The eternal flame of Muslim outrage

[Pooky 3,783]

This is like an insane person producing some insane rant, having someone disagree with those insane rantings, and then putting the burden on them to disprove all that insanity. No such obligation exists. You (not you, Pooky, but You/One) can assert anything you want in as twisted and myopic and manipulative a way as you want, but nobody is required to begin at a premise of legitimacy and work backward.

Michelle Malkin is widely regarded (by way less than half the population of the US) as a hateful lunatic. Let's disprove that first and then we can talk about her frothings.

You missed the point here.

I made no judgement on the validity of MM's OP. I just challenged MAD to disprove any of the instances MM wrote. He could not, because MM, for all her faults, usually backs up what she writes with facts.

Disregarding what someone you disagree with writes, simply because you disagree with their POV, is a cheap way out of a discussion. The article MM wrote was the starting point for this thread, so the burden is most definitely on those in disagreement to disprove the premise, if they wish to take part in the discussion in any meaningful way. Because in the end, their view of the author is irrelevant, apart from providing proof of their bias, whereas their view of what the author wrote is not.

[mawilson 2,133]

I will question the source, the motivations of the source, the prejudices of the source, before I consider the points being made.

The assumption that she's necessarily wrong because she has a different point of view only speaks to your own prejudice.

You might want to try to recognize that before you start judging others.

[Danno 1,228]

That's not the truth. The terrorists are not faith driven any more than any geopolitical struggle has ever been about faith.

Believe what you want but I take them at their word, few people blow themselves up for a "Geopolitical" cause.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The point that you fail to grasp is your own contradiction. If this about the actions of people, you would be more appalled by the actions of anti-Muslim people as you are about Muslims. The bottom line is this nothing in Islam that promotes violence.

Nothing.

Yet, when you and others who claim to be so concerned speak of the issue, you always, always connect their actions to Islam, not their ideology. By doing so, you connect violence to a faith that all Muslims share, thereby connecting all Muslims to violence.

That is unavoidable, no matter how often you deny it.

In the post you commented on, I was responding to specific claims Jim made about the Quran and the Bible, so maybe you and Jim aren't addressing the same issues. The fact that Christian apologists refuse to acknowledge that Christians have the same violence in their book and the demonstrated ablity to be violent against others who do not believe as they do is a bellwether that they will do it again.

The non-Muslim monologue around Islam has become so one-sided and so acidic that it is becoming socially acceptable to hate Muslims and demean Islam. As that chorus has grown, your comfort zone in doing so has enlarged, and Christianity become a part of what needs to be protected from the evil Islam and its adherents. Don't forget that the rise of Nazism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, is like the frog in the pan. Raise the degree a little at a time, and he has no idea that he's a goner. Be smart, don't be a frog. Think before you deny, deny, deny.

Sofiyya if this were a simple debate over- which faith is without passages... that could inflame followers.. you would have a point.

This debate is about the actions of people .

To make your case you will need to show that there are extremist Christians..... from every corner of Christianity (wherever it is found) which cause disruption and even death to others as well as those of their own faith.

The fair truth is, two hundred years from now, it might be another faith which is at war with so many across the globe, but for today .....and at this time. That faith is coming from a segment of Islam.

Even in this country which has had only isolated attacks since 9/11,... had terro-rings not been broken, plans not been thwarted and plotters not arrests arrested thousands more would have been killed.

One could say, the FBI and other agencies have been the best friend of Moderate Muslims by preventing so many of these attacks.

There is no parallel at this time between the acts of mislead Christians and mislead Muslims.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Danno 1,228]

The point that you fail to grasp is your own contradiction. If this about the actions of people, you would be more appalled by the actions of anti-Muslim people as you are about Muslims. The bottom line is this nothing in Islam that promotes violence.

Nothing.

Yet, when you and others who claim to be so concerned speak of the issue, you always, always connect their actions to Islam, not their ideology. By doing so, you connect violence to a faith that all Muslims share, thereby connecting all Muslims to violence.

That is unavoidable, no matter how often you deny it.

In the post you commented on, I was responding to specific claims Jim made about the Quran and the Bible, so maybe you and Jim aren't addressing the same issues. The fact that Christian apologists refuse to acknowledge that Christians have the same violence in their book and the demonstrated ablity to be violent against others who do not believe as they do is a bellwether that they will do it again.

The non-Muslim monologue around Islam has become so one-sided and so acidic that it is becoming socially acceptable to hate Muslims and demean Islam. As that chorus has grown, your comfort zone in doing so has enlarged, and Christianity become a part of what needs to be protected from the evil Islam and its adherents. Don't forget that the rise of Nazism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, is like the frog in the pan. Raise the degree a little at a time, and he has no idea that he's a goner. Be smart, don't be a frog. Think before you deny, deny, deny.

Not dismissing your point..... but I must add: I think many of us sorta feel like the frog..... waking up to the rising temperature.

[twowls 217]

You missed the point here.

I made no judgement on the validity of MM's OP. I just challenged MAD to disprove any of the instances MM wrote. He could not, because MM, for all her faults, usually backs up what she writes with facts.

Disregarding what someone you disagree with writes, simply because you disagree with their POV, is a cheap way out of a discussion. The article MM wrote was the starting point for this thread, so the burden is most definitely on those in disagreement to disprove the premise, if they wish to take part in the discussion in any meaningful way. Because in the end, their view of the author is irrelevant, apart from providing proof of their bias, whereas their view of what the author wrote is not.

Well I'll think about it, but I'm not sure you can legitimately consider the points removed from how they are made, why they are made, what order they're made in, by whom they are made, etc. When you mention that disregarding what someone you disagree with writes simply because you disagree with their POV is a cheap tactic--I can see that. But there's also something that rings pretty cheap about demanding refutation for things that would never be posed were it not for an intolerant agenda. The next part, which you enacted, is accusing the person who refuses to refute of not being able to do so. And MM wins by default! Body slam!!

You have to understand that seeing a source article from Michelle Malkin is, for some of us, like seeing that an essay was written by Foghorn Leghorn. A complete cartoon. Mr. Leghorn might have some interesting insights, but his history as a mischief maker and Dawg abuser makes him a total joke.

If in order to enter a thread, we have to seriously debate the arguments in the OP and scrutinize nothing else/more, I'll have to check out of this one. But I think it's important to consider the agenda behind the article, just as I would the agenda of of the OP and his pattern of posts, if that agenda were less obvious. We ain't in a vacuum, you know?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Note: I am addressing someone who pretends to know about the Bible and the Quran, but is not interested in the actuality of them. He prefers to lie and obfuscate, but while you can have your own opinions, you cannot have your own facts. My audience is those who don't pretend, but care to learn; he and those like him are merely a vehicle.

Nobody said the Bible didn't contain violence. It contains a LOT of violence. What it doesn't contain is a general everlasting call to arms for it's believers. The Bible, specifically the Old Testament, tells the stories of people whom Christians and Jews believe to be prophets, and in some of these stories these prophets were directed by God to wage war. No rational Christian or Jew believes that God's personal commands to Joshua or David applies to them. The Quran is different because it contains contemporary directives which Allah gave to Muhammad, and Muhammad relayed those directives to Muslims, and those directives were never countermanded, withdrawn, or abrogated.

No, the Quran does not contain an everlasting call to violence that apply to today. Those it does have are situational and specific to that time and place.

The Bible was not written by any of the prophets portrayed in it. The Quran was.

The Quran is a Message from God that was not written by any mortal. It pre-existed Muhammad and the earlier prophets.

Does the Bible call on Christians to send non-believers to hell, or does it say God will send them there?

Both.

And this differs from Muhammad marrying Safiyya bint Huyayy after ordering her husband tortured and killed after the battle of Khaybar... how?

There is nothing about this is in the Quran, and, like so many things that are not, there are many versions, depending on who is doing the telling.

It was a parable. Jesus was telling a story, and he was quoting the king in the story.

I made it clear that it was a parable, but its meaning was to explain what his mission.

The first two are metaphorical. Jesus often used metaphors, as well as parables, to teach lessons. Neither of these qualify as a call to fight, in the manner of "fighting is prescribed for you".

Nothing in the Quran is a call to fight unless in self-defense. Why do the militaristic tones in some Biblical chapters arouse such denial? On what have Christians thoughout history depended upon to justify conquering lands and people for Jesus if not their Holy book?

The last is a prophecy which most Christians believe was written by the apostle John after Jesus was dead. There are similar prophecies of the end times in the Quran.

The last is in the Bible, therefore, it is gospel. Most of the Bible was written after Jesus was dead.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The source cannot be disregarded. Bluntly put, considering Michelle Malkin to be a solid source of information about Islam and Muslims is like introducing David Duke as an authority on Black Americans or Louis Farrakhan as a preeminent biographer of White American leaders. For intellectual purposes, it doesn't work.

Well I'll think about it, but I'm not sure you can legitimately consider the points removed from how they are made, why they are made, what order they're made in, by whom they are made, etc. When you mention that disregarding what someone you disagree with writes simply because you disagree with their POV is a cheap tactic--I can see that. But there's also something that rings pretty cheap about demanding refutation for things that would never be posed were it not for an intolerant agenda. The next part, which you enacted, is accusing the person who refuses to refute of not being able to do so. And MM wins by default! Body slam!!

You have to understand that seeing a source article from Michelle Malkin is, for some of us, like seeing that an essay was written by Foghorn Leghorn. A complete cartoon. Mr. Leghorn might have some interesting insights, but his history as a mischief maker and Dawg abuser makes him a total joke.

If in order to enter a thread, we have to seriously debate the arguments in the OP and scrutinize nothing else/more, I'll have to check out of this one. But I think it's important to consider the agenda behind the article, just as I would the agenda of of the OP and his pattern of posts, if that agenda were less obvious. We ain't in a vacuum, you know?

[mawilson 2,133]

Note: I am addressing someone who pretends to know about the Bible and the Quran, but is not interested in the actuality of them. He prefers to lie and obfuscate, but while you can have your own opinions, you cannot have your own facts. My audience is those who don't pretend, but care to learn; he and those like him are merely a vehicle.

No, the Quran does not contain an everlasting call to violence that apply to today. Those it does have are situational and specific to that time and place.

The Quran is a Message from God that was not written by any mortal. It pre-existed Muhammad and the earlier prophets.

Both.

There is nothing about this is in the Quran, and, like so many things that are not, there are many versions, depending on who is doing the telling.

I made it clear that it was a parable, but its meaning was to explain what his mission.

Nothing in the Quran is a call to fight unless in self-defense. Why do the militaristic tones in some Biblical chapters arouse such denial? On what have Christians thoughout history depended upon to justify conquering lands and people for Jesus if not their Holy book?

The last is in the Bible, therefore, it is gospel. Most of the Bible was written after Jesus was dead.

If this was supposed to be a "rebuttal", it doesn't amount to much more than "nope, you're a liar".

It doesn't contain a single correction of fact.

Pretty weak and pathetic for someone who "pretends" to be a "scholar".

[twowls 217]

The assumption that she's necessarily wrong because she has a different point of view only speaks to your own prejudice.

You might want to try to recognize that before you start judging others.

Is what you said supposed to be a mirror of my sentence in quotes? Because it just looks like an intentional derangement of my statement as an easement into calling me prejudiced. Which is a really interesting and thought-provozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Sofiyya 1,687]

If this was supposed to be a "rebuttal", it doesn't amount to much more than "nope, you're a liar".

It doesn't contain a single correction of fact.

Pretty weak and pathetic for someone who "pretends" to be a "scholar".

Surprise, surprise. Scholarship is not something I would call on you to judge. Neither are facts. I'm not going to waste time on people who willingly lie, so calling them as I see them is quite appropriate.

[cedwards001 18]

Sofiyya,

You have got to be kidding me. If Islam is not the problem, why is it Muslims flying planes into towers? Why is it Muslims strapping bombs on themselves to become suicide bombers? Why is it Muslims that stone their women to death for stupid #######? Why is it Muslims sitting in a tent preaching B.S to little children about "Death to America"? Why don't Christians or Jews or hell, why don't Buddhists do any of these things?????

There is SOMETHING wrong with Islam Sofiyya. I am not attacking Islam, but there IS something seriously wrong with it. I am sick of hearing the "It's America's fault" excuse from so many Muslims. That excuse has been worn out much more then Pamela Anderson's vag.....

Most of the countries around the world have been able to advance their technology and their societies. Hell, we even landed a man on the moon! What exactly have the Muslims in the Middle East done that is so productive? Oh I know the answers: Chanting "Death to America", training children how to become suicide bombers and hold the rest of the world hostage with oil. Hell, a stupid Danish cartoon, yes CARTOON, about Islam caused massive violent protests in the Middle East. Good job.....

Edited September 13, 2010 by cedwards001

[Sofiyya 1,687]

o kidding involved. There's nothing wrong with Islam. Don't blame the religion, or we'd all be doing bad stuff. Check your history. Non-Muslims have committed violence in the name of their faiths, too. Probably will again.

Sofiyya,

You have got to be kidding me. If Islam is not the problem, why is it Muslims flying planes into towers? Why is it Muslims strapping bombs on themselves to become suicide bombers? Why is it Muslims that stone their women to death for stupid #######? Why is it Muslims sitting in a tent preaching B.S to little children about "Death to America"? Why don't Christians or Jews or hell, why don't Buddhists do any of these things?????

There is SOMETHING wrong with Islam Sofiyya. I am not attacking Islam, but there IS something seriously wrong with it. I am sick of hearing the "It's America's fault" excuse from so many Muslims. That excuse has been worn out much more then Pamela Anderson's vag.....

Most of the countries around the world have been able to advance their technology and their societies. Hell, we even landed a man on the moon! What exactly have the Muslims in the Middle East done that is so productive? Oh I know the answers: Chanting "Death to America", training children how to become suicide bombers and hold the rest of the world hostage with oil. Good job.....

[Sofiyya 1,687]

BTW, there are Buddhist terrorists. I remember that from when I lived in Japan.

Religious Freedom in Sri Lanka

Militant Buddhists are attacking Christian churches and threatening the freedom of religion in South Asia.

BY CLAUDIA WINKLER

August 10, 2004 12:00 AM

MILITANT BUDDHISM may sound like a contradiction in terms, especially while Islamic holy war is hogging the headlines. Nevertheless, in one of its periodic flare-ups in Sri Lanka, extremist Buddhist nationalism is threatening both the physical safety and the legal rights of that nation's Christian minority.

For purposes of comparison, consider: Sri Lanka is witnessing attacks on Christians at a rate far higher than the much noted wave of anti-Semitic violence in France. While church burnings and assaults on pastors and congregations have been mounting since the late 1990s, they apparently reached a crescendo early this year.

In the first four months of 2004, there were 44 assaults on churches in Sri Lanka, according to the tally maintained by Christian Solidarity Worldwide. Compass Direct, a wire service specializing in news of Christians who are persecuted for their faith, reports similar figures. Since Sri Lanka has about the population of Texas (20 million), this is the equivalent of 44 minority houses of worship--say, 44 mosques--being fire bombed or vandalized in that state in the space of four months.

In some instances, like the arson attack on the Assemblies of God church in Navatkerny on May 25, buildings reportedly are completely destroyed. In others, like the midnight attack on the Calvary Church in Wattegedara by about 20 people armed with bicycle chains, the police are alerted and the mobs are dispersed. The churches targeted are both Catholic and Protestant, located in the capital, Colombo, and in country villages.

The government of Sri Lanka is advancing a novel cure. Although extremist Buddhist monks have often proved to be instigators of the violence, the government--which depends on the support of the Buddhist nationalist JHU party--proposes to outlaw religious proselytizing.

[evli1966 88]

Soff

lets be correct in what we say here.

Christians believe and follow the teachings of christ.

The death of Christ chnaged many laws in the bible and how we believe we will enter heaven.

Jesus taught love and compassion.

Where in the new testament does Jesus teach us to slay nonbelievers.

And please do not pull scripture out of context.