Tribes, Steve does have a point here, I mean, you go on at Skybird at the choice of his links but at least he does provide links. It doesn't take long to provide them and it lends your argument a LOT more credibility when challenged.

No, there are plenty of place where people are uninhibted and allowed to show how badly they can act.

What I would love is more accountability. Such as no anonymity, everyone stands behind their comments with a legit identity.

A vehicle for hate? You really think that's what we have? If only "hate" was easy to pin down, and not subject to opinion and personal bias.

Ah, somebody got a new sponsor - the NSA! :sunny:

:woot:

I'd like to throw in a card.. to liven the show up a bit

James David Manning... a PhD.. an all :D

:har::har::har:

"Hating is like taking poison and expecting the other person to die." Another quote that Buddha never said.

Hate is defined as 'intense dislike', I would tend to concur that Skybird has an 'intense dislike' for Islam to the point where it has become irrational.
If it was radical Islam, or ISIL I could understand, but to him there is no difference between the lot.

It's pretty clear that there is a dislike of Islam on this forum, and that is pretty much emotionally based, and leads to unhelpful comments such as "Let's turn the Middle East to glass" or "We should just nuke 'em" and so on and so forth, the sort of gung-ho phrase that you attach to a stereotypical caricature of an American (or 'Murcan' to be precise :03:)

Of course, the question is how does this sort of attitude reflect on the rules? These state:

Now, we've already got one person who is a Jewish conspiracist (Alex), and one who was quite anti-Sematic (Zeewolf), but where does this wave of anti-Islam fit into the rules? Is it not the same thing as anti-Semitism? A clear and continual attack on a religion and the avocation of the dissolution of both the religion and many of its members? Are we not in danger of walking down a path last trod in western Europe (and America) in the late 1920s and the 1930s which lead to the Holocaust? If one were to take one of the many popular anti-Islam rants on the internet and replace the words Muslim or Islam with Jew or Jewish, how dissimilar would it be to something from that dark time?
Let me be clear, I'm not saying that we should ban discussion on radical Islam, because the radicalisation and politicisation of Islam is a concern to all alike, even to Muslims themselves, however I think that there should be more encouragement to steer people away from associating 2.2bn people with the actions of 100,000, lest we encourage other gross generalisations.

Not at all, when it's obvious to everybody. When it's only obvious to you the polite thing to do is to explain it. That has been the accepted debate tactic since long before "recent forum directives".

How do you know that? How do we know that? The polite and correct thing to do would be to cite the examples you claim are there and explain how each one applies to the situation. You still don't seem capable of doing that.

And you're back to the usual condescending mocking, which, as you've been told many times, is not allowed. Please try to learn how forum debate is supposed to work.

Okay, help my memory. Show just one.

How about one single instance of you linking something and explaining it? Your suggestion here doesn't give anyone a clue what you are talking about. If you claim it, it's your job to give links and detailed explanations. If you can't do that, then it's nothing more than talk.

Again, please give links and explanations.

Fair enough. Can you show where my statements are false? Can you show anything to back up any claim you've made?

The Quran says a great deal about how to fight the kuffar (unbelievers). Take Sura 8:12,13,15-18 which tells the believer to cut the necks and fingers of those who opposed God and Mohammad...

The Quran however, is not the only source of sacred or even inspired traditions in Islam.

The Sunna refers to whatever Muhammad said, did, condoned, or condemned. It is the record of his teaching and examples he left for all Muslims to follow. According to Muslims he is the perfect example for all human beings. And spelled out quite clearly in the Quran:

If you love Allah, then follow me (Mohammad) -Sura 3:31 (Shakir)

Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern of (conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day. -Sura 33:21 (Yusuf Ali)


Whatever Muhammad did or said, becomes the basis from which to model all life and belief. The Sunna is equally important to the Muslim as the Quran because it is the Sunna that interprets the Quran. Without the Sunna, the Quran cannot be properly understood. In fact, many aspects and practices of the Islamic religion are not even mentioned in the Quran but are found only in the Sunna.

Muhammad said, "... I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy) ..."

My two cents:

All through history we have had 'holy wars', 'crusades', 'sectarian strife', etc. and they have all one thing in common: they are all shams. No matter what name you give them, the bottom line is they are all about power and land. People would be very much less likely to fight just to enrich or empower some git or gits who will probably enslave or terrorize the people they, the leaders, need to advance their own greed or lust. So how do you motivate the masses? You wrap your real intentions in a candy-coated shell of religion, patriotism, seeming altruism, etc. "You are fighting for a higher power/principle/righteousness, etc." The arguments over the real intent of religions is useless inasmuch as the true nature of all religions have each been corroded, eroded, mangled, and distorted by false prophets of all stripes out for their own gain. I am not fully knowledgeable or expert about all religions, bur the ones I have taken the time to research are, in present day, a long way different than what was their original intent. Take Christianity for example: 10 simple rules, but an awful lot of the "leaders" of the various 'flavors' of Christianity seem to have little to no knowledge of nor desire to abide by those precepts. As Hamlet said, " it is a custom More honour'd in the breach than the observance"...

...Or, to quote Mark Twain:

Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven....The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.

- "The Lowest Animal"


My two cents; you can keep the change...


<O>

Thank you. Well said. I wish I had said it.

I like to buy you a beer. :up:

Where? Can you show it? That's all I ask, just one link that proves what you say.

I will admit to that claim if you can show it.

No more than you are every time you attack someone with insults and rudeness, but no evidence for what you claim. The difference is that I don't want to attack you, I just want you to stop doing it to others. The difference is that I just want you to back up your claims, the same as everyone else. For all your statements to the contrary, you don't seem to be able to show that you've ever done that.

I don't want to hurt you, I just want you to play by the same rules of debate everyone else does.

Well my fellow kuffar, we have our understanding they have thiers. Party on Garth :rock: