Quote from Dinomut

@ Ash: You seem to have never ever heard the stance of the actual church of Islam on radical Islam. This shouldn't become another thread debating Islam. Do more research into the actual views of the church you are degrading, maybe get a different point of view.

Dinomutt, leave this debate. You are arguing against things I am not saying.

Quote from Dinomut

Ugh this is exactly what i didn't want to happen.
@ Kegman: i was stating that Ash has offended many many people by wrongly interpretting their religions. It wasn't a threat, it was a statement that the amount of wrongfully interpreted scripture Ash has used to justify believers in a religion as "diluted" would have made many people I know furious. Find the part in that statement that spells "threat".

I'm sorry, but i find the moral hypocisy rather hilerious when you say you know people who would physically hurt someone for debating about their religion, when it is also being defended for not inciting violence in this very thread.


How embarrasing.

I was wondering when you would bring that up kegman.

Quote from Ash

No, if I were looking for the worst possible interpretation, I would have stuck to what I said earlier in the other thread. No, I stay as litteral as possible, because interpretation of texts that weren't supposed to be interpreted is bullshit.

They didn't kill religous people because they had different beliefs, they killed religious people because THEY wanted to be the center of their people's affection and the only ruling authority. They viewed religion as something that would make their rule less effective.

So, how can say for certain that the terrorist aren't acting in the same manner as the Atheist dictators?

Furthermore, how is pointing out bad points of a holy book the same or even similar to pointing out the actions of members of a particular demographic?

And finally, when in that thread did I say that Muslims were in general this or that because a small population was? Did I ever once say that all muslims were radical islamists? Or even that a majority were murderers, as the words Dinomutt tried to force into my mouth went?

I don't know, how about everytime you were saying effectively that you were not a Muslim if you didn't follow the Quaran word for word.

When have I ever said that everything else is wrong?

By what you are saying. In this thread and pretty much every thread in which there has been religion in.

@Kegman. He didn't threaten him with violence, he said that he knew people who if you are doing what Ash is doing would get you beaten. I know people who are similar but they are on the other side of the fence.

Quote from Steyene

@Kegman. He didn't threaten him with violence, he said that he knew people who if you are doing what Ash is doing would get you beaten. I know people who are similar but they are on the other side of the fence.

Your not gonna defend this moron are you?


Oh well, sometimes the godless have to be the moral ones.

Quote from Ash

No, if I were looking for the worst possible interpretation, I would have stuck to what I said earlier in the other thread. No, I stay as litteral as possible, because interpretation of texts that weren't supposed to be interpreted is bullshit.

Everything is up to interpretation, even religious texts. And you always interpret them in the worst possible way you can, and now you are trying to say that there are no different interpretations, but that the way you see it (the most literal way) is the way it is meant to be seen. That's bull. Understand that BY FAR the main teaching in both Christianity and Islam are of love and peace, not hate and violence. Besides one or two hiccups, both those religions have very moral teachings.

Quote from Kegman

I'm sorry, but i find the moral hypocisy rather hilerious when you say you know people who would physically hurt someone for debating about their religion, when it is also being defended for not inciting violence in this very thread.


How embarrasing.

There's a difference between someone being furious with someone else because they wrongly insulted their religion and someone's religion declaring that they should kill all nonbelievers. Rage=/= inciting murder.

Indeed, I think the good to bad ratio (As far as peace goes) in the Quran is probably higher on the "good" side.

My point is that the bad stuff exists, and that some people will read them badly and act in the ways they think it indicates they should act. Case in point: 9/11

And you might wanna read this:
2:85 Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof ? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom. For Allah is not unaware of what ye do.

It actually has a warning for those who only accept some parts of the Quran.

Yes we are debating about whether a strict Muslim should be considered murderous or not. That text actually kind of goes against what radical Islam is doing because they have removed much of the religious tolerance that Mohammad preached and replaced it with murderous propaganda, therefore not accepting Mohammad's teachings in their fullest. And here's what i was debating:

Quote from Ash

Dinomutt, leave this debate. You are arguing against things I am not saying.

Quote from Ash

Oh, because I had to misrepresent the Quran to show it wa full of intolerance and tells Islamic readers that non-muslims are all doomed to hell, and that you shouldn't feel bad for them, that through Jihad you will be rewarded in the afterlife?

You interpreted Jihad as killing nonbelievers when it in fact means just an inner war between your faith and the temptations of godless indulgence. The interpretation that it means physical violence is the least accepted interpretation, which is the way you've interpreted it, and i'm arguing against that and many other things you've said (that i could find and quote if you really want me to) that are wrongly labeling the religion as murderous.

Quote from Dinomut

You interpreted Jihad as killing nonbelievers when it in fact means just an inner war between your faith and the temptations of godless indulgence. The interpretation that it means physical violence is the least accepted interpretation, which is the way you've interpreted it, and i'm arguing against that and many other things you've said (that i could find and quote if you really want me to) that are wrongly labeling the religion as murderous.

You are misunderstanding the difference between the quran and the religion. Obviously the religion isn't based on the Quran, but based on the most convenient interpretation of the Quran.

And you are STILL missing the point I've made AGAIN AND AGAIN, that the problem isn't with MUSLIMS but with

A) The idea that the book is "Open to interpretation"

and B) That people will interpret it in whatever way they see fit, that they will take hold of the bad parts and use them to justify horrible acts of violence.

Well of course the book is open to interpretation, but in terms of the religion of Islam, the only religion that follows the book's teachings, the interpretation of it is pretty set as the "most convenient" interpretation of the Quran. Radical Islam is a completely different entity from the official religion itself, and should be treated as such. I agree that radical Islam is wrong, but you've been putting radical Islam and the church of Islam in the same boat, when they are drastically different (AKA almost complete opposites).

My point has been that moderate Islam inevitably leads to radical Islam. Its not like there has to be an unbroken line of Al Queda to continue the radical Islam teachings, there only has to be one person who interprets the Quran in a violent way, and then they gather youmg people to wage "Jihad" against nonbelievers.