Geert Wilders on the true nature of Islam

[zenwalk]

How do you judge a religion?

[Kenect2]

Of course they are. They are no more or less Christian then you are.

You can't defend your false statement.

Here is the reality which you are ignorant of:

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
— John 13:34-35"

Notice he says "as I have loved you." That clearly means that he is requiring his followers to imitate his own life of sympathy and charity. The behavior of the Westboroites is clearly not an imitation of Christ's behavior. So no, the Westboroites are not Christians. And by that scriptural standard, perhaps the majority of people who think they are Christians are not really.

In contrast to Christ's behavior and message, Muhammad was a violent warlord who slaughtered many people in his lifetime and he very clearly commanded his followers to do the same.

Why ignore this obvious contrast between religious teachings?

[Kenect2]

How do you judge a religion?

By a reasoned evaluation of the scriptural teachings.

Do you judge a book by the behavior of the people who have read the book, or do you judge a book by critically reading it and logically analyzing the content?

[Kenect2]

So what is the solution?

...other than blaming liberals, that is...

The solution is to get educated on the facts and stop ignoring the reality of Islamic tyranny.

[zenwalk]

You judge a religion by how it speaks to you. Logic has nothing to do with it.

[gonzoliberal]

The solution is to get educated on the facts and stop ignoring the reality of Islamic tyranny.

And you base your conclusion that I am "ignoring the reality of Islamic tyranny" on what, exactly?

That I don't post "I hate Islam" articles on this forum?

???

[SomeIdiot]

You judge a religion by how it speaks to you. Logic has nothing to do with it.

That's because there is no logic to it. This entire ongoing debate is sort of a reverse example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

"Here are examples of many self identified Muslims who don't commit or support acts of religiously inspired violence." "Well, no true Muslim opposes or refuses to engage in acts of religiously inspired violence."

Meanwhile we can all ignore the fact that the United States is constantly intervening in majority Muslim nations in violent ways, and that of course has nothing to do with the occasional attacks made on the West.

[regularguy]

That's a rather immature standard to judge a religion on.

There are facts about the philosophical contents of scripture which people do make decisions based on. Islam very clearly requires Muslims to commit violence. Why not account for that fact instead of burying your head in the sand and pretending like it isn't happening?

And the Old Testament, in calling for genocide of competing tribes, very clearly requires Jews to commit violence. Most Muslims and Jews don't take those provisions of their respective scriptures literally.

[Kenect2]

You judge a religion by how it speaks to you. Logic has nothing to do with it.

I'm not sure what you mean by the metaphor of a religion speaking to me. Perhaps you mean to suggest that I evaluate religions based on subjective terms. I disagree with such an idea. I evaluate religions based on what their logic implies with regards to the Humanist philosophy which I follow. I judge religions by their own ideas, within the context of my own philosophy. If self-consistent teachings within the scripture appear to logically require behavior that goes against my Humanist morality, then I would be against such teachings. That seems fairly logical to me. There is an element of subjectivity to my thinking of course, in what I believe are the moral tenets of Humanism. But after that I believe I am fairly objective.

[Kenect2]

And you base your conclusion that I am "ignoring the reality of Islamic tyranny" on what, exactly?

That I don't post "I hate Islam" articles on this forum?

You don't seem to care about educating yourself about the facts of Islam. I recommend you start there and take a couple of years as I did.

[Kenect2]

That's because there is no logic to it. This entire ongoing debate is sort of a reverse example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

"Here are examples of many self identified Muslims who don't commit or support acts of religiously inspired violence." "Well, no true Muslim opposes or refuses to engage in acts of religiously inspired violence."

Please stop making up false quotes. It's dishonest. Nobody committed any such fallacy on this thread, and that's why you're reduced to making up false quotes.

Meanwhile we can all ignore the fact that the United States is constantly intervening in majority Muslim nations in violent ways, and that of course has nothing to do with the occasional attacks made on the West.

In October of 2002 I began protesting the build up to the Iraq Invasion. I'd bet that was before you started protesting it. During the Abu-Ghraib torture scandal, I was by far the most vocal critic of that behavior on this forum. So please, stop projecting your own shortcomings on to me. Come back to this thread when you've got something better than your usual bigoted smears.

[Kenect2]

And the Old Testament, in calling for genocide of competing tribes, very clearly requires Jews to commit violence. Most Muslims and Jews don't take those provisions of their respective scriptures literally.

First of all, why in the world are you stating what you believe is a fact about Judeo-Christendom, and then extrapolating that fact to Islam, as if all philosophies are the same? It's very childish for someone to think they understand Islam by studying Christianity.

Regarding genocide in the Old Testament - those orders were specific. They were not by any means general orders to go out and commit genocide. They were orders given to the Israelites to commit genocide against specific people such as the Amorites.

In contrast, the requirements to commit violence in the Quran are not specific at all. They are generalized. Muhammad did not command certain people to kill certain other people. Muhammad commanded his followers to kill non-Muslims in general.

This is a huge difference between the two religions which liberals frequently misunderstand. According to Muslims, the Quran already existed before Humans. It is the eternal and unchanging word of Allah. In contrast, the Old Testament is more of a historical document. While there are some Christian sects who cherry pick things out of the Old Testament, such as the Westboroites, I don't know of any popular group that makes any genuine effort to follow the Old Testament literally. In contrast, some of the most important Muslim leaderships do their best to follow the Quran literally.

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia recently reinforced support for child marriages. He is one of the most important leaders in Islam. If the Pope had said such a thing, American liberals would be freaking out. Yet for some reason, when Muslims do it, they get a pass. An odd double standard, don't you think? That double standard is explained well by Wilders' belief that many Americans are blind to the reality of Islam.

[regularguy]

Muhammad commanded his followers to kill non-Muslims in general.

If that's so, it's puzzling to observe that there have always been Christian and Jewish minorities in most Muslim-majority countries since the beginning of Islam. Even the evil-doers of Iran have a Jewish member of their parliament. Saddam had a Christian as his close adviser and Foreign Minister. Why haven't all the Jews and Christians in these countries been killed, as (supposedly) commanded by Muhammad?

[zenwalk]

If that's so, it's puzzling to observe that there have always been Christian and Jewish minorities in most Muslim-majority countries since the beginning of Islam. Even the evil-doers of Iran have a Jewish member of their parliament. Saddam had a Christian as his close adviser and Foreign Minister. Why haven't all the Jews and Christians in these countries been killed, as (supposedly) commanded by Muhammad?

This is correct. Religious minorities came under the gun around the mid 20th century partially as a result of the birth of Israel and partially the result of western oil companies meddling/propping or toppling local governments. As odd as it sounds, these folks had the audacity to have issues at our attempts to civilize them.

[Kenect2]

If that's so, it's puzzling to observe that there have always been Christian and Jewish minorities in most Muslim-majority countries since the beginning of Islam. Even the evil-doers of Iran have a Jewish member of their parliament. Saddam had a Christian as his close adviser and Foreign Minister. Why haven't all the Jews and Christians in these countries been killed, as (supposedly) commanded by Muhammad?

Because they are dhimmis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

Haven't I already schooled you on this topic? It's like Islamic grade school around here. Please, go learn the facts before you try to debate.

[regularguy]

Because they are dhimmis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

Why don't you go learn the basic facts about Islam before you pretend like you have sufficient knowledge to debate anyone about it?

Why don't you stop posting things like this: "Muhammad commanded his followers to kill non-Muslims in general."

Clearly, either Muhammad didn't actually command it, or Muslims have consistently ignored the commandment.

And reading the Wikapedia article that you cite, it appears that - far from being marked for death - non-Muslims have it surprisingly good in Muslim countries.

[Kenect2]

This is correct. Religious minorities came under the gun around the mid 20th century partially as a result of the birth of Israel and partially the result of western oil companies meddling/propping or toppling local governments. As odd as it sounds, these folks had the audacity to have issues at our attempts to civilize them.

Look at zenwalk following in cantabene's footsteps by pretending to forget about the genocide of the Armenian dhimmis.

[Kenect2]

Why don't you stop posting things like this: "Muhammad commanded his followers to kill non-Muslims in general."

Clearly, either Muhammad didn't actually command it, or Muslims have consistently ignored the commandment.

Why don't you spend some time actually studying the facts of Islam instead of foolishly trying to apply your knowledge of Christianity to Islam as if it were relevant?

Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

Clearly, Muhammad did command his followers to kill non-believers, in general. And yes, luckily for the rest of the world, most Muslims do not actively follow the Quran's teachings. However, a large percentage of them do.

[crabsnbeer]

How do you judge a religion?

100% false. Everyone.

[Kenect2]

100% false. Everyone.

I am 100% atheist, but some religions are certainly better than others.