ADVERTISEMENT

Islamic scholar responds to Atlantic article

gr8indoorsman

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 4, 2004
58,753
40,677
113
San Diego, CA
I appreciate his argument here as I agree with quite a lot of it. I think Wood gets a lot right in his article, but see the scholar's point about the bind Muslims are in when it comes to perception as it pertains to articles like Wood's.

Response - Atlantic
 
What's informative to me is...

...that the author had the reaction he did.

I never thought that Wood's article painted ISIS as anything other than a cult. But here comes this scholar (whoever it is) asserting that Wood, by pointing out that ISIS is taking certain things literally and trying to have a 700 AD throwback party, is somehow putting all Muslims in a bind.

At least I did learn a few objective things from that piece.
 
Re: What's informative to me is...

This is something original????? How many times have these goons tried to feed us this same gibberish?

The beheadings, burning people alive, the crucifixions, 3,000 dead on 9/11, the USS Cole bombing, Charlie Hebro, yada yada yada, that is not Islam. No no no. Islam is a religion of peace but it happens to have a few million deviate practitioners. Shame on them. Although all grovel to Mecca at the same time, some are good dudes and some are bad apples.
 
here's some "informative info", db....

Originally posted by db:
...that the author had the reaction he did.

I never thought that Wood's article painted ISIS as anything other than a cult. But here comes this scholar (whoever it is) asserting that Wood, by pointing out that ISIS is taking certain things literally and trying to have a 700 AD throwback party, is somehow putting all Muslims in a bind.

At least I did learn a few objective things from that piece.
There are approximately 1,500,000,000 Muslims in the world.

In England alone, 27% of Muslims sympathize with the Charlie Hebdo butchers. That's a "civilized" society, db!

So, lets just let our imagination run wild with what that % would be on "the Muslim street", or in "the Muslim world". Wanna take a wild guess?! (Hint: It ain't 27%!) A flippin' "CULT"?! Really?

From those "teabaggers" at Reuters:
"In a poll of 1,000 Muslims commissioned by the BBC
and published on Wednesday, 27 percent of respondents said they agreed
with the statement: "I have some sympathy for the motives behind the
Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris".


This isn't your 2015 version of Jim Jones, db.
 
oh... and just to be clear....

Originally posted by Purdue85:
Originally posted by db:
...that the author had the reaction he did.

I never thought that Wood's article painted ISIS as anything other than a cult. But here comes this scholar (whoever it is) asserting that Wood, by pointing out that ISIS is taking certain things literally and trying to have a 700 AD throwback party, is somehow putting all Muslims in a bind.

At least I did learn a few objective things from that piece.
There are approximately 1,500,000,000 Muslims in the world.

In England alone, 27% of Muslims sympathize with the Charlie Hebdo butchers. That's a "civilized" society, db!

So, lets just let our imagination run wild with what that % would be on "the Muslim street", or in "the Muslim world". Wanna take a wild guess?! (Hint: It ain't 27%!) A flippin' "CULT"?! Really?

From those "teabaggers" at Reuters:
"In a poll of 1,000 Muslims commissioned by the BBC
and published on Wednesday, 27 percent of respondents said they agreed
with the statement: "I have some sympathy for the motives behind the
Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris".


This isn't your 2015 version of Jim Jones, db.
... 27% of 1.5 Billion is over 400,000,000.

that's 4 ... hundred ... MILLION.

And change.
 
"she turned up at a police station covered in blood"

No worries. I mean, raping girls isn't exclusive to Muslims so to bring this up is a hate crime.



Nearly 400 girls may have been sexually exploited in Oxfordshire over a 16-year period, according to a report that has criticised authorities for failing to protect victims.




The Serious Case Review said a paedophile ring was able to rape and abuse six victims for five years because the girls' complaints were not taken seriously.

And just like in Rotherham I have no doubt that the English were afraid to do something about it because if they did they'd be tarred as "racist" or "Islamophobic" or "anti-immigrant" or "bigoted" or "intolerant" or.........

One girl said: "I turned up at the police station at 2/3am, blood all over me, soaked through my trousers to the crotch. They dismissed it as me being naughty, a nuisance."

Another told the authorities: "The Asian men felt they ran Oxford. That was exciting. People were afraid of them. I felt protected. People respected them."


You can get a lot of respect if you chop off enough heads.

More Muslim immigrants!




This post was edited on 3/4 8:45 AM by GMM

Sex Gangs May Have Abused Hundreds Of Girls
 
so

"I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris".

equals what to you?

Because to me it equals, I understand why they were upset. It says nothing about whether they approve of the attacks themselves.

So the more relevant question would be, what percentage of Muslims agree in whole or part with the attacks themselves.
And the answer is, a very small percentage.
 
Re: so

Originally posted by qazplm:

So the more relevant question would be, what percentage of Muslims agree in whole or part with the attacks themselves. And the answer is, a very small percentage.
qaz, as usual your intuition about all things Islamic is goofy-left liberal wrong. This poll was conducted among ALL French people, ALL German people and ALL British people. ISIS support among Muslims in Europe is virtually 100%.

http://rt.com/news/181076- isis-islam-militans-france/
 
first

your website is so wonky that my military work internet doesn't allow me to visit it.

Second, anyone who types "ISIS support among Muslims in Europe is virtually 100%" is just absolutely an idiot. I suspect even the rest of the right wing nutters on this board wouldn't even sign on to that, in fact, I suspect EVEN GMM would disagree with such a ridiculous claim.
 
Re: so

Originally posted by qazplm:
"I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris".

equals what to you?

Because to me it equals, I understand why they were upset. It says nothing about whether they approve of the attacks themselves.

So the more relevant question would be, what percentage of Muslims agree in whole or part with the attacks themselves.
And the answer is, a very small percentage.
Oh, nothing at all. Really. A murderous, butchering gang of Islamic terrorists garners "sympathy" from a whole TWENTY SEVEN PERCENT, but to you it says absolutely nothing at all.

And to you that's "a very small percentage."

Tell them that when they're at your doorstep.

You ... "understand why they were upset"???!! REALLY! Do tell. No... they don't ... "approve" of the attacks, they just SYMPATHIZE with them. What the h*ll? Newsflash, genius... they AGREE with them.

What's more, it begs the question, what (in your intellectually superior mind) constitutes a "significant percentage"... (waiting, but having no illusion of an intellectual response).
 
Re: first

What? You can't access Russia Today?

You can't access a state owned, Soviet era throw-back, anti-American agitprop website on a DoD computer?

Thanks, Obama.
 
reading is not your strong suit

point me to where that says "sympathy for the murders or the murderers or the attacks."

I'll wait.
 
well

he's a socialist islamist, not a communist.
 
hey look someone had a brain cell fire!

Yes, their motives. Not the attacks, the motives behind them.

So, let's say someone was going around absolutely blaspheming Jesus with over the top, incensing, just brutally unfair caricatures or drawings or whatnot. So much so that you or your friends got angry, and you said, I wanna kill those MFers. You wouldn't actually condone such an attack, one assumes, but you certainly would UNDERSTAND why someone would be made angry by what was done.

Oh no, you just had sympathy for a motive! Clearly now if someone ends up going and killing those folks, you must support that killing.
 
Re: hey look someone had a brain cell fire... and you lose.


Originally posted by qazplm:
Yes, their motives. Not the attacks, the motives behind them.

So, let's say someone was going around absolutely blaspheming Jesus with over the top, incensing, just brutally unfair caricatures or drawings or whatnot. So much so that you or your friends got angry, and you said, I wanna kill those MFers. You wouldn't actually condone such an attack, one assumes, but you certainly would UNDERSTAND why someone would be made angry by what was done.

Oh no, you just had sympathy for a motive! Clearly now if someone ends up going and killing those folks, you must support that killing.
You still don't get it.

By your own criteria, it's a loser's proposition.

They sympathize with the terrorists.

It isn't Christians committing acts in the name of Jesus, it's Muslims committing acts in the name of Mohammed... Islam.

Game. Set. Match.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT