grateful,

Accepting that they have captured the true and literal spirit of Islam is not “shar(ing) the same mentality as the Wahhabis”, although Herman is sure that CJ would beg to differ.

Herman would put it to you that it is not the critic of Islam but the Islamic apologist who takes Koranic verses out of context.

The most often used verse (Herman sees it referred to (out of context) in Grateful’s links) is…

Koran 5:32 –
"...whosoever killeth a human being... it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind..."

Aaah, the Koran is so lovely, Mohammed so peaceful.
Herman wants to hear more.
Give me the next verse…

Koran 5:33 –
"The only reward for those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land..."

Love the poetry. Truly Allah is all compassionate.

But Herman wonders what “strive after corruption in the land” means?
It must be pretty awful if the religion of peace thinks that it justifies killing or crucifying or amputating the limbs of the perpetrators

Never fear; the peaceful, perfect, eternal, unchangeable book of truth has the answer:

Koran 8:73 “Those who disbelieved are allies of one another. Unless you keep these commandments, there will be chaos on earth, and terrible corruption.”

So, those who fail to keep Allah’s commandments, the disbelievers, are to be punished for bringing chaos and corruption to the earth.

This is the way the Wahhabists interpret it and it’s hard to fault their logic,
constrained as they are by Islamic doctrine.
That’s the Koran.
That’s the context.

CJ can ignore it (and attack the messenger) and Grateful can try to hide it but even Herman can’t change it.

But at least Herman knows Grateful’s game now.

Salami,

Herman Yutic

It's not Boazy, Pericles - but I think it's reading from the same prayer book.

I mean, WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY SHOUTING yet.

But it's classic Islamophobia, I agree.

CJ Morgan,

"it seems to me that most of the" Islam apologists "here at OLO have invested far too much bluster and bile in denialism for a measured and reasonable argument like (mine) to have any chance of enlightening them."

In other words, you're just like you say they are.

Where's your counter argument?

Anybody can do ad hominem attacks.

Everytime I see the term "Islamaphobic", "Racist" and "bigot" I become more Islamaphobic and bigoted. Not sure how racist can be relevant but frequently pops up for the purpose of supporting socially forced censorship.

Once it is accepted as truth then laws will follow leading us down the path of yesteryear and will decimate liberal values. UN has already flirted with the idea of re-introducing blasphemy laws so perhaps the conservative religous right like C J Morgan will win in no short time to close down anti-religous speech.

So I am probably more opposed to the language than muslims. They have individual rights which I do not have a problem with. They should not have collective rights as a religion. If they do it has to come at the expense of my individual rights and then I will be vocal against them every step of the way.

Liberal values are clinging to life by a thread and there is a greater urgency for protection of individual rights than any religion.

It's always good to see the whack-a-mozzie brigade run out of steam.

And it looks like you've just done your dash, HermanYutic.

>>Where's your counter argument? Anybody can do ad hominem attacks.<<

Such beautiful juxtaposition of thoughts. Couldn't have done better myself.

Part the first: "Where's your counter argument?"

If you demand a "counter argument", HermanYutic, you must first put up an argument. Stringing together a load of insults, innuendo, accusations and good ol' invective doth not an argument make.

It might make you feel better about yourself in some way, but it doesn't actually contribute to the discussion, and therefore does not require rebuttal.

That is schoolyard stuff. "Wogs smell" "No they don't" "Yes they do" "No they don't" etc. etc. ad naus.

Part the second: "Anybody can do ad hominem attacks"

Just as anyone can do ad religionem attacks.

As you do. Frequently.

The simple fact is that sometimes the only way to alert people to the fact that they are being blindly bigoted is to return fire in the same terms as they themselves use.

As Lance Corporal Jones was wont to observe, "They don't like it up 'em"

It is only a religion. I wish people would stop elevating it to special status. No wonder people detest it, it is being pushed down people throats. How can anyone be bigoted against a book or belief system? Are you bigoted if you do not vote a certain way? This is such a dangerous road to take. People will fear the supression of speech on Islam far more than any passage quoted from their books.

Countless numbers of people suffer human rights abuses due to man's translation of holy books. To silence debate or expression is outrageous and so very pro extremism. Certainly not pro human rights.