BF2S Forums Appeasement?

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Why don't you make a thread lowing about "Why Islam is a violent and intolerant religion"

Take us through it step by step why you think just that and give us examples that justifies why you think the entire Muslim population is violent and intolerant because of their religion and not just the few rotten eggs like in any other religion, culture or country ...
That could be an interesting thread tbh ...

Why, for us to discuss such a topic we would first have to agree that it is a violent and intolerant religion, would we not?

Why would we have to agree to that?

It would be better imo for you to make one such thread rather than to drip small amounts in every thread you visit ... make one thread where you explain why you think Islam is violent and intolerant and please back up your claims ...

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cards??!! there is a whole world of cards out there that have countless examples of Islams violence intolerance, hatred etc.... What you need are "cards" proving I am wrong, because I can sit here all day and post examples that I right.

So if I can give you the name of just one Islamistic country that are not violent and intolerant that would kinda disprove your point wouldn't it?

Because when you say Islam is violent and intolerant you mean all Muslims don't you ...

That's why an own thread where you explain your views in detail would be nice ...

Nope, I mean Islam, its teachings are violent and intolerant.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-06-08 05:09:55)

lowing wrote:

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:

Fine you win, the "tool" known as Islam is violent and intolerant. Happy?

no cards to play, dude? k.

Cards??!! there is a whole world of cards out there that have countless examples of Islams violence intolerance, hatred etc.... What you need are "cards" proving I am wrong, because I can sit here all day and post examples that I right.

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:

Shahter wrote:

no cards to play, dude? k.

Cards??!! there is a whole world of cards out there that have countless examples of Islams violence intolerance, hatred etc.... What you need are "cards" proving I am wrong, because I can sit here all day and post examples that I right.

you've been asked by numerous people in this thread to explain your opinion on this one in detail, to post those examples you supposedly have enough of for "all day" of posting and so on. what did you answer to that? - basically, everybody should agree with you first then you would. that kinda defeats the point of this discussion, don't you think so?
so go on, indulge me: post me some distinctive evidence that islam is inherently violent and intolerant. oh, make sure it proves the whole bloody religion is evil, not just some dudes wearing tnt belts.

lowing wrote:

Shahter wrote:

lowing wrote:

Cards??!! there is a whole world of cards out there that have countless examples of Islams violence intolerance, hatred etc.... What you need are "cards" proving I am wrong, because I can sit here all day and post examples that I right.

you've been asked by numerous people in this thread to explain your opinion on this one in detail, to post those examples you supposedly have enough of for "all day" of posting and so on. what did you answer to that? - basically, everybody should agree with you first then you would. that kinda defeats the point of this discussion, don't you think so?
so go on, indulge me: post me some distinctive evidence that islam is inherently violent and intolerant. oh, make sure it proves the whole bloody religion is evil, not just some dudes wearing tnt belts.

http://www.melbourne.anglican.com.au/ma … amp;s=1041


"The world witnessed a flood of reaction to Benedict XVI’s Regensburg lecture, a reaction that has gone well beyond words, with attacks on churches in Gaza, the West Bank and Basra. Some even called for the Pope to be executed."



"Saudi Arabia’s most senior cleric also explained that war was never Islam’s ancient founder, the prophet Mohammed’s, first choice: “He gave three options: either accept Islam, or surrender and pay tax, and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims.” Thus, according to the Grand Mufti, the third option (the sword) was only a last resort, if the non-Muslims refused to convert or surrender peacefully to the armies of Islam."


"In the present day, although Islam has lost its military dominance, it has not yet come to a consensus about how Muslims should conduct themselves under non-Muslim rule. There is no consensus that a just war should not be conceived in sacralised terms as a jihad."

"There is no consensus that the earlier, more peaceful verses of the Koran take priority over the later, more violent ones. There is no consensus that the old program of military expansion should not be resumed if and when it becomes practical to do so. There is no consensus that non-Muslims should be allowed to discuss the Koran and the life of Mohammed without becoming the target of intimidation, and subjected to accusations of ignorance, incompetence or racism."

Today most Muslims acknowledge the religious legitimacy of “defensive jihad” – including the Palestinian struggle – but many appear to reject the idea of offensive, expansionist jihad.

There is no consensus that the earlier, more peaceful verses of the Koran take priority over the later, more violent ones. There is no consensus that the old program of military expansion should not be resumed if and when it becomes practical to do so.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-06-08 05:44:59)

FEOS wrote:

cba to read through seven pages of posts...

Just how would it be appeasement? Did the jews threaten to invade England or something?

lowing wrote:

In the strictist form of the word, yes it is appeasement. period. The state has taken in specific religious considerations in their decision. I do not have a problem with it because it is such a minor consideration it practically is off the radar screen.

lowing wrote:

second thought, I also do not have a problem with it because it is not Islam, a violent, intolerant, destructive religion whose ideology of superiority over gays, women, and non-Muslims, has no place in western society.

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

http://www.melbourne.anglican.com.au/main.php?pg=news&news_id=2014&s=1041


"The world witnessed a flood of reaction to Benedict XVI’s Regensburg lecture, a reaction that has gone well beyond words, with attacks on churches in Gaza, the West Bank and Basra. Some even called for the Pope to be executed."



"Saudi Arabia’s most senior cleric also explained that war was never Islam’s ancient founder, the prophet Mohammed’s, first choice: “He gave three options: either accept Islam, or surrender and pay tax, and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims.” Thus, according to the Grand Mufti, the third option (the sword) was only a last resort, if the non-Muslims refused to convert or surrender peacefully to the armies of Islam."


"In the present day, although Islam has lost its military dominance, it has not yet come to a consensus about how Muslims should conduct themselves under non-Muslim rule. There is no consensus that a just war should not be conceived in sacralised terms as a jihad."

"There is no consensus that the earlier, more peaceful verses of the Koran take priority over the later, more violent ones. There is no consensus that the old program of military expansion should not be resumed if and when it becomes practical to do so. There is no consensus that non-Muslims should be allowed to discuss the Koran and the life of Mohammed without becoming the target of intimidation, and subjected to accusations of ignorance, incompetence or racism."

So you post an article which disagrees with you?

It makes mention of a Cardinal who does agree with you, but the author is clearly not condemning Islam as a religion of hate.

Nice out of context choice of quotes there too.

Today most Muslims acknowledge the religious legitimacy of “defensive jihad” – including the Palestinian struggle – but many appear to reject the idea of offensive, expansionist jihad.

There is no consensus that the earlier, more peaceful verses of the Koran take priority over the later, more violent ones. There is no consensus that the old program of military expansion should not be resumed if and when it becomes practical to do so.

When you look at those two quotes together, not just the one you posted, you see quite a different picture.

First, are you really looking for an unbiased article about Islam, or anything for that matter?

Try finding me an unbiased article about abortion


The article was fair, I chose it because it recognizes Islam as being violent and intolerant, he explored why, pointing out the contradictions of the Koran, yet still acknowledging Islam's issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonie_Darwish


how about her, but I guess anyone that disagrees with all of you is biased, regardless. Coupled with "you're genralizing" you make the perfect defense without actually stating an argument. well done.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-06-08 11:23:04)

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

http://www.melbourne.anglican.com.au/main.php?pg=news&news_id=2014&s=1041


"The world witnessed a flood of reaction to Benedict XVI’s Regensburg lecture, a reaction that has gone well beyond words, with attacks on churches in Gaza, the West Bank and Basra. Some even called for the Pope to be executed."



"Saudi Arabia’s most senior cleric also explained that war was never Islam’s ancient founder, the prophet Mohammed’s, first choice: “He gave three options: either accept Islam, or surrender and pay tax, and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims.” Thus, according to the Grand Mufti, the third option (the sword) was only a last resort, if the non-Muslims refused to convert or surrender peacefully to the armies of Islam."


"In the present day, although Islam has lost its military dominance, it has not yet come to a consensus about how Muslims should conduct themselves under non-Muslim rule. There is no consensus that a just war should not be conceived in sacralised terms as a jihad."

"There is no consensus that the earlier, more peaceful verses of the Koran take priority over the later, more violent ones. There is no consensus that the old program of military expansion should not be resumed if and when it becomes practical to do so. There is no consensus that non-Muslims should be allowed to discuss the Koran and the life of Mohammed without becoming the target of intimidation, and subjected to accusations of ignorance, incompetence or racism."

So you post an article which disagrees with you?

It makes mention of a Cardinal who does agree with you, but the author is clearly not condemning Islam as a religion of hate.

Nice out of context choice of quotes there too.

Today most Muslims acknowledge the religious legitimacy of “defensive jihad” – including the Palestinian struggle – but many appear to reject the idea of offensive, expansionist jihad.

When you look at those two quotes together, not just the one you posted, you see quite a different picture.

First, are you really looking for an unbiased article about Islam, or anything for that matter?

Try finding me an unbiased article about abortion


The article was fair, I chose it because it recognizes Islam as being violent and intolerant, he explored why, pointing out the contradictions of the Koran, yet still acknowledging Islam's issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonie_Darwish


how about her, but I guess anyone that disagrees with all of you is biased, regardless. Coupled with "you're genralizing" you make the perfect defense without actually stating an argument. well done.

Nice reading skills. Not only have you apparently not read the article properly, you haven't read my comments on it at all.

Now you're talking about bias. I have no idea as to why.

The only reference I made that even vaguely has anything to do with bias is about your out of context quoting from the article.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

cba to read through seven pages of posts...

this thread has long been hijacked by lowing for the purposes if his anti-islam crusade. no point in being on-topic anymore, i guess.

@lowing: lol, dude, you quote me a christian site as a source of info on islam? wow...

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

I read the article entirely, and I found it to be as fair a judgement as one could make regarding Islam. I posted it because I felt even though it recognized the conflictions within Islam, it still acknowledged its problems. Something you all care to deny as a problem with Islam, rather an individual problem. All the experts seem to think the problem starts with the teachings in the Koran, you asked where Islam's violence and intolerance started so I posted your answer.

Where in that article does it agree with you? Where does the author brand Islam a religion of violence, intolerance and hatred?

He doesn't. Therefore it doesn't support your argument. It may be quite fair and balanced, but it doesn't support what you're saying.

Uh like I said the article is fair, the very fact that he spent time writting the damn thing suggests that he, at least, recognizes the violence and intolerance within Islam. Which is my argument.

It kills me that you refuse to acknowledge these facts about Islam, yet the internet is filled with Muslims and non-Muslims doing so.

http://reformislam.org/

OUR GOALS
to educate Muslims about dangers presented by Islamic religious texts and why Islam must be reformed
to educate non-Muslims about the differences between moderate Muslims and Islamists (a.k.a. Islamic Religious Fanatics, Radical Muslims, Muslim Fundamentalists, Islamic Extremists or Islamofascists)


first, now why would these MUSLIMS think Islam needs to be reforemed if it is not full of hate and violence?

Second, notice how it differenciates themselves form Muslim and "Islamists". I speak of Islam, I do not speak of Muslims. Even these Muslims recognize the violence abd intolerance of Islam, and aretrying to change it. Maybe it best serve their cause if you recognized it as well and pulled your head out ofthe sand.

The Revd Dr Mark Durie is the Vicar of St Mary’s Caulfield, and a fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. A fuller version of this article appeared in the Weekend Australia on September 23. He will consider violence in the Bible in December’s TMA.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-06-08 12:00:07)

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Uh like I said the article is fair, the very fact that he spent time writting the damn thing suggests that he, at least, recognizes the violence and intolerance within Islam. Which is my argument.

It kills me that you refuse to acknowledge these facts about Islam, yet the internet is filled with Muslims and non-Muslims doing so.

http://reformislam.org/

OUR GOALS
to educate Muslims about dangers presented by Islamic religious texts and why Islam must be reformed
to educate non-Muslims about the differences between moderate Muslims and Islamists (a.k.a. Islamic Religious Fanatics, Radical Muslims, Muslim Fundamentalists, Islamic Extremists or Islamofascists)


first, now why would these MUSLIMS think Islam needs to be reforemed if it is not full of hate and violence?

Second, notice how it differenciates themselves form Muslim and "Islamists". I speak of Islam, I do not speak of Muslims. Even these Muslims recognize the violence abd intolerance of Islam, and aretrying to change it. Maybe it best serve their cause if you recognized it as well and pulled your head out ofthe sand.

It's an article written in response to statements made by various religious figures. It may seem to you that he wrote it because he thinks Islam is a religion of hatred and violence, but that just makes you seem even more delusional.

Note the bit at the bottom of the article saying he's going to write a similar article about the Bible (now that I would expect to be highly biased - can't be having religious figures analysing the texts from their own religions and expect to be taken too seriously).

The Revd Dr Mark Durie is the Vicar of St Mary’s Caulfield, and a fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. A fuller version of this article appeared in the Weekend Australia on September 23. He will consider violence in the Bible in December’s TMA.

Yes there are Muslims calling for reform of Islam, because of the conflicting aspects of the Koran which does promote defensive violence. But likewise the Bible promotes the just use of force/violence by a state - which is really exceedingly similar. It is not the religion but the individuals and the willfull misinterpretation of the ideals promoted that are the problem - not the text itself. It is clear that the Bible has often been taken out of context by various groups in the past (and present) the Spanish Inquisition, various papally instigated genocides, witch burning and the WBC are a few examples. In the height of some major violent incidents instigated by the Christian church, there have always been those who called for reform.

"Mark Durie investigates this question in the wake of many Muslims’ hostile reaction to Pope Benedict’s September address". the first sentence if not the fuckin title alone suggests there is something to discuss aobut Islam and violence.

Also, well done avoiding the rest.

Mark Durie investigates this question in the wake of many Muslims’ hostile reaction to Pope Benedict’s September address

It is a commonly-held view that the Bible is a violent book. Mark Durie investigates.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-06-08 13:10:06)