Are there not groups across Africa and the Middle East seeking a pure State. I understand that they offer little but to join or be erased; female children are stolen for wives, the breeding parents executed and the elderly left to sup at their woes.
Land and resources right there, oiling the machine.

What about?

You are falling into the same ad hoc rationalization many people do when discussing Christianity in Medieval/Pre-Enlightenment Europe.

People, tyrants especially use religion as a tool to maintain power. In many ways secular evils of power grabbing blend with religious justification. “My attempt at consolidating absolute power isn’t bad because I can justify it with my religion, which if everyone was forced to follow would further justify my position.”

That is not the religion. That is extremists wanting power.

It is well understood that ISiL are 'doing it right', when it comes to following the instructions in their book. That is, they are doing everything they believe that they are commanded to do, and by the grace of god. They are not extremists, unless you are brave enough to declare that the faith itself is extreme.

By its fruit shall you know it, people going to such extremes in following their ideology are by definition extremists.

Svartalf wrote:By its fruit shall you know it, people going to such extremes in following their ideology are by definition extremists.

Devout, they would say. If your textbook said, take their lands for your own, take their women and have no friends amongst them.. and you did so, you are an extremist?

If you go beyond the Golden Rule and hurt people for your own aggrandizement, based on religious doctrine, I might have other names to add to extremist to qualify you, not all of them pleasant..

Ironclad wrote:It is well understood that ISiL are 'doing it right', when it comes to following the instructions in their book. That is, they are doing everything they believe that they are commanded to do, and by the grace of god. They are not extremists, unless you are brave enough to declare that the faith itself is extreme.

Well understood by whom?

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Muslim-Scholars-Groups-Against-ISIS-Speal-Out-361309791.html

Shortly after ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared himself leader of the so-called "Islamic State," Muslim scholars published a 17-page open letter to Baghdadi, challenging everything from his claim to be "caliph," or leader of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims, to the way his group "cherry-picks" verses from the Koran to justify its actions.
The September 2014 letter was translated into 10 languages and signed by more than 120 supporters, from the grand mufti of Egypt to a professor of Islamic studies at Massachusetts’ College of the Holy Cross.
In it, the authors argue that Islam forbids forced conversions, slavery, torture, the killing of innocents and the disfiguring of the dead — all of which ISIS has notoriously done and sought to justify in its own extensive, multi-lingual arguments.

But keep peddling your No True Muslim Fallacy to promote your Islamophobic worldview I guess?

Grow up. Bandying around pop vernacular doesn't grant you greater credence. Don't get used to hiding truths behind such poor language; I doubt you give the Bible this much defence, so why here?

Ironclad wrote:Grow up. Bandying around pop vernacular doesn't grant you greater credence. Don't get used to hiding truths behind such poor language; I doubt you give the Bible this much defence, so why here?

Ah so attack the poster instead of the post. Looks like I hit a nerve. Just admit your argument is bollocks.

Term used to describe somebody with baseless criticism(s) of Islam = Islamophobe.
Term used to describe somebody with well reasoned criticism(s) of Islam = Islamophobe.

Thank you, KiR

NP, it's all in the game

I don't think being 'critical' of Islam is typically what's being referred to when the term Islamophobia is used. If you don't like Islam, don't become a Muslim. Problem solved!

It's the fear, aversion, and discrimination directed towards Islam and Muslims that's problematic.

The basic rule is this : you can attack an ideology as much as you like but you do not attack its followers
Ideologies have very thick skins so what you say about them will not affect them at all
Their followers though are human so are therefore more susceptible to being attacked

By attack I mean legitimate criticism although how individuals critique an ideology is entirely up to them
And so you can legitimately attack Islam without simultaneously attacking Muslims also
Sadly not everyone understands this subtle distinction or even thinks it actually matters

This also applies to criticism of Israel which is the other go to example of this
For criticising the Israeli Government is not at all equivalent to anti Semitism

Very often it works both ways and sometimes simultaneously too :

criticism of the ideology will be presented as simple prejudice / discrimination when it is actually perfectly legitimate
criticism of the ideology will be presented as perfectly legitimate when it is actually simple prejudice / discrimination

Question the motivation of your critics and you are under no obligation to pay attention to anything they say

I can attack an ideology by decreeing that any, all and sundry that believe in it are utter morons, and that no person in full enjoyment of his faculties could ever believe such hogwash...

proudfootz wrote:I don't think being 'critical' of Islam is typically what's being referred to when the term Islamophobia is used. If you don't like Islam, don't become a Muslim. Problem solved!

It's the fear, aversion, and discrimination directed towards Islam and Muslims that's problematic.

It’s almost as if it’s really that easy.

Islam isn’t some amazing religion. But it’s no better or worse than Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.

The amount of vitriol Muslims face is insane. In the aftermath of a shooting of Muslims by an islamophobic asswipe the appropriate response is not to support the asswipe’s worldview.

Dunno about that. LIved under Sharia law for a time, it wasn't near as nice as living in Thailand where they're mostly Buddhists or even in North Carolina with the snake handlers and tongue talkers. Animists can be a it dodgy, too.

Just anecdote, folks, YMMV.

willhud9 wrote:It’s almost as if it’s really that easy.

Islam isn’t some amazing religion. But it’s no better or worse than Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.

The amount of vitriol Muslims face is insane. In the aftermath of a shooting of Muslims by an islamophobic asswipe the appropriate response is not to support the asswipe’s worldview.

What's the asswipe's view?

The nutcase thinks he can incite violent clashes between Western civilization and the Muslim world and that somehow will solve problems?

OlivierK wrote:

quas wrote:Which is why I'm more pissed at libtards than any religious or white supremacist terrorist.

You want everyone to no longer give a fuck about religion, so you're more pissed at people who don't give a fuck what anyone believes, than you are at people who give so much of a fuck that they commit mass murder.

That's idiotic, insane, and immoral.

Learn to think.

If you twist & frame it that way, of course it sounds ridiculous. But I never said that. My contention is that a lot of non-Muslims are responsible for terrorism and intolerance (which is a much bigger problem than terrorism) of Muslims, because they have been permissive and even supportive towards the acceptance and thus existence of Islam.

proudfootz wrote:If you don't like Islam, don't become a Muslim. Problem solved!

Here's a pro-tip from someone living in a Muslim-majority country: Being non-Muslim is like the No.1 surest, fastest, best way to attract Muslim aggro.

It's the fear, aversion, and discrimination directed towards Islam and Muslims that's problematic.

So, in your view, Islam and Muslims are one and the same now? Criticism of Islam = criticism of Muslims?