4 ms·

Most Muslims aren't belligerent. or against the faith Wrong answer. When "against the faith" includes calling for the death or even censorship of cartoonists

by _wwz4 14y ago

Most Muslims aren't belligerent. or against the faith Wrong answer. When "against the faith" includes calling for the death or even censorship of cartoonists in other countries who draw disrespectful pictures of a religion's "prophet", the belligerent label is very justified. And all Muslims are suicide bombers, right? I didn't say "all". I believe the words I used were "large swathes", meaning enough of those societies to dictate policies that are indistinguishable from the nut job radicals that you claim don't represent everyone. For example, see the stories regarding the destruction of ancient monuments in Afghanistan. See the killing of Coptic Christians in Egypt. See the jailing/killing of Christian preachers in Iran. Islam is fundamentally a religion of peace That's a bumper sticker and something politicians have to say because they rarely speak simple truths. The Koran is pretty clear regarding the need to commit violence toward infidels. The Judeo/Christian texts (the Bible) aren't a whole lot better, although the mixed books and accounts in it are so imprecise, contradictory and watered down that there isn't a consistent call for domination of others in the world.

rosser 14y ago
If it helps you feel better about your prejudices, you go right on ahead and keep judging a billion and a half people by the actions of ... wait, how many orders of magnitude fewer was that, again? Let's see... Taliban? 20-50,000, by the US military's own estimates. Hezbollah? 1,000 active, with another 6-10,000 volunteer fighters. Hamas' militant wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades? Maybe another 10,000. No, that's by no means all the bad apples in the Muslim world, but the remainder are even smaller and less well-organized. That should be enough to give some sense of the actual numbers of actual "bad guys". So, summing the three most widely-known militant Islamist groups, we haven't yet broken a six figure count of people, and you'll apparently happily judge a population five orders of magnitude larger by their actions. Let's also judge all Jews (some 14 million) by the actions of Bat Ayin, a comparable ratio (to within an order of magnitude, anyway), shall we? Let's judge all Christians by the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church and Anders Behring Breivik. Or, how about this for a novel idea: let's not judge anyone by the behaviors of someone else. The Koran is pretty clear regarding the need to commit violence toward infidels. The Qu'ran is clear about justifying the defensive use of violence. It's also very clear that violence must never be used against the innocent, women, children, anyone with whom you have a treaty or pact, anyone who ceases their active attack against you, or anyone otherwise not actively involved in actively attacking you. And, no: "attacking" doesn't mean calling names. It means physical violence. As for "violence towards infidels", I assume that like most people with this attitude about Islam, you're referring (knowingly or otherwise) to 9:005, which says, in part, "...kill the idolaters wherever you find them..." ("idolaters" is regularly mis-translated as "infidels"). What everyone blithely (or worse, deliberately) ignores about that verse is that in the verses immediately preceding it, "idolaters" are explained to be people who had declared war on Islam, and were actively, militarily attacking Mohammad and his followers — which is what is meant by attacks "against the faith". The verse is also typically shortened to omit the fact that a Muslim should only "kill the idolaters" after suffering their attacks through the holy months, during which fighting of any kind is not allowed. But what about 2:190 "Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors."? That sounds awfully bloodthirsty to me... Look, we can go 'round and 'round about this, but I'm only trying to make a simple, specific point: you're judging a huge portion of the human race by the actions of a tiny portion of the human race. Should all Americans be judged by the fact that a small number of Americans lied us into invading another country about a decade ago?
- crusso 14y ago
  Look, we can go 'round and 'round about this, but I'm only trying to make a simple, specific point: you're judging a huge portion of the human race by the actions of a tiny portion of the human race. And my only point is that excusing Islam for being hostile to Science because it's "younger" than Christianity is a demonstrably poor argument. All the rest of this discussion about "billions or trillions of nonviolent Muslims" is pretty useless. When a religion and culture seems to produce suicide bomber after suicide bomber and assholes who take over planes to kill thousands of innocent people - at some point the rest of the world has to ask "WTF?" Should all Americans be judged by the fact that a small number of Americans lied us into invading another country about a decade ago? What are you talking about? Everyone thought Saddam had an arsenal of dangerous weapons because HE pushed that belief because he was scared of Iran. Numerous non-American intelligence sources supported the belief that Saddam had WMDs. I didn't actually support going into Iraq due to the cost, but military reasons to do so were there. Saddam could have ended the whole thing any time by letting the inspections happen. Sure, there was a lie. Saddam's. There was also incorrect intelligence. However to still call it a lie by the American government is itself an untruth.

by _wwz4 14y ago

rosser 14y ago

If it helps you feel better about your prejudices, you go right on ahead and keep judging a billion and a half people by the actions of ... wait, how many orders of magnitude fewer was that, again? Let's see... Taliban? 20-50,000, by the US military's own estimates. Hezbollah? 1,000 active, with another 6-10,000 volunteer fighters. Hamas' militant wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades? Maybe another 10,000. No, that's by no means all the bad apples in the Muslim world, but the remainder are even smaller and less well-organized. That should be enough to give some sense of the actual numbers of actual "bad guys". So, summing the three most widely-known militant Islamist groups, we haven't yet broken a six figure count of people, and you'll apparently happily judge a population five orders of magnitude larger by their actions. Let's also judge all Jews (some 14 million) by the actions of Bat Ayin, a comparable ratio (to within an order of magnitude, anyway), shall we? Let's judge all Christians by the behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church and Anders Behring Breivik. Or, how about this for a novel idea: let's not judge anyone by the behaviors of someone else. The Koran is pretty clear regarding the need to commit violence toward infidels. The Qu'ran is clear about justifying the defensive use of violence. It's also very clear that violence must never be used against the innocent, women, children, anyone with whom you have a treaty or pact, anyone who ceases their active attack against you, or anyone otherwise not actively involved in actively attacking you. And, no: "attacking" doesn't mean calling names. It means physical violence. As for "violence towards infidels", I assume that like most people with this attitude about Islam, you're referring (knowingly or otherwise) to 9:005, which says, in part, "...kill the idolaters wherever you find them..." ("idolaters" is regularly mis-translated as "infidels"). What everyone blithely (or worse, deliberately) ignores about that verse is that in the verses immediately preceding it, "idolaters" are explained to be people who had declared war on Islam, and were actively, militarily attacking Mohammad and his followers — which is what is meant by attacks "against the faith". The verse is also typically shortened to omit the fact that a Muslim should only "kill the idolaters" after suffering their attacks through the holy months, during which fighting of any kind is not allowed. But what about 2:190 "Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors."? That sounds awfully bloodthirsty to me... Look, we can go 'round and 'round about this, but I'm only trying to make a simple, specific point: you're judging a huge portion of the human race by the actions of a tiny portion of the human race. Should all Americans be judged by the fact that a small number of Americans lied us into invading another country about a decade ago?

crusso 14y ago
Look, we can go 'round and 'round about this, but I'm only trying to make a simple, specific point: you're judging a huge portion of the human race by the actions of a tiny portion of the human race. And my only point is that excusing Islam for being hostile to Science because it's "younger" than Christianity is a demonstrably poor argument. All the rest of this discussion about "billions or trillions of nonviolent Muslims" is pretty useless. When a religion and culture seems to produce suicide bomber after suicide bomber and assholes who take over planes to kill thousands of innocent people - at some point the rest of the world has to ask "WTF?" Should all Americans be judged by the fact that a small number of Americans lied us into invading another country about a decade ago? What are you talking about? Everyone thought Saddam had an arsenal of dangerous weapons because HE pushed that belief because he was scared of Iran. Numerous non-American intelligence sources supported the belief that Saddam had WMDs. I didn't actually support going into Iraq due to the cost, but military reasons to do so were there. Saddam could have ended the whole thing any time by letting the inspections happen. Sure, there was a lie. Saddam's. There was also incorrect intelligence. However to still call it a lie by the American government is itself an untruth.