It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you"
That very clearly says, with the context added at the end, that is to fight to defend those who fight you. Then the author goes on the explain how that's wrong.
Just shake my head J. Go smoke another bowel.
You do realize that ISIS offers textual interpretations of both the Quran and Hadith? Why don't you argue with them about their interpretation of islam? You can say all you want that it is wrong, and it may be, but it is still an interpretation that they feel as plausible (also, don't forget that apostasy is punished by death in Islam and that is a very common interpretation). There is one fundamental difference you are missing, while Jesus was crucified, Muhammed was a warrior. Now you can debate whether ISIS interpretation is a good one, but it is much easier to justify war in the long term when your founder fought wars and didn't let himself be killed by the Romans. To say that ISIS has nothing to do with islam is idiotic. That is what they base their actions on, their interpretation of the Quran. Many great "Islamic" scholars tried to make the religion more workable (e.g. Ibn Rshd, Alfarabi, ps. they didn't really think Muhammed was a prophet). But unfortunately a popular interpretation now of islam is that of ISIS. It is not necessarily "Islam" but it is islamic and only willful ignorance or complete stupidity would not recognize that.
You are arguing with me, but then basically saying the same thing as me. It's not Islam. It's the individuals, which is a small minority.
Have any of you actually ever met a Muslim? They are strange fucks, don't get me wrong. But the hate shouldn't be towards Muslims, it should be toward the extremists.
I think that when you say "It is not Islam" you are treating it as if there is no possible interpretation of the quran that a reasonable person could give that would lead to ISIS, correct me if I am wrong. Obviously Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, and Catholic Christianity cannot all be "Christianity", since they contradict each-other. That doesn't mean they are not all christian and offer plausible interpretations of christianity. Are both Sunni and Shia muslims islamic? They both can't practice "Islam". Similarly, ISIS certainly thinks what it believes is islam and the Quran and history of Islam make such an interpretation plausible. But the problem is that many people feel like Obama and many liberals are ignoring that it is an interpretation of Islam. It is not just the "individuals". They didn't just make up an ad hoc interpretation so they could shoot up a Parisian cafe. When Obama refuses to even call it "islamic" terrorism (as some reformist muslims actually want him to do) , it makes it difficult to challenge what it is that inspires people to believe the ISIS interpretation of islam. When he says "it is not islam" he treats that as saying "it is not at all based on the quran" which is not true. I am fine with saying it is not Islam, but only if that allows us to still recognize that it is islamic and is based on a possible interpretation of the quran. Do you think that is what Obama is saying, because it certainly seems like he is trying to separate ISIS completely from the quran, like there are not parts of the quran that could possible give rise to the interpretation ISIS offers. There probably isn't an "Islam" because, well, he wasn't actually a prophet of God and many of the things he wrote probably contradict each other. Indeed I am sure your version of "Islam" would not include death for apostasy, but that is not true in most of the muslim world.
Read the article I posted and the quotes from Obama. What he's saying is it's not religion, it's individuals. I add that is more than individuals, it's more the society those individuals are in.
For example, India is full of Muslims (and Hindu). Do you hear any Indian terrorists? No.... Indian society is peaceful.
"Many people feel like Obama and liberals...." Don't you think that's because of their news source interpretation of what is said? Rather than what they actually say? Do your own research on what Obama and other liberals actually say, unfiltered by the media.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you"
That very clearly says, with the context added at the end, that is to fight to defend those who fight you. Then the author goes on the explain how that's wrong.
Just shake my head J. Go smoke another bowel.
You do realize that ISIS offers textual interpretations of both the Quran and Hadith? Why don't you argue with them about their interpretation of islam? You can say all you want that it is wrong, and it may be, but it is still an interpretation that they feel as plausible (also, don't forget that apostasy is punished by death in Islam and that is a very common interpretation). There is one fundamental difference you are missing, while Jesus was crucified, Muhammed was a warrior. Now you can debate whether ISIS interpretation is a good one, but it is much easier to justify war in the long term when your founder fought wars and didn't let himself be killed by the Romans. To say that ISIS has nothing to do with islam is idiotic. That is what they base their actions on, their interpretation of the Quran. Many great "Islamic" scholars tried to make the religion more workable (e.g. Ibn Rshd, Alfarabi, ps. they didn't really think Muhammed was a prophet). But unfortunately a popular interpretation now of islam is that of ISIS. It is not necessarily "Islam" but it is islamic and only willful ignorance or complete stupidity would not recognize that.
You are arguing with me, but then basically saying the same thing as me. It's not Islam. It's the individuals, which is a small minority.
Have any of you actually ever met a Muslim? They are strange fucks, don't get me wrong. But the hate shouldn't be towards Muslims, it should be toward the extremists.
I think that when you say "It is not Islam" you are treating it as if there is no possible interpretation of the quran that a reasonable person could give that would lead to ISIS, correct me if I am wrong. Obviously Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, and Catholic Christianity cannot all be "Christianity", since they contradict each-other. That doesn't mean they are not all christian and offer plausible interpretations of christianity. Are both Sunni and Shia muslims islamic? They both can't practice "Islam". Similarly, ISIS certainly thinks what it believes is islam and the Quran and history of Islam make such an interpretation plausible. But the problem is that many people feel like Obama and many liberals are ignoring that it is an interpretation of Islam. It is not just the "individuals". They didn't just make up an ad hoc interpretation so they could shoot up a Parisian cafe. When Obama refuses to even call it "islamic" terrorism (as some reformist muslims actually want him to do) , it makes it difficult to challenge what it is that inspires people to believe the ISIS interpretation of islam. When he says "it is not islam" he treats that as saying "it is not at all based on the quran" which is not true. I am fine with saying it is not Islam, but only if that allows us to still recognize that it is islamic and is based on a possible interpretation of the quran. Do you think that is what Obama is saying, because it certainly seems like he is trying to separate ISIS completely from the quran, like there are not parts of the quran that could possible give rise to the interpretation ISIS offers. There probably isn't an "Islam" because, well, he wasn't actually a prophet of God and many of the things he wrote probably contradict each other. Indeed I am sure your version of "Islam" would not include death for apostasy, but that is not true in most of the muslim world.
Read the article I posted and the quotes from Obama. What he's saying is it's not religion, it's individuals. I add that is more than individuals, it's more the society those individuals are in.
For example, India is full of Muslims (and Hindu). Do you hear any Indian terrorists? No.... Indian society is peaceful.
"Many people feel like Obama and liberals...." Don't you think that's because of their news source interpretation of what is said? Rather than what they actually say? Do your own research on what Obama and other liberals actually say, unfiltered by the media.
The fuck it is. Indians are violent motherfuckers.
Grow the fuck up and learn the difference between Hindus and Buddhists.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you"
That very clearly says, with the context added at the end, that is to fight to defend those who fight you. Then the author goes on the explain how that's wrong.
Just shake my head J. Go smoke another bowel.
You do realize that ISIS offers textual interpretations of both the Quran and Hadith? Why don't you argue with them about their interpretation of islam? You can say all you want that it is wrong, and it may be, but it is still an interpretation that they feel as plausible (also, don't forget that apostasy is punished by death in Islam and that is a very common interpretation). There is one fundamental difference you are missing, while Jesus was crucified, Muhammed was a warrior. Now you can debate whether ISIS interpretation is a good one, but it is much easier to justify war in the long term when your founder fought wars and didn't let himself be killed by the Romans. To say that ISIS has nothing to do with islam is idiotic. That is what they base their actions on, their interpretation of the Quran. Many great "Islamic" scholars tried to make the religion more workable (e.g. Ibn Rshd, Alfarabi, ps. they didn't really think Muhammed was a prophet). But unfortunately a popular interpretation now of islam is that of ISIS. It is not necessarily "Islam" but it is islamic and only willful ignorance or complete stupidity would not recognize that.
You are arguing with me, but then basically saying the same thing as me. It's not Islam. It's the individuals, which is a small minority.
Have any of you actually ever met a Muslim? They are strange fucks, don't get me wrong. But the hate shouldn't be towards Muslims, it should be toward the extremists.
I think that when you say "It is not Islam" you are treating it as if there is no possible interpretation of the quran that a reasonable person could give that would lead to ISIS, correct me if I am wrong. Obviously Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, and Catholic Christianity cannot all be "Christianity", since they contradict each-other. That doesn't mean they are not all christian and offer plausible interpretations of christianity. Are both Sunni and Shia muslims islamic? They both can't practice "Islam". Similarly, ISIS certainly thinks what it believes is islam and the Quran and history of Islam make such an interpretation plausible. But the problem is that many people feel like Obama and many liberals are ignoring that it is an interpretation of Islam. It is not just the "individuals". They didn't just make up an ad hoc interpretation so they could shoot up a Parisian cafe. When Obama refuses to even call it "islamic" terrorism (as some reformist muslims actually want him to do) , it makes it difficult to challenge what it is that inspires people to believe the ISIS interpretation of islam. When he says "it is not islam" he treats that as saying "it is not at all based on the quran" which is not true. I am fine with saying it is not Islam, but only if that allows us to still recognize that it is islamic and is based on a possible interpretation of the quran. Do you think that is what Obama is saying, because it certainly seems like he is trying to separate ISIS completely from the quran, like there are not parts of the quran that could possible give rise to the interpretation ISIS offers. There probably isn't an "Islam" because, well, he wasn't actually a prophet of God and many of the things he wrote probably contradict each other. Indeed I am sure your version of "Islam" would not include death for apostasy, but that is not true in most of the muslim world.
Read the article I posted and the quotes from Obama. What he's saying is it's not religion, it's individuals. I add that is more than individuals, it's more the society those individuals are in.
For example, India is full of Muslims (and Hindu). Do you hear any Indian terrorists? No.... Indian society is peaceful.
"Many people feel like Obama and liberals...." Don't you think that's because of their news source interpretation of what is said? Rather than what they actually say? Do your own research on what Obama and other liberals actually say, unfiltered by the media.
The fuck it is. Indians are violent motherfuckers.
Grow the fuck up and learn the difference between Hindus and Buddhists.
I've tried to give Hondo the benefit of the doubt, but that statement is at best ignorant.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you"
That very clearly says, with the context added at the end, that is to fight to defend those who fight you. Then the author goes on the explain how that's wrong.
Just shake my head J. Go smoke another bowel.
You do realize that ISIS offers textual interpretations of both the Quran and Hadith? Why don't you argue with them about their interpretation of islam? You can say all you want that it is wrong, and it may be, but it is still an interpretation that they feel as plausible (also, don't forget that apostasy is punished by death in Islam and that is a very common interpretation). There is one fundamental difference you are missing, while Jesus was crucified, Muhammed was a warrior. Now you can debate whether ISIS interpretation is a good one, but it is much easier to justify war in the long term when your founder fought wars and didn't let himself be killed by the Romans. To say that ISIS has nothing to do with islam is idiotic. That is what they base their actions on, their interpretation of the Quran. Many great "Islamic" scholars tried to make the religion more workable (e.g. Ibn Rshd, Alfarabi, ps. they didn't really think Muhammed was a prophet). But unfortunately a popular interpretation now of islam is that of ISIS. It is not necessarily "Islam" but it is islamic and only willful ignorance or complete stupidity would not recognize that.
You are arguing with me, but then basically saying the same thing as me. It's not Islam. It's the individuals, which is a small minority.
Have any of you actually ever met a Muslim? They are strange fucks, don't get me wrong. But the hate shouldn't be towards Muslims, it should be toward the extremists.
I think that when you say "It is not Islam" you are treating it as if there is no possible interpretation of the quran that a reasonable person could give that would lead to ISIS, correct me if I am wrong. Obviously Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, and Catholic Christianity cannot all be "Christianity", since they contradict each-other. That doesn't mean they are not all christian and offer plausible interpretations of christianity. Are both Sunni and Shia muslims islamic? They both can't practice "Islam". Similarly, ISIS certainly thinks what it believes is islam and the Quran and history of Islam make such an interpretation plausible. But the problem is that many people feel like Obama and many liberals are ignoring that it is an interpretation of Islam. It is not just the "individuals". They didn't just make up an ad hoc interpretation so they could shoot up a Parisian cafe. When Obama refuses to even call it "islamic" terrorism (as some reformist muslims actually want him to do) , it makes it difficult to challenge what it is that inspires people to believe the ISIS interpretation of islam. When he says "it is not islam" he treats that as saying "it is not at all based on the quran" which is not true. I am fine with saying it is not Islam, but only if that allows us to still recognize that it is islamic and is based on a possible interpretation of the quran. Do you think that is what Obama is saying, because it certainly seems like he is trying to separate ISIS completely from the quran, like there are not parts of the quran that could possible give rise to the interpretation ISIS offers. There probably isn't an "Islam" because, well, he wasn't actually a prophet of God and many of the things he wrote probably contradict each other. Indeed I am sure your version of "Islam" would not include death for apostasy, but that is not true in most of the muslim world.
Read the article I posted and the quotes from Obama. What he's saying is it's not religion, it's individuals. I add that is more than individuals, it's more the society those individuals are in.
For example, India is full of Muslims (and Hindu). Do you hear any Indian terrorists? No.... Indian society is peaceful.
"Many people feel like Obama and liberals...." Don't you think that's because of their news source interpretation of what is said? Rather than what they actually say? Do your own research on what Obama and other liberals actually say, unfiltered by the media.
Indian society is not peaceful at all, it is full of religious violence, not only between Muslims and Hindus but also with Sikhs and Christians. Pakistan broke away after India gained independence in order to form a separate muslim state. There are islamic attacks on India (for example the Mumbai attack in 2008). ISIS declared war on India, especially after the hindu lynching of muslims. A better argument would be to say that shows how all religions can be violent given the right circumstances. Also, there are Indian ISIS fighters, just like there are american and european ISIS fighters. "huffingtonpost.in/2015/11/23/isis-indian-fighters-infe_n_8627772.html" I would recommend this article from the Atlantic (hardly a conservative journal): theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ Also, here is a counterargument from Maajid Nawaz, a former radical Islamist and still a muslim, for calling it radical islam and islamic terrorism. Get over the fact that it is on Fox news, since Maajid is certainly not a conservative.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you"
That very clearly says, with the context added at the end, that is to fight to defend those who fight you. Then the author goes on the explain how that's wrong.
Just shake my head J. Go smoke another bowel.
You do realize that ISIS offers textual interpretations of both the Quran and Hadith? Why don't you argue with them about their interpretation of islam? You can say all you want that it is wrong, and it may be, but it is still an interpretation that they feel as plausible (also, don't forget that apostasy is punished by death in Islam and that is a very common interpretation). There is one fundamental difference you are missing, while Jesus was crucified, Muhammed was a warrior. Now you can debate whether ISIS interpretation is a good one, but it is much easier to justify war in the long term when your founder fought wars and didn't let himself be killed by the Romans. To say that ISIS has nothing to do with islam is idiotic. That is what they base their actions on, their interpretation of the Quran. Many great "Islamic" scholars tried to make the religion more workable (e.g. Ibn Rshd, Alfarabi, ps. they didn't really think Muhammed was a prophet). But unfortunately a popular interpretation now of islam is that of ISIS. It is not necessarily "Islam" but it is islamic and only willful ignorance or complete stupidity would not recognize that.
You are arguing with me, but then basically saying the same thing as me. It's not Islam. It's the individuals, which is a small minority.
Have any of you actually ever met a Muslim? They are strange fucks, don't get me wrong. But the hate shouldn't be towards Muslims, it should be toward the extremists.
I think that when you say "It is not Islam" you are treating it as if there is no possible interpretation of the quran that a reasonable person could give that would lead to ISIS, correct me if I am wrong. Obviously Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, and Catholic Christianity cannot all be "Christianity", since they contradict each-other. That doesn't mean they are not all christian and offer plausible interpretations of christianity. Are both Sunni and Shia muslims islamic? They both can't practice "Islam". Similarly, ISIS certainly thinks what it believes is islam and the Quran and history of Islam make such an interpretation plausible. But the problem is that many people feel like Obama and many liberals are ignoring that it is an interpretation of Islam. It is not just the "individuals". They didn't just make up an ad hoc interpretation so they could shoot up a Parisian cafe. When Obama refuses to even call it "islamic" terrorism (as some reformist muslims actually want him to do) , it makes it difficult to challenge what it is that inspires people to believe the ISIS interpretation of islam. When he says "it is not islam" he treats that as saying "it is not at all based on the quran" which is not true. I am fine with saying it is not Islam, but only if that allows us to still recognize that it is islamic and is based on a possible interpretation of the quran. Do you think that is what Obama is saying, because it certainly seems like he is trying to separate ISIS completely from the quran, like there are not parts of the quran that could possible give rise to the interpretation ISIS offers. There probably isn't an "Islam" because, well, he wasn't actually a prophet of God and many of the things he wrote probably contradict each other. Indeed I am sure your version of "Islam" would not include death for apostasy, but that is not true in most of the muslim world.
Read the article I posted and the quotes from Obama. What he's saying is it's not religion, it's individuals. I add that is more than individuals, it's more the society those individuals are in.
For example, India is full of Muslims (and Hindu). Do you hear any Indian terrorists? No.... Indian society is peaceful.
"Many people feel like Obama and liberals...." Don't you think that's because of their news source interpretation of what is said? Rather than what they actually say? Do your own research on what Obama and other liberals actually say, unfiltered by the media.
Indian society is not peaceful at all, it is full of religious violence, not only between Muslims and Hindus but also with Sikhs and Christians. Pakistan broke away after India gained independence in order to form a separate muslim state. They supported the independence of Bangladesh and there are islamic attacks on India (for example the Mumbai attack in 2008). ISIS declared war on India, especially after the hindu lynching of muslims. A better argument would be to say that shows how all religions can be violent given the right circumstances. Also, there are Indian ISIS fighters, just like there are american and european ISIS fighters. "huffingtonpost.in/2015/11/23/isis-indian-fighters-infe_n_8627772.html" I would recommend this article from the Atlantic (hardly a conservative journal): theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ Also, here is a counterargument from Maajid Nawaz, a former radical Islamist and still a muslim, for calling it radical islam and islamic terrorism. Get over the fact that it is on Fox news, since Maajid is certainly not a conservative.
I'm dumbfounded that liberals defend this piece of shit religion yet have zero respect for Christians and Jews. A Christian chooses not be participate in a gay wedding and the libs go apeshit. Islam punishes homosexuality with death and it's meh, what are you going to do?
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you"
That very clearly says, with the context added at the end, that is to fight to defend those who fight you. Then the author goes on the explain how that's wrong.
Just shake my head J. Go smoke another bowel.
You do realize that ISIS offers textual interpretations of both the Quran and Hadith? Why don't you argue with them about their interpretation of islam? You can say all you want that it is wrong, and it may be, but it is still an interpretation that they feel as plausible (also, don't forget that apostasy is punished by death in Islam and that is a very common interpretation). There is one fundamental difference you are missing, while Jesus was crucified, Muhammed was a warrior. Now you can debate whether ISIS interpretation is a good one, but it is much easier to justify war in the long term when your founder fought wars and didn't let himself be killed by the Romans. To say that ISIS has nothing to do with islam is idiotic. That is what they base their actions on, their interpretation of the Quran. Many great "Islamic" scholars tried to make the religion more workable (e.g. Ibn Rshd, Alfarabi, ps. they didn't really think Muhammed was a prophet). But unfortunately a popular interpretation now of islam is that of ISIS. It is not necessarily "Islam" but it is islamic and only willful ignorance or complete stupidity would not recognize that.
You are arguing with me, but then basically saying the same thing as me. It's not Islam. It's the individuals, which is a small minority.
Have any of you actually ever met a Muslim? They are strange fucks, don't get me wrong. But the hate shouldn't be towards Muslims, it should be toward the extremists.
I think that when you say "It is not Islam" you are treating it as if there is no possible interpretation of the quran that a reasonable person could give that would lead to ISIS, correct me if I am wrong. Obviously Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, and Catholic Christianity cannot all be "Christianity", since they contradict each-other. That doesn't mean they are not all christian and offer plausible interpretations of christianity. Are both Sunni and Shia muslims islamic? They both can't practice "Islam". Similarly, ISIS certainly thinks what it believes is islam and the Quran and history of Islam make such an interpretation plausible. But the problem is that many people feel like Obama and many liberals are ignoring that it is an interpretation of Islam. It is not just the "individuals". They didn't just make up an ad hoc interpretation so they could shoot up a Parisian cafe. When Obama refuses to even call it "islamic" terrorism (as some reformist muslims actually want him to do) , it makes it difficult to challenge what it is that inspires people to believe the ISIS interpretation of islam. When he says "it is not islam" he treats that as saying "it is not at all based on the quran" which is not true. I am fine with saying it is not Islam, but only if that allows us to still recognize that it is islamic and is based on a possible interpretation of the quran. Do you think that is what Obama is saying, because it certainly seems like he is trying to separate ISIS completely from the quran, like there are not parts of the quran that could possible give rise to the interpretation ISIS offers. There probably isn't an "Islam" because, well, he wasn't actually a prophet of God and many of the things he wrote probably contradict each other. Indeed I am sure your version of "Islam" would not include death for apostasy, but that is not true in most of the muslim world.
Read the article I posted and the quotes from Obama. What he's saying is it's not religion, it's individuals. I add that is more than individuals, it's more the society those individuals are in.
For example, India is full of Muslims (and Hindu). Do you hear any Indian terrorists? No.... Indian society is peaceful.
"Many people feel like Obama and liberals...." Don't you think that's because of their news source interpretation of what is said? Rather than what they actually say? Do your own research on what Obama and other liberals actually say, unfiltered by the media.
No terror attacks in India? Good Christ. You're a piece of work.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you"
That very clearly says, with the context added at the end, that is to fight to defend those who fight you. Then the author goes on the explain how that's wrong.
Just shake my head J. Go smoke another bowel.
You do realize that ISIS offers textual interpretations of both the Quran and Hadith? Why don't you argue with them about their interpretation of islam? You can say all you want that it is wrong, and it may be, but it is still an interpretation that they feel as plausible (also, don't forget that apostasy is punished by death in Islam and that is a very common interpretation). There is one fundamental difference you are missing, while Jesus was crucified, Muhammed was a warrior. Now you can debate whether ISIS interpretation is a good one, but it is much easier to justify war in the long term when your founder fought wars and didn't let himself be killed by the Romans. To say that ISIS has nothing to do with islam is idiotic. That is what they base their actions on, their interpretation of the Quran. Many great "Islamic" scholars tried to make the religion more workable (e.g. Ibn Rshd, Alfarabi, ps. they didn't really think Muhammed was a prophet). But unfortunately a popular interpretation now of islam is that of ISIS. It is not necessarily "Islam" but it is islamic and only willful ignorance or complete stupidity would not recognize that.
You are arguing with me, but then basically saying the same thing as me. It's not Islam. It's the individuals, which is a small minority.
Have any of you actually ever met a Muslim? They are strange fucks, don't get me wrong. But the hate shouldn't be towards Muslims, it should be toward the extremists.
I think that when you say "It is not Islam" you are treating it as if there is no possible interpretation of the quran that a reasonable person could give that would lead to ISIS, correct me if I am wrong. Obviously Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, and Catholic Christianity cannot all be "Christianity", since they contradict each-other. That doesn't mean they are not all christian and offer plausible interpretations of christianity. Are both Sunni and Shia muslims islamic? They both can't practice "Islam". Similarly, ISIS certainly thinks what it believes is islam and the Quran and history of Islam make such an interpretation plausible. But the problem is that many people feel like Obama and many liberals are ignoring that it is an interpretation of Islam. It is not just the "individuals". They didn't just make up an ad hoc interpretation so they could shoot up a Parisian cafe. When Obama refuses to even call it "islamic" terrorism (as some reformist muslims actually want him to do) , it makes it difficult to challenge what it is that inspires people to believe the ISIS interpretation of islam. When he says "it is not islam" he treats that as saying "it is not at all based on the quran" which is not true. I am fine with saying it is not Islam, but only if that allows us to still recognize that it is islamic and is based on a possible interpretation of the quran. Do you think that is what Obama is saying, because it certainly seems like he is trying to separate ISIS completely from the quran, like there are not parts of the quran that could possible give rise to the interpretation ISIS offers. There probably isn't an "Islam" because, well, he wasn't actually a prophet of God and many of the things he wrote probably contradict each other. Indeed I am sure your version of "Islam" would not include death for apostasy, but that is not true in most of the muslim world.
Read the article I posted and the quotes from Obama. What he's saying is it's not religion, it's individuals. I add that is more than individuals, it's more the society those individuals are in.
For example, India is full of Muslims (and Hindu). Do you hear any Indian terrorists? No.... Indian society is peaceful.
"Many people feel like Obama and liberals...." Don't you think that's because of their news source interpretation of what is said? Rather than what they actually say? Do your own research on what Obama and other liberals actually say, unfiltered by the media.
No terror attacks in India? Good Christ. You're a piece of work.
I don't want to read this whole thread so if someone else pointed this out I apoligize. But Hondas argument is the No True Scotsman fallacy.
I had to google that so I learned something today
Logical fallacies are my wheelhouse and while I'm very familiar with the No True Scotsman fallacy, I admit I didn't see it until it was pointed. Well done sir. You've always been one of my favorite posters.
Comments
Grow the fuck up and learn the difference between Hindus and Buddhists.
Pakistan is a garden spot of peace too. India and Pakistan love each other as well
When you hear that low information voters love Obama think of Hondo
The Mumbai attack might be the template for the urban invasion style of terrorism.
Also, there are Indian ISIS fighters, just like there are american and european ISIS fighters.
"huffingtonpost.in/2015/11/23/isis-indian-fighters-infe_n_8627772.html"
I would recommend this article from the Atlantic (hardly a conservative journal): theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Also, here is a counterargument from Maajid Nawaz, a former radical Islamist and still a muslim, for calling it radical islam and islamic terrorism. Get over the fact that it is on Fox news, since Maajid is certainly not a conservative.
"Let's not generalize a religion based on the significant minority that support honor killings"
-feminazis
Kill yourself.