ChatterBank0 min ago
Islamic Intolerance?
104 Answers
The religion of peace is at it again.
Some bible bashing Christian moron burns the Koran in Florida and thousands of Muslims in Afghanistan go completely berserk, kill several people who were unlucky enough to be 'on duty' at the UN commission in Mazar-e Sharif. Amongst those killed are a Swedish guy and a Norwegian chap – hardly representative of the USA...
I don't think it's an unreasonable question to ask: why do some followers of the Islamic faith react so aggressively, violently and murderously to the smallest perceived slight on their belief?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...d-south-asia-12940014
Some bible bashing Christian moron burns the Koran in Florida and thousands of Muslims in Afghanistan go completely berserk, kill several people who were unlucky enough to be 'on duty' at the UN commission in Mazar-e Sharif. Amongst those killed are a Swedish guy and a Norwegian chap – hardly representative of the USA...
I don't think it's an unreasonable question to ask: why do some followers of the Islamic faith react so aggressively, violently and murderously to the smallest perceived slight on their belief?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...d-south-asia-12940014
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Birdie - I am not in favour of burning flags either. But if you have to compare flag of a country to some one's religion then you have to do few things.
1 - First and the far most is that you should start respecting your own flag . For example I have seen many people wearing shoes and even under pants with their country flag on it. I still have to see a Muslim, A Christian, A Hindu, A jew or any other person who first of all believes in his religion and then wears it as under wrear. I have even seen condoms with few countries flags printed on them and being sold within those countries. So who is happy to use them? People of that country.
So first thing you do if you want to give respect to your prophet, your book, your mother, your father, your country, your flag, is that you respect it first and then expect it from others.
1 - First and the far most is that you should start respecting your own flag . For example I have seen many people wearing shoes and even under pants with their country flag on it. I still have to see a Muslim, A Christian, A Hindu, A jew or any other person who first of all believes in his religion and then wears it as under wrear. I have even seen condoms with few countries flags printed on them and being sold within those countries. So who is happy to use them? People of that country.
So first thing you do if you want to give respect to your prophet, your book, your mother, your father, your country, your flag, is that you respect it first and then expect it from others.
keyplus90 - i think most people on here - whether they agree with my views on subjects or not - would agree that I am a tolerant person.
I am also an aetheist - so I hope I am not one of the 'most you have known on this website.
I do not believe that religious views - or the ansence of them - and tolerance, are mutually exclusive.
I am also an aetheist - so I hope I am not one of the 'most you have known on this website.
I do not believe that religious views - or the ansence of them - and tolerance, are mutually exclusive.
Lets get some balance in here.
Yes, we should not condone the actions of the loons who murdered the westerners and afghanis in Kabul. They should be sought down and the apporpriate retribution sought after trial - which in Afghanistan is death.
However, the Pastor should be also done for inciting racial hatred - in the States he could be put away for 15 years plus and , if a Federal Court, the discount for good behaviour is only 10%. He can't be done for freedom of speech as O'Bama looked at this one first time round. He knew what he was doing.
Now something controversial. I would have had a lot of sympathy if the Muslims had come out and issued a Fatwa and executed it. Good luck to them.
As to poppies and the like, they are purely symbolism and have no value in terms of what the Bible and the Koran offer. Yes, minor penalties for minor offences. I agree to that but to the EDL loons on here."Get a real life an get some proper perspective on inter religion matters."
And on that point, my last one 98 or 99+% of Muslims are decent people as are the Irish (be they Caths or Prossies) and look what has gone on there in Omagh (and has obviously been brewing for some weeks as there have been previous attempts by the extremeists to inflict carnage and derail the peace/political process).
Yes, we should not condone the actions of the loons who murdered the westerners and afghanis in Kabul. They should be sought down and the apporpriate retribution sought after trial - which in Afghanistan is death.
However, the Pastor should be also done for inciting racial hatred - in the States he could be put away for 15 years plus and , if a Federal Court, the discount for good behaviour is only 10%. He can't be done for freedom of speech as O'Bama looked at this one first time round. He knew what he was doing.
Now something controversial. I would have had a lot of sympathy if the Muslims had come out and issued a Fatwa and executed it. Good luck to them.
As to poppies and the like, they are purely symbolism and have no value in terms of what the Bible and the Koran offer. Yes, minor penalties for minor offences. I agree to that but to the EDL loons on here."Get a real life an get some proper perspective on inter religion matters."
And on that point, my last one 98 or 99+% of Muslims are decent people as are the Irish (be they Caths or Prossies) and look what has gone on there in Omagh (and has obviously been brewing for some weeks as there have been previous attempts by the extremeists to inflict carnage and derail the peace/political process).
Keyplus -
“Do not try telling birdie when it comes to Islam... “
If you had any interest in a question that didn't involve Islam then you would know that my disdain for Islam transcends that particular faith. Ergo, I despise all religious beliefs. So you can stop pretending that I'm singling out your particular belief system as I treat all others with equal contempt.
You continue, “... there is double pressure on birdie. I hope he has got pay rise too...”
You really are a sad little man aren't you? I pose and answer question on this forum because the subjects matter to me. I don't do it to impress others. Grow up.
“Do not try telling birdie when it comes to Islam... “
If you had any interest in a question that didn't involve Islam then you would know that my disdain for Islam transcends that particular faith. Ergo, I despise all religious beliefs. So you can stop pretending that I'm singling out your particular belief system as I treat all others with equal contempt.
You continue, “... there is double pressure on birdie. I hope he has got pay rise too...”
You really are a sad little man aren't you? I pose and answer question on this forum because the subjects matter to me. I don't do it to impress others. Grow up.
Continued....
Keyplus further states, “Atheists (most of the one I have known on this website) and tolerance does not mix.”
Wow! That's rich! A member of the most intolerant religion in the world telling non-believers that it is them who are intolerant. Pot, kettle and black my friend.
How can you write those words knowing that people who speak out against Islam do so at great personal risk? Like him or loath him, Geert Wilders (the Dutch politician) speaks about what he perceives as the threat of Islam and is protected 24 hours a day by state-funded personal bodyguards because of threats to his life from Muslim fundamentalists. Likewise, Salman Rushdie is still under the threat of death because of the fatwa imposed upon him by Khomeini which still stands to this day. A great many people have been killed because they had the temerity to publicly criticise the Islamic faith.
Now let's look at Richard Dawkins. This man has verbally attacked all religions – Christianity in particular – and yet Dawkins' life is not under threat. No Christians are threatening to kill him for criticising their scriptures. His book, “The God Delusion” is a best seller (and an excellent read) and yet he doesn't have to be protected.
Do you, Keyplus, think that Richard Dawkins' life would be significantly different if he had called his book, “The Islam Delusion”?
Keyplus further states, “Atheists (most of the one I have known on this website) and tolerance does not mix.”
Wow! That's rich! A member of the most intolerant religion in the world telling non-believers that it is them who are intolerant. Pot, kettle and black my friend.
How can you write those words knowing that people who speak out against Islam do so at great personal risk? Like him or loath him, Geert Wilders (the Dutch politician) speaks about what he perceives as the threat of Islam and is protected 24 hours a day by state-funded personal bodyguards because of threats to his life from Muslim fundamentalists. Likewise, Salman Rushdie is still under the threat of death because of the fatwa imposed upon him by Khomeini which still stands to this day. A great many people have been killed because they had the temerity to publicly criticise the Islamic faith.
Now let's look at Richard Dawkins. This man has verbally attacked all religions – Christianity in particular – and yet Dawkins' life is not under threat. No Christians are threatening to kill him for criticising their scriptures. His book, “The God Delusion” is a best seller (and an excellent read) and yet he doesn't have to be protected.
Do you, Keyplus, think that Richard Dawkins' life would be significantly different if he had called his book, “The Islam Delusion”?
-- answer removed --
// thing is sweetheart if they were angry they should have taken it out on the person who did it not on innocent people :( //
No they shouldn't. They shouldn't have 'taken it out' on anybody. That's the whole problem, they believe that whenever they get angry or feel offended they have a right or obligation to 'take it out' on somebody - ie kill them.
We all get offended by things. I get offended and angry when apologists try to explain murderous behaviour in terms of cultural difference, but I don't go and vent my anger by killing some random person who had nothing to do with the offence in the first place.
No they shouldn't. They shouldn't have 'taken it out' on anybody. That's the whole problem, they believe that whenever they get angry or feel offended they have a right or obligation to 'take it out' on somebody - ie kill them.
We all get offended by things. I get offended and angry when apologists try to explain murderous behaviour in terms of cultural difference, but I don't go and vent my anger by killing some random person who had nothing to do with the offence in the first place.
Tuddypat - I am unsure whether your reference to 'apologists' refers to the comments I made - but I would reiterate that my post was an attempt to give some cultural perspective to the reasons for the anger - but it was not in any way an attempt to excuse such violent reaction which is inexcusable for any reason what ever.
-- answer removed --
Pixi- “//They shouldn't have 'taken it out' on anybody.// No but that obviously wasn't going to be an option for them..... if they were so angry that 'someone' was going to cop it they had 2 choices...”
Sorry, but you're wrong in your assumption that they only had two choices. This is called the false dilemma fallacy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
You're dismissing the other alternatives. For instance, when you're really really angry you have a choice of taking a deep breath and calming down and doing nothing hasty. It is a very real choice and one that takes great personal strength, courage and self respect to do – in fact, it's far more difficult to keep your temper when the 'red mist' has descended than it is to lash out at the first person or entity that you feel warrants your anger.
I love your phrase, “... that [non-violent action] obviously wasn't going to be an option for them...” which demonstrates that even you concede that certain members of your faith are so fanatical that they lack the ability to demonstrate restraint or proportionality.
Sorry, but you're wrong in your assumption that they only had two choices. This is called the false dilemma fallacy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
You're dismissing the other alternatives. For instance, when you're really really angry you have a choice of taking a deep breath and calming down and doing nothing hasty. It is a very real choice and one that takes great personal strength, courage and self respect to do – in fact, it's far more difficult to keep your temper when the 'red mist' has descended than it is to lash out at the first person or entity that you feel warrants your anger.
I love your phrase, “... that [non-violent action] obviously wasn't going to be an option for them...” which demonstrates that even you concede that certain members of your faith are so fanatical that they lack the ability to demonstrate restraint or proportionality.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
News10 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
Please Help Me Find More Of These.....
Jokes17 mins ago
