Islam is not bad, too many of you are ignorant of history.

[dib8rman]

superchunk said:

dib8rman said:

 

Regardless of what you believe or those of like mind believe doesn't change the fact that Islam is responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans, that it is the Republic of America's duty and the people of America's duty to know the enemy and go for it's throat. The conflicting part is that the enemy is two folds, one being the rabid socialists who see Islam as their father land and rest their hopes of a crippled democratic free-market in the bosoms of Islam and the Islamic fundamentalists who see polarizing the west as a way to unite Arabia.

This does reveal that your hypocrisy knows no bounds, that you are willing to say that today’s Islamic countries recognize the Hadiths and not the Qur'an for their policy making and that that needs to be put to and end because the Qur'an is by your allegation peaceful. Then when I define followers of religion as being those who adhere  and practice their holy texts injunctions with full faith in it's words virtue is the prerequisite to earn the title Muslim or Christian or Jewish you say such a statement does not agree with you. There's no reason to debate with a hypocrite and if you are not one then at the least a relativist, though all the events show hypocrisy alone being in play here.

And your right dialectic was too abstract a word, something like your argument would be best served as satire after reverse analysis for a relative irony.

I should add, my point from the very get go was how flawed the parts of your message were, and that the issue has nothing to do with your prose but rather your content or to be fair your subject. I didn’t expect to do that and reveal the flaws of the messenger. (Hope you at least get the joke there.)

So what you're saying is that since you disagree with me and that Muslim nations today are violent and cause various terrorism, then not only is Islam itself inherently violent, but I'm a hypocrite.

ok. If you only look at the narrow window of the the present, then yes Islam is inherently violent. I have never said otherwise.

What I think I not only offered, but presented with logical conclusions is that this current state is not what Islam is. It is not what he Qur'an actually teaches. But, it is instead what is the culmination of a slow degradation of Islamic thought and practice into the creation of a priesthood that controls all Islamic society through fear and falsehood. It has marginalized the Qur'an to its benefit and usurped the God's word in the Qur'an with man's will in the Hadith.

This is, in reality, an exact parallel to what happened during the Dark Ages with Christianity. My connection to this time period was not to attack Christianity or make it seem bad, but to use something more people on this board would be familiar with to make a connection that modern Islam is not Islam, just like Medieval Christianity was not Christianity.

Lastly, I don't see how anything I've stated is hypocritical. Is it at odds with Islamic nations? absolutely. But its not hypocritical. I also find it funny how your initial post was all scholarly, but subsequent ones seem to be tiffed as they borderline personally insulting. Generally, that's a sign of frustration.

Did I disagree with you? No, I do know your ideology though and that I know very well. I've said it before, I've argued with much more eloquent fanatics than yourself.

I have a saying that nihilism requires a level of fanaticism and hardly does the fanatic notice a trend.

Impersonal is the word to best describe my argument with your ideology so believe if you must what you want about my agreeing or disagreeing with you and any emotion therein. The worst you could do is show how feeble your ability to acquire and condense information is, which if not already apparent only seems more overt by your inept evaluation of 'what I am saying.'which as far as I am concerned you don't need to tell me what I am saying only because I know it very well I said it after all, in fact doing so draws suspicion to your line on how 'scholarly' my post was. To the point though:

So you've decided to take a road in your satire where you retreat and retreat looking for some moralhigh ground, it's quite pathetic and if you must then I'll kick the sand from under your feet for a second.

The idea of God King and Country and other theocratic ideologies are exactly that, it is a design by men to convince men that they through an unknown have an answer to everything except of course the unknown which in turn cannot be known (oh the convenience). As paradoxical as that may seem the bow tie of it all happens to be faith. In all this wouldn't be a problem until the messenger makes injunctions in the name of said unknown.

Your hypocrisy was within the petition of this Hadith vs Qur'an issue then when I put it plainly how I define a believeryou say that that isn't what you believe which coincidentally was exactly what you were saying Muslims should be doing with less practiced words. If only because you already know that what is in the Qur'an and invariably all holy texts that does not appeal to your personalized desire to survive, my hat's off to you, you can put yourself in another person's shoes and at the least that's one small step for man.

Your entire jostle on Medieval Christianity and Modern Islam is contrasting or comparing apples to oranges to lettuce to carrots. Unless now your saying that theological devices are also political devices, leading to why Islam; Hadith's or Qur'an's importance in politics would not make or has not made much of a difference and in turn making your point moot and thus the self destructive trend of all relativistic arguments by the whim of pragmatics.