Dutch fear violence over provocative Islam film

Which you were, and not your own work. I, conversely, dealt extensively on your view, illustrating the wide tolerance for a range of action including violence. Your attempts at refutation did not illustrate anything of my view as being "propaganda" or "erroneous". Please start a new thread - with your own work this time - if you feel otherwise.

Rare.

Common.

I note the way you couch your terms: "islamic Holy Book", "Christian fathers bombing abortion clinics". And no mention of that more egregious example on the other side: islamic terrorism. Yet abortion clinic bombing (again, rare) is cited by you. Is there a specific reason you position your argument in this way?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Odd - I would think the protestors in debate should be quite comfortable with such a style. After all, it's been extraordinarily successful in keeping religious minorties down in the Middle East, Southern Asia and Northern Africa for over a thousand years.

:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Poor and irrelevant? Some Christians thinking aboriton is against the Bible and bombing and terrorizing abortionclinics is irrelevant but if some Muslims get angry about the lies spread about their religion and resort to violence are irrelevant examples? Yes, normally people dont. But some people do. And, unfortunately, those people are shown extensivley and repeatedly in Western Media.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Arsalan: the example you're using is quite specific. There are few such incidents, despite a) the vastly greater number of Christians in the world and b) the fact that most of them live in Western nations where abortion is in fact, legal and where, therefore, they should be most exposed to the conscientious conflict and, therefore, where such attacks should be quite common. Yet, they aren't. Why is this? And why is it that muslims "resort" to violence to combat the purported untruths spread about their religion? I don't think anyone would argue that Christianity has not, and is not, routinely pilloried in the media, in higher education, and in the common discourse. Yet Christians don't seem to be resorting to such violence to "combat untruths". Why do you draw one perspective for one side and another perspective for another?

 

PS: Q, well put. Arsalan's position and psychology requires further dissection.

 

The few posts that included quoted work I did say beforehand that this was not my work. But because of those few posts where the only thing was that i forgot to give the link, all of my other posts were deleted. Those posts in question were about the Bahai and suffering. Something which is irrelevant to your questions about Surah 9. I highly doubt you were able to read any of my posts. Just check that thread, youll see you and Michael posting one after another. The posts inbetween were mine and somehow are not available anymore. Strange huh :shrug: My response to your view on Surah 9 was deleted because of preaching. Aparently its ok to bash religion with selected evrses but if you give the context the verse was put in its preaching

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh well

The indoctrination has done its work!

For the same reason I dont believe there are Buddhist, Hindu, Christian or Vegan or whatever terrorismt or terrorists. If you had read my post in the other topic you would know that Im not that narrowminded to categorise terrorists on their religion.

 

But it does happen doesnt it? So we are going to the numbers argument now? Thats just a reverse engineered appeal to popularity. The fact of the matter is that it happens. Also, I dont think anyone would go to the real Christian areas of the US, say that stuff about Christiantiy and get away with it that easily.

 

Exactly

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

 

How is this irrelevant? You don't provide the evidence for refutation. Do you not consider that the oppression of religious minorities is relevant to Sura 9? At least one prominent and widely-known tafsir (located at USC) directly describes how the point of Sura 9 is to oppress and suppress non-islamic belief so that "these disgraces [non-islamic religion] are not passed on to the next generation". (Not an exact quote, but exact in meaning.)

But the problem, as I mention above - and do visit their site - is exactly the context. There's nothing "selective" about it.

On which of us?

But you focus on Christian terrorism - which is highly limited, frankly - and downplay islamic terrorism. Again - why is that?

Not at all. It's like saying that disease a is more of a problem than disease b because a has more victims. This is certainly the case. Should we not examine syndrome b more closely then, so as to prevent more victims thereof? Why do you feel this is a logical fallacy?

They would have legal protection for doing so, which they would not in some of the examples you are more familiar with. There is no legal penalty for religious criticism in the West.

Sam, please desist from posting content from hate sites on the forum. Not only does this degrade the forum, it makes it impossible to take seriously your contributions and also makes this forum itself more likely to be labelled an offensive site. This is the second or third time you have had to be reminded of this. Please desist.

If your position is that these people are extremists - they are. They are also representative - which you should perhaps be cognisant of in your comparisons - of a small (n < 100), inbred clan of uneducated radicals. Are you seriously comparing them to the mainstream of the offended in islam?

Please desist from posting from the above site, or from "jewwatch" again. They are hate sites. Enough.

Sincerely,

Geoff

PS: I was amused about Sam's comparison of Phelps with "regions" of the US. Which "regions" does Phelp's brood occupy? My impression of the extent of their power was their own banjo porch.

 

I did provide the evidence and No.

You

I have not done this. You see what you want to see.

I suggest you read the posts again and think about. You will see it eventually (hopefully)

They woul

Muslim blasphemy laws protect not only the Prophet but also include protection of Prophets Moses and Jesus for example.

 

No, YOU assume that, based on your biased, uniformed position. It's merely a film, not a lecture.

Again, YOUR personal, biased, uniformed assertion.

Over-exaggeration, paranoia and assertions do not make an argument.

 

So you're saying immigrants to a vastly different culture adsorb cultural perspectives merely by moving there?

 

Again, you're talking about apples and oranges. Irrelevant to the discussion. Please try to stay on topic.

 

No, I'm saying you are trying to derail another thread.

 

I'm asking a valid question here. Do you think the immigrants who make up the majority of the Netherlands Muslim population and who come mostly from Morocco and Afghanistan will have the same perspective towards this film as those born and educated there?

 

Well, I regret to tell you that it quite explicitly is so. How best do you think that such oppression can be remedied?

Regrettably, this is precisely what you have done. Why do you colour your viewpoint in this way.

I have read them extensively, and I invite you to follow your own advice, which I know you will not in fact do.

Only in their islamic form; not for the Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian or Bah'ai faiths specifically, which is to say that in fact no such protection exists. Could you illustrate a single case in which hatred against any minority religion in dar-al-islam was successfully prosecuted?

 

I'm asking a valid question too: should it matter?

 

The perspective of the film will be in the eyes of the beholder, regardless of from where they emigrated.

 

So will a beholder from Afghanistan have the same perspective as a native born Dutchman?

 

The possibilities are endless. Do you have a point or are you simply wasting everyones time again?