I've had a small debate with a soldier in Iraq who has found Islam to be bad, and declared his intent to solve the problem: "I wish to point out that one man, Mohammed, started this mess so it should logically be possible for one man to stop it. Me."
This is my reply to his reply to my comment:
> Evil is a subjective term. I said
> Islam was flawed, violent, and corrupt.
I consider that evil, but if you did not use that word, then my apologies. I hope you'll forgive me if I sum these up, in my own mind, as 'evil.'
'Flawed,' 'violent,' and 'corrupt' are also subjective terms, depending on your role in the transaction. We can well imagine the accused considering themselves instead as 'forgiven', 'heroic' and 'pragmatic.'
Religion tends to make people see things differently, that way. To take a page from Anonymous, what's the better
religion, in your view? Or if you don't have one, what would a good religion look like (not just what it wouldn't look like)?
>it does no one any good to debate
>arguments you've created yourselves.
Good point. However, the audio clips you referenced, as well as your own views on Islam, appear to me to be carefully-cultivated 'created' arguments.
>Jesus never told anyone to
>go kill in his name, Mohammed did.
Where exactly did he instruct people to kill in his name? Remember the "in his name" part please.
Mohammed made clear that though he was a prophet, he was just a man, not a god or a son of a god. As a mere man, he engaged in commerce, and even war. Naturally, from the viewpoint of his followers, he was attacked, and only defended himself. From your view, he started a war of aggression. You're in the middle of a war right now in which many people over there see you as a crazed, anti-Islamic Crusader and aggressor.
Getting back to 'created' arguments, if I focused on Jesus' "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword," statement, and said that objectively proves he advocates violence, I could garner quite a few objections from Christians who explain away the apparent "problem."
Likewise, your referenced author devotes considerable energy to explaining into existence various "problems" for Islam which the faithful would just as readily explain away.
Right and wrong are subjective when religion is involved. So much for your historical evidence.
>Then you illogically revert back
>to "Islam is a religion of peace" like a
>drunken parrot on societies shoulder.
>Where is your proof?
My proof is the millions of Moslems around the world right now who are peaceful and see Islam as a religion of peace.
>I showed that the founder of the
>religion, culture, law, himself introduced
>it as a violent mean of subjugating
>populations and it has spread by those
>means ever since Mohammed did it himself.
You showed that your opinion
>I encourage you, and everyone
>else, to do independent research
>outside the realm of popular american media.
Good plan. I'm part way there; I don't even watch TV.