Topic: Why do people hate islam? - page 86. (Read 221036 times)

I don't think they'll answer this particular question, because it has ramifications.  But it does appear that Muslim apologists often stumble on a question, and have to go find out about it and come back with some dogma.  Life ruled down to the Nth degree of detail.  What a wonderful culture for perverted Liberal Authoritarian Controllers, for people that get off on just telling others what to do.

These aspects would seem to almost define a Dark Age of culture and thought.  But maybe I've got that wrong, just rambling here.

Actually, I rather do. Both the man and his music. I disagree with his relgion, but he's a better representative of it's better nature than most anyone. Assuming the "true muslims" will admit that he is a muslim

So you don,t like cat stevens...I DO... HE IS well his music is anyway

The answer to the question as to the Muslim nature (or not) of these -

Was Khadaffi a muslim?
Was Khomeini a muslim?
Is Cat Stevens/Yusef Islam a muslim?
Was Yasser Arafat a muslim?
Are the members of the House of Saud Muslims? (and if not, why are they charged with the protection of Mecca and Medina?)

...very, very clearly is related to why and how people may "hate Muslims."

On the contrary, this is quite on point, as a number of you have stated that these acts are not carried out nor supported by "real" muslims. We, on the other hand, have responded asking clarification of a rather key point. Those people listed all claim to be muslims. Many are well respected in Islamic circles. Of the ones I listed, I personally think that at least three of them were trying to do right by their people, whether or not I agree with their methods. However, I have also stated on numerous occasions that I have no particular hatred of Islam, but that it is a widespread opinion. To actually answer that question in any substantive manner requires information that is currently being withheld.

So, in answer to your (incorrect) objection, let me be totally clear. I do not hate Islam as such. I hate some of the acts perpetrated by those who purport to be muslims, and I have a general belief that all religion is dangerous and should be exposed as such. Not specifically yours. Throughout human history, Religion has stood opposed to humans gaining knowledge. This device which you are reading my reply on would be considered a magickal device and witchcraft within the recently ended century, and in some parts of the world that would get you killed. With every passing year, we, humans, know more about everything. this leaves less and less place for gods.

Further, from a purely logical standpoint, if, as religions assert, there were a grand creator, and this being was indeed all powerful and all knowing, and had the desire to be worshipped, there would be no possibility of mulitple religions.

No no no !! you are wrong again here, we are discussing their why people hate Islam Correct?? now come to the point ?

Bolded above.

I think it's the response that comes up on their computer as the answer to questions that are difficult to answer.

That's a bit different than (correctly) classifying it as misrepresentation of the argument.

Meanwhile, no answers on the substantive issue.

Was Sayyid Qutb a muslim?
Was Khadaffi a muslim?
Was Khomeini a muslim?
Is Cat Stevens/Yusef Islam a muslim?
Was Yasser Arafat a muslim?
Are the members of the House of Saud Muslims? (and if not, why are they charged with the protection of Mecca and Medina?)

Actually, I was very explicit at multiple points in this thread in saying that NOT all terrorists are Muslim. I can name a terrorist group headquartered rather close to where I live, who's members religion is irrelevant. Earth First. You're avoiding the question. I can guess why, as it would tend to cause cognitive dissonance.

Again, I point you to the link to the well established logical fallacies in formal logic and debate. The particular one you are engaging in here is a strawman. Attempting to draw me in to defending a point I did not make or divert the question by rephrasing it in a manner that is contradictory to what I had stated.

You have (bolded) an incorrect premise, really just a ad hominem attack, followed by illogical thinking, and a wrong conclusion.

We are not discussing how illogic is okay in the defense of a religion - we are showing how it is the problem.  If you think it is the solution, and things move forward by ducking and dodging the substantive issues, that is propaganda.  Many are engaged in such things.  But that is not "defending Muslims."  Rather it is showing weakness and advocating poor logic and decision making.

I totally agreed with you. We all have different beliefs but the thing is you all blame Muslims that all terrorists are Muslims which is not accepted for me. I am here to defend Muslims. and i appreciate your queries if you dnt have any query then you would not be able to know Islam And would not be able to know what is right and what is wrong.

Hey, Greg, listen.  You are debating a subject on the Internet.  You are talking with people of widely differing beliefs. 

Claims are made.  Those making the claims are asked to support them.  This is a logical debate.  The essence of it was laid down by Aristotle and others.  It is not new.

Please try to answer the question posed by Biomed and myself.  I understand that your doing so may show a logical contradiction with prior assertions.  But that is what we're trying to understand, how these concepts exist in peoples' minds and in reality.

Forget all these things and come to me with a debate on why people hate Islam? Which is totally wrong. Terrorist are not muslims and even they are not human. Many foreigners captured who are terrorist thats mean you are all terrorist Isn't correct??

I have to search through medias for things happening far away from the place I live. Maybe you could point out some sources? For example, for this:

2015.06.26 (Mosul, Iraq) - A physician is dragged from his hospital and executed by religious radicals.

Can you?

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html  whenever arguing in a factual situation, you should refer FIRST to this page. Most people, I recommend it as a follow up, but there has now been about five pages of a couple of you quite deliberately dodging the question. Your most current comeback embodies elements of a red herring, a strawman, and a non-sequitur. Answer the question that was asked.

Visit this site and you will able to know that muslims are terrorist or not http://www.muslimsarenotterrorists.com/.

Islam love people not hate whether he or she is muslim or not...
Muslim woman thrown off moving train in Australia, What is this ? Are they muslims who did this??
ISIS is not an Islamic organization...

Thank you, this is a better version of the argument than I had produced.  I used Qutb just to get the core of Muslim terrorism right in the crosshairs.  But as Greg pointed out, practically none of these Westerners have any clue who he was.  Your examples are better. 

There is a similar argument - this may interest the Islamics here - on Christianity.  It is by sects such as the Quakers, who consider themselves the "only true Christians."  It is not really a "True Scotsman" logical fallacy in my opinion.   

I'd like to add to this.

The specific logical fallacy employed here is the "appeal to authority", which is not always a logical fallacy if it can be proven that the cited authority a) is real, and b) IS an authority on the subject.

However, the Q'uran and the Christian Bible, and other holy writ appeal to gods that cannot be proven to exist, and seem rather unlikely to do so. So it is indeed a logical fallacy.

However, this particular use of logical fallacy was probably inadvertant. The one I believe both of your opponents used deliberately was the red herring. A diversionary statement unrelated or to deflect the question asked or the argument made.

so, I'm going reiterate it. We care not whether or not the man Spendulus asked about is/was/will be imperfect. I doubt very much you will find an atheist who views perfection as a legitimate concept. The question was not whether the man was imperfect, it was simply this: Was he a muslim?

I'll add a few. Give direct answers. I was once captain of the debate team. I won't be taken in by logical fallacies, deliberate or not.

Was Khadaffi a muslim?
Was Khomeini a muslim?
Is Cat Stevens/Yusef Islam a muslim?
Was Yasser Arafat a muslim?
Are the members of the House of Saud Muslims? (and if not, why are they charged with the protection of Mecca and Medina?)

All of these men except Cat Stevens are or were involved in what the western media labels terrorism. This is not speculation. I don't feel the urge to look up and cite easily found documentation, I state it as axiomatic and proven prior to the assertion. So.

Are they or were they muslim?

LOL, here is the problem.  On the open Internet you must deal with people from many, many diverse backgrounds and inclinations.  Circular references to truth ("It's true because Mohammed said it!"  How do you know it's true.  "The Koran says so!") are not a proof of an argument.

They are only a proof to you, of your faith.  They prove nothing to me.

But I'll certainly agree with both you and Zakir that you've got a lot of imperfect Muslims.

Meaning you actually googled for them in the media of the countries?  Otherwise, in asking me, you are just basically trying to get someone else to do your work for you. 

Incidentally, note that the website says right on the front page that details are available on request for all the citings.

Yes i agreed with you @Zakir i told him previously that Islam is Perfect Muslims are not.
If you want to know what is Islam then read the Life Of Prophet Muhammad (SAW).