Basics That Every Non-Muslim Should Know About Islam

[AMDG]

Why do "WE" have to assume intentional deception (lying)? He's the one who attempted to inform us concerning the beliefs and practices of Muslims. (And the ONLY one who did so I might add.) And he used an article which itself used PRIMARY SOURCE. Surely that PRIMARY SOURCE can't be accused of intentionally deceiving us as well (or does it too come under the doctrine of telling non-Muslims lies in order to increase the power of the Muslim religion?)

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Why do "WE" have to assume intentional deception (lying)? He's the one who attempted to inform us concerning the beliefs and practices of Muslims. (And the ONLY one who did so I might add.) And he used an article which itself used PRIMARY SOURCE. Surely that PRIMARY SOURCE can't be accused of intentionally deceiving us as well (or does it too come under the doctrine of telling non-Muslims lies in order to increase the power of the Muslim religion?)

This is just like how people got mad when that video of the Missouri teen came out showing him robbing a store and bullying the small store clerk. Instead of saying that he was making himself look bad by robbing the store, the police department are accused of "character assassination" and racism for showing the public what the teen was actually like.

 

[brewmama]

Did you read that garbage and then think to yourself, "this seems like a reasonable article"?

Like I already said, it's as valid as using the SPLC as a source.

 

[MikeK]

Does mindlessly following blogs that fit your worldview fall under that category?

You still haven't answered the question. Please back up your statements about the SPLC or retract them, or we would have to assume you are lying.

And as I try to keep faith in people, I'd rather not do that.

I've tried so many times to demonstrate how to directly answer direct questions, but I have been remarkably unsuccessful at influencing people who hold their fragile poetical ideals above all else. I appreciate your participation in my non-political pro-life thread by the way, it is so refreshing to hear new ideas on how we can become better citizens of out planet and servents to The Lord.

 

[brewmama]

We'll see about that. There is much less text here to pour over and refute than jihadwatch's filth, so it should be cake. PM me when you're addressed each of these claims. Make sure that each of your answers is detailed with sources better than Mr Chick's, lest you be no better than him.

FAQ's Concerning Roman Catholicism

Why should he do that when you haven't addressed one single claim of jihadwatch as false or invalid?

 

[MikeK]

Why should he do that when you haven't addressed one single claim of jihadwatch as false or invalid?

You shouldn't, because my request was unreasonable. If I wanted you to learn about Catholocism I would have linked to a site by Catholics explaining their beliefs for themselves rather than a detractor's site who takes snippets of the faith and paints Catholics as fools, canibals, and devil-worshipers.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Why should he do that when you haven't addressed one single claim of jihadwatch as false or invalid?

And that reinforces my belief that what it says in the article about Islam is true. If it's so ridiculous it would have been easy for someone to refute at least one thing that's in it. Even the so-called "academics" rely solely on the ad hominem logical fallacy in arguing against it. The same secular "academics" will get Catholicism totally wrong, but we're expected to trust what they say about Islam.

 

[brewmama]

Obviously a hate-monger

RORATE CÆLI: Archbishop of Mosul: "I have lost my Diocese to Islam - You in the West will also become the victims of Muslims"

 

[Armoured]

Why should he do that when you haven't addressed one single claim of jihadwatch as false or invalid?

It's called a "demonstration". To wit, that any crazy with an axe to grind can make a blog that supposedly tells the "truth" against some group they wish to malign. Chick's about Catholics being case in point.

 

[Armoured]

Obviously a hate-monger

RORATE CÆLI: Archbishop of Mosul: "I have lost my Diocese to Islam - You in the West will also become the victims of Muslims"

Sounds like an objective source

 

[Antigone]

And that reinforces my belief that what it says in the article about Islam is true. If it's so ridiculous it would have been easy for someone to refute at least one thing that's in it. Even the so-called "academics" rely solely on the ad hominem logical fallacy in arguing against it. The same secular "academics" will get Catholicism totally wrong, but we're expected to trust what they say about Islam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc

See my point?

 

[AMDG]

Weren't we told that the article used the Koran which is a Primary Source? How is that crazy and hate filled and inaccurate then?

If it is claimed that the article in question is inaccurate, in what way? What are the specifics? Aren't we allowed to read all articles in question--ones that are considered accurate (are there any?) and this one that everyone seems to be against? What's wrong with reading all? (For instance, I've read both the Jack Chick series--the booklets were actually sent to me from the Catholic League--and also the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And I think that the Catholic League is right for encouraging the reading of both. Allows a person to know what is REALLY being said.)

And another thing, why can't we ascertain the accuracy or inaccuracy of the article in question without talk about the site that the article is from? (I've never figured that out. How DID we devolve from discussing the information put out there for our reading to discussing the site where the information came from? Those are two different thoughts.)

 

[Armoured]

Weren't we told that the article used the Koran which is a Primary Source? How is that crazy and hate filled and inaccurate then?

Same way if you only quoted the vengeful God bits of the Bible to someone unfamiliar with it, they could get a very skewed perception of what Christianity is all about.

This has been explained to you before.

 

[AMDG]

Then why not read both instead of the censorship of one?

 

[Antigone]

Then why not read both instead of the censorship of one?

Have you read the Qu'ran?

Qu'ran scholars don't advocate taking fragments out of context.

 

[Armoured]

Then why not read both instead of the censorship of one?

Who's censoring anything?

Read them both, be my guest. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the koran having read the whole thing yourself, rather than your parroting of factoids taken from out of context quotes.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Weren't we told that the article used the Koran which is a Primary Source? How is that crazy and hate filled and inaccurate then?

If it is claimed that the article in question is inaccurate, in what way? What are the specifics? Aren't we allowed to read all articles in question--ones that are considered accurate (are there any?) and this one that everyone seems to be against? What's wrong with reading all? (For instance, I've read both the Jack Chick series--the booklets were actually sent to me from the Catholic League--and also the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And I think that the Catholic League is right for encouraging the reading of both. Allows a person to know what is REALLY being said.)

And another thing, why can't we ascertain the accuracy or inaccuracy of the article in question without talk about the site that the article is from? (I've never figured that out. How DID we devolve from discussing the information put out there for our reading to discussing the site where the information came from? Those are two different thoughts.)

Since they can't argue with the facts of the article they have to repeat over and over that the article can't be trusted hoping that others will go along and not actually analyze the facts for themselves.
It's intellectual dishonesty and laziness.

 

[Tallguy88]

I've read the Quran. It's been a while though. It wasn't very violent. Sure, there were parts that were, but that's no different than the OT of the Bible. Most of it was about God's mercy and the good things that happen to those who follow God.

 

[MikeK]

[12] All things therefore whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them. For this is the law and the prophets.

With that in mind, I would like it if any Protestants, Muslims, Jews or atheists seeking to teach people about Catholocism would link only to the Vatican website, the Cathechism (in its entirety, not snippets removed from context), the Bible (I. It's entirety, not snippets removed from context) and perhaps New Advent. I would prefer they did not link to people's sites that exist to discredit the Church or take our immediately worst-sounding bits of scripture or instruction or Papal quotes and exploit them.

We are Catholics and we are capable of being better than this.

 

[Targaryen]

Since they can't argue with the facts of the article they have to repeat over and over that the article can't be trusted hoping that others will go along and not actually analyze the facts for themselves.
It's intellectual dishonesty and laziness.

No, it's noting when it's skewed info and noting when it's not.

That website is skewed info.

Big difference.