Here's the thing about just about any religions and the extremist elements in them
And most of them haven't those extremists in charge of countries, nor have they usually formed the backbone of legal systems. And yet we have ISIS and Sharia Law, both extremely deeply entrenched in the wider theology beyond the book. The Middle East
does define the "standard" form of Islam, and it is a highly oppressive religious standard.
Also, who the fuck are you to ram things down our throats and dictate what my religion should evolve into?
...Someone who's seen news of several incidences of the current two-hyperdominant-sects paradigm of Islam having open violence between them? And the numerous cases where they've justified atrocities with
direct scripture quotes? This isn't a fringe thing, they still have an official, religiously-justified,
death sentence for homosexuality in several major Middle Eastern countries.
You straight out said you want Islam to be weak, to be easily breakable into small pieces you can deal with at your leisure.
No, the point of the division is so that they can't
violently overthrow governments, like ISIS did. Religious homogeneity leads to
extremely bad things. The closest thing to ISIS that has happened with Christianity was the violent evangelizing in China... Which happened because only one or two particularly fundamentalist forms of Christianity ever got any foothold. Had there been a dozen different ones with stark differences, they'd have been too busy debating the proper version of Christianity among themselves to try to launch a violent coup to any real success. Importantly, the Bible does
not explicitly condone such actions. The Quran, though? You have to dig
extremely deep and have a pile of historic records backing you up to get a firm case against ISIS, and even then, it's largely not the big nasty things, but the
exact details of the big nasty things.
Like I wrote in my previous post when I quotes a whole sura' (book) to you, you do you and I do mine.
How about you actually explain the verses
listed here as permitting of peace with
any kind of direct interpretation? If the translations are off, do explain how. Islam
is not a religion of peace, going by the book. Neither are Christianity and Judaism! The biggest difference is that the bulk of Christians and Jews don't obsess over their scripture like Muslims obsess over the Quran. Islam will
never be peaceful unless it is unable to effectively enact violence, or forced to make the book less important. Oh, and
here's a link for some of the so-called "verses of peace", to debunk some of
that apologia. Please do offer a coherent argument against the accusations, backed by the actual standards of the power center.
The issues isn't about how the book is interpreted. The issue is quite largely the book itself, because no interpretation of the words actually present describes a genuinely peaceful religion. It's
more blatantly expansionist than Christianity, which at least limits to evangelizing in the book itself. Meanwhile, the Quran explicitly permits violent expansion of the area controlled by Islam in the chronologically later Suras. The Quran also has several blatant contradictions in it, and these are usually resolved by having the chronologically-later, and near universally
more violence-supporting, verses override earlier ones when contradicted. Islam, according to the book, is considerably less peaceful than Christianity and Judaism, because the latter two have
blanket rules against killing people, while the Quran refers only to Muslims.
If Islam is going to be tolerated in the modern world, it needs to ditch the Quran as its primary moral compass. You find the "casual Christians" contemptable, and yet are ignoring the explicit calls to conquest, made
during a violent conquest, within your own scripture's holy texts. The morality espoused by the Quran, in isolation, is a violent, insular and expansionist one, rejecting of the legitimacy of other religions, with the best you get being literal taxing for not being Muslim.
Maybe when your lot stops using ad-homonyms instead of refutations and stops misrepresenting my position. The entirety of the idea that I
actually support Pinochet is a massive strawman, for example, because I've explicitly stated I consider him a net positive because the socialists were
already in power and
already doing things with a universal track record of ruining economies.
Less. Bad.
Not helping yourself there,
@Morphile. You may not be as crass as some of the other posters but you're basically saying things that are not acceptable. Seems to me you just dress your intentions nicely and hide it in a fricking haystack. Not cool.
Alternatively, you're a paranoid self-deluding asshole who refuses to accept that a person capable of considering
anything worse than fascism without supporting fascism can exist (to use a rather extreme example). Among other failures to comprehend the fact nuance exists in politics. Or the fact your own religion's scripture actually advocates for forceful expansion, apparently.