5 ms·

Well ask them if drawings of their prophet are islamophobic and let me know what you find. "brown people are terrorist" is racism, not islamophobia, so, terrib

Well ask them if drawings of their prophet are islamophobic and let me know what you find. "brown people are terrorist" is racism, not islamophobia, so, terrible example. But yeah, Islam is the worst religion we have here in Europe, I'm queer and feminist: of course I'm "islamophobic". ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٰمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ فَٱلصَّٰلِحَٰتُ قَٰنِتَٰتٌ حَٰفِظَٰتٌ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ وَٱلَّٰتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّا كَبِيرًا This is the Quran saying that husbands should beat those of their wifes who are disobedient, and that's just the tip of the iceberg, I could go on and on on about the Quran: I'm Algerian. Sorry for the victims of my "islamophobia", but it's nothing compared to what the victims of islamic violence have been through.

dash2 6y ago
I don't dispute that some Muslims' practices are incompatible with modern liberalism. But it can be unfair to judge a religion by the worst parts of its holy texts. Here's 1 Samuel 15: 7 And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt. 8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.... 10 Then came the word of the Lord unto Samuel, saying, 11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night. and then Samuel tells Saul: 18 And the Lord sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed. 19 Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the Lord, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the Lord? So here we have the Israelites slaughtering an entire population. But God is angry with them, because they did not also slaughter all the cattle. Would it be fair to make that a summary of modern Christianity?
- thu2111 6y ago
  Christianity revolves around the fact that Jesus replaced the Old Testament with an entirely new one, and his teachings in some cases directly contradicted what the Old Testament says. It's not really fair to judge Christianity by version 1 of their book when Christian teaching about morality derives from version 2. That's why they're called Christians.
  - dash2 6y ago
    Sure. But they keep plenty - like the Ten Commandments. And many are, at least nominally, committed to the idea that the Bible is the Word of God, including the OT. Anyway, it’s indeed my point that it’s not fair to judge Christianity (or other religions) by every part of their holy text, so I think we agree.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  You're missing a bit of the back story and context with that passage, by the way. For example, Exodus 17 verse 8: "The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim." and earlier in the chapter you quoted, verse 2: "This is what the LORD of Hosts says: ‘I witnessed what the Amalekites did to the Israelites when they ambushed them on their way up from Egypt." It's not unreasonable to imagine that the Amalekites might have intended to carry out a genocide against the Israelites (something which the Israelites seem to have been uniquely disproportionately targeted with in history), and that an omniscient God might have known that putting an end to the Amalekites would be the most peaceful solution in the long run. As for the cattle, perhaps God didn't want the Israelites to make a huge profit from their defensive war, lest they be tempted to start some other wars to profit more.
- tasuki 6y ago
  > But it can be unfair to judge a religion by the worst parts of its holy texts. Why? If you think a text is unfallible, don't you deserve to be judged for the worst parts of that text?
  - dash2 6y ago

dash2 6y ago

I don't dispute that some Muslims' practices are incompatible with modern liberalism. But it can be unfair to judge a religion by the worst parts of its holy texts. Here's 1 Samuel 15: 7 And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt. 8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. 9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.... 10 Then came the word of the Lord unto Samuel, saying, 11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord all night. and then Samuel tells Saul: 18 And the Lord sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed. 19 Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the Lord, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the Lord? So here we have the Israelites slaughtering an entire population. But God is angry with them, because they did not also slaughter all the cattle. Would it be fair to make that a summary of modern Christianity?

thu2111 6y ago
Christianity revolves around the fact that Jesus replaced the Old Testament with an entirely new one, and his teachings in some cases directly contradicted what the Old Testament says. It's not really fair to judge Christianity by version 1 of their book when Christian teaching about morality derives from version 2. That's why they're called Christians.
- dash2 6y ago
  Sure. But they keep plenty - like the Ten Commandments. And many are, at least nominally, committed to the idea that the Bible is the Word of God, including the OT. Anyway, it’s indeed my point that it’s not fair to judge Christianity (or other religions) by every part of their holy text, so I think we agree.
dane-pgp 6y ago
You're missing a bit of the back story and context with that passage, by the way. For example, Exodus 17 verse 8: "The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim." and earlier in the chapter you quoted, verse 2: "This is what the LORD of Hosts says: ‘I witnessed what the Amalekites did to the Israelites when they ambushed them on their way up from Egypt." It's not unreasonable to imagine that the Amalekites might have intended to carry out a genocide against the Israelites (something which the Israelites seem to have been uniquely disproportionately targeted with in history), and that an omniscient God might have known that putting an end to the Amalekites would be the most peaceful solution in the long run. As for the cattle, perhaps God didn't want the Israelites to make a huge profit from their defensive war, lest they be tempted to start some other wars to profit more.
tasuki 6y ago
> But it can be unfair to judge a religion by the worst parts of its holy texts. Why? If you think a text is unfallible, don't you deserve to be judged for the worst parts of that text?
- dash2 6y ago