Am I a Bigot?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Whenever anyone brings up Muslim terrorists, the apologists say “well what about the crusades and the inquisition? Christianity is bad too.”

But at least the Catholics admit they were mistakes and are sorry.

It is a step the Muslims never will make.

Ha! It took Christianity 1000 years to ‘apologize’. Check back 1000 years from now. Maybe the Muslims will be there too.

Islamic lackies such as yourself often forget that even the Crusades didn’t just spring ex nihilo from the mind of the pope. He didn’t just wake up one day and decide to send people to invade Palestine. Rather, he was responding to 300 years of Islamic provocation and warfare against formerly Christian parts of the world, where Jews and Christians were then living under essentially slavery with sharia law. Even though I’m not a Roman catholic, I don’t think an apology is owed for the Crusades any more than I think we owe the Muslims an apology for Jan Sobieski stopping them at the gates of Vienna in 1683, or the Zaphorozhian Cossacks defeating them in 1679. The Crusades slowed the spread of Islam into Europe. Without the Crusades, Western civilization would probably be as backward as Islamic civilization is now.

Useful idiots like yourself are unable to answer the simple question, “Does Islam itself support the use of violence against unbelievers?” before rushing in to spew your moral equivalence. A brief survey of the life of Mohammed should be all that is necessary to answer that question.

Notice the Muslims here will never answer it themselves.

What you’re saying is absurd. Even though you are wrong regarding what is appropriate treatment of non-believers (the importance of peace is emphasized, whether you like to believe it or not), JEWS AND CHRISTIANS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE BELIEVERS.
No we’re not. We’re considered kaafiroon. Christians, specifically, don’t believe in the “Oneness of Allah” according to the Qur’an. We’re therefore guilty of shirk.

[/quote]

Oh, I’m sorry. Thanks for telling me what I, and every other Muslim i’ve ever talked to about this, believe. Well, Now that you’ve shown me a silly website that says that’s what I believe, I guess that has to be what I believe.

But I like that the argument presented on that website relies on interpretation of what was meant, and not what was actually said. I also like how the interpretation suggested by that author contradicts the Qur’an.

II, 62:

Those who believe, those who are Jews and Christians and Sabaeans- whoever believes in God and the Last day and does right- surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them, and neither shall they grieve.

The importance of this verse is stressed when it is repeated, almost exactly, in V. 69.

102

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Whenever anyone brings up Muslim terrorists, the apologists say “well what about the crusades and the inquisition? Christianity is bad too.”

But at least the Catholics admit they were mistakes and are sorry.

It is a step the Muslims never will make.

Ha! It took Christianity 1000 years to ‘apologize’. Check back 1000 years from now. Maybe the Muslims will be there too.

Islamic lackies such as yourself often forget that even the Crusades didn’t just spring ex nihilo from the mind of the pope. He didn’t just wake up one day and decide to send people to invade Palestine. Rather, he was responding to 300 years of Islamic provocation and warfare against formerly Christian parts of the world, where Jews and Christians were then living under essentially slavery with sharia law. Even though I’m not a Roman catholic, I don’t think an apology is owed for the Crusades any more than I think we owe the Muslims an apology for Jan Sobieski stopping them at the gates of Vienna in 1683, or the Zaphorozhian Cossacks defeating them in 1679. The Crusades slowed the spread of Islam into Europe. Without the Crusades, Western civilization would probably be as backward as Islamic civilization is now.

Useful idiots like yourself are unable to answer the simple question, “Does Islam itself support the use of violence against unbelievers?” before rushing in to spew your moral equivalence. A brief survey of the life of Mohammed should be all that is necessary to answer that question.

Notice the Muslims here will never answer it themselves.

I’m hardly an Islamic lacky. I find the actions of these people deplorable. I’m just not blinded enough to falsely think Christianity has been any better for most of its existence. The Crusades were bullshit. You sir, are a moron.
How silly of me. I read this:
Maybe. Maybe not. But you do need to open your eyes and take a look at history. Whatever their status today, almost every religious group used to kill in the name of their religion. And members did little to nothing to stop it. Wrongly or rightly. It’s somewhat disingenuous to expect those subsisting in abject poverty to hold religious and political leaders to the same level of accountability as modern Americans do. Americans who complain about the high price of gas but have two cars, 2.5 kids, and a dog and go to the beach for vacation every summer.

and thought the worst of you. Who’s unwilling to open their eyes and take a look at history, me or you?
[/quote]

Whatever. I am well-versed and knowledgeable about the Crusades. But I don’t have the time or inclination to get into pissing contests about politics and world issues on the internet anymore. I could care less if you agree with me or think they were justified. Anyway, it’s only tangentially related to the responsibility the everyday poor Muslim struggling to make ends meet has to censure fundamentalist lunatics and religious zealots.

103

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Whenever anyone brings up Muslim terrorists, the apologists say “well what about the crusades and the inquisition? Christianity is bad too.”

But at least the Catholics admit they were mistakes and are sorry.

It is a step the Muslims never will make.

Ha! It took Christianity 1000 years to ‘apologize’. Check back 1000 years from now. Maybe the Muslims will be there too.

Islamic lackies such as yourself often forget that even the Crusades didn’t just spring ex nihilo from the mind of the pope. He didn’t just wake up one day and decide to send people to invade Palestine. Rather, he was responding to 300 years of Islamic provocation and warfare against formerly Christian parts of the world, where Jews and Christians were then living under essentially slavery with sharia law. Even though I’m not a Roman catholic, I don’t think an apology is owed for the Crusades any more than I think we owe the Muslims an apology for Jan Sobieski stopping them at the gates of Vienna in 1683, or the Zaphorozhian Cossacks defeating them in 1679. The Crusades slowed the spread of Islam into Europe. Without the Crusades, Western civilization would probably be as backward as Islamic civilization is now.

Useful idiots like yourself are unable to answer the simple question, “Does Islam itself support the use of violence against unbelievers?” before rushing in to spew your moral equivalence. A brief survey of the life of Mohammed should be all that is necessary to answer that question.

Notice the Muslims here will never answer it themselves.

What you’re saying is absurd. Even though you are wrong regarding what is appropriate treatment of non-believers (the importance of peace is emphasized, whether you like to believe it or not), JEWS AND CHRISTIANS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE BELIEVERS.
No we’re not. We’re considered kaafiroon. Christians, specifically, don’t believe in the “Oneness of Allah” according to the Qur’an. We’re therefore guilty of shirk.

Oh, I’m sorry. Thanks for telling me what I, and every other Muslim i’ve ever talked to about this, believe. Well, Now that you’ve shown me a silly website that says that’s what I believe, I guess that has to be what I believe.

But I like that the argument presented on that website relies on interpretation of what was meant, and not what was actually said. I also like how the interpretation suggested by that author contradicts the Qur’an.

II, 62:

Those who believe, those who are Jews and Christians and Sabaeans- whoever believes in God and the Last day and does right- surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them, and neither shall they grieve.

The importance of this verse is stressed when it is repeated, almost exactly, in V. 69.[/quote]

Your understanding of Islam appears to ignore Surah 9 (Mohammed’s latest and most authoritative) and the doctrine of naskh. Or you’re just lying to us.

104

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:

Oh, I’m sorry. Thanks for telling me what I, and every other Muslim i’ve ever talked to about this, believe. Well, Now that you’ve shown me a silly website that says that’s what I believe, I guess that has to be what I believe.

But I like that the argument presented on that website relies on interpretation of what was meant, and not what was actually said. I also like how the interpretation suggested by that author contradicts the Qur’an.

II, 62:

Those who believe, those who are Jews and Christians and Sabaeans- whoever believes in God and the Last day and does right- surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them, and neither shall they grieve.

The importance of this verse is stressed when it is repeated, almost exactly, in V. 69.

Your understanding of Islam appears to ignore Surah 9 (Mohammed’s latest and most authoritative) and the doctrine of naskh. Or you’re just lying to us. [/quote]

I see no conflict between IX and what is said in II and V.

“the doctrine of naskh” is heretical.

Lastly, you keep suggesting I might be lying. I hate to break this to you, but you aren’t important enough for me to waste my time lying. If you don’t like what you’re hearing because it conflicts with your view of what muslims are like, and you’ve decided that I’m a muslim, well, that’s your problem to deal with. I suggest to deal with it on your own, instead of whining about it publicly.

105

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:

Oh, I’m sorry. Thanks for telling me what I, and every other Muslim i’ve ever talked to about this, believe. Well, Now that you’ve shown me a silly website that says that’s what I believe, I guess that has to be what I believe.

But I like that the argument presented on that website relies on interpretation of what was meant, and not what was actually said. I also like how the interpretation suggested by that author contradicts the Qur’an.

II, 62:

Those who believe, those who are Jews and Christians and Sabaeans- whoever believes in God and the Last day and does right- surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them, and neither shall they grieve.

The importance of this verse is stressed when it is repeated, almost exactly, in V. 69.

Your understanding of Islam appears to ignore Surah 9 (Mohammed’s latest and most authoritative) and the doctrine of naskh. Or you’re just lying to us.

I see no conflict between IX and what is said in II and V.

“the doctrine of naskh” is heretical.

Lastly, you keep suggesting I might be lying. I hate to break this to you, but you aren’t important enough for me to waste my time lying. If you don’t like what you’re hearing because it conflicts with your view of what muslims are like, and you’ve decided that I’m a muslim, well, that’s your problem to deal with. I suggest to deal with it on your own, instead of whining about it publicly.[/quote]

So Tabari and Ibn Kathir are heretics for mentioning it, huh? How about the Qur’an, is that heretical too?:

and

The Qur’an can’t make up its own mind in a single verse, it appears. “We don’t abrogate, but we replace one thing with another.”

You’d have me believe you’re not a Muslim? Laughable. See how many other infidels you can get to believe you.

106

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:

Oh, I’m sorry. Thanks for telling me what I, and every other Muslim i’ve ever talked to about this, believe. Well, Now that you’ve shown me a silly website that says that’s what I believe, I guess that has to be what I believe.

But I like that the argument presented on that website relies on interpretation of what was meant, and not what was actually said. I also like how the interpretation suggested by that author contradicts the Qur’an.

II, 62:

Those who believe, those who are Jews and Christians and Sabaeans- whoever believes in God and the Last day and does right- surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them, and neither shall they grieve.

The importance of this verse is stressed when it is repeated, almost exactly, in V. 69.

Your understanding of Islam appears to ignore Surah 9 (Mohammed’s latest and most authoritative) and the doctrine of naskh. Or you’re just lying to us.

I see no conflict between IX and what is said in II and V.

“the doctrine of naskh” is heretical.

Lastly, you keep suggesting I might be lying. I hate to break this to you, but you aren’t important enough for me to waste my time lying. If you don’t like what you’re hearing because it conflicts with your view of what muslims are like, and you’ve decided that I’m a muslim, well, that’s your problem to deal with. I suggest to deal with it on your own, instead of whining about it publicly.[/quote]

I have been staring at your avatar and I can’t for the life of me figure out what it is. It looks like a black and white anatomical close up of an asshole, but I can’t imagine that’s what it is…What the hell is it?

107

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:

Oh, I’m sorry. Thanks for telling me what I, and every other Muslim i’ve ever talked to about this, believe. Well, Now that you’ve shown me a silly website that says that’s what I believe, I guess that has to be what I believe.

But I like that the argument presented on that website relies on interpretation of what was meant, and not what was actually said. I also like how the interpretation suggested by that author contradicts the Qur’an.

II, 62:

Those who believe, those who are Jews and Christians and Sabaeans- whoever believes in God and the Last day and does right- surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them, and neither shall they grieve.

The importance of this verse is stressed when it is repeated, almost exactly, in V. 69.

Your understanding of Islam appears to ignore Surah 9 (Mohammed’s latest and most authoritative) and the doctrine of naskh. Or you’re just lying to us.

I see no conflict between IX and what is said in II and V.

“the doctrine of naskh” is heretical.

Lastly, you keep suggesting I might be lying. I hate to break this to you, but you aren’t important enough for me to waste my time lying. If you don’t like what you’re hearing because it conflicts with your view of what muslims are like, and you’ve decided that I’m a muslim, well, that’s your problem to deal with. I suggest to deal with it on your own, instead of whining about it publicly.

So Tabari and Ibn Kathir are heretics for mentioning it, huh? How about the Qur’an, is that heretical too?:
When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not. 16:101
and
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? 2:106
The Qur’an can’t make up its own mind in a single verse, it appears. “We don’t abrogate, but we replace one thing with another.”

You’d have me believe you’re not a Muslim? Laughable. See how many other infidels you can get to believe you.

[/quote]

I don’t think you’re understanding. Yes, under some circumstances one ought to behave in a certain way, and under other circumstances, another way is appropriate. Just because “A” used to be best, but then “B” became appropriate doesn’t mean that “A” was wrong.

Historians provide interesting context, which may or may not be correct. It’s interesting, but it certainly doesn’t define what I believe. If they cross that line, then yes, I’d label them heretics. I’ll add to that that I consider the Hadith to be interesting. Nothing more.

Lastly, you can call me a muslim or a non-muslim, I really don’t care. It turns out you don’t have the power to define who I am. But if you choose to call me a muslim, you have to accept that my beliefs are those of at least some muslims.

108

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:

Oh, I’m sorry. Thanks for telling me what I, and every other Muslim i’ve ever talked to about this, believe. Well, Now that you’ve shown me a silly website that says that’s what I believe, I guess that has to be what I believe.

But I like that the argument presented on that website relies on interpretation of what was meant, and not what was actually said. I also like how the interpretation suggested by that author contradicts the Qur’an.

II, 62:

Those who believe, those who are Jews and Christians and Sabaeans- whoever believes in God and the Last day and does right- surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them, and neither shall they grieve.

The importance of this verse is stressed when it is repeated, almost exactly, in V. 69.

Your understanding of Islam appears to ignore Surah 9 (Mohammed’s latest and most authoritative) and the doctrine of naskh. Or you’re just lying to us.

I see no conflict between IX and what is said in II and V.

“the doctrine of naskh” is heretical.

Lastly, you keep suggesting I might be lying. I hate to break this to you, but you aren’t important enough for me to waste my time lying. If you don’t like what you’re hearing because it conflicts with your view of what muslims are like, and you’ve decided that I’m a muslim, well, that’s your problem to deal with. I suggest to deal with it on your own, instead of whining about it publicly.

So Tabari and Ibn Kathir are heretics for mentioning it, huh? How about the Qur’an, is that heretical too?:
When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not. 16:101
and
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things? 2:106
The Qur’an can’t make up its own mind in a single verse, it appears. “We don’t abrogate, but we replace one thing with another.”

You’d have me believe you’re not a Muslim? Laughable. See how many other infidels you can get to believe you.

I don’t think you’re understanding. Yes, under some circumstances one ought to behave in a certain way, and under other circumstances, another way is appropriate. Just because “A” used to be best, but then “B” became appropriate doesn’t mean that “A” was wrong.

Historians provide interesting context, which may or may not be correct. It’s interesting, but it certainly doesn’t define what I believe. If they cross that line, then yes, I’d label them heretics. I’ll add to that that I consider the Hadith to be interesting. Nothing more.

Lastly, you can call me a muslim or a non-muslim, I really don’t care. It turns out you don’t have the power to define who I am. But if you choose to call me a muslim, you have to accept that my beliefs are those of at least some muslims.[/quote]

I’m not interested in your personal interpretation. If you have a non-violent way of viewing Surahs 9:5 and 9:29, more power to you. I’m interested in what the ulema are saying, what the schools of jurisprudence teach, what the consensus of fiqh is on a particular topic. With jihad and sharia, I don’t like the answers. I’m interested in where the mean is sitting, not the outliers.

109

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I’m not interested in your personal interpretation. If you have a non-violent way of viewing Surahs 9:5 and 9:29, more power to you. I’m interested in what the ulema are saying, what the schools of jurisprudence teach, what the consensus of fiqh is on a particular topic. With jihad and sharia, I don’t like the answers. I’m interested in where the mean is sitting, not the outliers. [/quote]

This is where you get yourself in trouble. The views you will hear are from the most outspoken. The most outspoken are also the ones with an agenda. The ones without an agenda don’t really care what you think, and aren’t willing to waste their time explaining themselves to you. Lucky for you, I have a lot of work I’ve been trying to avoid doing. If others were willing to waste their time, you’d find a shocking number of muslims share many of my views.

The folks who you believe to be authorities among muslims are viewed as annoying nutcases by just about everyone I know. You’ve been exposed to a bias sample, and you’ve tried to imagine a normal distribution based on it. Needless to say, the distribution you imagine is inaccurate.

110

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’m not interested in your personal interpretation. If you have a non-violent way of viewing Surahs 9:5 and 9:29, more power to you. I’m interested in what the ulema are saying, what the schools of jurisprudence teach, what the consensus of fiqh is on a particular topic. With jihad and sharia, I don’t like the answers. I’m interested in where the mean is sitting, not the outliers.

This is where you get yourself in trouble. The views you will hear are from the most outspoken. The most outspoken are also the ones with an agenda. The ones without an agenda don’t really care what you think, and aren’t willing to waste their time explaining themselves to you. Lucky for you, I have a lot of work I’ve been trying to avoid doing. If others were willing to waste their time, you’d find a shocking number of muslims share many of my views.

The folks who you believe to be authorities among muslims are viewed as annoying nutcases by just about everyone I know. You’ve been exposed to a bias sample, and you’ve tried to imagine a normal distribution based on it. Needless to say, the distribution you imagine is inaccurate.
[/quote]

Well these “annoying nutcases” are killing or advocating killing thousands of innocent people and have in fact done so. We need an annoying number of muslims droning on about denouncing acts of terror day in and day out. The perception this unsilent minority has caused is one of pervasive radical fundamentalism and extremism. Even those who say they disagree with such actions are more likely to blame the U.S. or Israel rather than take responsibility for their own actions or own up to the fact the their religion is mired in the decay of violence, hatred and murder. They may not care what we think, until a cartoon is created poking fun at them, or movie depicting what in large part is the primary western stereotype; they give a damn then. they give a huge one to the point where they are willing to kill over it.

That in a nutshell is the problem. To me it is less of a problem of what the Qur’an says and more of a problem of behaviour.

111

[quote]pat wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’m not interested in your personal interpretation. If you have a non-violent way of viewing Surahs 9:5 and 9:29, more power to you. I’m interested in what the ulema are saying, what the schools of jurisprudence teach, what the consensus of fiqh is on a particular topic. With jihad and sharia, I don’t like the answers. I’m interested in where the mean is sitting, not the outliers.

This is where you get yourself in trouble. The views you will hear are from the most outspoken. The most outspoken are also the ones with an agenda. The ones without an agenda don’t really care what you think, and aren’t willing to waste their time explaining themselves to you. Lucky for you, I have a lot of work I’ve been trying to avoid doing. If others were willing to waste their time, you’d find a shocking number of muslims share many of my views.

The folks who you believe to be authorities among muslims are viewed as annoying nutcases by just about everyone I know. You’ve been exposed to a bias sample, and you’ve tried to imagine a normal distribution based on it. Needless to say, the distribution you imagine is inaccurate.

Well these “annoying nutcases” are killing or advocating killing thousands of innocent people and have in fact done so. We need an annoying number of muslims droning on about denouncing acts of terror day in and day out. The perception this unsilent minority has caused is one of pervasive radical fundamentalism and extremism. Even those who say they disagree with such actions are more likely to blame the U.S. or Israel rather than take responsibility for their own actions or own up to the fact the their religion is mired in the decay of violence, hatred and murder. They may not care what we think, until a cartoon is created poking fun at them, or movie depicting what in large part is the primary western stereotype; they give a damn then. they give a huge one to the point where they are willing to kill over it.

That in a nutshell is the problem. To me it is less of a problem of what the Qur’an says and more of a problem of behaviour.[/quote]

No, they don’t. No one I know was outraged by the danish cartoon. No one I know is blowing anything up. The idea that it’s our responsibility to police a group of people on the other side of the world, with whom we do not share a culture or language, and who we have never met is retarded.

What’s more, when I actually take the time and effort to express how my beliefs, I get called a liar. Why on earth would I subject myself to that? To change your opinion of me? I don’t care about your opinion of me. I’d rather spend my time working, pay my taxes, and take my wife out to dinner, thanks.

112

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
pat wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’m not interested in your personal interpretation. If you have a non-violent way of viewing Surahs 9:5 and 9:29, more power to you. I’m interested in what the ulema are saying, what the schools of jurisprudence teach, what the consensus of fiqh is on a particular topic. With jihad and sharia, I don’t like the answers. I’m interested in where the mean is sitting, not the outliers.

This is where you get yourself in trouble. The views you will hear are from the most outspoken. The most outspoken are also the ones with an agenda. The ones without an agenda don’t really care what you think, and aren’t willing to waste their time explaining themselves to you. Lucky for you, I have a lot of work I’ve been trying to avoid doing. If others were willing to waste their time, you’d find a shocking number of muslims share many of my views.

The folks who you believe to be authorities among muslims are viewed as annoying nutcases by just about everyone I know. You’ve been exposed to a bias sample, and you’ve tried to imagine a normal distribution based on it. Needless to say, the distribution you imagine is inaccurate.

Well these “annoying nutcases” are killing or advocating killing thousands of innocent people and have in fact done so. We need an annoying number of muslims droning on about denouncing acts of terror day in and day out. The perception this unsilent minority has caused is one of pervasive radical fundamentalism and extremism. Even those who say they disagree with such actions are more likely to blame the U.S. or Israel rather than take responsibility for their own actions or own up to the fact the their religion is mired in the decay of violence, hatred and murder. They may not care what we think, until a cartoon is created poking fun at them, or movie depicting what in large part is the primary western stereotype; they give a damn then. they give a huge one to the point where they are willing to kill over it.

That in a nutshell is the problem. To me it is less of a problem of what the Qur’an says and more of a problem of behaviour.

No, they don’t. No one I know was outraged by the danish cartoon. No one I know is blowing anything up. The idea that it’s our responsibility to police a group of people on the other side of the world, with whom we do not share a culture or language, and who we have never met is retarded.

What’s more, when I actually take the time and effort to express how my beliefs, I get called a liar. Why on earth would I subject myself to that? To change your opinion of me? I don’t care about your opinion of me. I’d rather spend my time working, pay my taxes, and take my wife out to dinner, thanks.[/quote]

have you ever read the old testament?

yes we already know, all religions advocate crazy unpc things, thats kinda what happens when take written documents centuries old and try to apply them to modern day.

/thread

113

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
pat wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’m not interested in your personal interpretation. If you have a non-violent way of viewing Surahs 9:5 and 9:29, more power to you. I’m interested in what the ulema are saying, what the schools of jurisprudence teach, what the consensus of fiqh is on a particular topic. With jihad and sharia, I don’t like the answers. I’m interested in where the mean is sitting, not the outliers.

This is where you get yourself in trouble. The views you will hear are from the most outspoken. The most outspoken are also the ones with an agenda. The ones without an agenda don’t really care what you think, and aren’t willing to waste their time explaining themselves to you. Lucky for you, I have a lot of work I’ve been trying to avoid doing. If others were willing to waste their time, you’d find a shocking number of muslims share many of my views.

The folks who you believe to be authorities among muslims are viewed as annoying nutcases by just about everyone I know. You’ve been exposed to a bias sample, and you’ve tried to imagine a normal distribution based on it. Needless to say, the distribution you imagine is inaccurate.

Well these “annoying nutcases” are killing or advocating killing thousands of innocent people and have in fact done so. We need an annoying number of muslims droning on about denouncing acts of terror day in and day out. The perception this unsilent minority has caused is one of pervasive radical fundamentalism and extremism. Even those who say they disagree with such actions are more likely to blame the U.S. or Israel rather than take responsibility for their own actions or own up to the fact the their religion is mired in the decay of violence, hatred and murder. They may not care what we think, until a cartoon is created poking fun at them, or movie depicting what in large part is the primary western stereotype; they give a damn then. they give a huge one to the point where they are willing to kill over it.

That in a nutshell is the problem. To me it is less of a problem of what the Qur’an says and more of a problem of behaviour.

No, they don’t. No one I know was outraged by the danish cartoon. No one I know is blowing anything up. The idea that it’s our responsibility to police a group of people on the other side of the world, with whom we do not share a culture or language, and who we have never met is retarded.

What’s more, when I actually take the time and effort to express how my beliefs, I get called a liar. Why on earth would I subject myself to that? To change your opinion of me? I don’t care about your opinion of me. I’d rather spend my time working, pay my taxes, and take my wife out to dinner, thanks.

have you ever read the old testament?

yes we already know, all religions advocate crazy unpc things, thats kinda what happens when take written documents centuries old and try to apply them to modern day.

/thread

[/quote]

Your Islamic buddy Aleksander already said that on this thread.

114

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
pat wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’m not interested in your personal interpretation. If you have a non-violent way of viewing Surahs 9:5 and 9:29, more power to you. I’m interested in what the ulema are saying, what the schools of jurisprudence teach, what the consensus of fiqh is on a particular topic. With jihad and sharia, I don’t like the answers. I’m interested in where the mean is sitting, not the outliers.

This is where you get yourself in trouble. The views you will hear are from the most outspoken. The most outspoken are also the ones with an agenda. The ones without an agenda don’t really care what you think, and aren’t willing to waste their time explaining themselves to you. Lucky for you, I have a lot of work I’ve been trying to avoid doing. If others were willing to waste their time, you’d find a shocking number of muslims share many of my views.

The folks who you believe to be authorities among muslims are viewed as annoying nutcases by just about everyone I know. You’ve been exposed to a bias sample, and you’ve tried to imagine a normal distribution based on it. Needless to say, the distribution you imagine is inaccurate.

Well these “annoying nutcases” are killing or advocating killing thousands of innocent people and have in fact done so. We need an annoying number of muslims droning on about denouncing acts of terror day in and day out. The perception this unsilent minority has caused is one of pervasive radical fundamentalism and extremism. Even those who say they disagree with such actions are more likely to blame the U.S. or Israel rather than take responsibility for their own actions or own up to the fact the their religion is mired in the decay of violence, hatred and murder. They may not care what we think, until a cartoon is created poking fun at them, or movie depicting what in large part is the primary western stereotype; they give a damn then. they give a huge one to the point where they are willing to kill over it.

That in a nutshell is the problem. To me it is less of a problem of what the Qur’an says and more of a problem of behaviour.

No, they don’t. No one I know was outraged by the danish cartoon. No one I know is blowing anything up. The idea that it’s our responsibility to police a group of people on the other side of the world, with whom we do not share a culture or language, and who we have never met is retarded.

What’s more, when I actually take the time and effort to express how my beliefs, I get called a liar. Why on earth would I subject myself to that? To change your opinion of me? I don’t care about your opinion of me. I’d rather spend my time working, pay my taxes, and take my wife out to dinner, thanks.

have you ever read the old testament?

yes we already know, all religions advocate crazy unpc things, thats kinda what happens when take written documents centuries old and try to apply them to modern day.

/thread

Your Islamic buddy Aleksander already said that on this thread. [/quote]

so then why is thread still going on?

115

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
pat wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I’m not interested in your personal interpretation. If you have a non-violent way of viewing Surahs 9:5 and 9:29, more power to you. I’m interested in what the ulema are saying, what the schools of jurisprudence teach, what the consensus of fiqh is on a particular topic. With jihad and sharia, I don’t like the answers. I’m interested in where the mean is sitting, not the outliers.

This is where you get yourself in trouble. The views you will hear are from the most outspoken. The most outspoken are also the ones with an agenda. The ones without an agenda don’t really care what you think, and aren’t willing to waste their time explaining themselves to you. Lucky for you, I have a lot of work I’ve been trying to avoid doing. If others were willing to waste their time, you’d find a shocking number of muslims share many of my views.

The folks who you believe to be authorities among muslims are viewed as annoying nutcases by just about everyone I know. You’ve been exposed to a bias sample, and you’ve tried to imagine a normal distribution based on it. Needless to say, the distribution you imagine is inaccurate.

Well these “annoying nutcases” are killing or advocating killing thousands of innocent people and have in fact done so. We need an annoying number of muslims droning on about denouncing acts of terror day in and day out. The perception this unsilent minority has caused is one of pervasive radical fundamentalism and extremism. Even those who say they disagree with such actions are more likely to blame the U.S. or Israel rather than take responsibility for their own actions or own up to the fact the their religion is mired in the decay of violence, hatred and murder. They may not care what we think, until a cartoon is created poking fun at them, or movie depicting what in large part is the primary western stereotype; they give a damn then. they give a huge one to the point where they are willing to kill over it.

That in a nutshell is the problem. To me it is less of a problem of what the Qur’an says and more of a problem of behaviour.

No, they don’t. No one I know was outraged by the danish cartoon. No one I know is blowing anything up. The idea that it’s our responsibility to police a group of people on the other side of the world, with whom we do not share a culture or language, and who we have never met is retarded.

What’s more, when I actually take the time and effort to express how my beliefs, I get called a liar. Why on earth would I subject myself to that? To change your opinion of me? I don’t care about your opinion of me. I’d rather spend my time working, pay my taxes, and take my wife out to dinner, thanks.

have you ever read the old testament?

yes we already know, all religions advocate crazy unpc things, thats kinda what happens when take written documents centuries old and try to apply them to modern day.

/thread

Your Islamic buddy Aleksander already said that on this thread.

so then why is thread still going on? [/quote]

Why don’t you read through and figure it out. You seem to be interested in the topic, being an agnostic and all.

116

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
WTF are you talking about?

The catholic church has a central leadership structure. One person is responsible for what the church does. If the church does something bad, the pope has the authority to apologize for it. This doesn’t exist in Islam. There is no one responsible for any other individual’s actions, other than that individual. My opinion of what someone else does really doesn’t matter, because I have no authority to speak for the religion. Likewise, no one else has the authority to speak for me.

For what it’s worth, I would say that a large number of people who call themselves “muslim” are unable to differentiate their religion from their culture. The outcome, of course is heretical and antithetical to the religion.[/quote]

Then the Muslims should quit bitching about the Crusades. That’s WTF I’m saying. The Muslim terrorists and leftists should not use that to justify aggression today or compare the two religions.

You are correct in saying they are very different.

117

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
JEWS AND CHRISTIANS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE BELIEVERS.[/quote]

Then why do the terrorists attack them as infidels?

118

Stop quoting so much text if you’re only going to write one line.

Fags.

119

[quote]pat wrote:
I have been staring at your avatar and I can’t for the life of me figure out what it is. It looks like a black and white anatomical close up of an asshole, but I can’t imagine that’s what it is…What the hell is it?[/quote]

I’m guessing it’s the Lizard from Spiderman.

120

If more Muslims posted articles like this one maybe they would not have to debate so much.

I found this interesting:

I don’t think Wahabbis are preaching at their Mosque.

These are the people who need to spread the word.