Quran Desecration

philologos

dead one wrote: »

sure, i would save people because quran told.
also see in it in talmud which shows truthfulness of Quran.

But you aren't getting point, using scheme of burning quran to stop campaign of islam or spread hate against islam isn't good. That's what christian missionaries are doing.

You said that the lives of 100 people are less important than the offense caused by burning the Qur'an a few posts ago though. This is where I'm finding an inconsistency in your view.

dead one wrote: »

You said muslim apologetic are dishonest. Let me tell you what is honesty
This following quote will show you honest views of an honest christian and also an honest muslim
We musilm are more christian than you are in following Jesus christ (pbuh) because we don't break his commandments. You are dishonest in following christ. Because it is written in Bible He said further, whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven . . ." (matthew 5:19).
I hope you will differentiate between honesty and dishonesty.

I've heard all of this stuff at the dawah stand before. It's dishonest because if you are going to use the Bible while saying it is corrupted, you have no way of knowing what is corrupted from what is.

It is only unless you leave that belief aside that we can actually discuss the Bible because you have put yourselves up in an ivory tower when we find a verse that disagrees with you that you can say "that's corrupted".

The Bible clearly presents Jesus as the Son of God who was crucified and Resurrected on the third day. Most historians recognise that this was Christian belief right from the beginning. I've also read other Islamic dawah materials (a booklet called "Beyond Nicea") that deny in the face of the facts that this was the case. I suspect you may be using this pamphlet in the quote below actually.

I don't also see how you are more "Christian" than I am.

dead one wrote: »

I hope jackass you will also agree with it

It contains analogy certainly. But the analogy always proclaims the truth.
As I've said above though, if you believe the Bible is corrupted we actually can't use it in discussion because it is corrupt so what's the point. How can you know what isn't corrupted? It means when I show you you are wrong from the Bible you can say "It's corrupted". Why would I enter into such a pointless circular discussion.

irishconvert

dead one and jakkass, attempting to convert one another is not allowed in this forum, please stay on topic.

philologos

irishconvert - I'm not attempting to convert anyone here. I'm merely telling him how much Islamic dawah is dishonest to the core in what I have seen.

irishconvert

Jakkass wrote: »

irishconvert - I'm not attempting to convert anyone here. I'm merely telling him how much Islamic dawah is dishonest to the core in what I have seen.

Ok, whatever you two are up to, please stop it. Stay on topic.

Thanks.

dead one

Jakkass wrote: »

You said that the lives of 100 people are less important than the offense caused by burning the Qur'an a few posts ago though. This is where I'm finding an inconsistency in your view.

Good friend it isn't inconsistency. Inconsistency is in your mind. If you use burning quran as scheme to effect society of billion. That burning is surely incomparable to the act of bomber. If you use this scheme/propaganda/tactic to fullfill you required objectives than it is no match against bombers. That's my point which i am repeating again and again but you are ignoring again and again.

Jakkass wrote: »

How can you know what isn't corrupted?

Quran is last testimony of God. It gives us knowelge to understand where bible is corrupted, or where it isn't corrupted.
Just for Example

New International Version (©1984)
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.New Living Translation (©2007)
"Listen, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.
English Standard Version (©2001)
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Listen, Israel: The LORD is our God. The LORD is the only God.

I have no problem in agreeing with above verse

Just look Quran.

[43:63] When Jesus went with the proofs, he said, "I bring to you wisdom, and to clarify some of the matters in which you dispute. You shall reverence GOD and obey me.
[43:64] "GOD is my Lord and your Lord, you shall worship Him alone. This is the right path."
[43:65] The opponents disputed among themselves. Woe to those who transgress from the retribution of a painful day.

dead one

irishconvert wrote: »

Ok, whatever you two are up to, please stop it. Stay on topic.
Thanks.

alright sorry i read your reply late?

JimiTime

irishconvert wrote: »

Ok, whatever you two are up to, please stop it. Stay on topic.

Thanks.

Can they take it to another thread, or is their conversation disallowed in the Islam forum? I'm just interested in it, so would like to see the points being addressed. Can this discussion on the accusations by islam as to the corruption of the bible etc take place in the Islam forum? Maybe you could do that Mod thing and cut the posts that are OT to new thread?

JimiTime

dead one wrote: »

Good friend it isn't inconsistency. Inconsistency is in your mind. If you use burning quran as scheme to effect society of billion. That burning is surely incomparable to the act of bomber. If you use this scheme/propaganda/tactic to fullfill you required objectives than it is no match against bombers. That's my point which i am repeating again and again but you are ignoring again and again.


Quran is last testimony of God. It gives us knowelge to understand where bible is corrupted, or where it isn't corrupted.
Just for Example
I have no problem in agreeing with above verse

Just look Quran.

Of course, this spreads the issue as to the authenticity of the claim that the Quran is in fact the word of God. I'm not sure if you are aware, but Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, makes the same claim that Muhammad made regarding the Quran, to his Book of Mormon.

philologos

dead one wrote: »

Quran is last testimony of God. It gives us knowelge to understand where bible is corrupted, or where it isn't corrupted.
Just for Example
I have no problem in agreeing with above verse

How can we know that the Qur'an is the last testimony of God or that it is the legitimate word of God?

dead one wrote: »

Just look Quran.

So, we actually can't have a discussion I'm just meant to accept the Qur'an and not ask any more?

Is that really what dawah is about, spreading dishonesty about other peoples religious texts? I've read the pamphlets that are handed out, and some of the videos from Dr. Zakir Naik they are unconvincing at best.

irishconvert: If it isn't for here, would you mind moving it to a new thread on the practice of dawah in Islam? I don't want to mess things up for you but I think this discussion needs to be had.

hivizman

JimiTime wrote: »

Can they take it to another thread, or is their conversation disallowed in the Islam forum? I'm just interested in it, so would like to see the points being addressed. Can this discussion on the accusations by islam as to the corruption of the bible etc take place in the Islam forum? Maybe you could do that Mod thing and cut the posts that are OT to new thread?

In response to this request and the request of Jakkass, I have opened up a new thread on the issue of the corruption of the Bible and other sacred texts.

The present thread is about the rights and wrongs of burning the Qur'an.

Mark Hamill

himnextdoor wrote: »

True, to a point.

Some people get offended by a phrase such as 'Get back to your own country' or any one of an assortment of other racist jibes; should the legislation that makes such things an offence be removed?

Political Correctness curbs free-speech. As does being in a position of authority. We sometimes have to be careful about what we say. Try calling a member of the gardai a pig and see how free speech actually is. How many westernised countries would tolerate anti-semitism? All of these things are protection, for some people, of the right not to be offended.

It's not really 'free speech' dude.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from negative outcomes. I'm not saying that nothing anyone can do can never be justifiably construed as insulting (and only insulting), but it has to be very specific in its definitions and ultimately fairness needs to be the aim. For instance I've yet to see people here, in the name of political correctness, condemn the muslims who protested by burning american flags, despite the fact that that could be taken as an insult to america in much the same way that burning the quran was an insult to islam.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Offender as in 'one who causes offence'.

Then everyone is an offender, because everything we do offends someone.

himnextdoor wrote: »

We're not talking about freedom to criticise, we're talking about freedom to offend and as I have already pointed out, there are restrictions on who and in what way we can offend.

But why do we want the right to be able to cause offence? Why are we looking to legally enshrine the right to cause any degree of discomfort to those we disagree with?

As has been said, offence is subjective. What you may find as offence, others may see as a genuine method of protest (didn't many muslim protesters burn american flags in answer to Jones? I know they have done it in the past for other issues). To enact legislation stopping everyone from offending others will result in throwing everyone in jail.

himnextdoor wrote: »

It's not nice to call people stupid; even if they are.

Who called them stupid?

himnextdoor wrote: »

Do unto others and all that.

I would have people allow me the freedom to discuss or criticise any issue, much as I allow others.

himnextdoor wrote: »

So it is okay to cause mental pain? Do you really want to have the right to hurt people just because you don't agree with them?

People who are being offended might not see society as being peaceful.

Yes, it is ok to cause certain types of mental pain. These certain types arise from peoples frustrations at seeing people who are or act differently to them and not being able to deal with because they are, for what ever reason, intollerant of different people, just look at intolerant extremists - kkk, neo-nazis etc. Its not my fault if something I do upsets these people, the world doesn't revolve around them. They should allow me the freedom that results in them being allowed to do the things they want to do.
Is it any surprise that when people complain about being offended, that they assume that everything they do is the offensive baseline, ie that nothing they do is offensive to anyone, therefore thats how everyone should act?

himnextdoor wrote: »

People are standing up to extremists; expert people and they specifically asked pastor Jones not to help.

Who?

himnextdoor wrote: »

Jones didn't force them, he unleashed them.

Jones had no control of these people, they all have free will, they didn't have to do anything they didn't want to do.

Mark Hamill

dead one wrote: »

Burning quran is a scheme which doesn't violate rights of other but it is used to destroy peace in society. Meaning it is indirect source to spread hate and corruption in the society. It is indirect source for violation of rights.

Except its not. Those protesters didn't have to act violently regardless of what Jones did. They were not forced by his actions to do anything, they chose to react the way they did, despite the insanity of it (or in spite, if you think they where just looking for an excuse). These protesters agreed that burning the quran was an act punishable by retaliation, not Jones.

dead one wrote: »

He chooses a wrong action. He choose a method of greater ignorance to finish his confusion. So when ever an action takes place there will always be after effect. The greater the action, the greater afters effect.

The protesters are in no way slaves to Jones actions. While he chose a stupid thing to do, the "effect" that arose came from the protesters. They had a myriad ways of protesting - marches, flag/bible burnings etc but they chose violence.

himnextdoor

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Who?

The invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan are purportedly there to address the problem of extremism and The President of the U.S.A. asked Pastor Jones not to carry out his 'protest' which was actually nothing more than an attempt to rile the extremists.

There are laws against violence and the law should seek to put an end to extremism in all its forms, whether it be Muslim, Christian, football hooligans. We already have laws for that.

However, there is no law against precipitating violence therefore all people that are not breaking the law are good people.:rolleyes:

Pastor Jones is so good and did so little wrong that everyone thinks him a bigoted fool and for his lack of sin he has been banned from entering the UK. And this causes him offence. I believe he now wishes to campaign against that decision but I wonder how he will argue that his right to offend supercedes the British government's right to offend.

Zombrex

dead one wrote: »

but the point is burning quran is tactic to spread hate against islam.

So?

Muslims can choose how effected they will be by the fact that others hate their religion. Acting as if it the most awful thing in the world is just looking to be offended tbh, like a non-Muslims saying he is hideously offended by the existence of Islam in the first place. Its just silly.

dead one

@Markhamil and Wick

What you said is true but problem is majority of common people are unlettered.They tend to believe in whatever they are told in the name of religion. If you can't educate common people than don't use tool of ignorance to spread more ignorance in society. That's the point. Even Pastor is educated one why he used his education to spread ignorance. Think on it. As i already said i don't favor suiding bombing or to burn quran

himnextdoor

dead one wrote: »

@Markhamil and Wick

What you said is true but problem is majority of common people are unlettered.They tend to believe in whatever they are told in the name of religion. If you can't educate common people than don't use tool of ignorance to spread more ignorance in society. That's the point. Even Pastor is educated one why he used his education to spread ignorance. Think on it. As i already said i don't favor suiding bombing or to burn quran

I agree.

By doing what he did, the pastor may have succeeded in validating a widely held sterotypical view of Christians in the eyes of many Muslims.

That is not building bridges or mending fences.

Mark Hamill

himnextdoor wrote: »

However, there is no law against precipitating violence therefore all people that are not breaking the law are good people.:rolleyes:

There is no law against precipitating violence in the way that Jones may have, because those that actually acted violently chose themselves to act violently, they weren't unavoidably coerced to be violent, they could have protested in the same way that other muslims protested that resulted in no deaths.
It doesn't matter if you tell me that if I do something that offends you that you will kill someone because of it, you have absolutely no justification to kill anyone simply because you are offended.

Mark Hamill

dead one wrote: »

@Markhamil and Wick

What you said is true but problem is majority of common people are unlettered.They tend to believe in whatever they are told in the name of religion.If you can't educate common people than don't use tool of ignorance to spread more ignorance in society. That's the point. Even Pastor is educated one why he used his education to spread ignorance. Think on it. As i already said i don't favor suiding bombing or to burn quran

Ignorance is never an excuse for violence and you dont need to be educated to see that violence is not a reasonable response. Also we shouldn't let others ignorance stifle our own freedoms, its just another way of bowing to other peoples arbitrary offence. Regardless of the pastors motivations, his protest was a viable form of protest, used by many other people in history (people have burnt flags and effigies of governments and groups they dont like before) and while I dont agree with the specific thing he did, I wouldn't take away his freedom to do it out of fear of offending some extremist. Where would we stop? What else would we stop people form doing so as to not offend extremists? Should we make all our women wear burkhas to keep them happy? Remove all music and entertainment broadcast that offends them? Forcibly convert everyone to their brand of extremists islam?

himnextdoor

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There is no law against precipitating violence in the way that Jones may have, because those that actually acted violently chose themselves to act violently, they weren't unavoidably coerced to be violent, they could have protested in the same way that other muslims protested that resulted in no deaths.
It doesn't matter if you tell me that if I do something that offends you that you will kill someone because of it, you have absolutely no justification to kill anyone simply because you are offended.

I don't disagree with you; the extremists made their own choices.

Let me put it this way; the actions of the pastor and their outcome should serve as a caution for those who might protest in a similar fashion.

himnextdoor

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ignorance is never an excuse for violence and you dont need to be educated to see that violence is not a reasonable response. Also we shouldn't let others ignorance stifle our own freedoms, its just another way of bowing to other peoples arbitrary offence. Regardless of the pastors motivations, his protest was a viable form of protest, used by many other people in history (people have burnt flags and effigies of governments and groups they dont like before) and while I dont agree with the specific thing he did, I wouldn't take away his freedom to do it out of fear of offending some extremist. Where would we stop? What else would we stop people form doing so as to not offend extremists? Should we make all our women wear burkhas to keep them happy? Remove all music and entertainment broadcast that offends them? Forcibly convert everyone to their brand of extremists islam?

I think you overestimate natural intelligence.

AhSureTisGrand

himnextdoor wrote: »

Let me put it this way; the actions of the pastor and their outcome should serve as a caution for those who might protest in a similar fashion.

The terrorists win?!!

Mark Hamill

himnextdoor wrote: »

Let me put it this way; the actions of the pastor and their outcome should serve as a caution for those who might protest in a similar fashion.

But how far does that go? What else would we stop people from doing so as to not offend extremists? Should we make all our women wear burkhas to keep them happy? Remove all music and entertainment broadcast that offends them? Forcibly convert everyone to their brand of extremists islam?

Mark Hamill

himnextdoor wrote: »

I think you overestimate natural intelligence.

I've yet to hear of a dog or a bear get so offended by another animal disrespecting their beliefs that they attack the nearest creature they can find. I think that kind of reaction, violence in answer to an offence of sensibilities, is a learned response.

himnextdoor

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

The terrorists win?!!

People not burning Qur'ans = terrorist victory? I don't think so.

Do you honestly think that pastor Jones has assisted in any way in the fight against terrorism?

There are troops out there in Afghanistan whose mission is to fight terrorism; there have been extra powers given to security forces in order to fight terrorism. The extremists need to be dealt with regardless of how sensitive to criticism they are but what is not required is a pastor trying to satisfy his own agenda by 'stirring things up'.

himnextdoor

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But how far does that go? What else would we stop people from doing so as to not offend extremists? Should we make all our women wear burkhas to keep them happy? Remove all music and entertainment broadcast that offends them? Forcibly convert everyone to their brand of extremists islam?

How far does what go? Using a bit of common sense?

Extremism needs to be dealt with but burning Qur'ans is not an effective way to fight the war against terrorism.

himnextdoor

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I've yet to hear of a dog or a bear get so offended by another animal disrespecting their beliefs that they attack the nearest creature they can find.

Really? If a dog approaches a bear's territory then you can bet your bottom dollar that the bear will feel that his borders have been disrespected and if he gets hold of the dog, or anything, he will kill it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think that kind of reaction, violence in answer to an offence of sensibilities, is a learned response.

Yes, and learned responses are taught, indotrinated.

The battle for hearts and minds is just as important as the eradication of extremists in the war against terrorism. Pastor Jones' antics has undermined the battle for hearts and minds; it would appear that it is not only Muslims who disapprove of the pastor's stunt.

partyatmygaff

himnextdoor wrote: »

By doing what he did, the murderers may have succeeded in validating a widely held stereotypical view of Muslims in the eyes of the world.

That is not building bridges or mending fences.

FYP

Truth be told, even in the heart of the Muslim world there is no such stereotype of Christians. In fact, it is the opposite.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Let me put it this way; the actions of the pastor and their outcome should serve as a caution for those who might protest in a similar fashion.

So we should all shut up and toe the ever nearing line of offense lest a bunch of maniacs with swords behead the first people they see?

No. We should not appease murderers in any way shape or form. It's not the Pastor that is at fault. The day we start restricting ourselves in fear of indiscriminate killers whose sole method of communication is by a sword is the day that we give up on what is right.

himnextdoor

By doing what they did, the murderers may have succeeded in validating a widely held stereotypical view of Muslims in the eyes of the world.

And;

By doing what he did, the pastor may have succeeded in validating a widely held sterotypical view of Christians in the eyes of many Muslims.

That is not building bridges or mending fences.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So we should all shut up and toe the ever nearing line of offense lest a bunch of maniacs with swords behead the first people they see?

No. We should not appease murderers in any way shape or form. It's not the Pastor that is at fault. The day we start restricting ourselves in fear of indiscriminate killers whose sole method of communication is by a sword is the day that we give up on what is right.

Explain to me how not burning a Qur'an is an act of appeasement.

himnextdoor

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Truth be told, I haven't a clue what I'm talking about.

FYP. :cool:

partyatmygaff

himnextdoor wrote: »

By doing what he did, the pastor may have succeeded in validating a widely held sterotypical view of Christians in the eyes of many Muslims.

You mean the non-existent one? There is no such stereotype.

Explain to me how not burning a Qur'an is an act of appeasement.

It is "not burning a Qur'an" that is appeasement. It is wishing to burn a Qur'an as a book to express severe distaste at its content and then being made to not follow through with your intentions due to the violence of extremists that is appeasement.

himnextdoor

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You mean the non-existent one? There is no such stereotype.

Do Muslims see Christians as a God-fearing people? With high moral standards?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It is "not burning a Qur'an" that is appeasement. It is wishing to burn a Qur'an as a book to express severe distaste at its content and then being made to not follow through with your intentions due to the violence of extremists that is appeasement.

But the book wasn't burned for its content; pastor Jones has not even read the Qur'an.

No, not doing something because it puts life in danger is using common sense, not appeasement.

You may believe that the pastor's right to burn a book that he hasn't read in order to protest about its content, which he hasn't read, supercedes the rights of UN workers to live but I don't.

partyatmygaff

himnextdoor wrote: »

Do Muslims see Christians as a God-fearing people? With high moral standards?

The more sensible of them do. I.e. the ones who have lived with Christians for centuries in the Middle East. That is not to say all of them do. Some Muslims have some rather crazy ideas about Christianity. Nothing to do with Pastor Jones or Qur'an desecration but more so to do with their actual beliefs. That's not to mention the many extremist groups.

But the book wasn't burned for its content; pastor Jones has not even read the Qur'an.

He burnt it on the basis of what he had read about it. He was also in contact with many former Muslims who "testified" against the book in his mock trial before burning the Qur'an.

No, not doing something because it puts life in danger is using common sense, not appeasement.

Why does it put life in danger? Why should something like this put anyone's life in danger?

You may believe that the pastor's right to burn a book that he hasn't read in order to protest about its content, which he hasn't read, supercedes the rights of UN workers to live but I don't.

lol, what a load of rubbish. Strawmanning at its very best.

himnextdoor

partyatmygaff wrote: »

He burnt it on the basis of what he had read about it. He was also in contact with many former Muslims who "testified" against the book in his mock trial before burning the Qur'an.

So it wasn't a fair mock trial then.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Why does it put life in danger? Why should something like this put anyone's life in danger?

It shouldn't but it does. That's the point.

Why do some people commit rape, or child-abuse? Why do bad things happen? Because there are some right nutters out there and all I'm saying is that pastor Terry Jones is one of them.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

lol, what a load of rubbish. Strawmanning at its very best.

Did the pastor do nothing wrong? And should he do it again?

partyatmygaff

himnextdoor wrote: »

So it wasn't a fair mock trial then.

/facepalm

Fair Mock Trial, an oxymoron if I ever saw one.

It shouldn't but it does. That's the point.

Why does it happen? The whole reason he burnt the Qur'an was to protest against the radical elements of Islam that respond violently to things like these.

Why do some people commit rape, or child-abuse? Why do bad things happen? Because there are some right nutters out there and all I'm saying is that pastor Terry Jones is one of them.

If he's a right nutter then what would you call the people who indiscriminately killed those who had nothing to do with Pastor Jones I wonder? Burning a book you disagree with it is not crazy. Grabbing a sword and hacking off the heads of a few UN workers because of the actions of a man 7500 miles away however is a bit beyond crazy.

Did the pastor do nothing wrong? And should he do it again?

While not the most effective nor the most respectful method of protest he certainly did nothing wrong per se. He did not commit violence against anyone, he made no death threats. He merely expressed a severe distaste for a book. He harmed no one (And no, the reaction of psychopaths should not be on his conscience).

himnextdoor

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Why does it happen? The whole reason he burnt the Qur'an was to protest against the radical elements of Islam that respond violently to things like these.

So, the reason he burned a copy of the Qur'an was to prove that extremists would use it as an excuse to murder.

It is the same thing.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If he's a right nutter then what would you call the people who indiscriminately killed those who had nothing to do with Pastor Jones I wonder?

Murderers!

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Burning a book you disagree with it is not crazy. Grabbing a sword and hacking off the heads of a few UN workers because of the actions of a man 7500 miles away however is a bit beyond crazy.

Burning a book whilst at the same time believing that burning a book could lead to murder shows a lack of empathy which is not becoming of a minister of any church.

I do believe that psychopaths have a lack of empathy for their victims and families of their victims too.

He's a nutter!

partyatmygaff wrote: »

While not the most effective nor the most respectful method of protest he certainly did nothing wrong per se. He did not commit violence against anyone, he made no death threats. He merely expressed a severe distaste for a book. He harmed no one (And no, the reaction of psychopaths should not be on his conscience).

It seems that the only area we disagree on is the pastor's role in the violence. You think he did nothing wrong in which case you can't describe him as a fool, bigot or douche.

I don't so I can.

partyatmygaff

himnextdoor wrote: »

So, the reason he burned a copy of the Qur'an was to prove that extremists would use it as an excuse to murder.

Do you have a degree in strawmanning or is it just a habitual tendency?

Murderers!

So they aren't crazy then? Pastor Jones is a right nutter and the people who grabbed a sword and hacked off the heads of a few UN workers because of the actions of a man 7500 miles away are just murderers? He is the crazy one and indiscriminate sword wielding barbarians are not?

I do believe that psychopaths have a lack of empathy for their victims and families of their victims too.

He's a nutter!

He's the Psychopath and the nutter now and the murderers are just murderers...

This is getting beyond ridiculous now.

It seems that the only area we disagree on is the pastor's role in the violence. You think he did nothing wrong in which case you can't describe him as a fool, bigot or douche.

I don't so I can.

Isn't that just splendid? You call a man who did no one any harm a fool, bigot and/or a douche and you completely ignore the people who actually committed the violence.


No offense but it does seem as if you just have an anti-Christian vendetta that you're trying to pursue even if it means condemning the innocent in place of the guilty...

himnextdoor

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Do you have a degree in strawmanning or is it just a habitual tendency?

You said:

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The whole reason he burnt the Qur'an was to protest against the radical elements of Islam that respond violently to things like these.

And I said:

himnextdoor wrote:

So, the reason he burned a copy of the Qur'an was to prove that extremists would use it as an excuse to murder.

How is that strawmanning?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So they aren't crazy then? Pastor Jones is a right nutter and the people who grabbed a sword and hacked off the heads of a few UN workers because of the actions of a man 7500 miles away are just murderers? He is the crazy one and indiscriminate sword wielding barbarians are not?

sigh! I meant to say psychopathic, evil, horrible, nasty murderers.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

He's the Psychopath and the nutter now and the murderers are just murderers...

This is getting beyond ridiculous now.

Yes, he's a psychopath; he has no remorse.

Has he actually helped in the war against terrorism? When the world becomes peaceful will there be a footnote in history crediting him with solving the problem of extremists?

No, of course there won't. All pastor Jones succeeded in doing was making the world population slightly smaller. (Which was his objective.)

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Isn't that just splendid? You call a man who did no one any harm a fool, bigot and/or a douche and you completely ignore the people who actually committed the violence.

His actions led to the deaths of those UN workers which is not the same as 'did no one any harm'.

I didn't completely ignore the actual horrible, bad, nasty, psychopathic murderers who are evil though.

(Aren't your comments closer to strawmanning than mine?)

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No offense but it does seem as if you just have an anti-Christian vendetta that you're trying to pursue even if it means condemning the innocent in place of the guilty...

None taken.

The horrible, bad, nasty, evil, psychopathic murderers are certainly guilty of horrible, bad, nasty, evil, psychopathic murdererousness but the pastor is guilty of failing in his duty of care to other human-beings.

partyatmygaff

himnextdoor wrote: »

How is that strawmanning?

He didn't burn the Qur'an in the hope that there would be a reaction to prove his message. It just so happens that there was. Qur'ans are burnt daily i'd imagine and it's not every burning that elicits such a reaction. It's only because this one was well reported by the media. You created a strawman by claiming that his Qur'an burning was an experiment to prove his message which is not the case.

sigh! I meant to say psychopathic, evil, horrible, nasty murderers.

What are you sighing in exasperation for? It takes you no effort to call a man who burnt a book psychopathic, evil, horrible, nasty and any other negative adjective yet you feel exasperated when you are asked your opinion on those actually responsible for the murders in Afghanistan?

Yes, he's a psychopath; he has no remorse.

Remorse for what? All he did was burn a book he disliked. Just because a few nutters decided that the only method of protesting against his action was by grabbing a sword and hacking off people's heads doesn't mean that he is responsible for their psychopathic behaviour.

No, of course there won't. All pastor Jones succeeded in doing was making the world population slightly smaller. (Which was his objective.)

His objective was to get people killed? Have you any proof for this ludicrous accusation?

His actions led to the deaths of those UN workers which is not the same as 'did no one any harm'.

No, his actions led to a completely disproportionate and incomprehensibly violent reaction that should not have ever occurred. He is responsible only for his actions and not the reactions of others.

If you were a Unionist and I burnt a British flag in the centre of Belfast and you decided to go crazy and kill the first Nationalists that you saw would I be the one at fault or you? I would only be responsible for my own actions and not your disproportionately violent reaction.

None taken.
The horrible, bad, nasty, evil, psychopathic murderers are certainly guilty of horrible, bad, nasty, evil, psychopathic murdererousness but the pastor is guilty of failing in his duty of care to other human-beings.

He is responsible only for his actions, not for others' reactions. He burned a book as an action and they hacked through people's necks as a reaction.

himnextdoor

partyatmygaff wrote: »

He didn't burn the Qur'an in the hope that there would be a reaction to prove his message. It just so happens that there was. Qur'ans are burnt daily i'd imagine and it's not every burning that elicits such a reaction. It's only because this one was well reported by the media. You created a strawman by claiming that his Qur'an burning was an experiment to prove his message which is not the case.

Why was he protesting? Oh yes, it was because some ex-Muslims told him that the content of the Qur'an was evil.

He wasn't even protesting on his own behalf.

That makes him a mercenary!!!

himnextdoor

partyatmygaff wrote: »

He didn't burn the Qur'an in the hope that there would be a reaction to prove his message. It just so happens that there was. Qur'ans are burnt daily i'd imagine and it's not every burning that elicits such a reaction. It's only because this one was well reported by the media. You created a strawman by claiming that his Qur'an burning was an experiment to prove his message which is not the case.

Since we are talking about who has freedom to do what, let me throw this into the mix:

Suppose someone here started a thread that was designed to bring people together for a ritualised burning of a copy of the Qur'an, would the thread be allowed to stay open?

And under what 'rule' would it be disallowed?

Would you support such a ban? And why?

partyatmygaff

himnextdoor wrote: »

Suppose someone here started a thread that was designed to bring people together for a ritualised burning of a copy of the Qur'an, would the thread be allowed to stay open?

Certainly not.

And under what 'rule' would it be disallowed?

Boards.ie is a privately owned site. There is no such thing as freedom of speech or expression on boards.ie. That's not criticism of the site, it's just the way things go. Boards does not want to be known as a site to be used for the organisation of anti-Islamic book burnings/protests as that would damage the reputation of the site and would lower the tone of the site in general.

hivizman

himnextdoor wrote: »

Since we are talking about who has freedom to do what, let me throw this into the mix:

Suppose someone here started a thread that was designed to bring people together for a ritualised burning of a copy of the Qur'an, would the thread be allowed to stay open?

And under what 'rule' would it be disallowed?

In the Islam forum, the moderators would certainly close down such a thread for breaches of several of the rules in the forum charter, particularly rule 3:

3. The following is NOT ALLOWED. You will be temp banned with a possible outright permanent ban posting any of these subjects.
- Proselytising (i.e. attempting to convert someone to a particular religion or sect of a religion). This applies to Islam and other religions, as well as any of the sects within Islam.
- Garbage (eg. muslim = suicide bomber, telling people they are brainwashed).
- Any offensive posts.
- Attacks on other posters (always attack the post, not the poster)
- Attacks or belittling any religon.
- Fanaticism. This applies to all sides.
- Unsoliticed Private Messages to members to bypass a rule.
- Linking off to a blog/webpage to bypass a rule (eg. Insulting another boards poster).

A proposal for a public burning of the Qur'an would be considered as both fanaticism and belittling Islam.

I think that this thread is beginning to go round in circles rather than progressing, so, unless the discussion moves forward, it runs the risk of being closed.

AhSureTisGrand

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Boards.ie is a privately owned site. There is no such thing as freedom of speech or expression on boards.ie. That's not criticism of the site, it's just the way things go. Boards does not want to be known as a site to be used for the organisation of anti-Islamic book burnings/protests as that would damage the reputation of the site and would lower the tone of the site in general.

Organised Qur'an Destruction

himnextdoor

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Boards does not want to be known as a site to be used for the organisation of anti-Islamic book burnings/protests as that would damage the reputation of the site and would lower the tone of the site in general.

Indeed, and do the actions of pastor Jones not 'lower the tone'?

Why shouldn't society legislate against lowering the tone?

AhSureTisGrand

himnextdoor wrote: »

Indeed, and do the actions of pastor Jones not 'lower the tone'?

Why shouldn't society legislate against lowering the tone?

Pastor Jones didn't sign up to society

partyatmygaff

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Organised Qur'an Destruction

There's quite a big difference between a seemingly discussion orientated light-hearted AH thread and a thread to actually organise a Qur'an burning.

himnextdoor

hivizman wrote: »

In the Islam forum, the moderators would certainly close down such a thread for breaches of several of the rules in the forum charter, particularly rule 3:


A proposal for a public burning of the Qur'an would be considered as both fanaticism and belittling Islam.

I think that this thread is beginning to go round in circles rather than progressing, so, unless the discussion moves forward, it runs the risk of being closed.

I'm sorry, I am attempting to move us on.

I would consider it ignorance of the highest order to even contemplate starting such a thread on the Islam site and I meant no disrespect.

But I would also consider it ignorance of the highest order to even contemplate starting such a thread period.

himnextdoor

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Pastor Jones didn't sign up to society

That doesn't make him immune to prosecution.

AhSureTisGrand

himnextdoor wrote: »

That doesn't make him immune to prosecution.

Neither does it mean he has a responsibility not to "lower the tone"

himnextdoor

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Neither does it mean he has a responsibility not to "lower the tone"

But if there was a law against it he could be held accountable.