Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AlchemicalSolution wrote:
My understanding is that your symbol means 'not equal to' and I'm trying to say 'exclusive of' so there's a subtle difference there, although I could be wrong as I'm not a mathematician.

You are indeed right (I am a mathematician, sorta, as you may have guessed ^^), but there are no character to denote that as far as I know. The best I can come with is “Ideas ∩ People = ∅”, which is the formula that is the most likely to be used to denote that two sets are disjoint, and which translate in English as “There is no Idea that is also a Person” (or vice versa it's equivalent).

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 AlchemicalSolution wrote:
My understanding is that your symbol means 'not equal to' and I'm trying to say 'exclusive of' so there's a subtle difference there, although I could be wrong as I'm not a mathematician.

You are indeed right (I am a mathematician, sorta, as you may have guessed ^^), but there are no character to denote that as far as I know. The best I can come with is “Ideas ∩ People = ∅”, which is the formula that is the most likely to be used to denote that two sets are disjoint, and which translate in English as “There is no Idea that is also a Person” (or vice versa it's equivalent).

As a political scientist, I feel I have object. "L'etat, c'est moi" is a thing after all.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
As a political scientist, I feel I have object. "L'etat, c'est moi" is a thing after all.

Are you objecting to AlchemicalSolution's statement, or to the fact I correctly rephrased it mathematically in a fair and accurate manner?
I feel it's the first.
Also the actual quote (according to Wikipedia) was funnier ^^.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also what about “I am the law!”

Well the exact way of mathematically clarifying it is somewhat moot, since (which I mentioned on the first page) there is no functional difference between discriminating against Islam and discriminating against Muslims; the broader populace cannot be expected to respect the difference.

I am not sure what you mean by discriminating against Islam.
Also the broader populace is very bad. Whatever we do they'll screw up :(.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I am not sure what you mean by discriminating against Islam.
Also the broader populace is very bad. Whatever we do they'll screw up :(.

Perhaps better phrased as 'labelling Islam as a religion more violent/intolerant than others is functionally identical to labelling Muslims as more violent/intolerant than others'. This thread alone offers abundant evidence that people are unable to consistently make a distinction--even the two people claiming such have made numerous statements against Muslims even going so far as to say that the Muslim population needs to be "confronted" about the state of their religion. Which is such a ridiculous idea that... Well, you can see why I stopped engaging them.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I am not sure what you mean by discriminating against Islam.
Also the broader populace is very bad. Whatever we do they'll screw up :(.

Perhaps better phrased as 'labelling Islam as a religion more violent/intolerant than others is functionally identical to labelling Muslims as more violent/intolerant than others'. This thread alone offers abundant evidence that people are unable to consistently make a distinction--even the two people claiming such have made numerous statements against Muslims even going so far as to say that the Muslim population needs to be "confronted" about the state of their religion. Which is such a ridiculous idea that... Well, you can see why I stopped engaging them.

But what if Islam in its modern state of evolution actually is more violent and intolerant than its contemporary religions?
Are we supposed to believe that all religions at all points in their evolution are equivalent to one another in terms of support for violence and toleration of outsiders?

We are supposed to judge individuals/communities by their own actions and not by whatever religion they adhere to. Even assuming Islam is somehow worse than others there is no benefit to be gained from making that assumption because of the discrimination it will cause against millions of people who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We are supposed to judge individuals/communities by their own actions and not by whatever religion they adhere to. Even assuming Islam is somehow worse than others there is no benefit to be gained from making that assumption because of the discrimination it will cause against millions of people who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Well, I certainly agree that if people are to be judged, they should be judged as individuals. But I also think that belief systems should be criticized on their merit as well. Most of us are quick to criticize political systems on their merits, and I don't see why religious systems should be exempt from the same type of scrutiny.

Christianity was reformed immensely due to scrutiny from its critics. I don't think any particular religion deserves exemption, especially when criticism is one of the strongest avenues toward moderation and reform.

There's a subtle but extremely important distinction between criticizing a religion as a whole and criticizing how people act on a religion. Major religions have enough convoluted and self-contradictory segments that following them to the letter is an impossibility. This leaves how members of that religion behave to interpretation, and a given individual/community's interpretation can (and should) be evaluated on its merits. Speaking against, say, the Catholic church's actions in regard to sexual assault by priests is criticizing the actions of a specific group of people within the church. And that criticism is a good thing. Saying that Christianity is prone to sexual abuse of children is not.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There's a subtle but extremely important distinction between criticizing a religion as a whole and criticizing how people act on a religion. Major religions have enough convoluted and self-contradictory segments that following them to the letter is an impossibility. This leaves how members of that religion behave to interpretation, and a given individual/community's interpretation can (and should) be evaluated on its merits. Speaking against, say, the Catholic church's actions in regard to sexual assault by priests is criticizing the actions of a specific group of people within the church. And that criticism is a good thing. Saying that Christianity is prone to sexual abuse of children is not.

I don't know. There's an argument to be had that the Catholic doctrine of priestly celibacy was part of the cause for the child abuse scandals. Sure, it was individuals who committed the crimes, and individuals who covered up the crimes, but the doctrine itself may have played a big role in attracting offenders and potential offenders into the priesthood.

I don't see any inherent wrong in asking what role Catholic doctrine played in the child abuse scandals, nor do I think would most Catholics (except the subset of Catholics that think that Catholic doctrine should be immune to criticism in all cases, but I think that is referred to as being "more Catholic than the Pope").

 jasper76 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There's a subtle but extremely important distinction between criticizing a religion as a whole and criticizing how people act on a religion. Major religions have enough convoluted and self-contradictory segments that following them to the letter is an impossibility. This leaves how members of that religion behave to interpretation, and a given individual/community's interpretation can (and should) be evaluated on its merits. Speaking against, say, the Catholic church's actions in regard to sexual assault by priests is criticizing the actions of a specific group of people within the church. And that criticism is a good thing. Saying that Christianity is prone to sexual abuse of children is not.

I don't know. There's an argument to be had that the Catholic doctrine of priestly celibacy was part of the cause for the sexual abuse scandals. Sure, it was individuals who committed the crimes, and individuals who covered up the crimes, but the doctrine itself may have played a big role in attracting offenders and potential offenders into the priesthood.

I don't see any inherent wrong in asking what role Catholic doctrine played in the child abuse scandals, nor do I think would most Catholics themselves (except the subset of Catholics that think that Catholic doctrine should be immune to criticism in all cases, but I think that is referred to as being "more Catholic than the Pope").

This is where religion differs from politics/government. The latter is all about changing and updating what the rules are in order to improve and adapt, the former is static and more or less unchangeable. Additionally, I would argue that it is not the doctrine itself that caused such issue; after all it didn't say 'thou shalt cover for molesting children' and even then the judgement would fall on the persons who acted, because religion is all about interpretation. After all, the bible does say rather explicitly to kill all people of different faiths yet Christians who tried to act on that would likely be condemned by nearly every church out there.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
there is no functional difference between discriminating against Islam and discriminating against Muslims; the broader populace cannot be expected to respect the difference.

This is everything a person ever needs to know about the censorship mentality, and where it leads.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
This thread alone offers abundant evidence that people are unable to consistently make a distinction--even the two people claiming such have made numerous statements against Muslims even going so far as to say that the Muslim population needs to be "confronted" about the state of their religion. Which is such a ridiculous idea that... Well, you can see why I stopped engaging them.

Ahah it reminds me of the last time I criticized someone for saying something among the line of what you mention,lik “French Muslims need to show more they don't support ISIS” (it was in the French election thread). The very same guy ended up calling me bigoted because I laughed at his statement about Islam “actually being a religion of peace and the islamist are misinterpretating the texts” ^^. Apparently he wasn't able to make the distinction either .

Ex-muslims are usually the best source of criticism of Islam that doesn't confuse Islam and Muslims I think.

 jasper76 wrote:
There's an argument to be had that the Catholic doctrine of priestly celibacy was part of the cause for the child abuse scandals. Sure, it was individuals who committed the crimes, and individuals who covered up the crimes, but the doctrine itself may have played a big role in attracting offenders and potential offenders into the priesthood.

I don't think this is a valid argument, at all. People who rape children don't do it because they're frustrated at not being able to have sex with adults, and plenty of people manage to live a life without sex (whether by choice or by lack of partners) without deciding to go after children instead. And IIRC the actual rates of offense in the Catholic church weren't all that different from the rates for people in similar positions of power over children (teachers, group leaders, etc). The much more important factor was the perceived need to protect the church's reputation above all, suppressing the crimes of its members to avoid bad publicity. And, while you might be able to make a weak argument that doctrines about the infallibility of the church might have contributed to that need to avoid bad publicity, there are plenty of examples of people suppressing similar crimes (Penn State anyone?) for entirely secular reasons.

So, as much as I like to criticize religion, this isn't a very good opportunity for it. There are massive things wrong with the church as an organization in this case, but those are very human problems, not theological ones.

NinthMusketeer wrote:There's a subtle but extremely important distinction between criticizing a religion as a whole and criticizing how people act on a religion. Major religions have enough convoluted and self-contradictory segments that following them to the letter is an impossibility. This leaves how members of that religion behave to interpretation, and a given individual/community's interpretation can (and should) be evaluated on its merits. Speaking against, say, the Catholic church's actions in regard to sexual assault by priests is criticizing the actions of a specific group of people within the church. And that criticism is a good thing. Saying that Christianity is prone to sexual abuse of children is not.

Hoo boy. You want to ignore the huge amount of sexual repression inherent in the Christian faith? Why, because it might cause people to discriminate against Christians?

It is absolutely valid criticism. If you had addressed any of my points that I have raised throughout this thread we might actually be having a discussion. I used the most ridiculous example I could use (Aztec Human Sacrifice) to demonstrate the flaw in your argument that addressing flaws in a religion is a universally bad thing. Instead of responding you have accused me of twisting your words, which is absolutely not my intention. There's no need for me to resort to petty fallacies or complicated wordplay on my end to try and reason with you. Which is all I am trying to do.

I'm just going to try and simplify my argument here. This is my olive branch, let's start from scratch NinthMuskteer.


Religion, in general, is not a good thing. Islam is generally even worse than it's counterparts in regards to espousing violence and intolerance of other religions. This is because of the violent life of Mohammed and the idea that the Qu'arn is the Final word in religion. There are no amendments or further revelations to follow. It does not tolerate criticism.

Criticism, scepticism and an honest freedom to speak one's mind is essential for any religious minority (or majority) to coexist with people of other faiths or lack thereof in a peaceful (and in my preferred scenario secular) society. You cannot have freedom of religion in a society that does not also allow free criticism of religion. Censorship or censuring unpopular criticism is a step backwards, not forwards.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
This thread alone offers abundant evidence that people are unable to consistently make a distinction--even the two people claiming such have made numerous statements against Muslims even going so far as to say that the Muslim population needs to be "confronted" about the state of their religion. Which is such a ridiculous idea that... Well, you can see why I stopped engaging them.

Ahah it reminds me of the last time I criticized someone for saying something among the line of what you mention,lik “French Muslims need to show more they don't support ISIS” (it was in the French election thread). The very same guy ended up calling me bigoted because I laughed at his statement about Islam “actually being a religion of peace and the islamist are misinterpretating the texts” ^^. Apparently he wasn't able to make the distinction either .

The 'interpretation' of the holy book by ISIS is a cruel, awful and barbaric interpretation used to justify their horrific campaign. But it is a valid interpretation of the texts. Ignoring that ignores the problem. That problem being religion.

Ex-muslims are usually the best source of criticism of Islam that doesn't confuse Islam and Muslims I think.

The problem with relying on ex-Muslims to be the leading voice is threefold:

1) Ex-muslims are hunted down and killed as apostates in Muslim countries. In secular countries they are still socially ostracised by the community to the point of complete exclusion. The number of 'quasi'-Muslims that drink alcohol and pay lip service to their religion is large, the number of actual 'ex'-Muslims that have denounced their faith is very, very small compared to that of other religions.
2) Many Muslims, especially religious leaders and Imams won't even engage in public debates with apostates. Prominent Muslims have outright refused to be on the same discussion board as Ayaan Hirsi Ali for example.
3) This very thread is based on the news of a lengthy jail sentence of a prominent citizen speaking against an interpretation of Islam. And this is in a Muslim majority country that prides itself on being considered 'moderate', having no patience for Wahhabism and other lines of thought.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
But it is a valid interpretation of the texts.

Yeah that's basically what I just said ^^.

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
The problem with relying on ex-Muslims to be the leading voice is threefold:

1) Ex-muslims are hunted down and killed as apostates in Muslim countries. In secular countries they are still socially ostracised by the community to the point of complete exclusion. The number of 'quasi'-Muslims that drink alcohol and pay lip service to their religion is large, the number of actual 'ex'-Muslims that have denounced their faith is very, very small compared to that of other religions.
2) Many Muslims, especially religious leaders and Imams won't even engage in public debates with apostates. Prominent Muslims have outright refused to be on the same discussion board as Ayaan Hirsi Ali for example.
3) This very thread is based on the news of a lengthy jail sentence of a prominent citizen speaking against an interpretation of Islam. And this is in a Muslim majority country that prides itself on being considered 'moderate', having no patience for Wahhabism and other lines of thought.

While I obviously see how those are problems, I don't see how those are problems with ex-Muslims being the leading voices.

These people believe that we ought to behave as though belief doesn't effect behaviour. You can't cut through that kind of thinking with reason.

If it looks like jihadists blow themselves up because of the doctrine of martyrdom, if they actually tell us ad nauseam that that is why they're doing it, and they quote the verses of the Koran or Hadiths that explicitly enjoin that behaviour while they cut off the heads of civilians, that's somehow to be regarded as propaganda or lies or a misapprehension of what is really going on.

But when a 'moderate' cleric in London says that they have an interpretation of the texts which brands that behaviour as un-Islamic, they are to be believed irrespective of whether they even attempt to demonstrate what that interpretation is, convincingly or otherwise.

When the only available data on the relationship between specific beliefs and actions shows that globally, a majority of Muslims refuse to condemn suicide bombing in defence of the faith, support the stoning of women for adultery, wish to live under Sharia law and believe that death is the appropriate punishment for blasphemy and apostasy, your reference of that data will brand you as a racist.

The thing to remember though, is that while you can't speak to these people, they don't actually matter. They're unreachable, but you have to keep having the conversation in spaces which are accessible because it's the broad middle, who are perhaps not thinking about this or aren't in contact with the facts, that are open to being educated on the subject. I tend to leave this conversations with an injunction to visit Gallup's website and do some digging on the polling data they took in 2012 from a broad swathe of Muslim majority countries (the ones they were allowed into) which are still the best data we have on the topic. Start there, do some research, form your own conclusions and don't be cowed by accusations of racism or bigotry, the only thing that is achieving is the bankrupting of those terms, it's a totally meaningless thing to be accused of in 2017, which is something that those responsible for beggaring the lexicon in that way are going to have to answer for in coming years.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
This is where religion differs from politics/government. The latter is all about changing and updating what the rules are in order to improve and adapt, the former is static and more or less unchangeable. Additionally, I would argue that it is not the doctrine itself that caused such issue; after all it didn't say 'thou shalt cover for molesting children' and even then the judgement would fall on the persons who acted, because religion is all about interpretation. After all, the bible does say rather explicitly to kill all people of different faiths yet Christians who tried to act on that would likely be condemned by nearly every church out there.

The Bible does not command Christians to kill people of other faiths and as for the topic of priests molesting children, the Bible says they should be excommunicated and not coddled and swept under the rug. The Catholic Church needs to stop pussyfooting around their issues.

I don't normally comment on religious debates as I am an atheist and so I don't get involved.


But the bible does say to kill infidels, here is the passage.

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I don't normally comment on religious debates as I am an atheist and so I don't get involved.


But the bible does say to kill infidels, here is the passage.

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

I think a pertinent point is that present-day Christians don't follow this commandment, which was never aimed at them anyway, nor do present-day Jews, to whom the commandment was purportedly given in the story. These religions have evolved over centuries of time.

Furthermore, many (most?) Christians and Jews believe these stories and moral codes to be mytho-historical artifacts.

That is the Old Testament - aka Torah. Mr. Party "Lets change this water into wine and get this party started!" Time changed that via the Jesus Supremacy Clause.

 jasper76 wrote:


Furthermore, many (most?) Christians and Jews believe these stories and moral codes to be mytho-historical artifacts.

Same with most Muslims and their book.

The problem comes from people living in failed or failing states, or active war zones. People will use any justification for their actions when society is not present.

Violent, unstable countries breed violent, unstable people. Majority groups have a tendency to discriminate against minority groups. Oppressed minorities result in people resisting that oppression.

These things are, and have always been, true in any region of the world regardless of people or religion. That every major case of Muslim extremes falls into those categories, and that those categories are not at all occupied exclusively by Muslims, tells us right off that external examples of behavior aren't valid criticisms of Islam. Which to be fair, a decent number of people understand. The problem comes when these people aren't actually trying to prove anything; they have a bias against Islam and need to find justification. This leads to criticism of the book itself, which is (as we've established) also not a valid argument since all major religions involve a significant interpretive element at their very core. Which then leads to ridiculous arguments and throwing up walls of text to avoid admitting that one has a pre-concieved bias.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Violent, unstable countries breed violent, unstable people. Majority groups have a tendency to discriminate against minority groups. Oppressed minorities result in people resisting that oppression.

These things are, and have always been, true in any region of the world regardless of people or religion. That every major case of Muslim extremes falls into those categories, and that those categories are not at all occupied exclusively by Muslims, tells us right off that external examples of behavior aren't valid criticisms of Islam. Which to be fair, a decent number of people understand. The problem comes when these people aren't actually trying to prove anything; they have a bias against Islam and need to find justification. This leads to criticism of the book itself, which is (as we've established) also not a valid argument since all major religions involve a significant interpretive element at their very core. Which then leads to ridiculous arguments and throwing up walls of text to avoid admitting that one has a pre-concieved bias.

I'm sure most people will develop a bias against a group of people when that group of people have a trend of terrorism.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Violent, unstable countries breed violent, unstable people. Majority groups have a tendency to discriminate against minority groups. Oppressed minorities result in people resisting that oppression.

These things are, and have always been, true in any region of the world regardless of people or religion. That every major case of Muslim extremes falls into those categories, and that those categories are not at all occupied exclusively by Muslims, tells us right off that external examples of behavior aren't valid criticisms of Islam. Which to be fair, a decent number of people understand. The problem comes when these people aren't actually trying to prove anything; they have a bias against Islam and need to find justification. This leads to criticism of the book itself, which is (as we've established) also not a valid argument since all major religions involve a significant interpretive element at their very core. Which then leads to ridiculous arguments and throwing up walls of text to avoid admitting that one has a pre-concieved bias.

I'm sure most people will develop a bias against a group of people when that group of people have a trend of terrorism.

Do you have a bias against the Patriot movement?

 feeder wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Violent, unstable countries breed violent, unstable people. Majority groups have a tendency to discriminate against minority groups. Oppressed minorities result in people resisting that oppression.

These things are, and have always been, true in any region of the world regardless of people or religion. That every major case of Muslim extremes falls into those categories, and that those categories are not at all occupied exclusively by Muslims, tells us right off that external examples of behavior aren't valid criticisms of Islam. Which to be fair, a decent number of people understand. The problem comes when these people aren't actually trying to prove anything; they have a bias against Islam and need to find justification. This leads to criticism of the book itself, which is (as we've established) also not a valid argument since all major religions involve a significant interpretive element at their very core. Which then leads to ridiculous arguments and throwing up walls of text to avoid admitting that one has a pre-concieved bias.

I'm sure most people will develop a bias against a group of people when that group of people have a trend of terrorism.

Do you have a bias against the Patriot movement?

Are they terrorists?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Violent, unstable countries breed violent, unstable people. Majority groups have a tendency to discriminate against minority groups. Oppressed minorities result in people resisting that oppression.

These things are, and have always been, true in any region of the world regardless of people or religion. That every major case of Muslim extremes falls into those categories, and that those categories are not at all occupied exclusively by Muslims, tells us right off that external examples of behavior aren't valid criticisms of Islam. Which to be fair, a decent number of people understand. The problem comes when these people aren't actually trying to prove anything; they have a bias against Islam and need to find justification. This leads to criticism of the book itself, which is (as we've established) also not a valid argument since all major religions involve a significant interpretive element at their very core. Which then leads to ridiculous arguments and throwing up walls of text to avoid admitting that one has a pre-concieved bias.

I'm sure most people will develop a bias against a group of people when that group of people have a trend of terrorism.

Do you have a bias against the Patriot movement?

Are they terrorists?

They have a trend of terrorism.

 feeder wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Violent, unstable countries breed violent, unstable people. Majority groups have a tendency to discriminate against minority groups. Oppressed minorities result in people resisting that oppression.

These things are, and have always been, true in any region of the world regardless of people or religion. That every major case of Muslim extremes falls into those categories, and that those categories are not at all occupied exclusively by Muslims, tells us right off that external examples of behavior aren't valid criticisms of Islam. Which to be fair, a decent number of people understand. The problem comes when these people aren't actually trying to prove anything; they have a bias against Islam and need to find justification. This leads to criticism of the book itself, which is (as we've established) also not a valid argument since all major religions involve a significant interpretive element at their very core. Which then leads to ridiculous arguments and throwing up walls of text to avoid admitting that one has a pre-concieved bias.

I'm sure most people will develop a bias against a group of people when that group of people have a trend of terrorism.

Do you have a bias against the Patriot movement?

Are they terrorists?

They have a trend of terrorism.

5 people dead in 3 separate attacks... Sorry, feeder, the Jihadists are higher on my bias list.

I don't condone their terrorism either for that matter.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Violent, unstable countries breed violent, unstable people. Majority groups have a tendency to discriminate against minority groups. Oppressed minorities result in people resisting that oppression.

These things are, and have always been, true in any region of the world regardless of people or religion. That every major case of Muslim extremes falls into those categories, and that those categories are not at all occupied exclusively by Muslims, tells us right off that external examples of behavior aren't valid criticisms of Islam. Which to be fair, a decent number of people understand. The problem comes when these people aren't actually trying to prove anything; they have a bias against Islam and need to find justification. This leads to criticism of the book itself, which is (as we've established) also not a valid argument since all major religions involve a significant interpretive element at their very core. Which then leads to ridiculous arguments and throwing up walls of text to avoid admitting that one has a pre-concieved bias.

I'm sure most people will develop a bias against a group of people when that group of people have a trend of terrorism.

Do you have a bias against the Patriot movement?

Are they terrorists?

They have a trend of terrorism.

5 people dead in 3 separate attacks... Sorry, feeder, the Jihadists are higher on my bias list.

Their death toll and number of attacks is much, much higher. McVeigh is probably the most famous "Patriot".

I don't condone their terrorism either for that matter.

Of course you don't, practically nobody does.

I'm pointing out that as North Americans, we have more to fear from our local (mostly white) nutbars than unhinged jihadists.