Are you sure that you're arguing for Islam? When you post something about how hiring female shop assistants is considered to be 'huge leaps forward', it really just draws attention to how stunningly backward Islam is in regard to how it instructs that women should be treated. It's irrelevant how many Muslims actually behave in that way, it's the institution of Islam that's being examined here, not individual rank and file Muslims.

You keep doing this, as if you believe that showing that the US, or anyone else, might be guilty of treating people less than optimally somehow strengthens your argument that any criticism of Islam is informed by Islamaphobia. The two are completely unrelated.

We are talking about S.A, No need to confuse religion with the law, I know this is a tough one to intake but some of the policies in S.A go against the Quran. Not to mention sharia law is not part of the Quran.

Go against the Quran or against various interpretations of the Quran?

Faulty Interpretations of the Quran are to be blamed on certain issues in S.A , without a doubt. This is an ongoing issue in some parts of the Muslim world. Nonetheless in places like Jordan/Kuwait/Lebanon we see a much more relaxed system toward women/religious minorities. Still, the fact that King Abdullah of S.A has recently allowed women to vote and run for political office ought to be given some notice.

If you go on youtube and check out S.A videos like the women protesting driving bans you will see many Muslims who state women being banned from driving goes against the Quran. In a sense the Quran commands that all good humans are to be treated with dignity and respect.

We're talking about Islam, and you completely dodged my point.

Thanks for posting something that again highlights how backward, discriminatory and prejudiced Islam can be.

If by 'part of the Qur'an' you mean isn't based on the Qur'an, I think that you're wrong about that. It's primarily based on interpretations drawn from the Qur'an and the behaviour of the prophet Mohammed as described in the Sunnah. As the 'religious, divine law' of Islam, I think that it's considered to be the real Islamic law by hardline Muslims. The very same people that you're trying to paint as 'not true Muslims' are the people who regard themselves as the only true Muslims.

Boosh you've got it all wrong. Muhammad marrying a 6 year old girl and consummating when she was 9 has nothing to do with sharia law saying that people can marry 6 year old girls and consummate when they're 9.

Let's ignore that most of the precepts in Sharia are generally taken straight out of the Quran, which makes your statement look bizarre, and instead focus on something even more puzzling:

What you are saying now is that S.A is not an Islamic state. I think the best I can say about that is that it is an opinion. Unfortunately, stating something similar in S.A is illegal as people there are not entitled to their opinions. In fact, opinions in S.A. are carefully and brutally screened to they don't go against what the establishment there feels is indeed Islamic.

In my opinion, you are treating oppressed people in Saudi Arabia with a complete lack of respect and dignity.

Firstly, I recently have discovered a thread created after black friday which discussed how Judaism is not to be blamed wrt the founder of Pokerstars legal troubles. The thread was somewhat similar to my Islam threads in the sense that the OP discussed how Judaism should not to be blamed on human failures.

That thread on Judaism received about 12 replies and maybe a few were negative, where as my Islam threads have received well over 700 mostly negative reviews by the same few posters. Take what you want from this but IMO there is an unfair view of Islam by a few of the posters on 2+2. For example, in the Buddhism is a religion of peace poll thread we see that only 2/15 voters disagree that Buddhism is a religion of peace. Where as 42/64 voters in the Islam poll thread disagree that Islam is a religion of peace.

2/15- 12% disagree Buddhism is a religion of peace. (only 15 votes but 2/15 is significant IMO )

42/64-65% disagree Islam is a religion of peace (27 strongly disagree)

Of course to be fair, at the same time I could be blamed for creating this thread, the blame could be placed entirely on me for the subsequent posting itt , if you want to go that direction then by all means you are entitled to.

Throughout this discussion irt to Saudi Arabia my intentions are to focus on the entire population of S.A, not just the "hardliners" as you call them. These same "hardliners" may refer to a select few folks itt as "hardline" atheists, but this type of convo really gets us nowhere.

Itt I have made the mistake of not separating the Sharia law from the Quran( Shariah is technically a man made law even tho it is based on the Sunnah, keyword being based). If a country wants to implement the Shariah in a certain way then that is up to them, furthermore the interpretation of the Sharia law is also up to w/e human(s) are in charge of the law. I have been arguing this last point throughout each Islam thread, the few posters whom vehemently disagree Islam is a religion of peace have yet to address this.

Even wrt to Saudi Arabia there are too many non Muslim foreign workers/Too many employed/ educated Saudis living quality lives for us to immediately disregard S.A as a civilized country. Not to mention the recent overtures by King Abdullah and his administration as I have pointed out.

Finally, other Muslim majority countries are fine examples of nations with a great quality of life, Jordan/Kuwait/Lebanon just to say a few.

It doesn't how matter how much intellectual wiggling you attempt (and you have really stretched the no true scotsman so far that by now it constitutes torture).

The simple fact is that both the Bible, Torah and Quran contains brutality and violence in spades. Even at its core, when we disregard the followers, Abrahamic religion is not really peaceful.

heres the thread I am talking about in post 283, it recieved only 9 replies

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...stars-1228847/

I myself consider Judaism a religion of peace but I noticed only 9 replies in that thread compared to over 700 in the two recent Islam threads. Considering the responses itt about Islam, why was there not more of a discussion of the presumably negative aspects of Judaism in above thread?

Imagine if I created a thread about one of the Muslim Princes of S.A or Brunei, and said hey look these guys actually do good things amidst all this alleged controversy. The thread would probably get hundreds of negative replies compared to only 9.

So we have this guy create this post about Isa Schienberg (may have misspelled) The guy talks about how some proposal helps "to counter this historical form of antisemitism that is still present in culture"

Now lets take this statement of "helps to counter this historical form of antisemitism that is still present in culture" and compare it with my statement of "Islamophobia is sparked by ignorance, so the best way to address it is simply to show how Muslims live regular everyday lives around the world. I would ask other posters to expand on this part"

The similarities between the two posts are there, yet 9 replies compared to over 700 mostly negative replies by the same select few posters.

Basically only a few posters have actually expanded on how to prevent Islamophobia, at the same time a select few posters whom I have on ignore are trying unsuccessfully, to denigrate a beautiful religion, Islam a religion of peace. My question to these select few folks would be why even post itt?

Because you're frustratingly stupid.

-Within followers of Judaism we see the occasional Bernie Madoff as p0k3rhack3r points out. These folks are not the sole representation of the Torah. Nonetheless Madoff prospered here in the USA

Other then Madoff their are violent/unjust deviant Jews

-Within followers of Islam we see the occasional Osama Bin Laden, these folks are not the sole representation of the Quran. The funny thing with OBL/Al Qaeda and the Taliban though, is OBL/Al Qaeda/Taliban prospered due to USA/ISI/Saudi funding/training. Bin Laden himself was said to have thanked the USA for their assistance in the 1980s.

Other then Bin Laden their are financially deviant Muslims

-The same can be said about atheists/Buddhists etc.

I think the only way you can deviate from atheism is if you happen to believe in God, in which case it is generally unscrupulously stupid to call yourself an atheist.

Surprise surprise! Thekid still can't comprehend that it's

A) his appalling attempts to throw the towel over human suffering
B) his continual defence of tyranny/human rights violations (for example, I assume that by "hardline atheist" he refers to anyone who is against human rights violations and is pro-equality
C) his lack of desire to engage people who are asking questions

This thread could have been a great place to discuss recent trends that are happening, I would even agree with thekid that there is a real, unhealthy paranoia of Muslims out there and that all people should be judged on the basis of their actions, not which sky fairy they believe in. I also understand that there are hardliners/moderates and I also understand that there exist many Muslims who support reforms and are equally as disturbed by the rights violations brought upon this thread.

What thekid will never understand is that this thread isn't about having a rational conversation, it's about lolling at his mindnumbing stupidity and being perplexed at his elementary school style of argumentation. When presented with anything critical about ME regimes, he simply doesn't have an ability to say "yea, that's bad, I disagree with that policy". It has literally taken hundreds of posts for him to finally spit out the "that's not Islamic" line, while i still disagree (i view many of these backward laws as being interpretations of islam and we could debate this as I'm open to being wrong about it, but no, the kid is too busy being an apologist and defending basically anything you can think of) which is a far better line of argumentation than "the USA tho" "Whitney Houston concerts" "nice food". There literally is no faster way to lose all respect than to try and debate in such a poor way.

He seems to believe that everyone is out to get him when simply it's his piss poor argumentation, his annoying inability to accept facts and his consistent ignoring/skirting of questions which is causing the disconnect itt.

I will say though, this thread has been worth it because lolz have been had, for example where he said he will not respond to my post because I used an exclamation mark twice and therefore need to "calm down". This is literally one of the funniest encounters I have had on the Internet.

I would also like to add that it is damaging for you to accuse people who are simply asking questions and trying to have a debate/learn something as being out to "denigrate your religion". You are throwing around strong accusations (and further the evidence that you are not to be taken seriously). When I say it is damaging, I mean it is damaging for Muslims, because there actually are people out there who have an axe to grind, hold bigoted views and support policies that are discriminatory and hurtful to Muslims, the terms you use to describe people who are simply trying to debate (e.g Islamaphobe) should be reserved for these kinds of people. Your victimisation complex is watering down the term to basically mean "anyone I disagree with".

I don't dare look it up. Sorry

Sent from my JY-G3 using 2+2 Forums

just to be clear:

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

Do you see why this is not reasonable?

No true moslem would commit acts of violence etc etc.

I have responded to the questions here in a well detailed manner. If you or a few others want to believe otherwise then this is entirely up to you. I mentioned to bluffs to re read my other posts wrt to my views on the political policies of S.A, as he has just now joined a discussion that has covered a wide range of topics.

I have also alluded to my support of those protesting the female driving ban in S.A.

No True Scotsman

Just something to bear in mind in a broad sense. It doesn't really make sense to "no true scotsman" islamic terrorists and leaders of islamic nations who are clearly moslems.

Lol, character assassination, straw manning and ignoring people are considered "responding to questions in a well detailed manner". I'm curious to see what passes as bad.

His posting itt doesn't give compelling reason to search his history in other threads given that its safe to assume that his views consist of nothing other than knee-jerk defense to literally any critique of Islam and/or the way it is interpreted by certain regimes.

FWIW i did read the threads he mentions (as i obviously have nothing better to do with my life) and as i suspected, its all zero-information handwavey "look over there" responses.

Guys, guys, he is totally partial here, he may defend the tyrannical oppression which ruins/ends lives as a "way of life that is to be respected", but didn't you read the part where he said that he believes women should totally be allowed to drive!

Ugh i said i am done with this thread yet i keep coming back, the derp is just too strong here. The part that really gets me is when he continually says "you are entitled to your view point" (um thanks for granting this to me?).

Throughout both Islam threads I acknowledged their are deviant Muslims, from the beginning I admitted this. Of course you are entitled to your viewpoint Lemon. I understand where you are coming from though as there may have been a few instances where I countered an argument with instances of Non Muslims committing acts of aggression.

Still, I don't understand why you and Louis are trying to use this "No true scotsman" because again, if you re read the Islamophobia thread you will see I directly responded to questions and misconceptions of the Quran.

There is an entire 1400 year history from the time of M's revelation, but a select few posters entered the argument by referencing pages of post 9/11 terror attacks. (w/o mentioning any other significant events in the past 1400 years wrt to Islamic history.) In which I responded to with great detail, taking the questions head on, along with questions about Aisha, apostasy in the Quran, treatment of Non Muslims in the Quran.

Sure you could use the "No true scotsman" for maybe a few posts by me. As for the entire conversation, I would argue I responded with great detail to many of the questions. Just go back and look at the many responses I gave.

You have answered with great detail. Just not with anything relevant to the questions.

Kid, you never responded to me about your YouTube videos.

I'm particularly interested in why a woman would say that she has to keep a coat with her at all times because, to quote again, "I don't want any trouble".

I want to know how you reconcile this with claims that Saudi Arabia treats women decently.

I read the thread. We are not using "no true scotsman". It is a fallacy which you are employing

You are not in a position to dictate who is a legitimatie moslem and who is not.

If you advised members of Hezbollah, Hamas, or Abu Sayyaf that you didn't think they are good Muslims they would likely kill you dead, and that is not an exaggeration.

Here is a more exhaustive list of islamic terrorist groups:

Abu Sayyaf, Philippines
Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Egypt
Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Gaza Strip and West Bank
Al-Shabaab, Somalia
Al-Qaeda, worldwide
Ansar al-Islam, Iraq
Armed Islamic Group (GIA), Algeria
Caucasus Emirate (IK), Russia
East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), China
Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Egypt
Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front (IBDA-C), Turkey
Hamas, Gaza Strip and West Bank
Harkat-ul-Mujahideen al-Alami, Pakistan
Hezbollah, Lebanon
Islamic Movement of Central Asia, Central Asia
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Uzbekistan
Jaish-e-Mohammed, Pakistan and Kashmir
Jamaat Ansar al-Sunna, Iraq
Jemaah Islamiyah, Indonesia
Lashkar-e-Taiba, Pakistan and Kashmir
Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Pakistan
Moro Islamic Liberation Front, Philippines
Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, Morocco and Europe
Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Gaza Strip and West Bank
Tawhid and Jihad, Iraq

That is the problem with your "its just a few bad apples" argument. The few bad apples seem to be in almost every corner of the world with very clear islamic branding.

In the video the women discusses that she is in a conservative country. And she is there by choice. Why do we have to go further with this if the women is in S.A by choice?

I also linked a few cites of Princess Ameera Al-Taweel discussing the desire to improve women's rights in S.A along with recent overtures by King Abdullah toward women.

As for my personal opinion on the political/economic/entertainment situation are in S.A, well my opinion is I am on board with w.e the citizens of S.A want.