Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

In defense of "why it's never Islam"

Sphere
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 7:42:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Firstly, I'm not sure whether this is the right place for a question like this but broadly speaking , this still falls into "religion."

This thread is concerning Islam and political violence.
Every time we have an attack, there is a debate as to whether its the religion or the surrounding circumstances which lead to the bout of violence.

Question : What is largely to blame for the violence ?

And I usually contend that its never the religion, its always the circumstances. Ultimately, I believe everything is reducible to the circumstances.

Below, I will posit an argument(s),detailing how its never the religion, its always the circumstances.

Its two pronged

1. Islam is a constant ( This is substantiated by the Quran and the hadiths which have been unchanged since the beginning of Islam.)

Islam + Variable = Violent Muslim
Islam + Variable = Non-Violent Muslim

If it is accepted that Islam is constant , then the existence of both violent and non-violent Muslims show that its not the religion but the variable that's to blame.
======================================================================
2. The capability is a constant

Once the above argument has been posited ,naturally the debate revolves around Islam's "capability of facilitating violence"

Here I think two distinctions have to be made
Since "Islam the religion" isn't an autonomous being, the capability needs to be conjoined with willingness ( from a human) to materialize itself into violence. Furthermore, there needs to be reason(s) which will act as the impetus that invigorates the willingness.

(Capability + Reason ) --> Willingness = Materialized violence

Analogy : A knife
A knife doesn't have autonomy and has the capability of violence. It needs a subject to exercise its capability. Furthermore, there needs to be a reason to realize the knife's deadly capability.
Unless the person is insane, there is no way that he/she will say "I will kill a person, solely based on the fact that the knife has the capability of killing a person." I might even go as far as saying, its never the reason.

Here I contend that the 'capability' is wholly detached and works completely independently of the 'reason(s)' thus the reason can never be the capability of the concept/tool. Therefore, Islam is never to blame.
======================================================================
There it is.
The only ones ways that I can think of refuting the two pronged argument is by
1. Challenging the definition of Islam ( which would require me going into Islamic theology) Either way , it is a desperate argument, which simply wont stick.

2. On the second argument, I would have to attack the analogical warrant of the knife, showing the dissimilarities between the two examples. Specifically, targeting the Non-neutrality of Islam ( as opposed to the knife or any object) and ultimately, trying to prove that its a false equivalency.

Footnote:
1. All this is under the assumption that it has that capability ( of course , we can argue about it but for argument's sake lets assume that it does.)
2. If someone states that " Nonetheless, it still has the capability and is therefore violent" or "If the capability didn't exist at all, we wouldn't be this issue," at that point we are solely focusing on "Islam's capability of facilitating violence" ( which has already been conceded ) and not the relationship between the "Capability" and its ability to act as the main "reason," therefore straying away from the issue of political violence altogether and the question as to what is to blame for the violence ?
======================================================================
Refutation of this, suggestions for bolstering this or completely new arguments which can act as the third prong ( etc) are all welcome. Sorry once again, if this is in the wrong place.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 2:12:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Islamists don't have to apologize for moving Islam back into the political arena. The Muslims were promised an Islamic State the Caliphate and sharia Law for proper governance. They are claiming that promise.
Why is Israel and the Western world interfering with the Islamic process? Their own national struggles resulted in civil wars, Europe's two world wars, the holocaust etc. These were political exercises to establish the type of governments their people demanded. The Germans wanted the Jews out. The Americans wanted slavery out. The Muslims want an Islamic State and why not.
Islam is a religion of peace with very high and uncompromising moral dictates. The Western decadence is an abomination to their Islamic beliefs and Muslims will not let that be forced upon them under the pretext of secularism or legal accommodation
Islam will flourish or fade on the strength of the beliefs of Muslims and sincerity in their desire to follow the prophet Mohammad (pbuh).
Fatihah
Posts: 7,747
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 4:00:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 7:42:49 AM, Sphere wrote:
Firstly, I'm not sure whether this is the right place for a question like this but broadly speaking , this still falls into "religion."

This thread is concerning Islam and political violence.
Every time we have an attack, there is a debate as to whether its the religion or the surrounding circumstances which lead to the bout of violence.

Question : What is largely to blame for the violence ?

And I usually contend that its never the religion, its always the circumstances. Ultimately, I believe everything is reducible to the circumstances.

Below, I will posit an argument(s),detailing how its never the religion, its always the circumstances.

Its two pronged

1. Islam is a constant ( This is substantiated by the Quran and the hadiths which have been unchanged since the beginning of Islam.)

Islam + Variable = Violent Muslim
Islam + Variable = Non-Violent Muslim

If it is accepted that Islam is constant , then the existence of both violent and non-violent Muslims show that its not the religion but the variable that's to blame.
======================================================================
2. The capability is a constant

Once the above argument has been posited ,naturally the debate revolves around Islam's "capability of facilitating violence"

Here I think two distinctions have to be made
Since "Islam the religion" isn't an autonomous being, the capability needs to be conjoined with willingness ( from a human) to materialize itself into violence. Furthermore, there needs to be reason(s) which will act as the impetus that invigorates the willingness.

(Capability + Reason ) --> Willingness = Materialized violence

Analogy : A knife
A knife doesn't have autonomy and has the capability of violence. It needs a subject to exercise its capability. Furthermore, there needs to be a reason to realize the knife's deadly capability.
Unless the person is insane, there is no way that he/she will say "I will kill a person, solely based on the fact that the knife has the capability of killing a person." I might even go as far as saying, its never the reason.

Here I contend that the 'capability' is wholly detached and works completely independently of the 'reason(s)' thus the reason can never be the capability of the concept/tool. Therefore, Islam is never to blame.
======================================================================
There it is.
The only ones ways that I can think of refuting the two pronged argument is by
1. Challenging the definition of Islam ( which would require me going into Islamic theology) Either way , it is a desperate argument, which simply wont stick.

2. On the second argument, I would have to attack the analogical warrant of the knife, showing the dissimilarities between the two examples. Specifically, targeting the Non-neutrality of Islam ( as opposed to the knife or any object) and ultimately, trying to prove that its a false equivalency.

Footnote:
1. All this is under the assumption that it has that capability ( of course , we can argue about it but for argument's sake lets assume that it does.)
2. If someone states that " Nonetheless, it still has the capability and is therefore violent" or "If the capability didn't exist at all, we wouldn't be this issue," at that point we are solely focusing on "Islam's capability of facilitating violence" ( which has already been conceded ) and not the relationship between the "Capability" and its ability to act as the main "reason," therefore straying away from the issue of political violence altogether and the question as to what is to blame for the violence ?
======================================================================
Refutation of this, suggestions for bolstering this or completely new arguments which can act as the third prong ( etc) are all welcome. Sorry once again, if this is in the wrong place.

Response: Of course, it is always the circumstances and not the religion. If it was the religion, that means that any person who reads the Qur'an will instantly become violent. Yet that is not the case. There are many who read it and are peaceful. Thus showing it must be outside circumstances other than the religion.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 4:08:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So, the reasoning leads to "circumstances".

What circumstances, exactly?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 4:31:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is pretty much my argument in the debate that is currently in my sig.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 5:21:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 4:00:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/21/2015 7:42:49 AM, Sphere wrote:
Firstly, I'm not sure whether this is the right place for a question like this but broadly speaking , this still falls into "religion."

This thread is concerning Islam and political violence.
Every time we have an attack, there is a debate as to whether its the religion or the surrounding circumstances which lead to the bout of violence.

Question : What is largely to blame for the violence ?

And I usually contend that its never the religion, its always the circumstances. Ultimately, I believe everything is reducible to the circumstances.

Below, I will posit an argument(s),detailing how its never the religion, its always the circumstances.

Its two pronged

1. Islam is a constant ( This is substantiated by the Quran and the hadiths which have been unchanged since the beginning of Islam.)

Islam + Variable = Violent Muslim
Islam + Variable = Non-Violent Muslim

If it is accepted that Islam is constant , then the existence of both violent and non-violent Muslims show that its not the religion but the variable that's to blame.
======================================================================
2. The capability is a constant

Once the above argument has been posited ,naturally the debate revolves around Islam's "capability of facilitating violence"

Here I think two distinctions have to be made
Since "Islam the religion" isn't an autonomous being, the capability needs to be conjoined with willingness ( from a human) to materialize itself into violence. Furthermore, there needs to be reason(s) which will act as the impetus that invigorates the willingness.

(Capability + Reason ) --> Willingness = Materialized violence

Analogy : A knife
A knife doesn't have autonomy and has the capability of violence. It needs a subject to exercise its capability. Furthermore, there needs to be a reason to realize the knife's deadly capability.
Unless the person is insane, there is no way that he/she will say "I will kill a person, solely based on the fact that the knife has the capability of killing a person." I might even go as far as saying, its never the reason.

Here I contend that the 'capability' is wholly detached and works completely independently of the 'reason(s)' thus the reason can never be the capability of the concept/tool. Therefore, Islam is never to blame.
======================================================================
There it is.
The only ones ways that I can think of refuting the two pronged argument is by
1. Challenging the definition of Islam ( which would require me going into Islamic theology) Either way , it is a desperate argument, which simply wont stick.

2. On the second argument, I would have to attack the analogical warrant of the knife, showing the dissimilarities between the two examples. Specifically, targeting the Non-neutrality of Islam ( as opposed to the knife or any object) and ultimately, trying to prove that its a false equivalency.

Footnote:
1. All this is under the assumption that it has that capability ( of course , we can argue about it but for argument's sake lets assume that it does.)
2. If someone states that " Nonetheless, it still has the capability and is therefore violent" or "If the capability didn't exist at all, we wouldn't be this issue," at that point we are solely focusing on "Islam's capability of facilitating violence" ( which has already been conceded ) and not the relationship between the "Capability" and its ability to act as the main "reason," therefore straying away from the issue of political violence altogether and the question as to what is to blame for the violence ?
======================================================================
Refutation of this, suggestions for bolstering this or completely new arguments which can act as the third prong ( etc) are all welcome. Sorry once again, if this is in the wrong place.

Response: Of course, it is always the circumstances and not the religion. If it was the religion, that means that any person who reads the Qur'an will instantly become violent. Yet that is not the case. There are many who read it and are peaceful. Thus showing it must be outside circumstances other than the religion.

Fati, can you please justify your use (over 40 times) of the phrase "children like sex" in your thread "Now that homosexual marriage is legal. I am sorry that I have to ask in a different thread, but your continued refusal to answer drives me to it.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 10:25:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 5:21:46 PM, desmac wrote:

Fati, can you please justify your use (over 40 times) of the phrase "children like sex" in your thread "Now that homosexual marriage is legal. I am sorry that I have to ask in a different thread, but your continued refusal to answer drives me to it.

Just letting you know that these kind of posts violate the TOS in two ways (cross-thread contamination and harassment), and that it would be better if you stopped making them.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 3:42:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 4:00:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: Of course, it is always the circumstances and not the religion. If it was the religion, that means that any person who reads the Qur'an will instantly become violent. Yet that is not the case. There are many who read it and are peaceful. Thus showing it must be outside circumstances other than the religion.

It does not appear that Muslims can explain these alleged circumstances even though they are apparently the root cause of violence with Islam. Should be a simple matter of pointing them out and confirming. What seems to be the problem, Muslim brothers?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fatihah
Posts: 7,747
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 6:12:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 3:42:56 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

It does not appear that Muslims can explain these alleged circumstances even though they are apparently the root cause of violence with Islam. Should be a simple matter of pointing them out and confirming. What seems to be the problem, Muslim brothers?

Response: The circumstances are easily explained and apparent. The violence is a response to Western imperialism and colonization, and the West use of propaganda and and backdoor dealings in order to control the Muslim lands, such as the Sykes-Picot Act.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 6:16:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 6:12:08 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/22/2015 3:42:56 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

It does not appear that Muslims can explain these alleged circumstances even though they are apparently the root cause of violence with Islam. Should be a simple matter of pointing them out and confirming. What seems to be the problem, Muslim brothers?

Response: The circumstances are easily explained and apparent. The violence is a response to Western imperialism and colonization, and the West use of propaganda and and backdoor dealings in order to control the Muslim lands, such as the Sykes-Picot Act.

Fati, as you seem to be able to answer all questions, perhaps you will, at last, answer mine. In your thread "now that homosexual marriage is legal..", you state on over 40 occasions that "children like sex", can you offer any verification for this statement?
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 6:47:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 6:12:08 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/22/2015 3:42:56 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

It does not appear that Muslims can explain these alleged circumstances even though they are apparently the root cause of violence with Islam. Should be a simple matter of pointing them out and confirming. What seems to be the problem, Muslim brothers?

Response: The circumstances are easily explained and apparent. The violence is a response to Western imperialism and colonization, and the West use of propaganda and and backdoor dealings in order to control the Muslim lands, such as the Sykes-Picot Act.

So why are the vast majority of people currently being slaughtered by muslims, other muslims?
uncung
Posts: 3,455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 6:49:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So why are the vast majority of people currently being slaughtered by muslims, other muslims?

where is it?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 6:51:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 6:12:08 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/22/2015 3:42:56 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

It does not appear that Muslims can explain these alleged circumstances even though they are apparently the root cause of violence with Islam. Should be a simple matter of pointing them out and confirming. What seems to be the problem, Muslim brothers?

Response: The circumstances are easily explained and apparent. The violence is a response to Western imperialism and colonization, and the West use of propaganda and and backdoor dealings in order to control the Muslim lands, such as the Sykes-Picot Act.

Western imperialism and colonization? LOL. Then, based on your logic, we should be going to war with Muslims who wish to colonize the Western Imperialist world and their bringing of the Islamic state.

Is that the best you can do? Islamic propaganda? LOL.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fatihah
Posts: 7,747
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 6:58:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 6:51:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Western imperialism and colonization? LOL. Then, based on your logic, we should be going to war with Muslims who wish to colonize the Western Imperialist world and their bringing of the Islamic state.

Is that the best you can do? Islamic propaganda? LOL.

Response: The West was not colonized by the Muslims. The Muslim lands were colonized by the West. So you make no sense as usual. Try again.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 7:24:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 6:49:02 PM, uncung wrote:
So why are the vast majority of people currently being slaughtered by muslims, other muslims?

where is it?

Where is what?
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 8:45:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is the fixed imobile teaching of Islam that creates the problem. Fixed teaching eventually stifles the human conscience and turns the person concerned into a. unthinking zombie.
Let me be clear any fixed ideology will depersonalise people Islam is not alone in this respect.
If you care to look up Stanley Milgrams experiment you will see what unwavering authority can do.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 9:23:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 6:58:34 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/22/2015 6:51:54 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Western imperialism and colonization? LOL. Then, based on your logic, we should be going to war with Muslims who wish to colonize the Western Imperialist world and their bringing of the Islamic state.

Is that the best you can do? Islamic propaganda? LOL.

Response: The West was not colonized by the Muslims. The Muslim lands were colonized by the West.

No, they weren't. Muslims are leaving the ME in droves heading to the West. You yourself live in the West. Hypocrite.

So you make no sense as usual. Try again.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fatihah
Posts: 7,747
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 10:16:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 9:23:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

No, they weren't. Muslims are leaving the ME in droves heading to the West. You yourself live in the West. Hypocrite.

Response: Which is the result of the West destroying Muslim lands through colonialism. So your point remains pointless. Dummy.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 10:21:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 10:16:25 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/22/2015 9:23:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

No, they weren't. Muslims are leaving the ME in droves heading to the West. You yourself live in the West. Hypocrite.

Response: Which is the result of the West destroying Muslim lands through colonialism.

And, through that line of delusion, you have justified using violence. I'm not at all surprised.

So your point remains pointless. Dummy.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 10:23:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 10:16:25 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/22/2015 9:23:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

No, they weren't. Muslims are leaving the ME in droves heading to the West. You yourself live in the West. Hypocrite.

Response: Which is the result of the West destroying Muslim lands through colonialism. So your point remains pointless. Dummy.

Ah, so it is all about Islam.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fatihah
Posts: 7,747
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 10:26:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 10:21:58 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

And, through that line of delusion, you have justified using violence. I'm not at all surprised.

Response: yet no where have I said I justified any violence. Another weak strawman from a deluded atheist. Why is no one surprised.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 10:36:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 10:26:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/22/2015 10:21:58 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

And, through that line of delusion, you have justified using violence. I'm not at all surprised.

Response: yet no where have I said I justified any violence. Another weak strawman from a deluded atheist. Why is no one surprised.

Wow, you really got me there, Fat.

Nonetheless, you haven't provided any valid reasons, evidence or details, but instead, a generalization one might hear in a Star Wars movie.

It could be an Imperial code.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 10:51:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 10:36:20 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/22/2015 10:26:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/22/2015 10:21:58 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

And, through that line of delusion, you have justified using violence. I'm not at all surprised.

Response: yet no where have I said I justified any violence. Another weak strawman from a deluded atheist. Why is no one surprised.

Wow, you really got me there, Fat.

Nonetheless, you haven't provided any valid reasons, evidence or details, but instead, a generalization one might hear in a Star Wars movie.

It could be an Imperial code.

Fati will NEVER answer a question/
Fatihah
Posts: 7,747
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 10:59:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 10:36:20 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Wow, you really got me there, Fat.

Nonetheless, you haven't provided any valid reasons, evidence or details, but instead, a generalization one might hear in a Star Wars movie.

It could be an Imperial code.

Response: The Sykes-Picot agreement is a fact, while you failed to show that it is not so. Thus reason and evidence substantiates my claim.
Sphere
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 11:02:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 3:42:56 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/21/2015 4:00:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: Of course, it is always the circumstances and not the religion. If it was the religion, that means that any person who reads the Qur'an will instantly become violent. Yet that is not the case. There are many who read it and are peaceful. Thus showing it must be outside circumstances other than the religion.

It does not appear that Muslims can explain these alleged circumstances even though they are apparently the root cause of violence with Islam. Should be a simple matter of pointing them out and confirming. What seems to be the problem, Muslim brothers?

Sorry for the late response
I really didn't want to get into the circumstances because the thread is called "in defense of why its never Islam" and not "what are these circumstances" but why not get into. As you say, it really is as simple as "pointing and confirming."

Before 1979, the world was polarized between two factions, Team USA and Team USSR. This manifested in the "Islamic lands" in the form of Third world Socialism and Anti-colonial nationalism (Arab socialism, Arab nationalism, Hizbul Baa"th) typified by Gamal Abdel-Nasr, Saddam Hussein and their ilk.

The Iranian revolution introduced a third political faction, a faction made up of symbols/signs from these native lands (and the one constant across the region was the religion: Islam)

Without getting too much into the history, let's focus in on 1979- present. It was undoubtedly the Iranian revolution that brought out politicized version of Islam into the global zeitgeist.

How many wars do you think have taken place within 1979-present in areas inhabited by Muslims.

Going in Order

The soviet invasion of Afghanistan
Iran-Iraq (one faction heavily backed by America)
Gulf war
Djibouti civil war (one faction heavily backed by France)
Algerian civil war (one faction heavily backed by France)
Somalia civil war (one faction heavily backed by the African union and by extension America)
Bosnian war ( rape etc etc , you know)
Tajik civil war (one side heavily backed by Russia)
First Chechen war ( against the Russians )
U.S invasion of Afghanistan
Indo-Pakistan multiple wars
Kosovo Wars
Dagestani invasion ( against the Russians )
Second Chechen war ( against the Russians )
Second intifada ( against the Israeli)
Afghani civl war ( one faction heavily backed by the Americans)
Moro-filipino war/insurgency
Operation ENDURING FREEDOM ( LOL) in Somalia
U.S Invasion of Iraq
Israeli invasion of lebanon 2006
Second Phase of the Somali civil war
Second phase of operation ENDURING FREEDOM (LOL) in the maghreb
Russian War in Ingushetia
Gaza Incursion by Israel
Libyan Civil war ( then NATO invasi".Liberation)
Syrian Civil war ( do I have to say more)
Yemeni civil war ( One side heavily backed by the U.S)

Now that all those wars have been laid out (here is an interesting pattern) the deaths are lopsided, in other words, one side has exponentially more causalities than the other.

http://foreignpolicy.com...

That article has an interesting stat, from 1979 to 2009 (when the article was written) the ratio of Muslims that have been DIRECTLY killed by an American as opposed Americans that have been killed directly by Muslims are

Low end: 30:1
And
High end 100:1

This is without counting, the indirect issues that have arisen due to interventions (sectarianism in Iraq etc )
This is without counting
1. The multiple Russian wars and absolute destruction of the Caucasus
2. This is without counting the nice "give and take" post colonial "francafrique" system the French have set up in the former colonial lands ( bouteflika and Muhammed the 6th need I say more lol)
3. Without counting the strongmen militarily supported by the Russians in central Asia,
4. Xinjiang in china,
5. Multiple pogroms in India,
6. Israeli occupation of Palestine,
7. American backing of dictators,
8. Burmese issue
9. Etc .

You get the point, the list just goes on and on and all this within 1979 to present.

Here is the kicker, these aren't the CIRCUMSTANCES, I was speaking of. These are merely the backdrop that one has to reckon with when one is a Muslim.
This is what usually compounds the "circumstances."

So what are the circumstances?
Economic, psychological, political, social (discrimination of all kinds)

America a is hundred times better place to live in than say, France (due to our history of the civil rights movement

For example, let"s take Charlie Hebdo

What are the factors here for a young Algerian guy ( keep in mind the reasoning behind the first post )

(Capability + Reasons)--> willingness = Materialized violence

Look at the
1. state of the HLM ( ghettos),
2. look at the history of the Beurs from 1880-present,
3. the internment of the Harki"s and other French loyalists after immigrating to France,
4. The colonial baggage,
5. The Orientalist depiction of Arabs as the guys from the Arabian nights ( violent etc)
6. at the history of the Amazigh/Arab invasion of Spain and southern France.
7. Etc

Couple all these with ( a guy without a job) +( the backdrop I spoke of earlier)
now there is a potentially explosive chemical reaction.

There are obviously a few grammatical mistakes ( was written in a hurry) but any questions are welcome.

Also , as an atheist ( you espouse a view free of superstition, which are backed up by facts/date, I just presented a reality which are backed up by historical facts, You can either
1. Accept these as the truth ( for they are the truth)
2. Or insist that your caricature of Islam is correct

Lol wonder who the dogmatic one is now ? ( the ball is in your court)
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 12:32:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 11:02:38 PM, Sphere wrote:
At 8/22/2015 3:42:56 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/21/2015 4:00:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: Of course, it is always the circumstances and not the religion. If it was the religion, that means that any person who reads the Qur'an will instantly become violent. Yet that is not the case. There are many who read it and are peaceful. Thus showing it must be outside circumstances other than the religion.

It does not appear that Muslims can explain these alleged circumstances even though they are apparently the root cause of violence with Islam. Should be a simple matter of pointing them out and confirming. What seems to be the problem, Muslim brothers?

Sorry for the late response

That's okay, who's sock puppet are you?

I really didn't want to get into the circumstances because the thread is called "in defense of why its never Islam" and not "what are these circumstances" but why not get into. As you say, it really is as simple as "pointing and confirming."

Before 1979, the world was polarized between two factions, Team USA and Team USSR. This manifested in the "Islamic lands" in the form of Third world Socialism and Anti-colonial nationalism (Arab socialism, Arab nationalism, Hizbul Baa"th) typified by Gamal Abdel-Nasr, Saddam Hussein and their ilk.

The Iranian revolution introduced a third political faction, a faction made up of symbols/signs from these native lands (and the one constant across the region was the religion: Islam)

Without getting too much into the history, let's focus in on 1979- present. It was undoubtedly the Iranian revolution that brought out politicized version of Islam into the global zeitgeist.

How many wars do you think have taken place within 1979-present in areas inhabited by Muslims.

Going in Order

The soviet invasion of Afghanistan
Iran-Iraq (one faction heavily backed by America)
Gulf war
Djibouti civil war (one faction heavily backed by France)
Algerian civil war (one faction heavily backed by France)
Somalia civil war (one faction heavily backed by the African union and by extension America)
Bosnian war ( rape etc etc , you know)
Tajik civil war (one side heavily backed by Russia)
First Chechen war ( against the Russians )
U.S invasion of Afghanistan
Indo-Pakistan multiple wars
Kosovo Wars
Dagestani invasion ( against the Russians )
Second Chechen war ( against the Russians )
Second intifada ( against the Israeli)
Afghani civl war ( one faction heavily backed by the Americans)
Moro-filipino war/insurgency
Operation ENDURING FREEDOM ( LOL) in Somalia
U.S Invasion of Iraq
Israeli invasion of lebanon 2006
Second Phase of the Somali civil war
Second phase of operation ENDURING FREEDOM (LOL) in the maghreb
Russian War in Ingushetia
Gaza Incursion by Israel
Libyan Civil war ( then NATO invasi".Liberation)
Syrian Civil war ( do I have to say more)
Yemeni civil war ( One side heavily backed by the U.S)

Now that all those wars have been laid out (here is an interesting pattern) the deaths are lopsided, in other words, one side has exponentially more causalities than the other.

http://foreignpolicy.com...

That article has an interesting stat, from 1979 to 2009 (when the article was written) the ratio of Muslims that have been DIRECTLY killed by an American as opposed Americans that have been killed directly by Muslims are

Low end: 30:1
And
High end 100:1

This is without counting, the indirect issues that have arisen due to interventions (sectarianism in Iraq etc )
This is without counting
1. The multiple Russian wars and absolute destruction of the Caucasus
2. This is without counting the nice "give and take" post colonial "francafrique" system the French have set up in the former colonial lands ( bouteflika and Muhammed the 6th need I say more lol)
3. Without counting the strongmen militarily supported by the Russians in central Asia,
4. Xinjiang in china,
5. Multiple pogroms in India,
6. Israeli occupation of Palestine,
7. American backing of dictators,
8. Burmese issue
9. Etc .

You get the point, the list just goes on and on and all this within 1979 to present.

Here is the kicker, these aren't the CIRCUMSTANCES, I was speaking of. These are merely the backdrop that one has to reckon with when one is a Muslim.
This is what usually compounds the "circumstances."

So what are the circumstances?
Economic, psychological, political, social (discrimination of all kinds)

America a is hundred times better place to live in than say, France (due to our history of the civil rights movement

For example, let"s take Charlie Hebdo

What are the factors here for a young Algerian guy ( keep in mind the reasoning behind the first post )

(Capability + Reasons)--> willingness = Materialized violence

Look at the
1. state of the HLM ( ghettos),
2. look at the history of the Beurs from 1880-present,
3. the internment of the Harki"s and other French loyalists after immigrating to France,
4. The colonial baggage,
5. The Orientalist depiction of Arabs as the guys from the Arabian nights ( violent etc)
6. at the history of the Amazigh/Arab invasion of Spain and southern France.
7. Etc

Couple all these with ( a guy without a job) +( the backdrop I spoke of earlier)
now there is a potentially explosive chemical reaction.

There are obviously a few grammatical mistakes ( was written in a hurry) but any questions are welcome.

Also , as an atheist ( you espouse a view free of superstition, which are backed up by facts/date, I just presented a reality which are backed up by historical facts, You can either
1. Accept these as the truth ( for they are the truth)
2. Or insist that your caricature of Islam is correct

Lol wonder who the dogmatic one is now ? ( the ball is in your court)
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Sphere
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 12:58:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Response : I was expecting some kind of bombastic response
At least your consistent with your worldview, I respect that .
As for the socket puppet accusation.....im new here ( wallah)
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,630
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 1:32:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 12:58:58 AM, Sphere wrote:
Response : I was expecting some kind of bombastic response
At least your consistent with your worldview, I respect that .
As for the socket puppet accusation.....im new here ( wallah)

Hi Yassine.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
uncung
Posts: 3,455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 1:38:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 7:24:13 PM, desmac wrote:
At 8/22/2015 6:49:02 PM, uncung wrote:
So why are the vast majority of people currently being slaughtered by muslims, other muslims?

where is it?

Where is what?

where is it happening?
Sphere
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 1:43:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 1:32:51 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/23/2015 12:58:58 AM, Sphere wrote:
Response : I was expecting some kind of bombastic response
At least your consistent with your worldview, I respect that .
As for the socket puppet accusation.....im new here ( wallah)

Hi Yassine.

Dude, just checked, apparently the guy is from France, its like 4 o'clock over there. Most likely, he is asleep.
Its 6:43 over here, Pacific standard time. South- Western United States.