However not all religious belief systems contain these components to THE SAME DEGREE. Indeed, some religious belief systems - like the Amish - totally reject violence.
Yeah, so?
Are you serious? That Islam in particular has become so widely associated with violence and fanaticism is surely because of the disproportionate amount of murder and mayhem committed today in the NAME OF THEIR GOD by people calling THEMSELVES "Muslims". I never gave a thought to Islam until the Rushdie affair. If you do not think these people are faithfully "interpreting" their religion it is surely up to you to show them where they have gone astray. Why don't you? When was the last time you heard of a bunch of Amish hijacking a plane full of passengers and smashing it into a building?
This is hilarious, you're seriously comparing Islam to Christianity through the vehicle of al-Qaeda contrasted with the Amish?
Followers of all religions cherry pick. Muslims no more or less than anyone else, which is why you trying to counter Hassan's description of his former peaceful interpretation of Islam with "that's just cherry picking" begs the obvious question, so fucking what? If they cherry pick a nice fluffy version, let them. Its their life they're wasting by praying to an imaginary sky fairy five times a day, not yours or mine.
However, unlike Muhammad, Jesus did not POSITIVELY DEMAND the infliction of barbaric Old Testament punishments
Minor quibble - Jesus is God according to Christians, so therefore he is indeed responsible for positively demanding the OT punishments because according to the OT they were demanded by God.
Not that I care, I'm not interested in trying to prove a case against Christianity nor in favour of Islam. They're all bollocks as far as I'm concerned.
Muhammad ORDERED the stoning of some Jewish adulterers when the Jews of Medina would have preferred not to. The Koran EXPLICITLY orders adulterers to be "mercilessly flogged" and makes doing so the hallmark of a "true believer". By contrast, Jesus said to some wannabe stoners: "Who is without sin let him cast the first stone". See the difference? Although Jesus, according to the bible, said "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them" he simply does not express the same explicit demands to impose "divine law" as does the Koran/Muhammad vis a vis Muslims. Christians can forgo stoning and violence even in self-defense without fear of burning in hell. Muslims cannot. To repeat, not all religions contain an inherent tendency towards politicization and violence TO AN EQUAL DEGREE.
Yes, yes we know, Mohammed was quite the shit when he wanted to be. Not all muslims are shits is the point we are trying to get across to you. Some of them are even inventive enough to find ways to interpret Mohammed's teachings so that they sound like a recipe for living a good life. Hence, not all interpretations of Islam are as violent or literalist as you seem to think.
Only if he could fulfill Jesus' condition that he was "without sin"
A command upon which no criminal justice system could ever possibly be built. Certainly not the largely Christian run justice system of Texas which condemns people to death. I wonder how they manage to square that with their religion? Oh, I know - they are just cherry picking.
Like I said Christianity , unlike Islam, provides a theologically valid escape route from OT violence for those who wish to take it. Unlike Islam, whose "holy book" positively DEMANDS it:
Christianity provides some nasty cherries to pick too for those that don't want to escape the OT version. Also, as has been pointed out to you, Islam also consists of nice and nasty cherries. You can bang on about how many more nice cherries in Xtianity and how many more nasty ones in Islam if you like, you're only arguing degrees and my central point still holds - all religionists cherry pick to suit themselves.
So they are permitted to kill anyone who has not so accepted?
No, there's rules for that too. Mohammed seems to have had OCD, he made rules about everything, even mere kaffirs.
Thank you for admitting that killing people for adultery and apostates are an inherent component of Islam and that those self-proclaimed "Muslims" who genuinely reject such atrocities are not being true to the faith they claim to follow.
DH, you do know you're on an EX muslim forum, don't you? They way you say "thank you for admitting..." makes me suspect you think you're on a muslim forum.
And yes, they're cherry picking. Just like the devout Christians on Texas juries who return a death penalty verdict despite having committed sins of their own.
Muslims have been slaughtering their nominal coreligionists almost from the very beginning. Shiites slaughtering sunnites. Sunnite slaughter shiites. How can they do this when the Koran forbids "believer" killing "believer"? It is simple: they categorize each other as infidels (kafirs), the mass slaughter of which is a Koranic duty
Its simple - they interpret their religion to suit themselves. They'd make great jurors in Texas. And no, the mass killing of kaffirs is not a Qur'anic duty.
Did Muhammad outlaw that?
Mohammed laid down rules about what colour and under what circumstances a man is allowed to dye his hair. Bin Laden breaks those rules by dying his hair and beard black every time he takes a new wife.
[What "blanket conclusions" have I drawn about Muslims and Islam exactly?
That there is no such thing as non-political Islam, and that Islam is irredeemably nasty.
And if Phelp's, like Muhammad, claimed his OT-derived philosophy had been handed down from a god and that he was that god's final prophet we would have another inherently iredeemably nasty religion like Islam.
See?
(Anyway, we already have it - its called the Westboro Baptist Church).
It matters because the so-called "secular Muslims" are providing a "moderate" smokescreen behind which the so-called "Islamists" are steadily advancing their goal of Islamizing the west and bringing it under sharia. At the moment they are achieving their goal through, on the surface, "uncontroversial" requests for mosques, Muslim "faith schools", prayer rooms and Muslim headscarfs at work etc etc - which themselves add up to the Islamization of large areas of public space. If they feel strong enough they will use more aggressive methods (indeed, no-go areas have already developed in western countries where non-Muslims are harassed and intimidated by gangs of Muslim youths). The so-called "moderates" are therefore helping the so-called "islamists" achieve their ultimate goal. They are blinding the wider population to the threat that Islam poses - as are you in propagating the falsehood that people who genuinely reject sharia barbarities can call themselves "Muslim" with equal validity as can the Taliban.
They can. Its not a falsehood at all, if people can interpret Islam in a peaceful, apolitical way good luck to them. At least they're offering a better alternative than the likes of Hizb ut-Tahrir for those muslims who can't quite let go of God.
What do you suggest as an alternative?
Topic: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims