Talk about any atrocity committed in the name of Islam, and the answer you are most likely to get, is an accusation against another religion's book, group, or action. This thread and the other new thread about the attack on the US Embassy in Libya have loads of examples of this kind of debate.
What about the history of atrocities committed in the name of other religions?
Its a valid comparison particularly when people use acts committed by terrorists of any faith to paint an entire religion.
The Lord's Resistance Army commits horrific acts in the name of Christianity on an almost daily basis, yet you would have to be some kind of moron to think they represented mainstream Christianity.
I grew up in a country in which bombs regularly killed people that were set off by people fighting for a cause they labeled as Catholic, didn't stop me marrying a Catholic because I'm not stupid enough to thing that the actions of a few apply to the whole. Yet that is exactly what you are doing here and then moaning when someone clearly states (with valid examples) how illogical that is.
Someone in the other thread just tried to deflect the topic of Islamists attacking the US embassy and killing people by citing the Catholic priests sex abuse scandal. I mean how far off topic, and how totally insensitive can you get? How can someone disgrace and dishonour those kids by using their suffering as a tool in a debate about a totally unrelated subject.
Both are acts committed by a small section of a religion and then used to paint an impression on the whole religion.
Its odd that you find it offensive to the victims of Catholic priests when they are used as an example of terrible acts committed by a small section of Christianity, yet feel it utterly justified to do the exact same thing if it allows you to paint an impression of the entirety of Islam.
Very odd indeed, oh and more that a large degree of hypocrisy as well.
I have seen this sort of lazy retorts to every concern raised about their religion. And then you question me when I say that they are too pre-occupied with these things to suppress violent elements in their religion?
And what exactly has been lazy about my replies?
You are using the same kind of lazy, poorly constructed and hypocritical arguments you are attempting to condone and yet you have the gall to accuse me of a lazy argument.
Oh and could you let me know the answer to the question you have so neatly avoided:
"On a serious note exactly how many Muslims have you sat down and had this conversation at length with?"
You see you haven't even bothered to extend your thinking to exactly who when in an stopped the violence at the US embassy have you. It certainly wasn't the US forces who were overrun, but rather the local forces, you know Muslims who you accuse of being apathetic and all secretly in league with terrorists.
The suppression of infidels is commanded by Quran, especially as THAT verse negates every verse before it that preaches moderation by the rule of abrogation (and I don't think this rule exists in any other religion). If an infidel is not killed or converted, he is given the choice to practice his religion given that he pays a tax (Jizya). This tax thing was confirmed by a muslim in this thread, a page ago. And they justify it by comparing it to income tax?
The suppression of non-believers is preached in the old testament, that's pretty much what the entire sections covering Gideon are about. Take a look at the translation of that Hebrew name and its 'Slayer of Men, he was commanded by God to kill those who worshiped false Gods. Does sound much different does it, well that might just be because both are Abrahamic faiths with the exact same roots. Just as mainstream Christians don't do exactly as Gideon did, the mainstream of Islam don't all go around killing infidels and given that over 2 billion of them are around its a good job. You see that's a bit that many miss out on, if they were all out to remove the infidels they would have no need for subtle and terror attacks, with 2 billion hardened fanatics they could get the job done rather simply via brute force, odd that they don't seem to have thought of that. Or just maybe its because its utter bollocks.
Oh and that tax is pretty much a historic footnote now (guess checking on that was a bit too full of facts) and was little different to taxes that were leveled at Muslims by the same rulers, and not much different to the forms of taxation levied by Christian countries on people of all faiths. Those in power will always try and raise money, here in the UK we once had a window tax, the more windows you had the more you paid. They will tax the more daft things they can to get money and control, and that's something all the Abrahamic religions certainly have in common.
What kind of twisted logic is this? One of my posts that I edited out in this thread originally read, "Guys, please just say Islam is the religion of peace. It's what these people and the PC crowd want to hear." I should have written that and not bothered with this topic. And I suspect that's what a lot of people do too. They've grown tired of arguing about this topic and just keep their views to themselves.
What twisted logic is that exactly?
The twisted logic of taking the actions of a few and using them to paint an entire group the same? And then if anyone points out the mile wide flaws in the logic of doing that accuse them of just appeasing the PC brigade.
The only thing twisted here is the poor footing that your argument is based upon, hell when you manage to destroy the cornerstone of your own argument within your last post alone your pretty much done for.
There are roughly
50,000 active Islamic terrorists in the world out of 2 billion Muslims, which means that 0.001% of the worlds Muslim population are terrorists. Now your quite happy to take that percentage and paint all of them the same, so I take it you quite happy to label every American incontinent given that a much high percentage of Americans (4%) suffer from it, oh and given that 30%+ massage tax returns that would make the US a country of bed wetting fraudsters using your logic (remember I'm simply using you own logic here not mine).
Me I prefer to look at it the other was an say that the vast, vast majority of Muslims are neither terrorists or supporters of terrorism (and that matches closely with my own experiences), just as the IRS figures match my experience that most Americans are honest people.
