RE: Tomi Lahren: Does The Koran Advocate Violence?
July 24, 2015 at 11:11 pm
(This post was last modified: July 24, 2015 at 11:12 pm by Mudhammam.)
Okay, for one, almost every Muslim apologist I hear defending the repugnant language used against non-Muslims, including its advocacy of violence, found in the Qur'an resorts to the tu quoque fallacy: "Yes, but just as in other holy scriptures." When I hear Christians confronted with the shit that is written in their texts, they don't say, "Yes, but it's also in the Qur'an..." Why? Well, they don't believe that holy book contains any divinely inspired truth (whereas even Mohammad obviously held the Bible in high esteem) but also because they seek to justify or delegitimize its violence by using what they perceive to be the proper historical or theological context of such barbarism. Even though that ultimately fails to persuade an outside observer, at least it's a serious effort to reconcile their moral impulse with their religious belief. But I don't hear even a significant minority of Muslims trying to say, "That language is metaphorical," or "Here, the context is clearly historical, and offset by these other passages which disavow such acts in today's world." No, instead, it's a fucking lousy tu quoque. Every goddamn time.
And then he wants to say that if you removed the religious component from the Middle East, these terrorist groups would look and behave exactly the same with regards to their violent policies because their motivated by political and socioeconomic factors? Bull-fucking-shit. Lots of people are oppressed. That doesn't typically result in mass beheadings, rapes, crucifixions, etc., for petty crimes, heaped upon their fellow oppressed who just so happen to share different views about... well, in this case, obviously theology, for which I have no idea what equivalent this Muslim apologist believes exists in the minds of jihadists that allows him to exculpate Islam from their behaviors.
And the claim that scriptures are just words on paper that each individual simply interprets and injects their own meaning into... right. As if religious tradition and the texts own clarity about how Allah and his followers ought to regard non-Muslims do not adequately explain the actions of those seeking to establish a global Caliphate. And yes, I'm aware that most Muslims do not behave this way, and it's not because they're less acquainted with their scriptures. It's because they recognize, even if unconsciously, that secular morality is far superior to the revelations of the "Prophet."
And then he wants to say that if you removed the religious component from the Middle East, these terrorist groups would look and behave exactly the same with regards to their violent policies because their motivated by political and socioeconomic factors? Bull-fucking-shit. Lots of people are oppressed. That doesn't typically result in mass beheadings, rapes, crucifixions, etc., for petty crimes, heaped upon their fellow oppressed who just so happen to share different views about... well, in this case, obviously theology, for which I have no idea what equivalent this Muslim apologist believes exists in the minds of jihadists that allows him to exculpate Islam from their behaviors.
And the claim that scriptures are just words on paper that each individual simply interprets and injects their own meaning into... right. As if religious tradition and the texts own clarity about how Allah and his followers ought to regard non-Muslims do not adequately explain the actions of those seeking to establish a global Caliphate. And yes, I'm aware that most Muslims do not behave this way, and it's not because they're less acquainted with their scriptures. It's because they recognize, even if unconsciously, that secular morality is far superior to the revelations of the "Prophet."
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza