Vehicles - the new Muslim weapon of choice?

I'd like to think that I care about my fellow humans no matter where they live, no matter their skin color, sexual orientation, gender, and no matter their religion (even if I believe it's a wrong religion). It's certainly not just about whether I personally feel a threat, myself. Jihad is wrong, period.

 

Of course it's wrong. Only a jihadist would disagree! So what?

What is this thread actually about, anyway?

- - - Updated - - -

What do you think he's going to do?

 

Your ongoing inability to ever condemn Q4:34, even when asked to stand up for women's rights, is duly noted, Deflector. You clearly don't care for women's rights as much as most Modern Secular Humanists do - that much is obvious. You're also a Muslim, despite your claims to the contrary.

You, like Obama, are clearly part of the problem, and obviously one of the main reasons why these are ALL REPUBLICAN now: the presidency, the house, the senate, the vast majority of governorships, the vast majority of state houses.

- - - Updated - - -

Fight back!

 

What? No, what do you think Trump is going to do? He's talked about restricting immigration from jihadist countries. Are you afraid of jihadists attacking us in response to that?

 

I am opposed to all spousal abuse period. Why should I have to condemn a specific example of it?

 

I sensed that you seemed to sort of value America and Europe more than you valued other areas of the world (areas where the majority of the Jihad attacks are taking place.) An attack in the Muslim lands bothers me as much as an attack in Columbus, OH (the heart of America) does.

- - - Updated - - -

You have your PhD in deflection.

Condemning Q4:34 shows that Mohammad got it wrong, that Muslims follow a barbaric belief system - that would be helpful to the world.

- - - Updated - - -

Clearly, clearly, you're a Muslim, despite your claim to be an atheist. Clearly. If a person can't even condemn a book that says to BEAT women, then they fear divine retribution - obviously something an atheist would not be concerned about.

 

So does every Muslim beat his wife?

 

I think that the ATTITUDE that Trump and hard-core anti-Muslims convey will get, over time, Muslims like the Columbus Jihadist who said he was afraid of openly practicing his faith, to strike back. But Obama's soft-pedal approach was not working.

- - - Updated - - -

Incredible. Absolutely incredible.
Am I the only one who just fell of their chair reading that reply?

- - - Updated - - -

Did every Nazi support the Holocaust!?

 

Oh, you think American attitudes are to blame for that attacker doing what he did?

 

Alright, good. I don't have to continue with this line of debate. You already see how bankrupt your stance is and have signaled that by bringing up Nazis.

 

What you are implying, reading between the lines, is intellectually very dangerous, I'm afraid.

 

Well, that's good. Not sure what the point of expressing this is, though. We have little power to stop what's going on, though arming "rebels" to weaken a secular power with police and military at its disposal to fight those terrorists was probably one of the worst things we could have tried..

 

So does every Nazis have had to support the Holocaust for you to condemn the Holocaust? Because your "does every Muslim beat his wife?" is meant to convey the "well, if they don't all do it, then that's why I can't condemn it!" type of mis-guided thinking. They don't ALL have to do it to make it evil.

Even if ONE Muslim ever followed it, Q4:34 is evil for saying to BEAT women, can we agree on that, Q!?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, it's a really really tough war. WWIII is around the corner. FAITH will be the cause of WWIII. So Christians will be largely useless in helping us fight this war.

 

If your argument is true, that all Muslims believe in the ideology that you ascribe to them, then every Muslim should beat his wife and you should be able to demonstrate that they do.

If on the other hand, every Muslim does not beat his wife, then clearly the strawman you have created out of their beliefs is a false one.

I know, you have a hard time with this. It's part of Humanism and whole requirement to treat people as individuals.

If a Muslim beats his wife or justifies other Muslims beating their wives FOR WHATEVER REASON FORGET THE (*)(*)(*)(*)ING QURAN, then I am opposed to them. But I would also be opposed to a Modern Secular Humanist who beat his wife or justified others beating their wives FOR WHATEVER REASON.

Because I am opposed to spousal abuse PERIOD.

Do you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing get it yet?

Let's flip this around: if a modern secular humanist beat his wife because she broke his favorite coffee mug would that somehow be better than a Muslim who beat his wife because the Quran said so?

 

The Islamic texts that the online radical Imam taught, and our response in the Middle East, and also the Buddhist response in Burma (both of which he noted on this long Facebook post, one was 3 minutes before his attack), all had a hand in his motivation, probably. Our bombing them creates more terrorists. The only solution is theological.

- - - Updated - - -

You live in a black and white world - but it's not a black and white world - there are shades of gray. Such as: SOME Muslim men beat women because of Q4:34, but not all, but ALL DON'T NEED TO for it to still be evil!

Can we agree that Q4:34 is evil?

 

The Modern Secular Humanist doesn't have "god" telling him to beat his wife!! Doesn't mean he'd never beat his wife, no, of course not, just that by not being a Muslim there is one LESS huge (from god no less!!) reason to not beat his wife.

It's beyond comprehension how hard it is to get people to condemn a book that says to BEAT women! I'm floored. Religion seems to do something to the mind, almost.

 

ANYTHING that ANYONE uses to justify beating their wives is abhorrent. Period. Religion doesn't t need to be called out in specific. All spousal abuse is awful.

I notice you selectively quoted me. Are you afraid to answer the question at the end of my post?

 

No, but the MSH would be less likely to in the first place because he doesn't have an invisible friend in the sky who INSTRUCTS HIM TO BEAT HER (Q4:34)! Can we agree that the world would be a better place if Allah/Mohammad never said Q4:34, and also if Muslims reformed Islam to change/remove Q4:34, Questerr? Can we? Please let us know.

 

That's not an answer. Is a Modern Secular Humanist beating his wife because she broke his favorite coffee mug somehow better than a Muslim beating his wife because of the Quran?

There are ZERO reasons for spousal abuse. The idea that you think one might have "less reasons" to do so, says a lot about you.

 

So condemn the justification that Q4:34 gives a Muslim man (which a Modern Secular Humanist does not have) to beat women. Can you?

 

Do all Muslims beat their wives?

If the answer to the question is "no", then on what basis can you claim an individual Modern Secular Humanist is less likely to beat his wife than a Muslim when you have to admit not all Muslims follow that passage in the Quran?

- - - Updated - - -

Was my post not clear?

 

So by your logic, if the Buddhist texts said to beat women you'd have no problem whatsoever with it saying that(!) - you'd give Buddha a complete pass for teaching to beat women, just like you constantly give MOHAMMAD a pass for all his utter atrocities, right?

 

I didn't necessarily say at all that MSH men are less likely, as such, since many reasons could cause a man to beat his wife, just that having INSTRUCTION FROM "GOD" (ALLAH) to beat women is very hurtful, period. Don't compare it to anything - just tell us is it hurtful to the world for the "all-knowing" god of 20% of humanity to have INSTRUCTED 20% of the world to beat women? Is it, Q?

- - - Updated - - -

Statistically, I don't know if MSH men beat women more than Muslims, that's just a deflection on your part - but I do know that their #1 role model Allah/Mohammad INSTRUCTING THEM to beat women is not what's best for the world, period.

 

If a MSH does NOT have texts that instruct wife beating, then of course he has "less reasons" than a Muslim does, since Q4:34 does indeed INSTRUCT wife beating. That's all I'm saying. Can you condemn Q4:34 for saying to beat wives?

 

How many times do I have to post this?

I OPPOSE ANYONE AND ANYTHING THAT ATTEMPTS TO JUSTIFY OR ADVOCATES FOR SPOUSAL ABUSE.

Is that not clear?