Why

[simplegifts]

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
211 attacks with 1458 dead. This does not include the injured.

Why is this subject taboo? I am not attacking Muslims. I am questioning Islam. We all know if it were Christianity doing this Christianity would be attacked. It would be pointed out to us that those being violent are not following Jesus's teachings.

Why is Islam protected? Do we all know that deep down they are following Mohammad's teachings?

Are we so enamored with the thought of multiculturalism that we can not be honest about questionable ideologies?

 

[Hieronymus]

I don't get it either...

 

[simplegifts]

Heironymus I have been banned from many sites and had many a post deleted over the years Muslim and Christian for bringing up the question. All I am doing is pointing to true events.

I absolutely know we do not want to do to Muslims what we did to the Japanese during World War II (internment camps and the bomb), but we must work against inequalities and violence!! Does that mean we are to allow those who hold believes of inequality and violence to reign over us, to try and change our ideology? Wouldn't that be a step backwards?

 

[Fizzywig]

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
211 attacks with 1458 dead. This does not include the injured.

Why is this subject taboo? I am not attacking Muslims. I am questioning Islam. We all know if it were Christianity doing this Christianity would be attacked. It would be pointed out to us that those being violent are not following Jesus's teachings.

Why is Islam protected? Do we all know that deep down they are following Mohammad's teachings?

Are we so enamored with the thought of multiculturalism that we can not be honest about questionable ideologies?

The subject is NOT taboo. It is raised again and again.

Christianity in the past has acted in just the same way ( it is not innocent now ) Often this is met with the "no true Christian" argument.

The answer, at least for me, is not picking anyone out, or any particular ideology. It is first and foremost to look deeply within ourselves for the source of this world's suffering, and also to speak out against it WHEREVER it is found.

 

[Albion]

Certainly, it's not everybody who is covering up. It's mainly the White House which has the intention of tearing down the country so that it can be rebuilt into a third world nation, plus the partisans who jump to defend him whenever their leader says anything. So that's to identify the usual constituencies, the Media, Hollywood, etc.

Most of the rest of the people have their heads screwed on straight, but of course the prominence of their opponents and their ability to control the news and government policies makes it seem otherwise.

 

[simplegifts]

Fizzywig, Yes there have been violent Christians, but they are not following Christ's commands.

Why do people want to ignore that this violence is part of Mohammad's teaching? That the violent Muslims are following Mohammad's commands ad example?

 

[Albion]

Christianity in the past has acted in just the same way ( it is not innocent now ) Often this is met with the "no true Christian" argument..

And that is why this argument is lame. The situation we are living with cannot be whitewashed because of what happened with other people--none of who are alive today and none of whom are us.

 

[Fizzywig]

Fizzywig, Yes there have been violent Christians, but they are not following Christ's commands.

Why do people want to ignore that this violence is part of Mohammad's teaching? That the violent Muslims are following Mohammad's commands ad example?

The Koran is the font of Islams teaching not Mohammad.

I am not an expert but I do know that any verse found in the Koran must be related to the time/historical context it was given in.

That the actual Surahs of the Koran - except for the first - are purely given according to length, makes it difficult to interpret.

As with all so called "holy" books, it is all in the interpretation.

I have seen the claim made that while Christians who hate do so in defiance of the Christian texts, Muslims do so because of the intrinsic teachings of the Koran.

I find that unconvincing. Already today, on this very forum, my own call for unity and Universalism has been rejected by one quoting the words of Jesus concerning "not peace but a sword, not peace but division."

This can be whitewashed. The fact is that any text is open to various interpretations.

 

[Fizzywig]

And that is why this argument is lame. The situation we are living with cannot be whitewashed because of what happened with other people--none of who are alive today and none of whom are us.

Could you clarify. What argument? My entire argument or the "no true Christian" argument?

 

[Albion]

Could you clarify. What argument? My entire argument or the "no true Christian" argument?

That any movement that is engaged in evil in our world today and is a genuine concern ought to be alibied for by saying "some other people in the past did some things like this, too."

If that thinking were consistently applied, we would have no basis for criticizing ANY wrongdoing in our own societies. Yet, interestingly enough, the people who use that argument to alibi for such as Islamofascism are full of criticisms about other aspects of our societies today, for example poverty, war, prejudice, or political corruption.

What if everyone simply applied this technique and said "Well, there was something like this being done in another time and place and by different people--so this issue here can't be considered serious enough to address?"

 

[BrianJK]

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
211 attacks with 1458 dead. This does not include the injured.

Why is this subject taboo? I am not attacking Muslims. I am questioning Islam. We all know if it were Christianity doing this Christianity would be attacked. It would be pointed out to us that those being violent are not following Jesus's teachings.

Why is Islam protected? Do we all know that deep down they are following Mohammad's teachings?

Are we so enamored with the thought of multiculturalism that we can not be honest about questionable ideologies?

Or do we have to lump a billion and a half people into the same picture even though they hardly are on the same page, even fighting amongst themselves (akin to Christian sectarian violence in Ireland a few years back maybe?)?

Or do we have to call for a poorer treatment of all billion and a half people as a retaliation for the actions of a very small minority (and, as proponents of this kind of religious discrimination inevitably bring up, the verbal support of a slightly larger, but still significant minority)?

It seems that treating our Muslim neighbors with kindness is the topic that's taboo around here...

 

[BrianJK]

That any movement that is engaged in evil in our world today and is a genuine concern ought to be alibied for by saying "some other people in the past did some things like this, too."

There may be small movements within Islam engaged in evil, but it is quite dishonest to say that the entirety of Islam is engaged in an evil worthy of general concern, at least any more than any other lost people trapped in an evil world who Christians should be generally concerned about reaching.

 

[Fizzywig]

That any movement that is engaged in evil in our world today and is a genuine concern ought to be alibied for by saying "some other people in the past did some things like this, too."

If that thinking were consistently applied, we would have no basis for criticizing ANY wrongdoing in our own societies. Yet, interestingly enough, the people who use that argument to alibi for such as Islamofascism are full of criticisms about other aspects of our societies today, for example poverty, war, prejudice, or political corruption.

What if everyone simply applied this technique and said "Well, there was something like this being done in another time and place and by different people--so this issue here can't be considered serious enough to address?"

Well, that was not my argument was it?

I was not whitewashing anything.

In fact by asking us to look at ourselves first and foremost I was implicating myself.

Again, part of my argument - here and elsewhere - has been that the allegiance to sacred texts is not any answer at all, Christian or Muslim. To claim that one will issue in peace, another inevitably in violence, is in my opinion wrong, and proved wrong in history, no matter your wish to avoid that conclusion.

 

[Albion]

Well, that was not my argument was it?

I was not whitewashing anything.

In fact by asking us to look at ourselves first and foremost I was implicating myself.

You could say that, but you weren't actually implicating yourself or the rest of us by making a comparison to events that didn't involve any of us.

Again, part of my argument - here and elsewhere - has been that the allegiance to sacred texts is not any answer at all, Christian or Muslim. To claim that one will issue in peace, another inevitably in violence, is in my opionion wrong, and proved wrong in history...

That's easy to say, but it still is a dodge. What is being said is that the adherents of this or that faith take some POV from those texts, not just that these are the sacred writings of that religion. While a very large percent of Moslems say that they take seriously various ideas that the rest of us would call unthinkably immortal--summary execution of gays, for instance--there are, in reality, almost no Christians who think that a Bible admonition against, say, eating shellfish governs their dietary decisions.

 

[Fizzywig]

You could say that, but you weren't actually implicating yourself or the rest of us by making a comparison to events that didn't involve any of us.


That's easy to say, but it still is a dodge. What is being said is that the adherents of this or that faith take some POV from those texts, not just that these are the sacred writings of that religion. While a very large percent of Moslems say that they take seriously various ideas that the rest of us would call unthinkably immortal--summary execution of gays, for instance--there are, in reality, almost no Christians who think that a Bible admonition against, say, eating shellfish governs their dietary decisions.

Lets go back before becoming lost in the treacherous sea of language. After what was in essence just preliminaries, I said quite distinctly.......

The answer, at least for me, is not picking anyone out, or any particular ideology. It is first and foremost to look deeply within ourselves for the source of this world's suffering, and also to speak out against it WHEREVER it is found.

Do you see? WHEREVER IT IS FOUND.

And no, I have not found found it easy to say. I am a vulnerable person and have not found it easy to be called "anti-christ", the "son of satan" and the "voice of satan" for saying such things in the past.......like "Jesus" is NOT the "only way".

 

[Albion]

Lets go back before becoming lost in the treacherous sea of language. After what was in essence just preliminaries, I said quite distinctly.......

The answer, at least for me, is not picking anyone out, or any particular ideology. It is first and foremost to look deeply within ourselves for the source of this world's suffering, and also to speak out against it WHEREVER it is found.

It's fine to point to that part of your post now, but I was commenting on the comparison that was used and this particular comment:

Christianity in the past has acted in just the same way

 

[Fizzywig]

It's fine to point to that part of your post now, but I was commenting on the comparison that was used and this particular comment:

As I said, preliminaries to my actual argument. Just to stop this, I apologise for not making myself clear in the first place.

 

[dlamberth]

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
211 attacks with 1458 dead. This does not include the injured.

Why is this subject taboo? I am not attacking Muslims. I am questioning Islam. We all know if it were Christianity doing this Christianity would be attacked. It would be pointed out to us that those being violent are not following Jesus's teachings.

If we look at history, everything we see radical Muslims doing, radical Christians have also done. Some of the worse torture designed and practiced by man has been at the hands of Christians. We all have our dark side.

Why is Islam protected? Do we all know that deep down they are following Mohammad's teachings?

Are we so enamored with the thought of multiculturalism that we can not be honest about questionable ideologies?

Islam is not a taboo subject, it is being talked about everywhere. Including with in the Muslim culture. By far and away, it is mostly Muslims who are being killed by other Muslims. So naturally the Muslim world is doing some deep inner searching and questioning why this is happening.

Rather we like it or not, today's world IS multi-culture. One can not escape that truth.

 

[smaneck]

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
211 attacks with 1458 dead. This does not include the injured.

Why is this subject taboo? I am not attacking Muslims. I am questioning Islam.

No, you are attacking Islam. That's why you rely so much on Islamophobic hate sites.

We all know if it were Christianity doing this Christianity would be attacked.

Islam isn't doing this. There are some Muslims doing this. And right now thousands of Muslims are being killed by Christians.

It would be pointed out to us that those being violent are not following Jesus's teachings.

Here it is. The No True Scotsman argument.

Why is Islam protected? Do we all know that deep down they are following Mohammad's teachings?

Deep down tells you nothing. We know the shariah explicitly prohibits the deliberate targeting of women, children, old people and other non-combatants and since this is precisely what terrorists do those committing such acts are not following Muhammad's teachings.

Are we so enamored with the thought of multiculturalism that we can not be honest about questionable ideologies?

Apparently you can't.

 

[brinny]

That any movement that is engaged in evil in our world today and is a genuine concern ought to be alibied for by saying "some other people in the past did some things like this, too."

If that thinking were consistently applied, we would have no basis for criticizing ANY wrongdoing in our own societies. Yet, interestingly enough, the people who use that argument to alibi for such as Islamofascism are full of criticisms about other aspects of our societies today, for example poverty, war, prejudice, or political corruption.

What if everyone simply applied this technique and said "Well, there was something like this being done in another time and place and by different people--so this issue here can't be considered serious enough to address?"

Christopher Hitchens would agree about the Islamofascism.

As do i.