Because you continue to ignore the facts.
Like what? You gave me the facts that some folks are using Islamic terms and expressions, the Islamic faith and tradition, towards their own political and terroristic ends.
I'm sorry if I fail to see how that reflects the religion of 1.6 billion people worldwide.
I am sorry. It was not my intention to be hostile.
Yet you continue to be hostile throughout your posts.
I'd rather you present your argument concisely and calmly, if you please, because I'd really like to understand what you're trying to say.
Do they both include a reference to holiness?
Are they both used in the everyday language, where the holiness is not necessarily important any more?
Do their meanings both depend on a given context?
Are they still not in a sense analogous?
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.
You got to be kidding me.
Saying “Allahu Akbar” after you’ve eaten burger does not have the same meaning as saying the phrase when you cut of a man's head.
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.
If I say that “God is great” after I’ve gotten an C on my English exam, than it is obviously not the same as if I say “God is great” while setting of a bomb in a public marketplace.
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.
This is nevertheless an off-track of the actual meaningful discussion, and an effective way for you to try to escape the argument I’m making.
It's your premise to your argument. I'm simply demonstrating to you an example of your own self-imposed ignorance.
Nice try. But it doesn’t work as
@The Human Q-Tip made clear in his post.
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.
I get your point, but it doesn’t make any difference for what I’ve been saying.
Sure it does. I'm directly addressing your argument.
If the KKK could find justification in Christianity for their gruesome acts, than Christianity most certainly is a part of the problem.
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.
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.
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.