Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
True and not true. I indeed say that Islam is an extremist ideology. What I insist on is the description "Muslim" not being given arbitrarily (like calling a meat-eating carnivore a vegan, that would be pointless as well), but that the description of that ideology'S script and rule is being the deciding criterion whether somebody is rightfully called or identifies himself as "Muslim". You are no humanist, when you act racist. You cannot claim to be liberal when you are making a stand for totalitarian rule. You are not a Muslim if you cherry-pick and ignore the Koran - in fact you even put your life at risk, from a Kopranic POV. "Muslim" is not a racial or ethnic trait, it is an ideological confession that by category is political and sociological. You are not unchangeably Muslim because of for example your skin-colour. You instead make a choice, and decide. Possible however, that if your choice is to reject Islam, this will bring you into conflict with it because it makes a claim for possessing you (if you were born to a Muslim father, for example: but that is again no biological trait "Muslim", there is no gene for becoming Muslim, but it is but ideological mumbo-jumbo).
That's why I reject your claim that I tarr all Muslims by the same brush. I instead use one and the same criterion on everybody claiming to be Muslim in order to decide whether he indeed is Muslim, or not. And that criterion is not arbitrarily redefined to the opportunist's liking, but has the Koran and the Hadith as its basis.
That is a very huge and very important difference, Neal.  |
Fair enough, thanks for clarifying.
However, I think we disagree on that idea that if you are a Muslim, you have to practice everything in the Koran to the nth degree. I know a lot of Christians who profess belief and faith, yet they ignore many parts of the Bible. Which is a good thing, so let's not antagonize them over it. And I think millions of Muslims are the same. They would prefer to live peaceful lives, and they will "interpret" some of the more insane parts of the Koran in a more favorable light, just like the Christians I mentioned.
Back to my point, though, and that is that at some point, you can assume everyone understands what you are saying, they just disagree, so we leave it at that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oberon
Or, the next best option is to use the ignore option. There's just too much anger around these days, and if it effects you to the point of exacerbating an already existing condition then your best option is to just walk away, don't waste your breath on those who you cannot reach. There are certain people who will never change their viewpoint, and they will just keep on repeating the same things, linking to the same sites, the same videos by the same person, and sadly they will convert other people to their cause and so on and so forth. Hatred and anger are much easier tools to work with than tolerance and understanding, which is why the likes of ISIL have grown so much whilst peaceful and tolerant Muslims are ignored by the majority in favour of focusing on those who do despicable acts.
It's a cycle of hatred, and I've grown very tired of trying to break it.  |
I understand, but just how many times has anyone changed your opinion in a forum discussion? Was I able to open your eyes to gun rights? Or being a conservative? Or choosing Dr Pepper over ale?
Oberon, I respect you a lot. You have good intentions but if you believe the "cycle of hatred" is stronger than tolerance and understanding, then you must believe your cause is doomed. Don't worry, it isn't. It's just never going to be easy, never going to be finished. The righteous will have to be the strong and the understanding as well.
And when someone is bombarding you with their message, then you can see they are simply setting themselves up to be viewed as a narrow-minded extremist. But either ignore them ( a powerful tool) or counter their arguments with your own, but let's try to avoid labeling them. That's a technique that can be used inappropriately to isolate and dismiss. For one thing, calling someone a name does not necessarily make it true. For example, Tim may agree with BossMark that deporting the families of terrorists is a valid concept. Joe is welcome to say, "no, it isn't" and explain why. But Tim should not be called a bigot or xenophobe. Maybe Tim is a recent legal immigrant, or maybe he's a volunteer for homeless people, or special needs children. Does he need to advertise all this simply to counter Joe's accusation? (In this case, Tim is me
)