Is Islam an evil religion?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill

Originally Posted by Craig B
Well if you ever get into a time machine and find yourself back in 1860, you should make sure you vote Republican.
Click to expand...

Your response
You would not? No, seriously, would you not support the Republicans in 1856?
Click to expand...

Seriously, no. If I was transported back to 1860, I would have missed by 4 years the chance to vote for anybody in 1856.
 
Pandora is fun. Ever go to pandora.com? I just thought I would throw that out since we are all avoiding the topic here.
 
Craig B said:
Bill

Originally Posted by Craig B

Your response

Seriously, no. If I was transported back to 1860, I would have missed by 4 years the chance to vote for anybody in 1856.
Click to expand...

See. I did not say that "if you were transported back to 1860" now, did I?

Read what I wrote before you comment on it.
 
bikerdruid said:
no.
however, the christian gay bashers were a vocal minority, as are islamic extremists.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Now we are getting somewhere.

The official word of Islam comes from a number of official sources. Many of these official sources, like the leaders in Iran, see nothing wrong with hanging innocent gay men in public just for being gay and for no other reason.

Your comment that the "islamic extremists" do not speak for Islam is untrue. What you would like to call "islamic extremists" are the leadership of Islam in much of the world and you would consider to be politically incorrect on a number of important issues such as gay rights, women's rights, and the rights of children.

What if the Pope, the President of the Methodist Church and the Bishops of all the Orthodox Churches came out and said that gay people should be killed? Would you still think that Christianity should be handled with respect and tollerance? I think you would. I think you would give the argument "well, most Christians do not want to kill homosexuals". But this "most of" argument does not hold water if, for example, the leaders are using interpretations that can be argued to be logically accurate.

But wait, there is more. Every religion is a little different. The bible is not regarded as the word of God completely. There are only a few passages where God is speeking in the first person. The Quran is not like that. The Quran is thought of as the literal word of God. So these leaders telling Muslims to go find and kill gays to make God happy are more apt to actually go out and do it, unlike if the same sort of thing happened in Christianity.

Another reason why this "most of are not like that" argument does not hold water is because of this simple fact. Most Muslims don't know what the Quran really says and most Muslims just blindly follow commands without questioning authority. Most of the 9-11 hijackers did not know that the minority few among them -- the pilots -- were going to crash the jets thus killing even the children onboard. They were told it was a hijack mission and they might end up giving up their lives in the process. Only 4 of the 19 new how nepharious and diabolical and purely evil the mission was. I wonder if those kinds of odds and stats can be applied to Islam as a whole.
 
Bill Thompson said:
Do you know what I was referring to when I was talking about appalachians? Do you know what context that was in and why that is important?
Click to expand...
I assumed that you were making a derogatory remark about the inhabitants of some of the poorest regions in the U.S. Was there some other context that you had in mind?

If you do not assume that people who are critical of Islam are right wing hyprocrites, why do you assume I am a right wing hyprocrite?
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Please indicate the post in which you believe that I indicated that I assume you to be a right-wing hypocrite. All I did was point out your ridiculous post in which you claim that all fundamentalist and extremist Christians can be conveniently dismissed. Do your own words sound to you like something that a right-wing hypocrite would say?
 
Bill Thompson said:
I find it interesting how the Democrats supported the institution of slavery in those days and thought the Republicans were out-of-line in trying to remove the practice from the face of the earth.
Click to expand...

Yes, the complexities of history are interesting. In fact, for about a century after the Civil War, the Republican Party was shunned by many southerners as "The Party of Lincoln". A number of prominent southern politicians who were Republicans during the second half of the twentieth century started out as Dixiecrats. It wasn't until the rest of the Democratic party began to swing in favor of desegregation and civil rights that many southerners made the switch to the Republican Party.

But what does this have to do with the subject of this thread?
 
Foster Zygote said:
I assumed that you were making a derogatory remark about the inhabitants of some of the poorest regions in the U.S. Was there some other context that you had in mind?
Click to expand...

Nope. Care to try again? What context was that in?

Foster, I am loosing faith in you, man. Sorry I have to say this. The point I was making was in response to people using the excuse that there are christians who perform acts of terrorism too. But it is not the same sort of thing since the 9-11 hijackers were college educated whilst the christian wack jobs don't seem to be like that.

"I assumed that you were making a derogatory remark about the inhabitants of some of the poorest regions in the U.S." That is pretty messed up. I suggest you read whole ideas rather than sound bytes. Otherwise you are bound to get the wrong idea.
 
Last edited:
Foster Zygote said:
But what does this have to do with the subject of this thread?
Click to expand...

Speeking of pulling something out of historical context, isn't this what you are doing right now?



It was a side note to a larger issue. People did not want to stop the institution of slavery for similar reasons why people do not want to confront Islam today. Let's see:
  • It is too big and such a large part of humanity
  • not all slave owners are bad people, in fact most are good
  • slaves seem content and happy with the situation they are in
People are applying the same sort of bs rationiality to the existance of Islam.

The same kind of apolgistic reasoning people gave towards the existance of slavery, people here are applying to Islam.
 
Last edited:
Johny2x4 said:
I fail to see how Joe Muslim could be comparable to Joe Slaver.
Click to expand...

That is not precisely what I said, but...

You could read some of Ibn Waraq's books or blogs. He does a great job in equating Islam to Slavery. "A slavery of the mind. Take the blue pill, Neo."

Seriously, I have read a lot of what this guy has written. And I have debated with Muslims as well and saw how they use a kind of child-like mentality in rationalizing things. So, when I read one passage where Ibn Warraq wrote that people who are raised in Islamic societies never develop the capacity to think rationally or see the world for what it is, it struck a note of truth with me.

Mosab Hassan Yousef says less kinder words as well. He says Islam is like poison. Slavery, one could argue, was like poison too.
 
Last edited:
Bill Thompson said:
You could read some of Ibn Waraq's books or blogs. He does a great job in equating Islam to Slavery. "A slavery of the mind. Take the blue pill, Neo."

Seriously, I have read a lot of what this guy has written. And I have debated with Muslims as well and saw how they use a kind of child-like mentality in rationalizing things. So, when I read one passage where Ibn Warraq wrote that people who are raised in Islamic societies never develop the capacity to think rationally or see the world for what it is, it struck a note of truth with me.

Mosab Hassan Yousef says less kinder words as well. He says Islam is like poison. Slavery, one could argue, was like poison too.
Click to expand...

Hmm...

imilarly, Professor As'ad AbuKhalil noted that unlike the medieval Al-Warraq who criticized more than one religion, "Ibn Warraq claims to subscribe to secularism and freethinking, yet he objects to Islam only and aligns himself with Christian fundamentalism, which raises questions about the true thrust of his mission" and added that "the more rigid and biased the Orientalists, the better for Warraq"

Lol. No.
 
Bill Thompson said:
The point I was making was in response to people using the excuse that there are christians who perform acts of terrorism too. But it is not the same sort of thing since the 9-11 hijackers were college educated whilst the christian wack jobs don't seem to be like that.
Click to expand...

Yeah Bill, That was exactly the point that I and others were making regarding your double standard. Arguing that all Christians who hold ideas that you don't like are stupid is actually a very stupid argument. I attended college with people who thought that homosexuality was a sin and who were certain that the Earth is no more than six thousand years old. You can find people who believe in Satan and anticipate the Rapture on college campuses throughout the U.S. There was a girl in one of my biology classes who passed out young-Earth-creationist literature to other student prior to the start of one class period while we were studying the theory of evolution by natural selection. The professor told me that she and a couple of other students would sit in the back of the lecture hall and roll their eyes during most of the lectures on evolution.

The 9/11 hijackers had to be better educated than the average illiterate suicide bomber because they had to do things like get passports and visas, live in foreign countries for a period of time, go to flight schools etc. But many Wahhabi schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan "teach" their students the Koran by having them memorize it phonetically in Arabic, a language that they do not speak.

By "correcting" me with confirmation of what I've already criticized you for doing, you are simply giving the impression that you can't even follow the threads of the debates that you are involved in. You can attempt to be insulting all you want, but it will not mask the failures of your arguments.
 
Bill Thompson said:
People did not want to stop the institution of slavery for similar reasons why people do not want to confront Islam today. Let's see:
  • It is too big and such a large part of humanity
  • not all slave owners are bad people, in fact most are good
  • slaves seem content and happy with the situation they are in
People are applying the same sort of bs rationiality to the existance of Islam.

The same kind of apolgistic reasoning people gave towards the existance of slavery, people here are applying to Islam.
Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous analogy.

A closer analogy would have you calling for a confrontation with Christianity as a whole in the United States of the early eighteenth century because some Christians owned slaves.

Ultimately that's all you are doing: Trying to paint all Muslims with a broad brush dipped in the worst things that you can find at the fringes of the Muslim world, while refusing to apply the same standards to all other religions.
 
Last edited:
Bill

Why so keen on 1856? Here's the party for you!
The Know Nothing movement was a nativist American political movement of the 1840s and 1850s. It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by German and Irish Catholic immigrants, who were often regarded as hostile to Anglo-Saxon Protestant values and controlled by the Pope in Rome. Mainly active from 1854 to 1856, it strove to curb immigration and naturalization, though its efforts met with little success. Membership was limited to Protestant males of British lineage over the age of 21. There were few prominent leaders, and the largely middle-class and entirely Protestant membership fragmented over the issue of slavery.
The movement originated in New York in 1843 as the American Republican Party. It spread to other states as the Native American Party and became a national party in 1845. In 1855 it renamed itself the American Party. The origin of the "Know Nothing" term was in the semi-secret organization of the party. When a member was asked about its activities, he was supposed to reply, "I know nothing." ... in 1855 the American Party split into northern (anti-slavery) and southern (pro-slavery) wings. Soon after this split, many people who had voted for the Know-Nothings shifted their support to another new party, one that combined many characteristics of the Whigs with a westward-looking, expansionist, free-soil policy. This was the new Republican Party, founded in 1854.
Click to expand...
(From wiki).

So NOW I know why you wanted to go back to 1856, even after I referred to 1860! American anti immigration party with an obsession about a religious minority? Tailor-made for you. Today's anti-Muslims are the Know Nothings resurrected from the tomb. It's all there - exactly as it was back in the 1850s; with Catholics instead of Muslims.
 
Bill

Your astounding statement below is pure 1856 Know Nothingism.
So, when I read one passage where Ibn Warraq wrote that people who are raised in Islamic societies never develop the capacity to think rationally or see the world for what it is, it struck a note of truth with me.
Click to expand...
People raised in Catholic societies are brainwashed. They can't think properly. They see the world differently. Know Nothing conclusion? Same as Ali Sina hate site conclusion re Muslims - same as your own stated conclusion about Spanish and Greek Muslims - keep them out, and if they're here already, throw them out.

And when responding this time, don't try your usual tactic of suddenly pretending that history is irrelevant. It was you who raised the issue of the 1850s, not me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom