A Qur'an Got Burnt at 9/11 Mosque Protest

[noreligion]

Have they happened in, say, the last 100 years? Are they happening today?
You think maybe the Western world got its **** together and outgrew the need for most of that?

And what is my excuse for Islam? You folk are always an insulting, condescending bunch that has no qualms making stuff up out of thin air.

 

[Pardalis]

I see Thunder has still not answered my question.

 

[JihadJane]

This kind of things are rampant in the Islamic world.

Americans torturing and raping Muslim women is rampant in the Muslim world?

 

[Thunder]

Americans torturing and raping Muslim women is rampant in the Muslim world?

I think, he was talking about rape and tortue BY Muslims.

 

[A'isha]

I see Thunder has still not answered my question.

Nor mine.

 

[Thunder]

Nor mine.

what's your question?

 

[Pardalis]

Found it yet?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Not to mention that if Muslims were all about the eradication of other religions, they'd probably want to start at home. Why haven't they? Here's a small group of people blatantly following another religion deep in the heart of islamic territories. They have no superpower backing them. There's nobody to defend them. They're defenseless. Why are they still there?

Never heard of 'em. According to your link:

Because of this and due to their pre-Islamic beliefs, they have been oppressed by their Muslim neighbors. Treatment of Yazidis was exceptionally harsh during the rule of the Ottoman Empire during the 18th and the first half of 19th century and their numbers dwindled under Ottoman rule both in Syria and Iraq. Massacres at the hand of Ottoman Turks and Muslim Kurdish princes almost wiped out their community in the 19th century.[26][27] Several punitive expeditions were organized against the Yazidis by the Turkish governors (Wāli) of Diyarbakir, Mosul and Baghdad. These operations were legitimized by fatāwa from Islamic clerics.[28] The objective of these persecutions was the forced conversion of Yazidis to the Sunni Hanafi Islam of the Turkish Ottoman Empire.

And more recently:

In 2007, a group of around 200 Yazidis beat and stoned a 17-year-old Yazidi girl named Du’a Khalil Aswad for falling in love with a Muslim boy. On April 23, 2007 masked gunmen abducted and shot 23 Yazidis near Mosul; this was speculated to be a reprisal attack for Aswad's death.

On August 14, 2007 Yazidis were targeted in a series of bombings that became the deadliest suicide attack since the Iraq War began.

On August 13, 2009, at least 20 people were killed and 30 wounded in a double suicide bombing in northern Iraq, an Iraqi Interior Ministry official said. Two suicide bombers with explosive vests carried out the attack at a cafe in Sinjar, a town west of Mosul. In Sinjar, many townspeople are members of the Yazidi minority.[30]

So, I'm not quite sure why you chose this example for your rebuttal. Why not just show some nations where the government is controlled by Islamic religious leaders yet the overall religious freedom in the country is similar to that of countries with secular governments such as the USA?

 

[A'isha]

what's your question?

You said you wanted a fatwa placed on this guy's "Nazi ass." A fatwa is a ruling on a point of Islamic law given by a recognized authority. You described it as a "religious opinion", which is not really accurate, but it's close enough for the purposes of my question.

What specific "religious opinion" do you think should be applied to his "Nazi ass", and what do you hope the results of the application of that "religious opinion" will be?

 

[Skeptic]

Right, the inquisitions were not Christian either.

I said it often: It's nonsense to say that the 9-11 people "perverted Islam" any more than to say the inquisition "perverted Christianity". We might like to believe it, but the truth is, both Islam and Christianity have side that are very much for such barbarism. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Those who claim such extremism exist in all religions are correct in theory, but that's not at all the point. The problem isn't the theology per se -- it's that today you'll find virtually no Christians claiming the inquisition is the true Christianity, while you'll find millions of Muslims claiming Al Queda is real Islam.

It's pointless to try to explain to them they are not "real" Muslims since they can beat you theologically hands down -- just like Toequemada, for instance, could quote tons of papal bulls supporting his actions. The point is that they are not decent human beings, and if their religion tells them to be such monsters, well, so much the worst for the religion.

 

[tsig]

no, but some people i know certainly do know Islam very deeply.

"Some people I know" isn't much of an argument.

 

[Skeptic]

So, I'm not quite sure why you chose this example for your rebuttal. Why not just show some nations where the government is controlled by Islamic religious leaders yet the overall religious freedom in the country is similar to that of countries with secular governments such as the USA?

Because they don't exist. Part of Islamic theology is that the nonbelievers must be kept in a lower status. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, much of the country is off-limits to infidels at all, it is illegal to build churches, and so on.

That is true in Christian belief as well -- but again, that's not the point; the problem is that while there haven't been too many Christian theocracies around since the 17th century or so, there still are numerous Islamic ones.

 

[Skeptic]

Journalist: Women raped at Abu Ghraib were later ‘honor killed’

If we're going burn the Koran, who wrote the book of rape?

The difference is that those westerners who raped women in Abu Gharib were shunned (if not severely punished) by the western world. Even rapists in the western world who escape punishment hardly go about bragging about being rapists.

On the other hand, those Muslims who then killed the raped women for "violating the family honor" are supported by their Muslim society. Father praise their sons for killing their sister, their own children, if the daughter was raped.

So-called "honor killing", while not exclusive to the Muslim world, is by far most widespread there, one of the consequences of Islam's generally disgusting treatment of women as mere property-cum-incubators.

Some people are trying to change it -- brave Muslims who think Islam must change its treatment of women. They are, very often, under threat of death from the true believers of the religion of peace for daring to suggest such a disgusting thing like "women have human rights".

(Sigh)

Frankly I don't think anybody here really thinks Islam is no more violent or misogynistic or primitive than Christianity. It's just one of those things people say lest they be called "Islamophobes" -- as if noting Islam's problems is the same as saying "All Muslims are lunatic thugs who must be killed".

"Islam is just as civilized as Christianity" (or better, "Islamic society just as civilized as western one") is a lie that is said in order to not offend, in the same way the people swear that someone's children are really smart and his wife is beautiful, whatever they think in reality.

There is much to be said for politeness -- brutal honesty isn't always the best way -- but it's a problem when it becomes de facto a cause for ostracism to dare not be polite by saying some obvious truth.

 

[jimgerrish]

If the new World Trade Center is going to get a bunch of religious rooms, I demand a room for non-theists to stand in and not pray. If they don't provide such a room, I will burn a blank-paged book in protest.

 

[Dipayan]

I said it often: It's nonsense to say that the 9-11 people "perverted Islam" any more than to say the inquisition "perverted Christianity". We might like to believe it, but the truth is, both Islam and Christianity have side that are very much for such barbarism. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

As you rightly mention, both Christianity and Islam have sides that are for the barbarism in their books. Which, of course, implies that there are sides that are against the barbarism. So rather than using the term 'perverted', let's use the term 'distilled'. The moderates 'distill' an ancient moralistic book through their present morality, and this is true for Christians as well as Muslims.

Those who claim such extremism exist in all religions are correct in theory, but that's not at all the point. The problem isn't the theology per se -- it's that today you'll find virtually no Christians claiming the inquisition is the true Christianity, while you'll find millions of Muslims claiming Al Queda is real Islam.

On the contrary, I think you'll find quite a few Christians who can be quite fundamentalist in the way you mention. Of course, the fact that the Christianity that we come in contact with are in the First World, and hence is balanced by education and affluence, is something that we forget.

If you compare the Muslims in USA to the Christians in USA, you will find that the set of fundamentalist Christians is way more vocal than fundamentalist Muslims. And that is a true comparison, because when you compare, say, a Pakistan to the United States, you are not just comparing Islam to Christianity, but you are also comparing different demographics.

Just like there might be thousands of disenfranchised Muslim extremists in Afghanistan, there were millions of bloodthristy Christians in Rwanda. Sometimes, violence has little do with religion and more to do with economic, social and political crosswinds.

It's pointless to try to explain to them they are not "real" Muslims since they can beat you theologically hands down -- just like Toequemada, for instance, could quote tons of papal bulls supporting his actions. The point is that they are not decent human beings, and if their religion tells them to be such monsters, well, so much the worst for the religion.

You are assuming here that these people commit atrocities ONLY because their religion tells them to. There are no 'real' Muslims and 'fake' Muslims, but only Muslims. This doesn't take away from the fact that the majority of Muslims are not violent. More importantly, if taken in context, accounting for social and economic reasons, Muslims are no more war-mongering than Christians.

Just to put it in context, while the past 10 years has been won by the Muslim terrorists, the decade before that was definitely a victory for the Christian extremists. And if you compare sheer numbers, I think the Lamb of God wins hands down

 

[OMGturt1es]

True, but for some strange, incomprehensible reasons, "christian fanatics" tend not to fly planes into buildings or blow themselves up in suicide terrorist attacks or shoot pregnant women at point-blank range for being Jews. It's not that it absolutely never happens, but is far, far rarer than Muslim fanatics doing the same thing, which is practically a daily occurence.

Perhaps the reason people would not react this way if "christian fanatics" did it is that christians fanatics tend not to do it.

Just a wild guess, here.

The word "tend" is interesting, because no religions tend to "fly planes into buildings or blow themselves up in suicide terrorist attacks or shoot pregnant women at point-blank range for being Jews." All religions tend not to do these things. And I'm not just being a stickler for denotation here; the vast majority of all the world's religious folk to not commit violent acts upon others. It is the minority fringe that commit violent acts.

 

[DC]

"Some people I know" isn't much of an argument.

it beats your bigotry by lengths.

Do you believe the fast majority of Muslims does understand their religion wrong? and only UBL and other extremists understand Islam "the right" way?

 

[OMGturt1es]

Right, the inquisitions were not Christian either.

I'm not sure how the inquisitions are relevant to my claim. You're argument would probably be easier to follow if it were an argument rather than a sarcastic remark.

 

[JihadJane]

I think, he was talking about rape and tortue BY Muslims.

In Abu Ghraib prison during the US occupation?

Keep on topic please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[Skeptic]

You are assuming here that these people commit atrocities ONLY because their religion tells them to.

Certainly not. But it is absurd to ignore the fact that Islam has a large and powerful contingent that sees violence as the real way of. It's true that there are, needless to say, bloodthirsty Christians as well, but nobody (not even the murderers) ever claimed killing their victims is their religious duty.

The point is that Islam hasn't passed through the enlightenment and political and scientific revolution that made the first world the first world. It is still about where Christianity was ca. 1600.

There are no 'real' Muslims and 'fake' Muslims, but only Muslims. This doesn't take away from the fact that the majority of Muslims are not violent.

Again, 100% agree, but that's not the point. Even during the height of the Inquisition or the 30-year war, most Christians in Europe weren't violent. Nevertheless it hardly means Christianity was then not far more violent and intolerant than it is today. That most Iranians, say, aren't violent (indeed, they suffer from the mullahs themselves) is no refutation that Iran is a theocratic terrorist state because of the mullahs' version of Islam.

More importantly, if taken in context, accounting for social and economic reasons, Muslims are no more war-mongering than Christians.

That is simply false. Islam has 'bloody borders'. Christianity doesn't, at least not since the 1600s.