**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

Protestant Reformation.

I thought you were talking about the biggest reformation in Islam being endogenous.

I claimed that the ideology itself reforms towards violence. This is because of what Muhammad did/taught and that he abrogates all else. It is not through the scriptures that most Muslims move away from this, but by dropping most of the scriptures and dropping the dominant thematic elements.

Still bullshit. The Koran is open to interpretation just as the Bible is. There are plenty of places where the Bible preaches violence towards nonbelievers, just as there are many places in which it preaches peaceful ways. The Koran is the same.

The Koran says "Fight in the name of your religion with those who fight against you." which is similar to places in the Bible that argue for killing nonbelievers (e.g., Deuteronomy 17:12 - Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the [holy man] who represents God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged). The Koran also says "There shall be no compulsion in religion" and "Say to the disbelievers "To you, your beliefs, to me, mine"". It might suit some nuts to follow the violent advice and ignore the peaceful, just as it suits you to make the argument that the violent represents 'fundamental Islam' whereas the peaceful doesn't.

The fact that you're equating what I've said to "fear mongerers" is a tell that your mind is persuaded by more than my arguments.

No, it's a tell that I think you're full of shit.

Islamists conquered all of these areas by the sword. That is one reason why some of them have less violence; the violence already happened before we were born. However, these places have also secularized to some small degrees, which is apostasy to the fundamental reading of Muhammad. This is why violence also returns to these places.

But it doesn't. It returned to the Mid East after the US/UK invaded Iraq, not because Iraq had been secularized. There were revolutions in other Muslim countries in the Arab world recently that had no religious motivations. There were not theocracies set up here. There's also the problem stated above that fundamental Islam isn't what you claim it is.

ISIS is the reformation that goes back to the text, the fundamental reading, and the way of Muhammad.

Again, it's only one interpretation of that text and not one accepted by most Muslims, even the highly religious ones.

I was talking about the hypothetical scenario of ISIS getting what it wants.

Oh well i that case why stop at Iran. I'm sure they want to take over the world with their 30k guys. No fear mongering there.

As Prop Joe would say, you're thinking short when you should be thinking long. A reformation back to scripture doesn't happen immediately upon secularization of a group. This is one area where your point about the western military interventions in the region is relevant. It is possible that helped spawn a reformation. But let's not kid ourselves; the reformation is about going back to the text and the teachings/actions of its prophet.

Again, you're acting like this 'reformation' is something natural and inevitable. Like a plausible outcome is all Muslims (or at least the ones left alive) becoming violent crusaders for their religion. That's where you're fear mongering. And it's because you don't understand what you're talking about.

I certainly don't believe in banning based on identification as Muslim. The vetting must be intense though. Well, it should be intense for all immigration anyways.

You argued, I believe, that taking 65k Syrian refugees was a problem because they were Muslims.

But don't listen to me. Listen to Muhammad. He will clear all of this up. You cannot be a devout Muslim unless you follow Muhammad and murder, enslave, and rape for the glory of Allah.

This would be funny if it wasn't so telling about your ignorance. That just makes it sad.

Hundreds of millions of devout Muslims don't do those things.