Let's go through the issues you raised concisely, and one-by-one; just for clarity's sake:
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.
Who is taking who out of context here? My original quote is: "I'm sorry if I fail to see how that
reflects the religion of 1.6 billion people worldwide."
Religion is key term here, not Muslim; Muslim is the condition, the predicate of the question. Simply put I am saying to you that I do not see how ISIS' limited and self-aggrandizing interpretation of Islam has anything to do with Islam itself.
Again, sorry. I’m getting a bit carried away. But I must say that you’re not making it easy for me.
....right.
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.
I'm doing it because I'm making a point. That point is that you and several others in this thread have next to zero understanding about Islam or Muslim or Arabic Peoples.
So I am demonstrating that admittedly self-imposed ignorance, according to you, by showing you how wrong information can be the foundation for incorrect assumptions.
And why did you choose do discuss in depth exactly my usage of “Allahu Akbar”?
Because I want to demonstrate how you lack understanding of the people you are so ready to criticize.
Why did you ignore my point about the shadada being used to separate Muslims from non-Muslims in terrorist attacks?
I didn't. I directly responded to you in the very next post (#755) I even block quoted this very question and answered it directly.
Why did you ignore my point that Muslim extremists are being recruited in European mosques?
Again, I didn't. I directly responded to you in the very next post (#755) I even BLOCK QUOTED this very question AND ANSWERED IT DIRECTLY.
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”?
But I did answer the questions, directly. Again, you just glanced over the explanation, and ignored it.
Oh brother... We = those of us having the discussion.
in-general
Adverb
- In the general case; without further assumption; without qualification; in all respects.
- (colloquial) generally
Most people means, more than 51% of all people.
These aren’t arguments, gourimoko, as you should know better than anyone as a self-proclaimed master of logic.
What isn't an argument? What is my argument, btw?
Can you then please define what Islam is, since you obviously are the expert here?
Is·lam
isˈläm,izˈläm/
noun
- the religion of the Muslims, a monotheistic faith regarded as revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah.
- the Muslim world.
"the most enormous complex of fortifications in all Islam"
Please note the underlined connotation with respect to the conversation.
We can continue all day long and argue about what Islam is and is not. It will get us nowhere.
Because you aren't willing to discuss.
Which you perfectly know and which is the reason that this is your preferred topic of discussion.
I don't have anything to prove to you once I realized there was nothing that could be proved.
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?
Because nothing in Christianity itself justified those murders. How does burning people at the stake for supposed witch-craft have anything to do with "turning the other cheek?"
Just as the Crusades were the fault of the Catholic Church and the very few monarchies driving these wars forward; but not the Christian faith itself.
Nothing in the Christian faith mandated the Crusades. There's nothing in the Bible or in the Catholic tradition that even permitted such wars.
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?
That there is an obvious separation between the deeds of man and the faith that he hopes to live up to.
Again, colonialism has nothing to do with Christian faith. Missionnaires did not need to be evil bastards that disregarded the well being of those they tried to convert. Wars need not be waged to spread the Word. Nothing in the Bible justifies this type of behavior, and nothing in the faith did either.
These are political acts, that used the faith as a cover towards their own ends; as you yourself said earlier.
This is so weak that I hardly have any words for it.
No Regard, I just don't have the time to go through everything you've said piece by piece in every post. I'm trying to respond in a timely manner, but my meaning isn't to tear your argument into irrational discontinuities.
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?
I haven't read the later part of the post because I only had time to read the top and address it and only it briefly. You could just politely reference the later part rather than going on a diatribe.
This is so fucking arrogant and – yes – it pisses me off.
Everything I say or do seems to piss you off.. I wonder why...
You are constantly complaining over the growing weakness and lack of substance on this message board.
No I'm not.
You are constantly calling out others for their lack of debating skills.
I try to argue rationally.. I wouldn't say that I am "constantly calling out others," though. That's a bit of an exaggeration. I think you and I find ourselves on opposite ends of the spectrum far more often than not, and unfortunately for whatever reason you get pissed off with people who disagree with you.
You are constantly saying that you want rational discussions based on reason and understanding.
Yep.
I hope you do understand that by saying these stuff you are increasing the expectations of yourself?
Of course.
I am sick of seeing how you treat others on this board, while not sticking to your own principles at all.
I have not treated anyone on this board unfairly, AFAIK.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Go fuck yourself bro.
Puh. I have counted to ten and I’m ready to continue.
...
Of course I don’t like the answer, because I find it to be a poor, inconsistent answer.
Of course you do..
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.
That's why we should have factually grounded arguments and not these heated silly back and forths.
I'm not asking you to take my word for anything I've said.
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.
Yes, I'm an Arab American. Yes, this personally relates to me and my everyday life. Yes, I am directly connected to the people we are discussing.
What does that disqualify me from the conversation?
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.
What about the other possibility that I mentioned earlier? That you could honestly be wrong?
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.
Agreed! But that'd be a religious conversation in most instances right? I mean, if we're going to debate Talmudic laws, wouldn't that entail discussing the Torah and Talmud in context? With a deep understanding of those works?
Or can we just do it superficially as we're doing here with Islam?
Though, critic of Jews based on racist stereotypes and bigotry is something completely different. How can you not see this difference?
And surely we can apply this same concept to Islamic
people, right?
Also, I must point out that it’s weak to bring the Jews into the discussion, because
Ahh.. here we go.. lol...
there are some major differences between Judaism and Christianity/Islam. The size is one thing.
How or why is the size of these religions/peoples relevant?
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.
So Jews are 'special,' or no, they are no different and not special in anyway than any other religion and deserve no additional consideration? Are all peoples of the world truly equal, or aren't they?
I'm curious, genuine honest question. Because we could use this same logic towards Arabs and Muslims in the post-911 world.
We could use this same logic for the Palestinians
in Palestine. We could use this same logic about a lot of peoples around the world.
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.
A billion Black people say "Hello!" Native Americans were nearly wiped off the face of the Earth, just as the Jews were, but in higher percentages of their population; they've never recovered.
Muslims are today, ostracized and treated as garbage. Muslim nations are bombed with "no regard." Being a Muslim today, is akin to being a terrorist.
Again, I ask, do Jews have a monopoly on victimhood?
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.
I have no problem with religious debate and criticism in context. My problem is that the debate here is not in that context. It's ridiculously out of context, lacking of intellectual merit and any actual basis.
I know of very few Muslim scholars who would agree that ISIS represents a correct or even historic interpretation of Islam.
Should Islam allow for female Imams? Yes! Is that a criticism? Yes, I suppose. But it is in the context of the religion. Saying Islam allows or mandates terrorism is
false.
But you just keep twisting them words, gourimoko, you just keep on twisting them words…
I've now responded to everything you said, down to the minutia, to demonstrate that I am 100% sincere in my argument.
.
