• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The ISIS offensive in Iraq

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
@The Human Q-Tip ,

Just read your other response to me and I'm thinking we are talking past one another.

You say you should have the right to criticize a "belief system."
-I agree you should have the right to do so. But that doesn't mean all criticism is warranted or justified, simply because it is allowed.

We absolutely agree on that point. Obviously, incorrect/unjust/unfair criticism of anything is....incorrect, unjust and unfair. But if we're in agreement that accurate or fair criticism (not all criticism) of a belief system (including both Christianity and Islam) is okay, that's where your comparison to race loses me. Because I cannot fathom any criticism of a persons' race that is warranted or justified.

Concisely,
I disagree because ISIS does not represent, in any way, Islamic beliefs. That was the first point I made, and it is the sum of all the points I am making with respect to this disagreement.

I've been watching various talking heads Muslim talking heads, reading stuff, etc., and this is how I'd summarize what I've heard/read, which is pretty consistent with what I've studied.

There is a pretty wide disparity in terms of defining what "Islam" is. That being said, there are some things that have been done by ISIS -- such as the burning of the Jordanian pilot -- that no Muslim scholar of significance would defend as being remotely consistent with Islamic beliefs. But, some of what ISIS is doing otherwise is generally consistent with a strict, fundamentalist view of 7th century Islam. Of course, most Muslims know that we are no longer living in the seventh century, and so those actions are now outside mainstream Islam.

In any case, I believe it is both possible and desireable to Muslims and Christians to live side by side in peace. I am troubled by those issues I've previously identified that show a lack of agreement that religion should be solely a matter of individual conscience. It's not really a problem if the Muslim population is relatively small, but if you get a larger percentage of the population that still believes in prohibitions against apostasy, blasphemy, etc.., it can be a problem. However, I also am hopeful that those particular views can be changed from within Islam at some point.

In that regard, I think Europe has partially contributed -- albeit unwittingly -- to what happened with Charlie Hebdo. We in the U.S. are much more rigidly protective of free speech/free exercise rights, even at the expense of offending others, than are some in Europe. If you come to this country, your right to worship will be protected, and we'll want to assimilate you, but you better accept the fact that people here can say what they want about anyone, including Muhammed, that the Jehovah's Witnesses may come knocking at your door, etc.. And I think (hope?) most American Muslims are accepting of that.

But Europe has been moving in the direction of prohibiting "hate speech" for quite some time, and Nazism is illegal in some European nations. And in accepting the idea that it is the role of the government to prohibit certain speech because it is deemed offensive, they've given up the moral high ground, and the principle. And they may even have created an expectation that if there is enough violence relating to "insults" to Islam, the government will eventually ban that speech as well.

Just as an aside, I think the President's refusal to discuss Islam at all actually hurts the cause of distinguishing between the different schools of thought/sects within Islam. If you're going to argue "this has got nothing to do with Islam", you can't very well argue "these are just Wahhabi extremists, and most Muslims are not Wahhabi extremists."

Of course, he may not want to call out Wahhabi extremists at all because of the Saudis, but that doesn't make it right either.
 
Last edited:
Some people do, and some don't. Some people change their religion as well, and/or the degree/fervency of belief changes. I don't think religious belief systems are deserving of any different consideration or protection than secular belief systems. And that's coming from a Christian, not a secular humanist.

Really?

Wow.. That's pretty far out of the mainstream.

A person born into the Muslim faith will likely always identify it. Same with Christianity.

A person born into a conservative household is only marginally more likely to remain conservative over time. In fact, 72% of all people shift ideologies over their lifetimes.

Contrasting that to individuals who change between different faiths (not just denominations); meaning, a Jew becomes a Christian, or a Christian becomes a Muslim; such changes are rare, being almost nonrepresentative. People often leave their faith completely, and become agnostics, but also tend to return to their childhood faith in their old age.

Scientifically, a person almost never loses their childhood faith, either psychologically or even physiologically (research into the manner in which the brain handles "religion" and "faith").

The point is that, no, religion is not like any other belief system. It is a very personal quality of life that defines who we are on a very deep level.

Anecdotally, my being a Catholic (a lapsed one) is more important and more defining than my being a Democrat; even if I believe in gay marriage, abortion, etc etc. That religion, which I do not practice, is something that I, and many, would die for. I wouldn't give two shits if the Democratic party dissolved tomorrow.

It's just, not well grounded, I think, to suggest a persons general ideologies are equivalent in importance to their spiritual identity.

In any case, I don't see why that should make any difference at all in the degree of protection to which they are entitled, or whether or not they should be subject to public criticism.

I'm not saying you can't criticize people. That's your protected right Q-Tip.

We keep dancing around this point too, because you keep mentioning it.

For the 15th time, I am not saying you cannot criticize anyone. Your right to free speech is fully guaranteed in my book, say whatever you want.

I don't think the difference is relevant to the degree of protection to which they are entitled.

I think it is, for the aforementioned reasons.

olitical beliefs and expression are equally "protected", though, and as we know, people can get extremely emotional about those as well. And yet, we consider open discussion of those beliefs perfectly acceptable even if someone is highly offended. And I'd point out that while race and gender are "protected", they are not protected from criticism.

There's nothing wrong with open discussion and metaphysical debates. I love to have religious debates!

The problem arises when we don't have structured or reasonable discourse, and instead have people saying things like "I don't care what's in the Qu'ran; Islam is part of the problem."

How can we have dialogue if that type of thinking permeates the conversation? You can't tell someone "this isn't Islam" while they are saying both "I don't know what Islam is," but at the same time "that's Islam and I hate it."

If you're going to redefine "Muslim" as something other than "a believer in Islam", then you should at least acknowledge that is not the definition most other people are using. That's not how most other people are using the word, though, and I daresay there are a great many Muslims who would disagree with the idea that someone who doesn't not believe in God and Muhammed as his prophet is a Muslim..

The bolded is false. Once one states for the first time he surrenders to Allah, and the faith of Islam, he is then and always will be a Muslim. He is forever a Muslim.

So no, you're wrong here. Very much so.

And if you're going to separate "Muslim" from "Islam", then all those nonbelieving "Muslims" have no reason to be offended if someone criticizes the religious tenets of Islam anyway because they don't believe in them.

But they are offended because when you criticize Islam you are criticizing the groups of people associated with it.

Furthermore, and I think this needs to be pointed out; none of the criticisms in this thread have even held any validity, as none of you know the first thing about Islam.

Q-Tip, you're the first person to talk about "internet experts" but here we are discussing something that I would bet you know next to nothing about.

So, no offense, but the rest of the world shouldn't have to change the commonly understood meaning of words just because of some people have an idiosyncractic definition.

None taken, but that isn't what is being said.

What common thread? You just said that someone can be a Muslim and not even belief in Islam. And if that's your view, then criticizing Islam is not grouping together everyone who believes in Islam.

I didn't say the bolded as it's an oxymoron. Muslim and Islam cannot be separated, in a practical or religious sense. Practically, Islam is more than a religion, and the term "Muslim" is merely an term describing people of the Islamic faith or tradition.

What you're missing from consideration is that, like other faiths, Muslims have their own identity, culture, language, and philosophy that is distinct from others along a common thread. That thread is the Islamic faith and tradition.

Just because a person decides to no longer adhere to the tenants of the Islamic faith, it doesn't mean they are no longer Muslim; and by being a Muslim, you are still part of the Islamic world, in a general sense.

Again, Q-Tip, don't take this the wrong way, because I mean no offense at all, but look at the thread.

You've got me, @kosis, @DJTJ, and others saying "we have close affinity to, or are" of the Islamic faith / tradition. Take my word for it when I say that others have privately expressed this same view but don't want to take part in this conversation.

But then we have others, who don't know much about Islam, admittedly. Don't know much about Arabs or Arabic. Don't know much about Middle Eastern culture or traditions. Really don't know much about these people at all; but are willing to go out on a limb and say "yeah, their religion is the problem."

When these people say "No, it's not Islam, it's geopolitical; it's complex, let's go through each issue in each nation individually and get to the root of the problem." The response has been, invariably, "...nah, it's Islam, just admit it!"

I'm not trying to be facetious, and I'm appealing to your intellect here because I genuinely think you're smart guy and you'll understand that I'm getting a bit frustrated at the nature of the conversation.

If we are going to debate Islam, then we'd be having a religious debate. Which frankly, 99% of us are not qualified for (including me, even having read the Qu'ran). If we're talking about the virtue or issues of Islam, I think we'd need to establish a base level of knowledge on the subject first, before casting blame on these people.

Is that not fair?
 
You have to admit the whole not eating pork thing is ridiculous.

It's not a Muslim thing.. It's a Christian / Jewish thing too.

And historically, pigs were considered unclean animals. It made perfect sense not to eat them.
 
We absolutely agree on that point. Obviously, incorrect/unjust/unfair criticism of anything is....incorrect, unjust and unfair. But if we're in agreement that accurate or fair criticism (not all criticism) of a belief system (including both Christianity and Islam) is okay, that's where the race comparison to confuses me. Because I cannot fathom any criticism of a persons' race that is warranted or justified.

If the "race" is of the person is Jewish, then it should make more sense.

Being a Muslim is more than just believing in a specific philosophy. It's a core component to a person's individual identity.

I've been watching various talking heads Muslim talking heads, reading stuff, etc., and this is how I'd summarize what I've heard/read, which is pretty consistent with what I've studied.

There is a pretty wide disparity in terms of defining what "Islam" is. That being said, there are some things that have been done by ISIS -- such as the burning of the Jordanian pilot -- that no Muslim scholar of significance would defend as being remotely consistent with Islamic beliefs. But, some of what ISIS is doing otherwise is generally consistent with a strict, fundamentalist view of 7th century Islam.

Ahh.... I'm so glad you said this..

It isn't that it is in accordance with 7th century Islam, but it is in accordance with a 7th century political ideology that was formed after Islam and does not in anyway define Islam as a faith.

This has been pointed out by numerous Muslim scholars throughout the Muslim world.

ISIS' "interpretation" of Islam is not in accordance with the teachings of Islam historically. It is instead an attempt to continue a political system and ideology created following the death of the Prophet Muhammad. One cannot say "this is Islam" when referring to the Khalifa as it is constructed.

The reality of the situation is that at the time, religious kingdoms formed. In the vacuum that is Iraq and Syria post-Saddam, a madman lunatic decided he would be the new Abu Bakr and claim a false entitlement based on an imaginary bloodline, placing him into the position of ruler of over all Muslims.

It is pure nonsense, and those who follow al-Baghdadi are not practicing Islam by doing so. That's the point.


Of course, most Muslims know that we are no longer living in the seventh century, and so those actions are now outside mainstream Islam.

That's the entire point. What Muslims are trying to get across is that people are conflating 7th century geopolitics and forms of governance with Islamic faith because they happen to be within a hundred years of each other.
 
The bolded is false. Once one states for the first time he surrenders to Allah, and the faith of Islam, he is then and always will be a Muslim. He is forever a Muslim.

First, he is "forever a Muslim" according to whom? To other Muslims, to others, or to himself? And which of those should society respect/acknowledge? To me, if someone declares they no longer choose to follow one faith, but follow another, I should respect and recognize that choice. There are a lot of people who have converted from/abandoned Islam, and no longer consider themselves Muslim. You seem to be arguing that even if an adult wants to leave the faith, he cannot. Don't you see a problem with applying Islamic standards to people who are not, and do not wish to be, believers in Islam?

Second, as soon as I read that statement, my first thought was "how can anybody be an apostate --which is certainly a recognized concept in Islam ("riddah", I think)-- if they can never actually leave the religion? So I looked up apostasy, and found this stuff: Please believe me, I'm not trying to misrepresent or distort anything -- this is just how it was described in Wikipedia:

But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith,- never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray.
Quran 3:90

Make ye no excuses: ye have rejected Faith after ye had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin.
Quran 9:66

He who disbelieves in Allah after his having believed, not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith, but he who opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement. — Quran 16:106

The upshot seems to be that Islam is the Hotel California of religions. if you are an adult who renounces Islam, you will still be considered a member of the faith, but your lack of faith makes you an apostate and therefore subject to punishment under sharia for your apostasy.. So, you get this:

Contemporary Egyptian jurisprudence prohibits apostasy from Islam, but has also remained silent about death penalty.[122] Article 2 of the Constitution of Egypt enshrines sharia.[123]

Both Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court of Egypt have ruled that, “it is completely acceptable for non-Muslims to embrace Islam but by consensus Muslims are not allowed to embrace another religion or to become of no religion at all [in Egypt].”[122]

The silence about punishment for apostasy along with constitutional enshrinement of Sharia, means death sentence for apostasy is possibility. In practice, Egypt has prosecuted apostasy from Islam under its blasphemy laws using the Hisbah doctrine;[124] and non-state Islamic groups have taken the law into their own hands and executed apostates.[125]

A 2010 Pew Research Center poll showed that 84% of Egyptian Muslims believe those who leave Islam should be punished by death.[126]

In 1992 Islamist militants gunned down
Egyptian secularist and sharia law opponent Farag Foda. Before his death he had been declared an apostate and foe of Islam by ulama at Al Azhar. During the trial of the murderers, Al-Azhar scholar Mohammed al-Ghazali testified that when the state fails to punish apostates, somebody else has to do it.[

Look, you don't have to have a degree in divinity, or understand every last nuance of a religion, to make the moral determination that a prohibition against leaving a religion, enforced by threat of punishment or sanction, is wrong. And if that is a core part of what Islam is, as you seem to be saying here, them some of these criticisms are justified.
 
Last edited:
First, he is "forever a Muslim" according to whom? To other Muslims, to others, or to himself? And which of those should society respect/acknowledge? To me, if someone declares they no longer choose to follow one faith, but follow another, I should respect and recognize that choice. There are a lot of people who have converted from/abandoned Islam, and no longer consider themselves Muslim. You seem to be arguing that even if an adult wants to leave the faith, he cannot.

Second, as soon as I read that statement, my first thought was "how can anybody be an apostate --which is certainly a recognized concept in Islam ("riddah", I think)-- if they can never actually leave the religion? So I looked up apostasy, and found this stuff: Please believe me, I'm not trying to misrepresent or distort anything -- this is just how it was described in Wikipedia:

But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith,- never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray.
Quran 3:90

Make ye no excuses: ye have rejected Faith after ye had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin.
Quran 9:66

He who disbelieves in Allah after his having believed, not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith, but he who opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement. — Quran 16:106

The upshot seems to be that Islam is the Hotel California of religions. if you are an adult who renounces Islam, you will still be considered a member of the faith, but your lack of faith makes you an apostate and therefore subject to punishment under sharia for your apostasy.. So, you get this:

Contemporary Egyptian jurisprudence prohibits apostasy from Islam, but has also remained silent about death penalty.[122] Article 2 of the Constitution of Egypt enshrines sharia.[123]

Both Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court of Egypt have ruled that, “it is completely acceptable for non-Muslims to embrace Islam but by consensus Muslims are not allowed to embrace another religion or to become of no religion at all [in Egypt].”[122]

The silence about punishment for apostasy along with constitutional enshrinement of Sharia, means death sentence for apostasy is possibility. In practice, Egypt has prosecuted apostasy from Islam under its blasphemy laws using the Hisbah doctrine;[124] and non-state Islamic groups have taken the law into their own hands and executed apostates.[125]

A 2010 Pew Research Center poll showed that 84% of Egyptian Muslims believe those who leave Islam should be punished by death.[126]

In 1992 Islamist militants gunned down
Egyptian secularist and sharia law opponent Farag Foda. Before his death he had been declared an apostate and foe of Islam by ulama at Al Azhar. During the trial of the murderers, Al-Azhar scholar Mohammed al-Ghazali testified that when the state fails to punish apostates, somebody else has to do it.[

Look, you don't have to have a degree in divinity, or understand every last nuance of a religion, to make the moral determination that a prohibition against leaving a religion, enforced by threat of punishment or sanction, is wrong. And if that is a core part of what Islam is, as you seem to be saying here, them some of these criticisms are justified.

This is a very religious based argument, I just want to point that out, but anyway...

Q-Tip, you realize once baptized in the Catholic Church, it is exceedingly difficult to no longer be considered a Catholic by those practicing the religion? By cannon law, this is the doctrine of the Church.

Once one receives the Sacrament of Confirmation, then one is always a Catholic, by their vow and personal connection to God through the Church.

If that person calls themselves an agnostic, an atheist, whatever it might be; the Church will always consider them a Catholic, and the Catholic faithful must always view them as such.

Now, if you go back a few pages you'll see my comments regarding Jewish apostasy, which you seemed to say was okay? Even though the Torah calls for the killing of apostates?

I'm not sure I really understand why you're making a distinction with respect to Islam.
 
This is a very religious based argument, I just want to point that out, but anyway...

Q-Tip, you realize once baptized in the Catholic Church, it is exceedingly difficult to no longer be considered a Catholic by those practicing the religion? By cannon law, this is the doctrine of the Church.

Once one receives the Sacrament of Confirmation, then one is always a Catholic, by their vow and personal connection to God through the Church.

If that person calls themselves an agnostic, an atheist, whatever it might be; the Church will always consider them a Catholic, and the Catholic faithful must always view them as such.

Now, if you go back a few pages you'll see my comments regarding Jewish apostasy, which you seemed to say was okay? Even though the Torah calls for the killing of apostates?

I'm not sure I really understand why you're making a distinction with respect to Islam.

I was baptized, however I don't consider myself jack shit anymore. I could give a shit what the church may think, despite me being confirmed as well. A ritual which - at its core - constitutes next to nothing.
 
It's not a Muslim thing.. It's a Christian / Jewish thing too.

And historically, pigs were considered unclean animals. It made perfect sense not to eat them.

And see, this right here is the problem with Islam.


























¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
I was baptized, however I don't consider myself jack shit anymore. I could give a shit what the church may think, despite me being confirmed as well. A ritual which - at its core - constitutes next to nothing.

That's cool, and more power to you.

There's nothing stopping a Muslim from doing the same.

I think the argument being presented here is that it is unethical for religions to lock people in, so to speak. And all I am saying is that, okay, if it is, then do we agree that all three major Abrahamic religions are guilty of this supposedly unethical rule?
 
That's cool, and more power to you.

There's nothing stopping a Muslim from doing the same.

I think the argument being presented here is that it is unethical for religions to lock people in, so to speak. And all I am saying is that, okay, if it is, then do we agree that all three major Abrahamic religions are guilty of this supposedly unethical rule?

Absolutely, but I don't see any religion forcing this adherence or prohibiting those from disassociating from it (at least in the 21st century). If a religion still "views a person as this or that" based on the fact they participated in a ritual which they may or may not had a say in or fully understood at the time, then more power to them - it means nothing.
 
This is a very religious based argument, I just want to point that out, but anyway...

Q-Tip, you realize once baptized in the Catholic Church, it is exceedingly difficult to no longer be considered a Catholic by those practicing the religion? By cannon law, this is the doctrine of the Church.

Right, and it makes absolutely no difference to anyone if the Church still considers you Catholic, or not. But just out of curiosity, if an adult Catholic converted to Islam, would you consider them a Catholic, or a Muslim?

Now, if you go back a few pages you'll see my comments regarding Jewish apostasy, which you seemed to say was okay? Even though the Torah calls for the killing of apostates?

No, that's not okay either. It just has absolutely zero relevance in the modern world, so nobody cares.

I'm not sure I really understand why you're making a distinction with respect to Islam.

Because neither Catholic nations nor Israel have laws barring conversion to other religions. Because Catholics and Jews aren't running around trying to enforce via vigilantism a prohibition against apostasy. Because there aren't rabbis and priests running around who still claim that apostasy should be punished, either by death or any other punishment.

On the one hand, you have two dead, unenforced, and meaningless religious doctrines that have zero impact on the world other than an occasional sniff and raised eyebrow,

On the other, you have a very active, current doctrine enshrined into law in many Muslim majority nations, openly endorsed by a great many Muslims -- including yourself -- and that has resulted in imprisonment and much worse in the modern world. It is the justification for ISIS killing other Muslims who they deem not to be following the obligations and practices of "true" Islam. Whether they're right or wrong about that wouldn't matter absent the prohibition of apostasy.

And you really need me to point out the "distinction"?

Honest to God, you're generally an enlightened guy. I truly expected you to come out and say "yeah, Islam really needs to let that go and be more respective of individual conscience", but instead, you defended it. Legitimately unexpected, that.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry if I fail to see how that reflects the religion of 1.6 billion people worldwide.

You need to stop immediately with putting words in my mouth. I have never said that it reflects all Muslim’s beliefs. Actually, I have said quite the contrary, time and time again.

Yet you continue to be hostile throughout your posts.

Again, sorry. I’m getting a bit carried away. But I must say that you’re not making it easy for me.

No, they aren't. As has been explained by myself, and two others in this thread.

Why even argue this point? It's kind of ridiculous. Do you speak Arabic? I do. Allah is referenced, repeatedly in conversation, regardless of what you are doing so long as you do not believe it to be deliberately sinful.

But what you're missing is that the phrase cannot be used to draw any conclusions about the religious nature of either action, because neither was grounded in Islam itself. Both acts could be, in fact, sinful; yet the phrase could still be heard.

Little kids say "Allahu Akbar" when playing... It's such a common phrase.

You are praising God for the C on your exam.
You are praising God for setting a bomb in the marketplace.

You got the C on the exam; God would've gotten an A.
You set the bomb in the market; God wouldn't have done it in the first place.

It's your premise to your argument. I'm simply demonstrating to you an example of your own self-imposed ignorance.

I gladly admit that you have a better understanding of the usage of “Allahu Akbar”. I gladly admit that I might have been in the wrong when putting too much weight to its usage by Muslim terrorists.

This is nevertheless a sidetrack of what I’ve been saying all along, but it is very effective for you to keep the discussion on this path, because then you don’t have to address any of my main points. You are doing this all the time.

And why did you choose do discuss in depth exactly my usage of “Allahu Akbar”?
Why did you ignore my point about the shadada being used to separate Muslims from non-Muslims in terrorist attacks?

Why did you ignore my point that Muslim extremists are being recruited in European mosques?

Might it be because you don’t have any good answers? Might it be that it’s safer to turn the debate into a lengthy discussion of the usage of “Allahu Akbar”?

He didn't make anything clear. We substitute religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, routinely in logical arguments regarding specific protected segments of the population. Those classifications are considered, generally to be defining and practically immutable for most people.

Who are we?
General to whom?
And who are most people?

These aren’t arguments, gourimoko, as you should know better than anyone as a self-proclaimed master of logic.

Sure it does. I'm directly addressing your argument.

Huh?

So if I go through thousands of ancient texts that are only loosely related to one another, and are quite contradictory in many ways, and find passages that I can twist and completely out of context; then the billion plus people who don't subscribe to my incorrect interpretation are somehow dragged along with me?

Because that exactly describes what al-Baghdadi and others have done, using works that are not of Muhammad, that are not of the Qu'ran, to justify their actions.

This is not Islam.

Can you then please define what Islam is, since you obviously are the expert here?

We can continue all day long and argue about what Islam is and is not. It will get us nowhere. Which you perfectly know and which is the reason that this is your preferred topic of discussion.

Let us rewind the time some centuries, to the time when they were burning the so-called heretics at the stake.

This was done in the name of God, justified by a minority of extremists that had their noses deep down in a old, dusty book, interpreting the material which best suited themselves, finding reasons to explain their obvious wrongdoings.

So please tell me, gourimoko. How was Christianity not a part of the problem of so-called witch-hunting?

Yet, millions of Muslims feel obliged and unfortunately required to apologize for the actions of a small sect of fanatic rebels who are in essence bastardizing their religion.

And many Europeans feel a sense of guilt for what a small fraternity of their remote forefathers did hundreds of years ago in the times of colonization, which is of course completely irrational, as Europeans today are in no way responsible for the past actions of terrible people in past centuries.

So what again are you trying to say?

I don't want to go on and on with this... I'd rather you just address these few points made, then continue from there.
This is so weak that I hardly have any words for it.

I really hope that people on this board are seeing what your doing here, and I increased the font to make people read the following part:

You are actually dismissing the greater part of my post, in which most of the essence of what I’m saying lies?

This is so fucking arrogant and – yes – it pisses me off.

You are constantly complaining over the growing weakness and lack of substance on this message board. You are constantly calling out others for their lack of debating skills. You are constantly saying that you want rational discussions based on reason and understanding.

I hope you do understand that by saying these stuff you are increasing the expectations of yourself?

I am sick of seeing how you treat others on this board, while not sticking to your own principles at all. You should be ashamed of yourself.

---

Puh. I have counted to ten and I’m ready to continue.

No, I didn't ignore it, I addressed it 3 times in this thread. You just don't like the answer.

Of course I don’t like the answer, because I find it to be a poor, inconsistent answer.

You feel comfortable criticizing religions, without understanding them. This is no different than criticizing races (or more analogously entire cultures) of people.

You know nothing about me. You know nothing about my understanding of religions. Likewise, I don’t know anything about you and your understanding other than what you present here.

You are just repeating like a broken record that you speak Arabic and that you have studied the religion extensively. Those are nothing but words. Talk the talk, walk the walk.

For example, if we were to start a thread discussing the "Evils of the Jews," it'd be closed. Instantly. As being anti-semitic, and rightfully so. How can you speak about millions of people whom you do not know? People that are certainly diverse in their thinking and attitudes, in their worldviews, in their life experiences.

But we need pages upon pages of 'debate,' and I use that term loosely, to discuss the evils of Islam?

Anytime you want to know if something is bigoted, substitute the term "Jew" in for whomever is the object of criticism.

Wow. My points and arguments are like the bullets Neo try to dodge.

I know you’re a smart guy, gourimoko, and I know that what I’m saying isn’t overly complicated. That tells me that you are deliberately misunderstanding and/or misinterpreting what I’m saying.

I find myself to be a broken record actually, but I will try some more nevertheless: It is perfectly fine to criticize Judaism as a system for all its potential faults. That is not anti-Semitism in any way or form. Though, critic of Jews based on racist stereotypes and bigotry is something completely different. How can you not see this difference?

Also, I must point out that it’s weak to bring the Jews into the discussion, because there are some major differences between Judaism and Christianity/Islam. The size is one thing. Another difference lies in the relationship murderer/murdered, where the Jews are overly represented in the latter, while Christianity/Islam is overly represented in the former. And you know of course, that there are hardly any people in the world that have been systematically followed in the same way Jews have been.

Where have I said anything about “the evil of Islam”? I do recognize that Islam has a lot of qualities, as have all religions, but that doesn’t mean it’s perfect, and it should be a subject for critisicm.

But you just keep twisting them words, gourimoko, you just keep on twisting them words…
 
Last edited:
But then we have others, who don't know much about Islam, admittedly. Don't know much about Arabs or Arabic. Don't know much about Middle Eastern culture or traditions. Really don't know much about these people at all; but are willing to go out on a limb and say "yeah, their religion is the problem."

This is obviously directed towards me, which goes to show the cheap ass tricks you constantly use.

You aren't man enough to say it to me directly; you have to hide it in a discussion with another poster? You have to take what I'm saying entirely out of context, so that all of the meaning of what I've been saying completely evaporates?

And regarding the bolded part: Here can you all see – once again – how deliberately the square peg is twisted and turned so that it finally fits into the round hole.

I will make it clear for everyone to see what is here being done by gourimoko, by putting it in bullet points:
  • Gourimoko takes a cheap shot at Debater A in a discussion with Debater B
  • The cheap shot contains generalizations based on something that are not only taken completely out of context, but are also so twisted that it doesn’t contain any of its original meaning
  • The cheap shot at Debater A is used as an argument in the discussion with Debater B
  • Not only that, but it is also an invalid argument, because gourimoko takes the twisted and out-of-context statement of Debater A, and use this to make a generalization of the people he disagrees with in his discussion with Debater B
I am sick of explaining myself to a guy that obviously doesn’t want to understand. I will now go and meditate to ease myself down and then I will enjoy the rest of my evening in peace.

Allahu Akbar.
 
This is obviously directed towards me, which goes to show the cheap ass tricks you constantly use.

You aren't man enough to say it to me directly; you have to hide it in a discussion with another poster? You have to take what I'm saying entirely out of context, so that all of the meaning of what I've been saying completely evaporates?

And regarding the bolded part: Here can you all see – once again – how deliberately the square peg is twisted and turned so that it finally fits into the round hole.

I will make it clear for everyone to see what is here being done by gourimoko, by putting it in bullet points:
  • Gourimoko takes a cheap shot at Debater A in a discussion with Debater B
  • The cheap shot contains generalizations based on something that are not only taken completely out of context, but are also so twisted that it doesn’t contain any of its original meaning
  • The cheap shot at Debater A is used as an argument in the discussion with Debater B
  • Not only that, but it is also an invalid argument, because gourimoko takes the twisted and out-of-context statement of Debater A, and use this to make a generalization of the people he disagrees with in his discussion with Debater B
I am sick of explaining myself to a guy that obviously doesn’t want to understand. I will now go and meditate to ease myself down and then I will enjoy the rest of my evening in peace.

Allahu Akbar.

Every single time that anyone, outside of Gouri and Kiosis (i spelled that wrong, 100% sure), has referenced the Qur'an is point b.

The Allahu Akbar at the bottom is incredibly disrespectful because it's an intentional mocking jab. You tried to play victim, blaming Gouri for the bullets, but did the same thing. Makes sense.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top