Good one Baron.

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 29^th, 2012 at 1:02pm:


Yes your fault. God has sealed your heart, due to your despicable hatred and rejection of truth.

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 29^th, 2012 at 1:02pm:


Right, because English is a defective hodge podge of a language.

Yadda wrote on Sep 29^th, 2012 at 4:02pm:


English is a Germanic language that was bastardised by various waves of Nordic raiders and eventually spliced with Norman French and finally sprinkled with layers of Greek, Latin, Arabic & other terms.

Its grammar is extremely defective (as witnessed by the fact there's no distinction between basic things like first person singular & plural) and its morphology is just hideous. It's got more exceptions to rules than it does rules, and its assortment of vowels is an absolute dog's breakfast. Its spelling is barely phonetic and much of the time doesn't make even the remotest sense. As I said, it is nothing but a hodge-podge.

Yadda wrote on Sep 29^th, 2012 at 4:02pm:


I think that's precisely why you count it as a treasure, because it's all you know. And besides your level of thinking is restricted by it anyway, so how could you ever know how it compares to other languages to decide whether it is actually a treasure or not.

Yadda wrote on Sep 29^th, 2012 at 4:02pm:


As do all languages in their own way. English is certainly not unique in this, and does not particularly excel at it either.

fd, honestly do you make even the most basic attempt to think your questions through? Or do you just exert yourself for an hour or two and then get so excited that you think you came up with a question to attack Islam, that you forget to actually think through how ludicrous it is?

If you know I hold a certain view, why would you be asking whether or not I believe it to be the correct view? Wouldn't it be a given?

You can't seriously be this dense.. Or can you?

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2012 at 9:11am:


To be honest I'm finding these rather innane one line, one point replies of yours not at all constructive to the discussion. I feel like I'm the only one making an effort here. Your profile mentions you are an administrator on this forum - frankly I would expect better. If you want a constructive dialogue here, lets have a constructive dialogue. But for that you need to add some flesh to your replies, make them more "debatable". I'm not interested in partaking in these petty one-liner point scoring exercises, but I would love to have a proper discussion about this.

As to this particular point, yes I agree there are problems with extremists in the muslim world, but you need to put it in context. A study came out a few years ago about terrorism in Europe, and it was revealed that less than 1% of all terrorist activity - successfully carried out as well as those foiled by the authorities - were non-islamic. A similar finding was revealed in the US in a paper released by the FBI. (Still can't link urls, but they are easy enough to find on google)Muslim protests and riots that cause instant headlines in the western media are frequently carried out by just a few hundred people - an insignificant number in anyone's book. Long story short, islamic violence around the world today is not nearly as bad as the media portrays it to be.

What is significant on a relative scale, is the violence inflicted by non-muslims towards muslims. A study has just been released - which was posted here in another thread - that claims that for every taliban killed by US drones in Pakistan, 49 innocent civilians are killed. Literally thousands of innocents have died by the US attacks over the last few years - and thats not even including the many thousands more who have been killed by direct US action in Afghanistan since 2001. Then of course there's the 7 years or so of slaughter in Iraq. Of course it can be argued that the US is justified in these attacks, and these civilians are necessary collateral - but it doesn't alter the fact that many thousands of muslims have been killed by the US, and one can only imagine the resentment that this has built up within the muslim community. Again, not justifying violence and riots, but please understand the context.

The other thing is you need to acknowledge the positive, mostly unreported, ways the muslim community acts all the time in response to violence and incitement amongst their flock. It is virtually unknown, for example, that after the attack on the American embassy in Libya in which the ambassador was killed, a group of Libyans took it upon themselves to attack the militia who carried out the embassy attack, overrunning their HQ in Benghazi. They were signalling to the world that these thugs are not the real face of islam. Also, if not for Frank Lowy's acknowlegement, no one probably would have known that the islamic leaders in Australia were united in their condemnation of the riots, and successfully dissuaded muslims from holding another protest a week after the first.

Quote:


Thats a copout. The fact that the largest muslim populations are demonstrably capable of peace and stability is just be dismissed. But there are progressive elements in the middle east as well. What can't be ignored though is the active role the west has played in suppressing those progressive elements. Saudi Arabia is the centre of all islamic extremism today. . The problem is, Saudi Arabia is a key US ally, and allowing wahabism to die a natural death is against US interests. In Iran, the current bogeyman of the west, was a progressive democracy until the 1950s when the west overthrow it, and it has never seen real democracy since. The baathists in Iraq were helped to power by the CIA. In Palestine - the grassroots democracy movements were ruthlessly quashed by the corrupt US-backed Arafat. And the list goes on. I'm not saying the muslims themselves don't share any responsibility for the problem of extremism, but the fact is the US and the west interveners had a choice between fostering democracy, and fostering autocracies - and they chose the latter. And Indonesia, since I mentioned it, the US propped up the corrupt tyrrant Suharto for around 30 years, and when they finally "allowed" him to be overthrown, the Indonesians have not looked back, and deserve the highest praise for instituting a thriving democracy in such a short time. This country, absolutely, should be held as a great example of what muslims are capable of instituting.

Quote:


You're overgeneralising and not appreciating the proper context. Muslim violence against hindus pales compared to hindu violence against muslims. But even so, in the scheme of things the coexistence and harmony is the real story with Indian hindu-muslim relations, acts of violence are few and far between.

Quote:


which is but a tiny aspect of shariah law. So why did you say "shariah law" in its entirety if you really only meant this tiny aspect of it? Unless you really believed shariah law was only about the death penalty? It is entirely possible to have a shariah system where the death penalty does not exist. You really should think about these sorts of things before dissemenating such overgeneralised, misinformed nonsense.

Quote:


Stop right there, I said nothing whatsoever about right or wrong - why do you keep obsessing about this? The only thing I was arguing about is what is and what isn't in the quran - full stop.

Quote:


Would you like me to add a rant about your debating style to each response? The reason it only takes me one line is because I leave out all the pointless BS you carry on with. I do not need a few paragraphs of obfuscations to avoid answering a simple question.

Quote:


Meaningless statistics are not the same thing as context.

Quote:


That sounds more accurate than the version I saw. The version I saw tried to equate 9/11 with a graffitti attack by German punks in order to make Islamic terrorism seem trivial. How stupid do you think people are?

Quote:


The number of people behind 9/11 was also insignificant. It is the actions that make it signigicant, not the number of people, not the number of separate incidents, not any other useless measure they can dream up to make it look like Islamic terrorism isn't so bad after all.

Quote:


Only if you fail to pause and think about the statistics you are parroting.

Quote:


No it isn't. It goes to the heart of the matter. Most muslims act tolerant when they are in the minority. It is only when they are in the majority that they become totally inflexible assholes.

Quote:


I did not just dismiss it. I explained why for you. And again, how you divide up the Muslim community is not a valid way to assess the threat. This is just more meaningless statistics from you. Why does it matter so much that they are the most populous countries? Did it occur to you that they are the most populous Muslim countries because they had the more tolerant Muslims, and they had the more tolerant Muslims because if they were as intolerant as the middle eastern ones they would be dead?

Quote:


You are the one over generalising and parroting meaningless statistics. I merely pointed out how absurd your generalisations are.

Quote:


Do you count the slaughter of hundreds of Hindu by Muslims as equal to a bit of anti-Islamic graffiti by Hindus, the same way your European and American statistics did? How come not one of your statistics gives a body count? Is it because you don't want to admit that it is Muslims that go round killing people for no good reason?

Quote:


I don't care how insignificant you think it is. They want to kill people who have not done anything wrong. No volume of instructions on which way to point while praying is going to somehow outweigh that.

Quote:


Because it is a statement of fact. Pointing out all the irrelevant dribble in Shariah law will not change those facts. So why do you keep insisting on pointing it out?

Quote:


I asked a Muslim. He is the one disseminating. Why don't you take it up with him? I have pointed you in his direction plenty of times already, and I am genuinely interested in the difference of opinion. Do you expect me to translate between the two of you?

Quote:


Yes I noticed you are studiously avoiding the topic. Why is that? Why are you afraid to pass judgement? It is not obsession. I am just trying to put your posts in context, as you have suggested i do. I have explained my interest plenty of times already and it is perfectly reasonable to expect to know whether the person claiming to know what the real shariah law is is even a Muslim, or just some naive non-Muslim apologist.

It's well known that 90% of the traffic on this forum are all 1 or 2 sad and lonely individuals who enjoy playing "dress ups".

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 30^th, 2012 at 9:52pm:


Can you please elaborate Abu?