freediver wrote on Sep 30
th, 2012 at 9:00pm:
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.
You don't need to obfuscate, you just need to present a coherent argument that we can actually discuss. You respond to my arguments with one line punchlines which don't even go close to addressing my points, and mostly contain unsubstantiated claims. I'm the only one attempting to bring evidence to the debate.
Quote:Meaningless statistics are not the same thing as context.
Why are they meaningless? Because they break your little stereotypes about muslims? When we live in a society where assumptions like "not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims" are so ingrained, and accepted so unquestionably, then I'd say we have a problem. In this respect, meaningful statistics are
absolutely the same thing as context. The context that the terrorist problem in Europe is not an islamist one, but a separatist one, the context that the settlement of unprecedented numbers of muslims in Europe has been overwhelmingly successful and peaceful, and has in no way been marred by terrorism or violence. That is worth reminding people - not to sugarcoat islamic terrorism, but to put it in its right... context.
Quote:Only if you fail to pause and think about the statistics you are parroting.
what about them? Both the Europol and FBI figures I mentioned before - which as far as I know are not disputed by anyone - debunk some important myths our society holds about muslims. A bit like how the respected think tank the RAND corporation recently released a paper in which they argue that the terrorist threat in the US is way overblown - based on the fact that not a single person has been killed on US soil by islamic terrorists since 9/11. Thus they state:
Quote:[Of the] 83 terrorist attacks in the United States between 9/11 and the end of 2009, only three…were clearly connected with the jihadist cause. (The RAND database includes Abdulmutallab’s failed Christmas Day attempt to detonate a bomb on an airplane.) The other jihadist plots were interrupted by authorities.
Are you denying that the notion that 'not all muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are muslims" is a very ingrained belief? Do you think its accurate to say that when most people think of the word "terrorism" they immediately think of islamic terrorism - as opposed to say left wing separatist terrorism (which is far more common)? Ignorance is the basis of prejudice.
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.
what? Muslims in Indonesia
are in the majority. What do you mean by " in the minority"? You do realise that the vast majority of muslims don't live in the middle east right? The vast majority of muslims live in south and south-east Asia - where Indonesia is! What exactly are you talking about when you imply that Indonesian muslims "are in the minority"? You make no sense. [/quote]
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?
non-islamic terrorists in India are not harmless pranksters, if thats what you are implying. The greatest terrorist threat comes from the Maoist "Naxalite" separatists. Hindu terrorism is also a huge threat. They both have an impressive body count over the last few decades. Its also my understanding that the vast majority of islamist attacks in India are committed in and over Kashmir - where the muslim-majority population is fighting a legitimate fight of liberation.
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]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?
I'm not debating Abu here, I'm debating you - and the fact is you were the one who "disseminated" this particular piece of information, so its you who I'm telling thats it wrong. If it makes you feel better, I can tell you not to accept everything Abu tells you at face value.
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.
What judgment do you want me to pass exactly? I don't understand - I was debating a specific point about whether or not verse 5:32 was or wasn't referring to muslims when referring to the "children of Isreal" - I say it was. You want me to pass judgment on that? - well my judgment is that 5:32 was referring to muslims.
More broadly though, and which I touched on in my last reply to Baron, its quite extraordinary for me that someone could think that the quranic declaration that to kill one human unjustly is akin to killing all of mankind - which incidentally muslims all the time attest as referring to muslims - could be good advise for jews, but not for muslims.
Apart from that, what do you actually want me to judge? That 5:32 is a good thing to abide by? - well of course - why wouldn't I?
Forum
Pages: 
Penalty for insulting the Prophet (pbuh) (Read 21103 times)
