The most stupid misconceptions about Islam

[R00tKiT]

So what indeed.  You began this doomed argument to say that the extremists got it wrong, but..somehow, ended up telling us that they got it right and you agreed with them.  How is this supposed to achieve what you set out to do?

You could've just asked about more clarification of the first misconception instead of embarassing yourself. Do disbelief and kafir' have the same meaning to you ? If they don't, then congratulations, you already have a sharper understanding of Islam than most of extremist movements. Because the latter DO make this mistake, they murder layman christians, Shias, the Alawites sect in Syria and do other horrible stuff. Are layman shias kafirs' ? Not at all, it takes a lot of work to present our case for Abu Bakr not being a kafir ( a common Shia statement ) meanwhile most ordinary Shias will simply repeat what the masters say.
So no, extremists didn't get it right. And you saying otherwise.. doesn't make it otherwise.

You set out to tell us that the extremists had it wrong, and that islam does not contain this criteria, but..somehow, ended up telling us that they got it right and you agree with them, that this is islams criteria.  How is this supposed to achieve what you set out to do?

It appears you are a victim of the same misunderstanding extremists fall into. We agree with them only on the belief that people who willingly reject Islam's premises while acknoweldging their truth are condemned to hell, which is a basic statement shared by all adherents of all major belief systems. We don't agree with them - and this is what this thread is about - on the fate of people who simply reject Islam's premises because they think it lacks proper justification.

I don't think they got the size wrong, you do

I do think, together with mainstream Muslim scholarship, that they got the size wrong. And I explained why, repeatedly. Disagree ? Provide a referenced definition of kafir that supports your case. Good luck. You don't strike me, by the way, as someone well-read in traditional tafsir references.

That's a strange question to ask coming from someone who just claimed that god owned all the people.  Seems to me like you don't need ownership explained to you.  God doesn't have nerves and he still owns every human worm - so stow this nonsense about nerves as though they mattered.

I'm honestly not interested in bickering with you over the articles of your slaving faith.  I'm pointing out that you're not correcting misinterpretations or resolving objections.  You're affirming both as articles of your faith - and for bonus points (I guess?) adding more detestable shit as a defense of the detestable shit already included.  

From this side of the islamist bubble, you're flat out stepping on rakes.  What you're doing isn't going to work, it will have the opposite effect.  If people object to your religion because it puts dissenters into a cosmic torture pron dungeon and declares us all human property - saying that it definitely does that is not correcting a misinterpretation or resolving an objection.

Do you understand?

I don't frankly care about what you consider to be detestable. It's enough to me that you yourself are a victim of at least one misconception of these, if not all of them. That's what my thread is about. Despite all my explanations you will still go on after that and consider the extremist version of Islam a sound one, and that layman christians or jews do go to hell according to Islam, etc. I say ISIS and the like got the size wrong and I explain why, you just jump over that and think we agree with extremist interpretations on size too.?

Back to the nervous system, I used this example to show how fragile your definition of human ownership is. Human beings cannot own anything because they don't own themselves in the first place, they are contingent, and basic knoweldge about our own physical body shows that very clearly.