What do you say about this?

[scandium]

First off, AL are you competing with Skybird on who can write the longest Posts? Well, as long as you don't start using red and blue text

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

The fact that what can be truthfully said about one group cannot be truthfully said about another does not make it untrue, or bigoted.

Provided you make that distinction, which you don't, and which is why it is bigoted.

Especially when the group in question exists as a group because of its shared ideology.

In order to be a "group" the group must have something in common (a shared space if nothing else). In any case, would you make the generalizations you make of Muslims to any other group? "Jews" are a group, as are "Catholics"... "Irish"... "Capitalists".... "Communists"... "Hispanics"... "Plumbers". :hmm:

If that ideology has abhorrent features, that is simply a matter of fact. It must be dealt with somehow, and not allowed to continue because of fear of "bigotry" or "racism."

Ideological purity, what a concept... Is Judaism ideologically pure? No skeletons in the closet anywhere? As Jesus said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

I agree that facts should be dealt with, however if you're looking for "facts" in anything theological than that is half your problem right there.

In this you are like those who decried anti-Nazi efforts as "hatred of Germans" or anti-Communist efforts as "hatred of Russians," and you reveal yourself as just another one of those whom the ones who wish to destroy us find so useful.

Who would that be?

If my facts are correct, England has been one of the biggest absorbers of asylum seekers over the last few decades. Here are some fresh and interesting statistics to ponder:

Muslim Britain split over 'martyrs' of 7/7.

And here, I'm sure you'll be shocked, too.

Again, you still don't catch. Islamists will, if necessary, take their time and use the democratic rules and laws to their advantage, to eventually impose Sha'ria law on their host countries.

Once again, you can't see past the morning paper. Islamists are looking decades ahead of you.

Interesting how that juxtaposes with your assertion in another thread that they can't see past the 72 virgins in the afterlife. :hmm:

In any case, the Times article has some interesting findings. One has to wonder if the fact that 79% of the Muslims believe they have since experienced increased hostility (understandably or no) has any bearing on the finding that 16% of them were 'sympathetic to the cause but not the attack'. Would I expect, based on this poll, that 16% of Muslims in the UK is planning a terrorist attack? No. In fact, the only conclusion I make from this is that it proves Muslims don't all think and act alike the way you seem to think they do.

What's the comparison? Again, what do the Islamic theocracies say that is in contradiction with the religion of Islam? They are accurately preaching it, based on the writing of present and past Islamic theocrats that say the same things and sight the same Islamic scriptures, many of them blatantly and literally apparent.

Do they?

Maybe you can catch on. How about the fear and hatred of Nazi Germany by the few in the west who understood what was happening while the rest of the world slept?

The rest of the world has been asleep for the last 1,400 years eh? Quite the coma. If only I could sleep so peacefully at night

Since you know better, please tell me which Islamic schools of Jurisprudence have a different interpretation than what I have been stating and linking to? Name it/them. You have yet to do so even once.

Here's my list: Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi’i - all 4 schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence.

Shall we start dealing with the much smaller world of Shi'ite Islam, too? Just ask.

And which Western countries do they dispense justice in? How about you name those, since that has quite a lot more to do with my point.

Where does the Bible tell Christians to take over the whole world by hook or by crook?

What difference does theological nuance make in regards to historical fact? Perhaps if you'd been born 3 centuries ago you could have pointed that out to the Christian hordes that were busy conquering all of North & South America (by hook and by crook). Surely they would have listened to you. But of course Christianity doesn't conquer and enslave. Christians do (or did). Similarly, Islam doesn't conquer and enslave. Muslims do (or did).

I have already quoted numerous times the Quranic verses, ahaddiths and elementary Islamic texts that teach Muslims that they are to achieve domination of Islam throughout the world and not only by peacefully proselytizing.

Where is the Christian equivalent? Waiting (again)..........................

See above. History cares little for theological nuance.

Indeed. But believe me, we'd love to seriously argue with you once you have the facts at hand. This admission of ignorance on your part is much appreciated.

You are only just now catching onto something that I have surely said all along. Theology is all well and good, but if it is as you say it is then it should be borne out by actions and by history. Are they? I've been waiting for something more tangible than obscure theological references, but neither of you are providing. So I guess we've both been waiting.

And here you make the major error of not understanding the difference between the religious view of the verbatim validity of supposed god-given religious texts verses the admitted inventive creations of man.

If a Muslim tells you that the Quran's texts can be ignored because times have changed, he is violating a law already defined by Islam that forbids him to say or bleieve so. He may still be a Muslim but he is a sinning Muslim practicing some offshoot variation that is not Islam.

If someone says they are Catholic but don't believe in the trinity, they may be Catholic but what they believe in is not Catholocism.

Nonsense. The Bible is every bit as God-given as the Koran and there are very few Christians who still hold to a literal view of it. Almost all Christians (through their churches) ignore parts of the Bible precisely because times have changed.

As they say, you are what you eat.

I eat Pork, as do many other Christians - does that make us Swine?

If this is "Islamophobia", show me exactly why it is irrational (i.e. not based on facts or observable behavior, or a study of history). Show me why it is an "irrational" dislike or even hatred of Islam. If you cannot show that, then perhaps the word should not be invoked. But if you do invoke it, be prepared to have copious quotations from Qur'an and hadith and sira constantly presented to audiences so that they may judge for themselves, without the "guidance" of apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

Interesting standard you have there, and it is symptomatic in itself of the double standard you hold Islam to which can lead nowhere. On the one hand, you expect me to show you facts based on observable behavior - based on theological evidence! Absurd. Then, the double standard, any Muslim who disagrees with your belief is an "Islam apologist". This is a preposterous proposition, completely, and sorry but you are going to be waiting a long time since I won't be involving myself in such lunacy.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Nothing to those who inhabit the metaphysical sphere you appear to .