Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Radical Islam
Comments
-
But, but what about all those days that sark doesn't show up drunkjecornel said:Defending Islam is like defending Sark saying he doesn't have a Patron problem.
-
Fine that comment wasn't one of my finer moments. However there is a billion people there or some shit. So fuck off.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
No terror attacks in India? Good Christ. You're a piece of work.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:PurpleJ said:
thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm2001400ex said:
I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.PurpleJ said:We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
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.
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.
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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Islamic_terrorism_in_India -
Both those motherfuckers are wound up tight as ticks.RaceBannon said:How did I miss that gem on India?
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSM4Cw_1V9E
-
These two just need to play a football game already.PurpleThrobber said:
Both those motherfuckers are wound up tight as ticks.RaceBannon said:How did I miss that gem on India?
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 Hondohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSM4Cw_1V9E -
That comment is a great example of everything you post. Just completely ducking clueless.2001400ex said:
Fine that comment wasn't one of my finer moments. However there is a billion people there or some shit. So fuck off.WeAreAFatLesboSchool said:
No terror attacks in India? Good Christ. You're a piece of work.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
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.Hippopeteamus said:
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.2001400ex said:
J clearly believes everything he reads on the internet. Here's an example from your article:PurpleJ said:
thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm2001400ex said:
I figured J would be the first one with the ignorant post.PurpleJ said:We ARE at war with Islam dumbfuck. No terrorist perverted it. Read the Qaran for me one time.
It's a wannabe spin off of Christianity that was invented with the goal of gaining political power. HTH.
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.
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.
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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Islamic_terrorism_in_India
Kill yourself. -
We're just here to keep you safe.
-
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.
-
*gurgle*
-
I had to google that so I learned something todayallpurpleallgold said: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.
-
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.RaceBannon said:
I had to google that so I learned something todayallpurpleallgold said: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.
