erolz wrote:ChomskyFan wrote: By just presenting selective quotes from the Koran, with no context of the range of interpretations
Ok then, I have listed around 20 quotes from the Quran in my previous posts, tell me, in what other way can a verse such as:
“Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur’an.” Be interpreted?
of these passges and how the range of differences in the paractice of Islam as a religion varies accross a wide spectrul from fundamentalism to mild guidance and no (true) comparsion with the literal words of other religions holy books and the interpreation and strict (fundamental) adherances to these,
No, it's not about 'strict' or 'moderate' interpretations, or literalism. You cannot be a Muslim and be against men beating their wives, either you completely ignore that verse, in which case you are not a Muslim, or you agree with it, there is no third way, as Mohammed stated, those that have but a grain of disbelief will be denied Jannah.
you show you lack of objectivety and balance and make clear your true objective.
Yes, it is my objective to wipe the ideology of Islam off the face of the map, I consider it to be regressive and whatsmore, dangerous. So what? As stated, this is my aim, I am not going to purposefully lie and claim Islam is a "Religion of Peace".
Namely to denigrate one specific religion alone on the basis of not how it is is practiced but on selective and fundamental interpretations
What exactly do you mean 'How it is practiced'? If one chooses to 'practice' Islam and ignore the massive amounts of verses that promote genocide, violence against women, rape, paedophilia et al, then one is not a Muslim, there is no other way to 'practice' Islam than to abide by the Quran. If you claim I am being 'selective' then prove it, you made this accusation, show that the verses I posted ARE selective and that the majority of the Quran is peaceful. Either that or retract your statement as unsubstantiated nonsense.
A similar one sided, unbalanced, prejogatives and seelctive attack could be made aginst Chritainity and other relgions and these would ba as flawed as your attacks on Islam.
Again, you claim my attack on Islam is 'flawed', but just resort to generic and broad rebuttals with no proof from the Quran or the Hadiths to support this.
There is no logic in this argument.
Ahh but there is, the Quran is an incredibly violent, vulgar book. It is of no benefit to anyone, I have presented part of my evidence for this, for you to suggest otherwise would require evidence as well.
ChomskyFan wrote:Clearly proving my point. You have a pre concieved view (which may be right or may be wrong) and no ability or desire to even consider any evidence that does not support it,
Oh but I have, I have studied various books by Global Warming Denialists and worse, Meltdown, for example, is regularly cited by Denialists as a prime secondary source for most of their evidence. Yet Meltdown lies and lies and lies, in it's first paragraph, it claims that it would require 1,000 Wind Farms to reach the equivalent of one coal plant, wrong, Wind Plants have 3MW of power on average each, seeing as a coal power plant produces around 200MW's, it would require aound 65 to reach the equivalent power level, and it follows the same pattern most of the way through, for example, it cites evidence from the BAS claiming that it has evidence of 2 Ice sheets that are getting bigger in the Antarctic. Wrong, the BAS studied 103 Ice Sheets, 101 of those were shrinking and 2 of those were remaining stationary. Little wonder about the Source of the book though, it was funded by CATO.
Another example of Denialists lies, the article in the WSJ "Science has Spoken: Global Warming is a Myth". Claims that "The rise in carbon dioxide probably results from human burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, although this is not certain." But there is no doubt that the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase is due to human activities as well as the increase in atmospheric concentrations of other greenhouse gases, such as methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, ozone in the troposphere, and sulfur hexafluoride. What's more, scientific evidence shows that greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, can remain in the atmosphere for centuries.
Another example, a 'petititon' that is frequently cited by Denialists as 'weight' of the opinion of the Scientific Community, is that of a 20,000 name petition commissioned by, yet again, CATO, the petition itself contained names of students from High School, some as young as 17, and the signatures of many University Professors who has nothing to do with Climatology or even Science. The NS reported around a year ago that out of the total 20,000, only 200 names on the list even had a doctorate in climatology.
As you can see, I have taken the time to look at opposing views, but like 99% of all Climatologists, I take the view that Climate Change is being accelerated massively by man-made causes. This view is not 'pre-concieved' it is a scientific view, one cannot have pre-concieved scientific views because Science is a subject that requires at least some kind of knowledge before you make a decision. I won't lie though, I treated the claims of Denialists with a little sceptiscism, mainly because the vast, vast majority of the Scientific Community regarded the Denialists as little more than Oil funded pseudo-climatologists, whatsmore, I regard the whole denialist agenda as primarily politically driven, rather than Scientificaly driven.
just a willingness to find 'reasons'
Hardly, two years ago I used to be of the opinion that Islam was a peaceful religion - And I felt that Muslims and their faith were being unfairly targetted, I joined many Islamic Forums because I wanted to get first hand opinions of how they felt about what I felt was 'demonization' from the press, I spent a lot of time on the 'Islamic Discussions' parts of the site, and a lot of what I heard disturbed me, so I took the time to read the Quran and the Hadiths, outside of that, I read various opinions by Modern and Historical Islamic Scholars, I even subscribed to Islamonline's Newsletter, I arrived at the conclusion that Islam was not a religion of peace. And I still hold that opinion.
why you do not have to consider other views so you can simply ignore them. This is not the approach of someone capable of critical analysis of an issue.
Again, no, Islam has no defence against Critical Analysis, it has only violence, look at Theo Van Gogh. On the Islamic Forum I was on, when news of Theo Van Gogh reached a certain member, he posted a thread saying "Alhamdulillah, Theo Van Gogh is dead!" That gives you a basic insight into the Islamic Mind.
ChomskyFan wrote:again unsubstainated caims used to support your pre convieved notions. I do not know what % of the Koran supports violence vs peace
By your own admission you have no room to quarrel then, unless of course you provide me with verses from the Quran and the Hadiths to the contrary.
ChomskyFan wrote:I have no interest in mounting a defense of Islam, either in it's many forms as actualy practiced, or in fundamantal interpretations of selective parts of the koran, or an attack on Islam or any other religion.
I do have some interest in challenging your personal behaviour, your hypocrasy, your inability to show any balance or rational analytical methods and your lies.
