Islamophobia meets a new Lowe

[everywhere116]

I'm not sure that that's true, or even accurate to my posts and threads. Religion is a pretty reliable topic within this forum, but it's pretty equal opportunity. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, atheism, Scientology, Mormonism... they're all up for criticism.

I hope that you don't see me as the spokesperson for this forum. My opinions are my own, and people are entitled to agree with me or not. The Davy Jones Locker forum ain't run by me, basically.

Just making a point about all the hollering against anti-Islam in a sea of an anti-Christian threads.

It's pretty much what Scotty was saying. Whether he is right or not is another issue.

Also I've been gone for years. You all look the same to me.

Fair enough, what's your take on the Lowe's issue?

The guy (and it is only one man) is an idiot. I cannot think of a more trivial and asinine thing to protest about. There's expressing legitimate concerns about Islamization of society a la Europe and then there's pure banality like this.

Also, I find it heavily ironic that he protested the show because he thought it watered down the true nature of Muslims, while Muslims themselves disapprove of the show because...um...they thought it watered down the true nature of Muslims.

Interesting, but I'm not sure that some Muslims not liking the show really constitutes irony. Let alone the heavy kind.

It's ironic because they both dislike the show for the same basic reason.

[Symmetry]

Interesting, but I'm not sure that some Muslims not liking the show really constitutes irony. Let alone the heavy kind.

It's ironic because they both dislike the show for the same basic reason.

What reason? Surely you don't mean just that it doesn't represent the lives of all American Muslims.

[everywhere116]

Interesting, but I'm not sure that some Muslims not liking the show really constitutes irony. Let alone the heavy kind.

It's ironic because they both dislike the show for the same basic reason.

What reason? Surely you don't mean just that it doesn't represent the lives of all American Muslims.

Wait, are you disputing my description of their reasons for disliking the show or simply because I called it irony?

[Symmetry]

Interesting, but I'm not sure that some Muslims not liking the show really constitutes irony. Let alone the heavy kind.

It's ironic because they both dislike the show for the same basic reason.

What reason? Surely you don't mean just that it doesn't represent the lives of all American Muslims.

Wait, are you disputing my description of their reasons for disliking the show or simply because I called it irony?

Would asking you for both be unreasonable? I wasn't expecting a long discussion on either point, just a clarification.

[everywhere116]

Interesting, but I'm not sure that some Muslims not liking the show really constitutes irony. Let alone the heavy kind.

It's ironic because they both dislike the show for the same basic reason.

What reason? Surely you don't mean just that it doesn't represent the lives of all American Muslims.

Wait, are you disputing my description of their reasons for disliking the show or simply because I called it irony?

Would asking you for both be unreasonable? I wasn't expecting a long discussion on either point, just a clarification.

What would you like to know?

[Symmetry]

What reason? Surely you don't mean just that it doesn't represent the lives of all American Muslims.

Wait, are you disputing my description of their reasons for disliking the show or simply because I called it irony?

Would asking you for both be unreasonable? I wasn't expecting a long discussion on either point, just a clarification.

What would you like to know?

Why you find it ironic.

[everywhere116]

What reason? Surely you don't mean just that it doesn't represent the lives of all American Muslims.

Wait, are you disputing my description of their reasons for disliking the show or simply because I called it irony?

Would asking you for both be unreasonable? I wasn't expecting a long discussion on either point, just a clarification.

What would you like to know?

Why you find it ironic.

Because here we have a religious nutjob who thinks that the show is bad because it doesn't represent real Muslims, and we also have Muslim groups who dislikes the show because they don't think it represents real Muslims. You'd expect them to have opposite reactions, but they don't.

[Symmetry]

Why you find it ironic.

Because here we have a religious nutjob who thinks that the show is bad because it doesn't represent real Muslims, and we also have Muslim groups who dislikes the show because they don't think it represents real Muslims. You'd expect them to have opposite reactions, but they don't.

Perhaps the point to take out of it is that Muslims are a pretty diverse group. I wouldn't expect them to have a consensus at all.

[thegreekdog]

Perhaps the point to take out of it is that Muslims are a pretty diverse group. I wouldn't expect them to have a consensus at all.

I find these two sentences fascinating for a number of reasons.

[Symmetry]

Perhaps the point to take out of it is that Muslims are a pretty diverse group. I wouldn't expect them to have a consensus at all.

I find these two sentences fascinating for a number of reasons.

Which you won't post until someone asks you about them, I suppose? Just PM your queries to me, GD. No need for the mystery act,

[thegreekdog]

Perhaps the point to take out of it is that Muslims are a pretty diverse group. I wouldn't expect them to have a consensus at all.

I find these two sentences fascinating for a number of reasons.

Which you won't post until someone asks you about them, I suppose? Just PM your queries to me, GD. No need for the mystery act,

I'm a mysterious guy! I'll pm you.

[Aradhus]

I just sneezed!

[2dimes]

Perhaps the point to take out of it is that Muslims are a pretty diverse group. I wouldn't expect them to have a consensus at all.

I find these two sentences fascinating for a number of reasons.

Which you won't post until someone asks you about them, I suppose? Just PM your queries to me, GD. No need for the mystery act,

I'm a mysterious guy! I'll pm you.

Can you post them Symm? I'd hate to miss out.

[everywhere116]

Perhaps the point to take out of it is that Muslims are a pretty diverse group. I wouldn't expect them to have a consensus at all.

I find these two sentences fascinating for a number of reasons.

Which you won't post until someone asks you about them, I suppose? Just PM your queries to me, GD. No need for the mystery act,

I'm a mysterious guy! I'll pm you.

Can you post them Symm? I'd hate to miss out.

I am also interested.

[thegreekdog]

(1) Because there seem to be a lot of threads generalizing the members of various religions (mostly Christianity).
(2) Because your post has nothing to do with what the other dude was talking about. He was merely commenting about how it was funny that the bigot and the religious group both did not think the show represented the Muslim community.
(3) AAFitz and I had a very long discussion about the difference between "religion" and "religious people." I'm not sure if you posted in that thread, but I believe he posted in your thread. I thought he would read my post (which is the real reason why I posted - it was not directed at you, it was directed at AAFitz).

[spurgistan]

Perhaps the point to take out of it is that Muslims are a pretty diverse group. I wouldn't expect them to have a consensus at all.

I find these two sentences fascinating for a number of reasons.

Which you won't post until someone asks you about them, I suppose? Just PM your queries to me, GD. No need for the mystery act,

I'm a mysterious guy! I'll pm you.

While I'm pretty sure the differences between Muslims are different than the difference between Christians (the lack of central religious hierarchy in Islam, the fact that there is only one version of the Koran having creating a more unified Islamic culture than exists in Jesusdom) there are also very broad differences of opinion about what it means to be a Muslim, the same as exists in Christianity, or Judaism for that matter. You mighta noticed from our successful liberation of the Iraqi people, but Shia and Sunnis, to name a few, don't really get along for both political and cultural reasons.

[thegreekdog]

As far as I know, there is not one religious hierarchy in Christianity (there are many and some have no hierarchical structure at all).

If there is only one version of the Koran (and I admittedly don't know that), then there are many different interpretations (obviously).

That being said, I agree that there are as many differences between Muslims as there are between Christians. And there were, generally, just as bitter fighting between Christians as there has been between Muslims (although, I would argue all of those fightings have less to do with religion and more to do with power and money).

[spurgistan]

I'm going to avoid opening the religion versus human nature can of worms. Just to earn me some brownie points, I wanted to mention that. I'm pretty sure the two things I said about Islam vs Christianity aren't embarrassingly wrong (I don't think that Muslims have the equivalent of an Archbishop of Canterbury or a Pope, even for different sects)

[everywhere116]

As far as I know, there is not one religious hierarchy in Christianity (there are many and some have no hierarchical structure at all).

True

If there is only one version of the Koran (and I admittedly don't know that), then there are many different interpretations (obviously).

There is only one Arabic version (but several translations, depending on language.)

That being said, I agree that there are as many differences between Muslims as there are between Christians. And there were, generally, just as bitter fighting between Christians as there has been between Muslims (although, I would argue all of those fightings have less to do with religion and more to do with power and money).

Subjective, but whatever. The main difference is that violent religious conflict among Christians has all but stopped while violent religious conflict among Muslims is still going strong, mainly because to stop would be to go against Islamic principles.

Is the last parenthetical sentence talking about Christian conflicts being about power or money, or Muslim conflicts?

[2dimes]

(I don't think that Muslims have the equivalent of an Archbishop of Canterbury or a Pope, even for different sects)

Isn't that what Osama Bin Laden was to the Al Quada dudes?

[Baron Von PWN]

That being said, I agree that there are as many differences between Muslims as there are between Christians. And there were, generally, just as bitter fighting between Christians as there has been between Muslims (although, I would argue all of those fightings have less to do with religion and more to do with power and money).

Subjective, but whatever. The main difference is that violent religious conflict among Christians has all but stopped while violent religious conflict among Muslims is still going strong, mainly because to stop would be to go against Islamic principles.

Is the last parenthetical sentence talking about Christian conflicts being about power or money, or Muslim conflicts?

I'm sure there were people who would have said to end the wars of the reformation would have been against Christian principles. I would argue the reasons you see "religious" (many of these are ethnic conflicts wrapped in religion) conflicts among Muslim peoples is due to their forms of government, which have come about for a variety of reasons (colonial legacies, Cold war tyrants ect).

There is no reason why Islam would specifically lead to conflict as an inherent principle of the religion.

[Baron Von PWN]

I'm going to avoid opening the religion versus human nature can of worms. Just to earn me some brownie points, I wanted to mention that. I'm pretty sure the two things I said about Islam vs Christianity aren't embarrassingly wrong (I don't think that Muslims have the equivalent of an Archbishop of Canterbury or a Pope, even for different sects)

Depends on the place. Iran has something like a hierarchy, what with the mullahs and so on. However in general Islam is a very decentralized religion somewhat like evangelical Christians, anyone can become a preacher (assuming you're male) so long as you're "learned"/ give a good sermon and are recognized by the local community as such.

So really busting a Muslim's chops over something crazy some dudes in Saudi arabia felt like doing would be just as silly as giving your local pastor shit because the phelps think god hates fags.

[everywhere116]

That being said, I agree that there are as many differences between Muslims as there are between Christians. And there were, generally, just as bitter fighting between Christians as there has been between Muslims (although, I would argue all of those fightings have less to do with religion and more to do with power and money).

Subjective, but whatever. The main difference is that violent religious conflict among Christians has all but stopped while violent religious conflict among Muslims is still going strong, mainly because to stop would be to go against Islamic principles.

Is the last parenthetical sentence talking about Christian conflicts being about power or money, or Muslim conflicts?

I'm sure there were people who would have said to end the wars of the reformation would have been against Christian principles. I would argue the reasons you see "religious" (many of these are ethnic conflicts wrapped in religion) conflicts among Muslim peoples is due to their forms of government, which have come about for a variety of reasons (colonial legacies, Cold war tyrants ect).

There is no reason why Islam would specifically lead to conflict as an inherent principle of the religion.

Not really. While I agree that other religions (Christianity in particular) have been twisted for violent ends, it is different with Islam, mainly because you don't have to twist anything about the religion to beget violence. For example, Jesus never said that any Christians who leave Christianity should be killed. But Muhammad did say the same about Islam. (This is also why apostasy is punished with death under Sharia law.) Furthermore, the Quran itself is rife with messages about killing unbelievers and also about how Muslims who violate Islamic principles aren't true Muslims. For these and many other reasons, many Islamic sects don't consider each other to be true Muslims (although your mileage may vary on this point, depending on the sect.) This can lead to retardedly ridiculous scenarios, such as in the case of Abdus Salam, a well respected Nobel Prize winning Muslim physicist who was buried in his home country, Pakistan, with the epitaph "First Muslim Nobel Laureate" written on his tombstone, with the word "Muslim" etched out by the Pakistani government because he was an Ahmadi. Unfortunately, it also leads to the scenarios of Sunnis and Shias murdering each other through terrorist attacks and the like. It's an intrinsic characteristic of the religion which, also unfortunately, isn't going to stop being a part of Islam.

[Symmetry]

That being said, I agree that there are as many differences between Muslims as there are between Christians. And there were, generally, just as bitter fighting between Christians as there has been between Muslims (although, I would argue all of those fightings have less to do with religion and more to do with power and money).

Subjective, but whatever. The main difference is that violent religious conflict among Christians has all but stopped while violent religious conflict among Muslims is still going strong, mainly because to stop would be to go against Islamic principles.

Is the last parenthetical sentence talking about Christian conflicts being about power or money, or Muslim conflicts?

I'm sure there were people who would have said to end the wars of the reformation would have been against Christian principles. I would argue the reasons you see "religious" (many of these are ethnic conflicts wrapped in religion) conflicts among Muslim peoples is due to their forms of government, which have come about for a variety of reasons (colonial legacies, Cold war tyrants ect).

There is no reason why Islam would specifically lead to conflict as an inherent principle of the religion.

Not really. While I agree that other religions (Christianity in particular) have been twisted for violent ends, it is different with Islam, mainly because you don't have to twist anything about the religion to beget violence. For example, Jesus never said that any Christians who leave Christianity should be killed. But Muhammad did say the same about Islam. (This is also why apostasy is punished with death under Sharia law.) Furthermore, the Quran itself is rife with messages about killing unbelievers and also about how Muslims who violate Islamic principles aren't true Muslims. For these and many other reasons, many Islamic sects don't consider each other to be true Muslims (although your mileage may vary on this point, depending on the sect.) This can lead to retardedly ridiculous scenarios, such as in the case of Abdus Salam, a well respected Nobel Prize winning Muslim physicist who was buried in his home country, Pakistan, with the epitaph "First Muslim Nobel Laureate" written on his tombstone, with the word "Muslim" etched out by the Pakistani government because he was an Ahmadi. Unfortunately, it also leads to the scenarios of Sunnis and Shias murdering each other through terrorist attacks and the like. It's an intrinsic characteristic of the religion which, also unfortunately, isn't going to stop being a part of Islam.

And yet Muslims are not, actually intrinsically violent.

[everywhere116]

Subjective, but whatever. The main difference is that violent religious conflict among Christians has all but stopped while violent religious conflict among Muslims is still going strong, mainly because to stop would be to go against Islamic principles.

Is the last parenthetical sentence talking about Christian conflicts being about power or money, or Muslim conflicts?

I'm sure there were people who would have said to end the wars of the reformation would have been against Christian principles. I would argue the reasons you see "religious" (many of these are ethnic conflicts wrapped in religion) conflicts among Muslim peoples is due to their forms of government, which have come about for a variety of reasons (colonial legacies, Cold war tyrants ect).

There is no reason why Islam would specifically lead to conflict as an inherent principle of the religion.

Not really. While I agree that other religions (Christianity in particular) have been twisted for violent ends, it is different with Islam, mainly because you don't have to twist anything about the religion to beget violence. For example, Jesus never said that any Christians who leave Christianity should be killed. But Muhammad did say the same about Islam. (This is also why apostasy is punished with death under Sharia law.) Furthermore, the Quran itself is rife with messages about killing unbelievers and also about how Muslims who violate Islamic principles aren't true Muslims. For these and many other reasons, many Islamic sects don't consider each other to be true Muslims (although your mileage may vary on this point, depending on the sect.) This can lead to retardedly ridiculous scenarios, such as in the case of Abdus Salam, a well respected Nobel Prize winning Muslim physicist who was buried in his home country, Pakistan, with the epitaph "First Muslim Nobel Laureate" written on his tombstone, with the word "Muslim" etched out by the Pakistani government because he was an Ahmadi. Unfortunately, it also leads to the scenarios of Sunnis and Shias murdering each other through terrorist attacks and the like. It's an intrinsic characteristic of the religion which, also unfortunately, isn't going to stop being a part of Islam.

And yet Muslims are not, actually intrinsically violent.

Of course not. But we weren't talking about Muslims, we were talking about Islam itself.