The most stupid misconceptions about Islam

[Mister Agenda]

You don't understand. I don't accept your premise, like, at all. So your "arguments" never get out the door to begin with.

Sure, you can go back to your agnostic shell whenever you're cornered. Just notify me next time.

When are you ever out of your theist shell?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why would one expect the true religion to be a bunch of cute nebullous imperatives, which fall apart when faced with the horrible reality out there, that is, the amount of evil people are capable of.

That's a tortured excusatory exposition if I've ever seen one.

It's still the 9th C. in Islam.

[R00tKiT]

You're telling me that the people on the shitlist, which exists, deserve exactly what the extremists say. 

That's right. So what...?

You think they finger the wrong people..but by your own criteria, that's false.

No, pal. That's not my own criteria, that's Islam's criteria. If you seriously object to the explanation of the word kafir' I gave, you're going to have to delve deeper into islamic jurisprudence and cite some sources.

They get it right, and you agree with them,

Whom are you talking about? The extremists..? You yourself acknoweldge they got the wrong size of your so-called "shitlist"..?
All policemen agree on shooting an armed thief, extremist policemen go further and decide to shoot anyone suspected to be one. Sure, an arbitrary policeman and an extremist policeman do have something in common because, obviously, "extremist policemen" are a subset of policemen. So, playing on the word extremist isn't going to be of much help, I'm afraid.

I have a system of beliefs that doesn't include the validity of human property.  In fact, the entirety of western civilization has a system of beliefs that doesn't include the validity of human property.  Here again you show that no one is mistaken about islam, you are mistaken about your audience.

You are mistaken about Islam. You just said we agree with extremists on the kafir's definition, and it turns out we're not.
Yes, I already know that western civilization doesn't have the same belief system as the eastern civilization, so what.? You think that a deity, if exists, - the same deity that created people - has no "right" to own people, though you already know we deal with inescapable constraints such as us being fallible, vulnerable to disease, permanently exposed to death. All these constraints own us, and my guess is it's not us who put such constraints in place.

If I had a dime for every time someone claimed that my things were their property,

What exactly do you mean by, "my things"...? You don't really own anything. If I consider my physical body, I already know that I can't consciously control my heart rate or my respiration. Despite the two being critical for my survival. 
All it takes to strip a human being of any sense of control is one little bug affecting neural control of hand movements, for example. It takes a lot of coordination across the nervous system to hold something and claim it as one's "proprety" - and you don't own or control anything in your nervous system, which is a good thing. It would take considerable effort to breath and pump blood consciously across all your organs.

So, how can one own anything, if one doesn't own his blood flow and breath.?

[The Grand Nudger]

You're telling me that the people on the shitlist, which exists, deserve exactly what the extremists say. 

That's right. So what...?

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?

No, pal. That's not my own criteria, that's Islam's criteria. If you seriously object to the explanation of the word kafir' I gave, you're going to have to delve deeper into islamic jurisprudence and cite some sources.

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?

Whom are you talking about? The extremists..? You yourself acknoweldge they got the wrong size of your so-called "shitlist"..?
All policemen agree on shooting an armed thief, extremist policemen go further and decide to shoot anyone suspected to be one. Sure, an arbitrary policeman and an extremist policeman do have something in common because, obviously, "extremist policemen" are a subset of policemen. So, playing on the word extremist isn't going to be of much help, I'm afraid.

I don't think they got the size wrong, you do..but not for any reason you've yet offered.  

You are mistaken about Islam. You just said we agree with extremists on the kafir's definition, and it turns out we're not.
Yes, I already know that western civilization doesn't have the same belief system as the eastern civilization, so what.? You think that a deity, if exists, - the same deity that created people - has no "right" to own people, though you already know we deal with inescapable constraints such as us being fallible, vulnerable to disease, permanently exposed to death. All these constraints own us, and my guess is it's not us who put such constraints in place.

Do you and the extremists both believe that we're human property?  If so, then "we" do not agree..you and the extremists agree, together - and I'm wondering which of you is coming to collect on your claims to property.

What exactly do you mean by, "my things"...? You don't really own anything. If I consider my physical body, I already know that I can't consciously control my heart rate or my respiration. Despite the two being critical for my survival. 
All it takes to strip a human being of any sense of control is one little bug affecting neural control of hand movements, for example. It takes a lot of coordination across the nervous system to hold something and claim it as one's "proprety" - and you don't own or control anything in your nervous system, which is a good thing. It would take considerable effort to breath and pump blood consciously across all your organs.

So, how can one own anything, if one doesn't own his blood flow and breath.?

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?

[Anomalocaris]

I think the most stupid misconception about Islam is that it's a religion of peace.

Boru

I think the most stupid misconception about Islam is it is more violent than Christianity would soon become if given a cart Blanche to be violent.


It, like Christianity, is a religion of unscrupulous Deception and ruthless predation.   It values violence no more, and no less, than Christianity.   Christianity merely benefited from having bigger guns, louder magaphones, and a much larger economic base.

[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.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think the most stupid misconception about Islam is that it's a religion of peace.

Boru

I think the most stupid misconception about Islam is it is more violent than Christianity would soon become if given a cart Blanche to be violent.


It, like Christianity, is a religion of unscrupulous Deception and ruthless predation.   It values violence no more, and no less, than Christianity.   Christianity merely benefited from having bigger guns, louder magaphones, and a much larger economic base.

No problem with that. It applies to most religions.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

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 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.


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.

The answer appears to be no, you don't understand...and because you don't...you can never be an effective agent for islam in the west.  That much is beyond you, beyond your ability to achieve. 

Good thing that you're not alone, eh? You have a bunch of extremists and shamans and witchdoctors behind you, whom you agree with.

[Angrboda]

Klorophyll, what qualifies you to speak authoritatively as opposed to Muslims who view these things differently?

[Sal]

people who willingly reject Islam's premises while acknoweldging their truth are condemned to hell

Well, then it's a good thing I do neither. I guess "I" am bound for 72 white raisins after the cessation of brain activity.