"nd we are not being intolerant and censoring someone, we are tolerating his freedom of speech and condemning the content of his speech as bigoted."

Does nobody else see the irony in this comment?

It's not ironic. Demanding he be banned or silenced for it would be something resembling irony. This isn't.

Hahaha righteous anger now trumps reason.

But for clarity, you cannot claim tolerance, whilst at the same time call people names like bigot.

Calling someone a bigot isn't being intolerant, if they're *actually being a bigot*.

http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=bigot

" 2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of
religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or
opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable
or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is
intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in
politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to
his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
[1913 Webster]"

It's not "just" a dirty name, it's an accurate description.

OK - by that definition a whole bunch of you are bigots :P Happy now?

"you cannot claim tolerance, whilst at the same time call people names like bigot."

I for one would like to know why calling someone a bigot is intolerant, while calling for the mass slaughter of over a billion people based on a self-admittedly ignorant understanding of their religion is apparently *not* intolerant. Can you explain that, Wusti?

If I give credence and attention to someone who calls for mass slaughter, then more fool me.

I choose instead to remind those who retain a shred of civility not to lose it.

Wusti, by your logic, any use of the word bigot can only be used by bigots? And so coming up with some example of a bigot would inherently make the person who thought it up bigoted. So we can go down one of exactly two paths following your logic. Either there is no model for the term "bigot" and so the word ceases to have meaning and thus those who really do seek to truly oppress others have less recognition cast upon them, or else you yourself recognize that every person that is self aware is a bigot, including yourself, simply for having a model example for the term.

TrPrado - I never said forced conversion.

If society has bigots (racists, sexists, ignorant people), there is a responsibility on those who are pure of soul to correct them.

Otherwise we have to leave it up to Tolstoy

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2e/82/11/2e8211629796f6e1319ae93bb251723e.jpg

Tolstoy - "after drinking the same koolaid"
I am quoting from the Koran, and showing that much of the violence by Muslims is simply following the commands of the Koran. You ignore this reality, and obfuscate instead of trying to address the violence commanded by the Koran against non-believers.

So, by your model, when Muslims refuse to be Christians, what will happen to them? Because your plan hinges on the idea of converting every last one of them, which is impossible without force. Keep in mind that there are those, such as myself, who converted to Islam FROM Christianity.

Hannibal - "ISIS killed plenty of Christians, Sunni Muslims who spoke out against them, and Shiites. "
They are just following their playbook - the commands in the Koran. Lets focus on the words of the Koran and the meaning of those words. Educate yourself

Hannibal -"So, fuck you Wutsi, fuck you BOG."
God bless you Hannibal.
Instead of acting like a child, let's have a dialogue about what you say you believe.
Start with this - Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
So I disbelieve. You are commanded to strike off my head.
Tell me why I am wrong here. What does this verse really mean? Put it into the proper context, please.

TrPrado - another way of looking at it is simply: "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

As to converting them form their belief - well the definition states that they have blind faith and obstinacy in holding onto it - sounds like an exercise in frustration to me...

TrPrado -“So, by your model, when Muslims refuse to be Christians, what will happen to them? “
They will not achieve salvation.
“Because your plan hinges on the idea of converting every last one of them, which is impossible without force.”
Not all. ‘Many are called but few are chosen’ This is how a Christian approaches a non-believer: ‘Go forth and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit’ Nothing forced here. Here is what we are commanded to do “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.” Mat 10:14 Here is what the Muslim is commanded to do : Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" Quite a difference. Please put that verse in the proper context.

“Keep in mind that there are those, such as myself, who converted to Islam FROM Christianity.” May God have mercy on your soul. “He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.” John 12:48

"I am quoting from the Koran, and showing that much of the violence by Muslims is simply following the commands of the Koran. You ignore this reality, and obfuscate instead of trying to address the violence commanded by the Koran against non-believers."

You are quoting selected verses and fractions of verses, completely devoid of both literary and historical context. This would be like someone quoting selected verses from the Gospels ("I have not come to bring peace, but a sword", "I seek to turn sons against their fathers", "why don't you stone disobedient children", etc.) to portray Jesus as some kind of wild-eyed radical promoter of irrational violence, and not the Prince of Peace. You are clearly ignorant about Islam, its history, its scripture, and its traditions. But instead of trying to educate yourself like a rational person, you seek out and regurgitate all of the worst things you can find about it. I obfuscate nothing - I simply happen to be, unlike you, educated. I know enough to understand that the calls for violence in the Qur'an were revealed at a time when Muslims were fighting for their survival against an enemy that had already driven the Muslims from their homes and was bent on their complete extermination, and should be read in that context. And when the verses are read in context, the calls for violence are almost inevitably followed up by verses calling for peace and harmony.

Taking snippets out of context to denounce Muslims would be like someone calling all Christians child-killers every time some abusive Christian parent kills their child, and quoting Matthew 15:4 as "proof" of this sinister Christian practice, saying it was commanded by Jesus himself.

"Keep in mind that there are those, such as myself, who converted to Islam FROM Christianity"
Hey TrPrado! I've been researching Islam lately and trying to understand it better. I'm genuinely interested in hearing your conversion story.
I understand though if you wouldn't feel comfortable talking about it on a forum of this nature.

Just a quick reminder - don't try converting to Christianity from Islam whilst in an Sharia Law governed country - shit may go down hill FAST.

Actually - can someone quickly remind me what the usual Sharia Law penalty is for Apostacy?

Fluminator - Start by understanding the Koran. This walks through the whole thing. Start with the introduction at the bottom and work up.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/quran-commentary

"Actually - can someone quickly remind me what the usual Sharia Law penalty is for Apostacy?"

Again, we must ask: Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, or Jafari?

"Sharia Law" has millions of different interpretations. The "penalty" for apostasy can range from nothing to shunning to death depending on which jurists' opinions have the most credence in your (Muslim) community.

"Fluminator - Start by understanding the Koran. This walks through the whole thing. Start with the introduction at the bottom and work up.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/quran-commentary"

You might as well ask the Aryan Nation for an interpretation of the Talmud.

I did buy a Quran and tried reading through it but I didn't get very far before my short term attention span lost me. heh
Thanks for the link! I'm more interested in their current culture at the moment though.

I dunno, someone remind me what the usual penalty for being in a country that happens to be a totally uninvolved country that the US thinks is responsible for hosting Osama Bin Laden? Afghanistan, in case you are oblivious, had nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever. For that matter, neither did Iraq.

We've been around this loop. People use all sorts of rubbish to incorrectly justify violence. Religion is the least of it. If you want to simply point at fragments of a religion and claim that that is somehow the cause of mass violence, you are just flat out wrong. Always.

If you want to claim that some people who are doing bad things are using religions, including Islam, to justify their violence, I think you'll even find that most people, including adherents to those religions, will agree with you, and say that that is wrong.

Wusti - Right from their holy books:
The Koran
Qur'an (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

From the Hadith:
Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Bukhari (83:37) - "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Bukhari (84:57) - [In the words of] "Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Bukhari (89:271) - A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to "the verdict of Allah and his apostle."

Bukhari (84:58) - "There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, 'Who is this (man)?' Abu Muisa said, 'He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.' Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, 'I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.' Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, 'Then we discussed the night prayers'"

Bukhari (84:64-65) - "Allah's Apostle: 'During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.'"

al-Muwatta of Imam Malik (36.18.15) - "The Messenger of Allah said, "If someone changes his religion - then strike off his head."

Reliance of the Traveller (Islamic Law) o8.1 - "When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed."

Tolstoy:

"gain, we must ask: Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, or Jafari?

"Sharia Law" has millions of different interpretations. The "penalty" for apostasy can range from nothing to shunning to death depending on which jurists' opinions have the most credence in your (Muslim) community."

That's a really, really good answer.

Asked and answered.

Have you been studying the science of hadiths in the last 24 hours, BOG? The website you cut and pasted these from (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/012-apostasy.htm) has conspicuously omitted the isnads of these hadiths. Why should we believe they are credible, accurate, and authentic? Especially since they contradict Muhammed's own actions in his lifetime, when he allowed people to renounce Islam in Medina and defect back to the Quraish as part of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah.