Goddess

Of course he is. He invented all the different languages at the Tower of Babel. I was always taught that mankind's original language was Hebrew. I have no idea if that's true or not and have never cared enough to research it.

I've read enough about the histories of religions to know when Dog is putting history into his own words and when he's merely giving his thoughts and/or opinions on how it all played out. But thanks for the warning. We all have our agendas.

This is why I don't take parenting advice from someone who felt they had to drown all their children.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-islam-reformers-vs-the-muslim-zealots/2015/03/27/acf6de6c-d3ed-11e4-ab77-9646eea6a4c7_story.html?utm_term=.67b09ad7414d This is a good analysis of difference between supporting reform in Islam and apologizing for Islam. When apologists say that the West, poverty etc (anything BUT Islamic doctrine) is responsible for Islamic terror, reformers view that as a simplistic excuse: Apologists who label anyone concerned about Islamic terrorism as "Islamophobes" and "racists" and "xenophobes" are mistaken that they pose no threat to Western democracy and it is clearly used as an apologist tactic to shut down discussion, which only helps the extremists: Apologists like to spout cliches about "moderate" Muslims and "Islam is the religion of Peace" and this is no way helps reformers and true moderates: In short, apologists are recognized by: Blaming the West for everything that goes on in Islam Touting the extremist party lines of "Islam is peace" and it's only a tiny miniscule minority of trouble-makers Labelling people "Islamophobes, racists and xenophobes" if they want to discuss the need for reform in Islam.

Most of the differences between Christian denominations involve doctrinal things. As a JW Christian, we did not believe in the Trinity and were taught that Christians who believed in it, were false. At some point, I concluded that if God wanted to destroy me because I was unclear about the nature of spiritual bodies (Is he 3 gods in one? Is he 1 god? How many personalities does this guy have?) he could go right ahead. It should not be a debate in a religion whether it is right to kill non-believers or not, as it is in Islam. That's just my opinion and how I appraise any religion.

Cog Diss must be very difficult for Muslims to navigate. On the one hand they are taught that to be a good Muslim they must emulate Mohammed as a perfect human. On the other hand, his example is one of violent and barbaric intolerance for others, that naturally goes against most people's humanity. They can't just walk away and live according to what they interpret to be right, nor can they be vocal about this without incurring the wrath of the Muslim community and often their families. We had a few Muslims show up on the JW recovery board (also some Mormons and various others). We could help Mormons and such - they knew they would lose their families and be shunned by leaving the religion. Muslims who wanted to leave were afraid for their lives and we had to direct them to go to the police for protection. We had board meetings about it where we decided that, not being professionals, we were not in a position to help Muslims as much as we could others and felt the best thing (even legally) was to direct them to support more suited to their needs.

Hirsi Ali also divides Muslims into two groups - Medina Muslims and Mecca Muslims.

It's a lovely interpretation and there are many Muslims who follow your interpretation. In reality, you prove Dog's point - that the violent verses and directives in the Koran must be ignored by Muslims in order for it to be a peaceful Islam. They must ignore the directive to emulate Mohammed. There are also many Muslims who do not share your interpretation of "The People of the Book". And it seems that many, even here in Canada, are not being taught your interpretation of the Koran, as evidenced by the Jew-hating Al Qud festivals held across Canada (and the world) every year since 1979, which are well-supported by Muslims. How do you rationalize those two realities? http://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/toronto-al-quds-day-rally-will-go-ahead-despite-efforts-to-stop-it http://www.jdl-canada.com/tag/al-quds-day/ https://www.therebel.media/top_10_toronto_al_quds_day_hezbollah_flags_calls_for_eradication_of_israelis Also, how do non-Muslims trust your interpretation is the right one, while witnessing these hate-fests against the very "People of the Book" that they claim to respect? Do we believe what they SAY, or do be believe their ACTIONS?

The latest research I've found shows that the more punitive and vengeful a religion is, the more likelihood of it causing mental illness: https://campuspress.yale.edu/perspective/religion-and-mental-health-the-connection-between-faith-and-delusion/

I like to think that humanity overcomes religious directives at some point for most people. Breaking point would be different for different people - I left my church when they directed me to have nothing to do with my children. I have a scar from my encounter.

Not sure if I'm getting your drift.....but I'll try: Dog's position is that violence is inherent in Islam - through its holy book and through its history and through the way the majority of the world's Muslims behave. In no way has he ever said that ALL Muslims are violent. His stand is that there is more violence in Islam than normal because of the verses explicit in the book, the history of the religion and its effects on its adherents in general. Dia diagrees - to her, the book is just being wrongly interpreted and only by a tiny, almost miniscule, "You're an Islamophobe if you have any concern about Islamic terrorism" portion of Muslims. To her the religion is a beautiful record of peace and love and anyone who doesn't believe that is morally bankrupt, in her opinion. So in order to disagree with Dog, she must re-word everything he says by following him around the board and making sure that everyone sees HER interpretation of what he's posted, in the hopes that others will eventually only see HER interpretation and not what he's actually said. Mudballs. If you throw enough of them, eventually something sticks. She will be so happy that you have accepted her interpretation of what Dog posts, picked up that mudball she created and thrown it at the target she has chosen for you.

Ah, I see. You've picked up one of Dialamah's mudballs. She'll be so happy.

And I was assaulted by a Muslim man at my work because I told him No about something - he got 6 months for throwing an object at my head, which I deflected with my hand and needed stitches. And I had my hand slapped and was shoved by a Muslim man for handing some food tickets to his wife, instead of to his 5 year old son. What's your point?

You're not the boss of me and you're not this forum's police, who gets to tell others when and what they post. It's a discussion forum, everyone is allowed to post their thoughts and I am not obligated to you to attack the posters you want me to, nor am I obligated to respond to every post I don't completely agree with. I am not going to re-write people's posts just to find something nit-picky to argue about like you do.

You answered your own question: Whatever your issue is with the Dog, leave me out of it.

**sigh** You are so busy searching for indications of Islamophobia or something not worded exactly how you think it should be that you miss the point almost 100% of the time. No one is saying that violent jihad is "acceptable" for Muslims. But I think you know that and are just mud-slinging again, as usual.

For instance, you say the Koran clearly states jihad is internal. This Muslim scholar disagrees with you. And he quotes the actual verses and explains them. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/nabeel-qureshi/is-the-quran-the-roots-of-jihad_b_9594484.html This is why I don't jump all over everything Doggo says, as much as you would like me to. Because much of what he says is the same as what Muslim reformers and ex-Muslims have to say. You frequently advocate the opposite of what Muslim reformers advocate. people have to filter the traditions to produce a peaceful Islam ^^^ Is that not what Doggo always says, too? ^^^ You may not like it, you may not like how he presents it, but his view on this is perfectly valid and supported.

Is that what it SAYS or is that another interpretation of what it says? Doggo at least provides the actual verses.

Yeah, YOU can. But apparently the rest of us are not allowed to. Because every time we do, you show up name-calling and insisting that we talk instead about what Christians did 500 years ago.

She can't differentiate when people are talking about Islam in general and insists you only speak about individual Muslims. Then when you talk about individual cases, she insists they don't represent all Muslims, which we all already know. Basically, she just doesn't want anything bad in Islam talked about.

nevermind. I just figured out what you're trying to do here.

I understand. Because I feel the same way about your claims of objectivity and fairmindedness if I had noticed you chastising Altai when it posts all its shit.

"Rings of Peace" is a great gesture, but frankly it's the easy way to be against anti-semitism if you're a Muslim. The hard way would be to take a stand against things like these Al Qud demonstrations and imams who preach hate. And Dia, don't even start with me about how I don't have any right to say that - because I am a person who took a stand against what was going on in my church and I am very well aware of how difficult that is to go against your community and what the costs are.

That may be how you "perceive" what is being said, because you are hyper-sensitive to the issue. When I'm talking about Islam, I'm talking about mainstream Islam - how it is practiced in all Muslim majority countries and the fundamentalist agenda that is currently being pushed on Muslims all around the world. That there are individual Muslims who don't agree with or don't practice extremist Islam is obvious. You often bring up Nazi times to show how white people jumped onto that bandwagon of hate. The difference between us is that I don't believe Muslims are somehow exceptional people who are immune to following their own crowd down paths of hatred. I think they're just like the rest of us. So when I read about anti-semitism growing at astronomical rates all over the world and see Al Qud festivals being held in Canada (and I believe I actually witnessed one of these hate-filled anti-Jew demonstrations but didn't realize what it was at the time), I am concerned about it. I am also concerned that Muslims In Canada think there's nothing wrong with these demonstrations because it's other religions that are calling them out on it and they are not willingly ending it on their own. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/reevely-ford-promises-to-ban-al-quds-day-protests-somehow I understand that you do not like this being discussed and will use any excuse to justify why this is only a concern to racists and Islamophobes and your new favourite insult - xenophobes. Sorry, but I'm not waiting until the Jews are in the ovens to say something about this.

That's rich, coming from you. No, you googled til you found an example of a Canadian to prove that we are exactly the same as Pakistan, to apologize for Islam, to minimize what Muslim countries are doing. Except your example doesn't do any of that. You're an apologist for Islam, who doesn't want what goes on in Islamic countries discussed because you feel that if even one Canadian does something that Muslim countries do, then we don't have any right to call them out on their barbarism. You want everyone to shut up about Islam? If we did that, people would still believe the earth was flat, witches would still be burned at the stake, black people would still be slaves, Jews would still be burned in ovens, women would have no equal rights and gays would not be winning their own equality. (Actually that sounds like most Muslim-ruled countries) Should I continue? Or just shut up now and let you continue to be an apologist?