so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
SBF: What, are you now accusing the fine publication of Breitbart of not being completely honest in it's reporting?
I am sure if any mistake was made by this powerhouse of journalistic integrity it was completely unrelated to the Muslimness of Khan...
so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
Well, here we go, M103. Actually I don't understand why it is a slippery slope, and you have provided no reasons to believe the media is lying.
FYI, it is a motion, not a law. It does not make criticism of Islam illegal because it can't... why do we need all this fearmongering?
so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
Well, that's what I wrote: According to you, Muslims should protest the terror attack in London because they terrorist was killed. but the attack in Canada does not need to be protected because the terrorist was captured.
Your seeming insensitivity to the victims and their families may be illuminating.
Why don't you just accuse me of beating puppies while you are in the business of random, unfounded accusations
so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
LUHE: So if Khalid Masood had been captured Muslims would not have to protest (similar to how the MAGAs don't have to protest the Quebec shooting) , but now that he was shot dead he somehow got off too lightly and therefore Muslims should?
And the reason we are discussing protests at all is because he was advancing religious ends and not political, like the IRA did, nevermind the "state" bit in "Islamic State". To summarize this logic: What the IRA did was a political struggle motivated by religious differences and what Islamic state does is a religious struggle with a major political component. Notice the order.
Man this is confusing. Someone should print a brochure.
Ps.
I am happy that you successfully googled a word you did not understand. You can actually google many things.
so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
LUHE: That's a pretty weak response. The Irish at least should have been demanded to make a protest...
I'd have more respect for this view if MAGA people were out in force protesting the Quebec mosque shooting. It took forever for the Trump administration to even say a peep!
In reality, I don't think many people feel they have much in common with terrorists and therefore don't care to go out on a protest.
so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
Because the book is very clear that the example of the prophet mohammed must be followed.
There is the ought! Why?
So you pretend the question doesn't exist or try to change it into some English grammar test. Really, who gives a flying fuck about "it", "is" and "ought"
David Hume. The problem of deriving an ought from an it is a classical problem in philosophy. I don't think you can just dismiss it as an "English test", and I don't think it can be solved by simple declaration.
Because their book isn't as vague.
Luke isn't all that vague on hellfire either...
Believing in a burning hell doesn't hurt anyone else, so very very different.
I disagree but that is not very important. Luke does seem to talk about about a hell on the most natural interpretation. Do we have to accept that a "good Christian" must accept hell? I don't see how that follows...
Can you see the difference yet? Of course not, there are none so blind as those who apologize for Islam.
I make no apologies for Islam... why do you keep insisting that I do? I think it is an awful book, as I have written before, and you can derive better moral teachings from the X-men than you can from the Quran. Do I have to write this in every post?
so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
Simon: Well they have this book ... called the Quran ...
Very well. The Quran exists, that is an "it".
How can we go from that "it" to what it means to be a good Muslim? (an "ought").
and then other books that chronicle Mohammed's life that it's adherents are meant to imitate.
There is the "ought". How did that follow? Did we just solve Humes problem?
Why are they meant to imitate it? Why can't they pick and choose like modern Christians/jews do, or organize their beliefs around a church hierarchy/tradition like the Catholics, or whatever?
Luke talks about a burning hell, IMO one of the morally corrosive ideas both found in the Quran and the Bible. Does that mean a person who does not believe in a burning hell is not a "good Christian"? I don't think so, I certainly don't think there are any logical reasons for it.
so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
Why are you trying to defined this crap? Are you so well conditioned that you feel you have to defend Islam against criticism?
Certainly not. I think I extensively laid out my reasons for thinking Islam is not a good religion a few days ago and my thinking has not changed. In fact, I think you told me that some of my reasons for thinking Islam was bad were wrong so if anything my critique of Islam went too far...
I am trying to "define this crap" because I think ISIS/the Saudis, etc. are wrong on this issue as well and I think it is important to point that out. The idea that women can't be Muslim unless they cover their hair or wear garments that cover all of their bodies is IMO helping hardline Islamists. Jews and Christians solved that problem (of hardcore literalism) and I think the solution is worth advertising.
This is not my argument, other reformers of Islam (both current and former Muslims) are pointing this out.
so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
Simon: I will give examples if you answer my question..
Can we agree that to say someone is a "good Muslim" only if he follows the rules laid out by ISIS (or something very similar), we are making a claim about how that person "ought" to behave and that "ought" must necessarily be derived from some "is"'s about facts of the world (such as the things Muhammed is supposed to have said)
In other words, this is what you claim to be able to do?
Alternatively, is your notion of "a good muslim" unrelated to how a muslim ought to behave?
so it is now two days after another islamic terrorist attack.
how many muslims are in the streets protesting and condemning this evil?
how many are marching in all the big cities condemning this in mass protests?.
Point me to "the most Muslim" people on the planet, who are living the dream, walking the walk.
I am not the person who claims to have discovered what it means to be a "good Muslim", or be "the most Muslim"! I am exactly questioning if you or ISIS or anyone else have!
