti-Muslim and anti-Islam synonyms?

If Islam and Muslim are synonymous —see the English Oxford dictionary on line: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/islam and https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/muslim — I suppose that anti-Islam and anti-Muslims is the same attitude. It is regrettable but we have not any word to speak of people that live in Islamic countries but are not Muslims properly speaking. This happens also with Christian countries. But we don’t speak of Danish, French or Chilean as “Christian”. On the contrary we speak of “Muslim” when referring to Irakian, Morrocan or Indonesian as if they were an block. We have a typical racist outlook: we think that “all the Chinese are alike”. This is the starting point of neo-colonialism. I recommend you Orientalism, by Edward Said. It is a clarifying book on this subject.

If you made some difference between Islam and Muslim people you can explain it. It would be useful for the debate.

That you would not use the words of Dawkins does not change that you hold a similar position: that Islam at present is somehow a bit lacking compared to other religions.
How would you voice such a position in the public square?

I will never utter these words in a public square or a private room both because they are inappropriate and unverifiable. I would say that some interpretations of Islam are a serious danger for many people.

I am against every kind of terrorism either from extremist organizations or states. But I am also against any reductive thinking that justifies the war against whole categories of people. This is unfair and irresponsible. And it is frequently a disguise of some un-confessed interests. Terrorists are those that directly carry out and justify crimes against humanity. A more confuse implication would convert anybody in a terrorist. This is a big mistake.

 

[Carn]

If you want to demonstrate that it is true, you need to show that Islamic society has actually worked the way you assume with some degree of consistency throughout history.

That i need not to show, here the important word highlighted:

"But you and many others somehow cannot accept that some religious people think like that."

So i need not show that Islamic societies worked "the way i assume" with some degree of consistency thoughout history, i only need to show that in today's world some Islamists base their today political decisions upon what they think the example given by Quran, Muhammed or someone in time close to him suggests.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp


"Article One:

The Islamic Resistance Movement: The Movement's programme is Islam. From it, it draws its ideas, ways of thinking and understanding of the universe, life and man. It resorts to it for judgement in all its conduct, and it is inspired by it for guidance of its steps."

"Peaceful Solutions, Initiatives and International Conferences:
Article Thirteen:

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know."

Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?

"But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah." (The Cow - verse 120).

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:

"The people of Syria are Allah's lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation.""

There you go; as one of the reasons for rejecting any "Peace Solutions, Initiatives and International Conferences" direct reference to Quran and Hadiths so to supposedly things said and done by Muhammed personally in the 7th century is offered.

So in this organization - which is highly relevant for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - a considerable number of people in 1988, when facing the issue how to act in respect to "Peace Solutions, Initiatives and International Conferences", did a WWMD? and checked Quran and Hadiths and came up with one should not trust those Jews/Infidels and hence reject any of those peace whatever things.

Therefore i have shown the phenomenon of some believers considering what their religions founder had done/said some 1400 years ago and would do in their situation and that such considerations actually have political effects in today's world.



That one should not focuse exclusively on such things as explanations/causes is obvious; but that one should not ignore such things is also obvious.

(And yes i noted, that Hamas has a new charta; which cannot change that from 1988 to 2017 at least some "WWMD?"-islamists based political decisions to some extent on "WWMD?" or variatiaons thereof; besides, the new Hamas charta still suggest that "its reference is Islam in its principles and goals", which still implies some "WWMD?" considerations on their side)

 

[Carn]

If Islam and Muslim are synonymous —see the English Oxford dictionary on line: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/islam and https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/muslim — I suppose that anti-Islam and anti-Muslims is the same attitude.

I do not consider the words to be synonymous. I asked whether you consider them synonyms.

Oxford dictationary links does not consider them synonyms, as it defines Muslim as:
"A follower of the religion of Islam."

If Islam and Muslim would be synonym, that would be a recursive definition. So the site will only offer that definition, if Islam and Muslim are not synonyms in their opinion.

It is regrettable but we have not any word to speak of people that live in Islamic countries but are not Muslims properly speaking. This happens also with Christian countries. But we don’t speak of Danish, French or Chilean as “Christian”. On the contrary we speak of “Muslim” when referring to Irakian, Morrocan or Indonesian as if they were an block.

I recommend you realizing that other people being unable to use language correctly and call for example inhabitants of Irak Muslims instead of Irakis is entirely not my fault. And similar that when i say Muslim i mean Muslim as "follower of Islam" and hence do not imply any nationality or ethnic or "race" and half the world is too stupid to understand that i do not talk about people from some specific country or even from some larger region it is not my fault, although it is my problem.

As you see above, the dictionary you linked treats Muslims and Islam not as synonyms.

Hence, it is at least semantically possible to be Anti-Islam without being Anti-Muslim.

We have a typical racist outlook: we think that “all the Chinese are alike”.

Cant talk about anyone else, but for me it a clear: NO!

I do not think that all the Chinese are alike. Why should i ever think such a stupid thing, when i have read many stories about Chinese individuals with differing and sometimes opposing views and have had contact with a limited number of Chinese who - what a unbelievable miracle - seemed to be indivudals?

This is the starting point of neo-colonialism. I recommend you Orientalism, by Edward Said. It is a clarifying book on this subject.

Based on you also presuming i am racist, it seems more like a book "How to constantly misunderstand anything anyone says about Islam, so i can call him racist".

Maybe i should realy read it; such books are often quite some fun to follow the idiotic contortions some people do when setting up strawmans to burn them down.

If you made some difference between Islam and Muslim people you can explain it. It would be useful for the debate.

Actually, it would be yours to show that i did not make such a difference.

But look at post 176. In it i went harshly against Islam and only offered a conclusion for Muslims to draw from my harsh criticism. Hence, i treated Islam and Muslims as being different from each other.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

That i need not to show...

Well, that settles it: you are just making things up to support your preconceived, bigoted prejudices, with little to no honest concern for the truth.