Posted: Jul 15, 2015 1:02 pm
by Spearthrower
Peter Brown wrote:my logic once more

*cough cough*

Peter Brown wrote:If the Qur'an is a book of currently criminal ideas in some countries then people who practice those criminal activites should face the judge.

But the Quran is not a book of currently criminal ideas in some countries, and most specifically 'ideas' are not punishable in any society which is not a totalitarian dictatorship.

Peter Brown wrote:If a criminal organisation meet in a hall to promote criminal ventures, then they should be denied access to that hall.

Islam is not a criminal organistion, it's a religion, so that's not a logical reason for closing mosques.

Peter Brown wrote:Calling your criminal organisation a religion, or hiding behind hangalongs is not nor ever should be an excuse to evade justice if you break the law or promote breaking the law of the land.

Your contention is pure fantasy - only a few crackpots on the internet might agree with you that Islam is not a religion. Why should society bow to your ridiculous and illogical definitions?

Peter Brown wrote:People who support criminal organisations and don't wish them to face the judge for breaking the law are as guilty as the criminal; they are aiding and abetting crimes o take place.

And yet again, the at least 93% of Muslims who are not committing any criminal activity should not be considered guilty by attributing the actions of a guilty few onto them.

Peter Brown wrote:Calling someone a criminal if they invite others to break the law with them is not being a bigit or a strawman or a true scotsman.

No, but pretending that all Muslims are criminals via specious logic is bigotry.

Peter Brown wrote:Stating what the religion tells the follower because it is a book is not a true Scotsman fallacy, it is just a plain simple reality that the book they believe is from Allah is telling them to do crimes. Pretending that it wasn’t is aiding and abetting the crimes to carry on.

And as has been pointed out to you so many times now even my table understands, the same kinds of passages can be found in other holy texts, yet we don't assume that all Jews or Christians are guilty by default, we only criminalize the actions of people who engage in criminal activity.

Peter Brown wrote:Why do some Muslims not follow the Qur'an as writen?

Because people interpret words differently, that's the same with all religions throughout history. Regardless, when 93% of Muslims don't interpret the book in the way you say Muslims should, the rational position is to assume that it's you who's wrong about the necessity of that interpretation.

Peter Brown wrote:Maybe they fear the punishment of man more than that of Allah, the whole bedrock of Islam is the fear of Allah has to be greater than the fear of men. Yep that's in there too.

Or maybe they're just normal people like you and I, and worry more about feeding their families, getting a promotion, finding time to exercise and relax, whether what they're eating is healthy, what to watch on TV etc.... than engaging in criminal activities. Maybe they also think that the 1% (7% for nutjobs) actions are totally wrong, not just from their own culture and upbringing, but also because they think their interpretation of the holy texts specifies that this is wrong.

The problem is that we all know your position - you don't need to repeat it, we've seen it and addressed it already.

What you need to be doing is addressing the challenges to your contentions.