3 ms·

To speak of the true nature of Islam is really to slur an entire religion and over a billion individuals. Such things are just ignorance and hate. You can't pos

To speak of the true nature of Islam is really to slur an entire religion and over a billion individuals. Such things are just ignorance and hate. You can't possibly describe the "true nature" of anything in such terms, an absurd concept on its face; what does it even mean? What would be the 'true nature' of Christianity - I can't even imagine. I'm sorry to see this on Hacker News.

curun1r 11y ago
> To speak of the true nature of Islam is really to slur an entire religion and over a billion individuals. No, it has nothing to do with the people who practice Islam and everything to do with the texts that they consider holy. We don't claim that the founding fathers of the United States weren't racist just because we've abolished slavery, removed the 3/5 compromise and allowed all races the right to vote. We similarly can't claim that Islam does not advocate violence just because the (vast) majority of the people who practice it are not violent. The text is preserved in it's initial form and there's no denying the violence that it advocates. I just don't see how people can be so blinded by political correctness to not realize that so much of the violence that we're seeing comes from a strict adherence to those religious texts. > What would be the 'true nature' of Christianity - I can't even imagine. It would include things like not eating pork. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of Christians eat pork. But that's what's written in the book that Christians pay blind allegiance to, so it's part of Christianity's true nature.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > it has nothing to do with the people who practice Islam Good to hear, and I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but please make that clear. There are a lot of people who would smear others based on their religion; it's a serious issue and people will come to harm. Many want to Muslims' rights and even lives taken from them. > everything to do with the texts that they consider holy If you aren't talking about Muslims, than why is it relevant what the Islamic scriptures say? > We don't claim that the founding fathers of the United States weren't racist just because we've abolished slavery, removed the 3/5 compromise and allowed all races the right to vote. We similarly can't claim that Islam does not advocate violence ... The analogy with the Founding Fathers would be Mohammed. We similarly can't claim that Mohammed does not advocate violence*; it says nothing about a billion Muslims (Though we might: I don't know in non-sectarian historical terms who wrote the Quran. Muslims believe it is the exact words dictated by Allah - it's not Mohammed's words but Allah's. I know nothing about this question myself; I do know that historians believe the Jewish and Christian scriptures were written by many parties and not by the authors the believers claim.) > blinded by political correctness Please don't start name-calling or attributing beliefs to people you don't know. It's not productive and raises doubt about the good faith of everything else you say. > that's what's written in the book that Christians pay blind allegiance to, so it's part of Christianity's true nature. But Christians, like Muslims and everyone else, do not actually pay blind allegience to their scriptures. Some claim to and I would be surprised if more than a handful actually follows it in practice. Your definition of "true nature" is hard to support - what is "true"? What people do or what a book they mostly ignore says? And there are many, many widely differing interpretations about the truth of even that one book.

curun1r 11y ago

> To speak of the true nature of Islam is really to slur an entire religion and over a billion individuals. No, it has nothing to do with the people who practice Islam and everything to do with the texts that they consider holy. We don't claim that the founding fathers of the United States weren't racist just because we've abolished slavery, removed the 3/5 compromise and allowed all races the right to vote. We similarly can't claim that Islam does not advocate violence just because the (vast) majority of the people who practice it are not violent. The text is preserved in it's initial form and there's no denying the violence that it advocates. I just don't see how people can be so blinded by political correctness to not realize that so much of the violence that we're seeing comes from a strict adherence to those religious texts. > What would be the 'true nature' of Christianity - I can't even imagine. It would include things like not eating pork. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of Christians eat pork. But that's what's written in the book that Christians pay blind allegiance to, so it's part of Christianity's true nature.

hackuser 11y ago
> it has nothing to do with the people who practice Islam Good to hear, and I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but please make that clear. There are a lot of people who would smear others based on their religion; it's a serious issue and people will come to harm. Many want to Muslims' rights and even lives taken from them. > everything to do with the texts that they consider holy If you aren't talking about Muslims, than why is it relevant what the Islamic scriptures say? > We don't claim that the founding fathers of the United States weren't racist just because we've abolished slavery, removed the 3/5 compromise and allowed all races the right to vote. We similarly can't claim that Islam does not advocate violence ... The analogy with the Founding Fathers would be Mohammed. We similarly can't claim that Mohammed does not advocate violence*; it says nothing about a billion Muslims (Though we might: I don't know in non-sectarian historical terms who wrote the Quran. Muslims believe it is the exact words dictated by Allah - it's not Mohammed's words but Allah's. I know nothing about this question myself; I do know that historians believe the Jewish and Christian scriptures were written by many parties and not by the authors the believers claim.) > blinded by political correctness Please don't start name-calling or attributing beliefs to people you don't know. It's not productive and raises doubt about the good faith of everything else you say. > that's what's written in the book that Christians pay blind allegiance to, so it's part of Christianity's true nature. But Christians, like Muslims and everyone else, do not actually pay blind allegience to their scriptures. Some claim to and I would be surprised if more than a handful actually follows it in practice. Your definition of "true nature" is hard to support - what is "true"? What people do or what a book they mostly ignore says? And there are many, many widely differing interpretations about the truth of even that one book.