What Religion are you?

[Elvis]

Did Firas really just ignore the 1000+ contradictions I linked him to, as well as the specific scientific contradictions (and locations of each verse and scientific problem with that verse)?

His problem with my claim of contradictions was that I sited sources.. Does he not want links to back up statements?

What?

How is quoting the specific verses and giving detailed examples of how they are scientifically inaccurate "trash links".

And Elvis, I own copies of most religious texts. I dont like religion, it doesnt mean I dont appreciate the literature.

I never said you didn't own or appreciate blah blah. I said I don't think you have read the Quran based on your rhetoric. And that's virtually all there was to your argument in the last Islam-related thread (and here's a follow-up question to that thread: Who were you even debating? Was there ANYONE in that thread - and I'm looking at you, Firas - who implied or said that religion didn't play a role in the lulz?)

I own the Quran as well. I haven't read it yet.

[Neosutra]

I never said you didn't own or appreciate blah blah. I said I don't think you have read the Quran based on your rhetoric. And that's virtually all there was to your argument in the last Islam-related thread (and here's a follow-up question to that thread: Who were you even debating? Was there ANYONE in that thread - and I'm looking at you, Firas - who implied or said that religion didn't play a role in the lulz?)

I own the Quran as well. I haven't read it yet.

Which specific rhetoric would make you state I didnt read the Quran, as I quoted it in this and the last 2 religion threads. I found it about as satisfying as reading the book of mormon.

And yes, Firas was stating religion played no role in the lulz, as Islam is perfect by nature. Plow and others suggested that the vast deaths caused via religious wars and persecution was "mostly" via man's aggression, and had nothing to do with the "pure" teachings of the religion. The "no true scottsman" argument, where people that committed these acts did so by not following the "true" meaning of the teachings of christianity/Islam.

I stated many times that religion wasnt the the sole cause, but merely a catalyst for such behavior, and my problem with such catalyst is they are "divinely" correct and much harder to remove (unlike economic/nationalist motivations which transition through time).

[Ksandra]

Pretty sure that's a contradiction.

doesn't make what I said wrong though. you said, "No christian would agree that Jesus does not = God." I was letting you know that you are wrong for thinking that about Christians. Doesn't matter whether you think it's a contradiction or not.

[Neosutra]

doesn't make what I said wrong though. you said, "No christian would agree that Jesus does not = God." I was letting you know that you are wrong for thinking that about Christians. Doesn't matter whether you think it's a contradiction or not.

Then they are'nt really Christian's Ksandra.

Spoiler: show

See what I did there?

[Ksandra]

Then they are'nt really Christian's Ksandra.

still doesn't make my statement wrong. Oo

[Plow]

Then they are'nt really Christian's Ksandra.

Spoiler: show

See what I did there?

I see exactly what you did there.

You built a straw man claiming someone's using the "no true scotsman" argument while literally using it yourself.

[Senoska]

doesn't make what I said wrong though. you said, "No christian would agree that Jesus does not = God." I was letting you know that you are wrong for thinking that about Christians. Doesn't matter whether you think it's a contradiction or not.

Yea, Jesus is God but wait, hes not god.
But no, he is, but in human form.
But is he still god?
Yea, totally... But only a part of him
So then what is god?
Jesus, the father, the holy ghost.
But that's 3 things.
They are all god.
So.... Wait...


Lol, please. I'd add in a "bitch, get to the kitchen" comment here but I like you too much to do that. <3

edit: Even if you are 20 years older than I like them.

[Neosutra]

I see exactly what you did there.

You built a straw man claiming someone's using the "no true scotsman" argument while literally using it yourself.

Otherwise known as sarcasm.

[Plow]

Oh, sorry, seeing how your sig is quite literally someone going "If I were you I would say," I had come to the conclusion you were oblivious to such concepts.

[Milkster]

Long thread. Been any cool fights yet!?!?!?1111

[Max™]

The dinosaurs didn't have religion.

There was no god before some stupid monkeys made it up.

Science is simply observation and understanding of that which already exists.

Science has always been around in that sense.

When the last man dies, so will God.

Math and Science will live on.

[Milkster]

The dinosaurs didn't have religion.

There was no god before some stupid monkeys made it up.

Science is simply observation and understanding of that which already exists.

Science has always been around in that sense.

When the last man dies, so will God.

Math and Science will live on.

/thread.

[Vandole]

Necrobump /thread.

/thread.

Real religious speak there, bud. Did god tell you to /thread every thread you have read only the last page on?

I'm pretty sure the flying spaghetti monster hates you.

[Falisa]

The dinosaurs didn't have religion.

I beg to differ...

http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/%7Eklo...aptorjesus.jpg

[Ksandra]

Yea, Jesus is God but wait, hes not god.
But no, he is, but in human form.
But is he still god?
Yea, totally... But only a part of him
So then what is god?
Jesus, the father, the holy ghost.
But that's 3 things.
They are all god.
So.... Wait...


Lol, please. I'd add in a "bitch, get to the kitchen" comment here but I like you too much to do that. <3

edit: Even if you are 20 years older than I like them.

still doesn't make my statement wrong..

Seno please focus. I am not saying it is contradictory or wish-washy as you want to place it. I am saying if you go up to most Christians and say "Is Jesus God?" they will say "no." Feel free afterward to try and prove them wrong or do w/e you want, but that has nothing to do with what I said.

[Insanecyclone]

I stepped going to church when I was 8 I think I was Christian maybe

[Yuri-G]

edit: I hope you're not using this incorrectly.

Aka, I hope you've read the thread and are referring to people acting gnostic in their beliefs.. IE: Firas.

I'm pretty sure I'm using it correctly. I'm referring to the idea that you either believe or don't believe in God, but either way, you're really not sure. isn't that what agnosticism is?

[Milkster]

Real religious speak there, bud. Did God tell you to /thread every thread you have read only the last page on?

I'm pretty sure the flying spaghetti monster hates you.

In a spammer kind of mood. Also religion threads are useless. No one will ever agree or come close to agreeing on anything. Also fixed that for you.

[Elvis]

Which specific rhetoric would make you state I didnt read the Quran, as I quoted it in this [So did Blarg but would that automatically imply that he has read the Quran? No. Simply quoting the Quran does not mean you've read it. Anyone can do that. This is the Internet and it's Islam we're talking about. That doesn't mean the standard I'm applying to you (or Blarg) is so high that you have to be an Islamic scholar to prove that you've simply read the book. I am focusing on your rhetoric and not the fact that you've quoted the book. The act of quoting the Quran is superficial. A compelling analysis or substantiated argument using quotes would suffice. You don't have to be a scholar - you just have to be able to connect the quotes with your argument. Since your argument was almost all rhetoric (and full of holes) - why should I give you the benefit of the doubt regarding your act of quoting the Quran?] would be and the last 2 religion threads. I found it about as satisfying as reading the book of mormon.

When I googled what Blarg wrote - I got this:

CRCC: Center For Muslim-Jewish Engagement: Resources: Religious Texts

Each passage that Blarg quoted (except the last one) is from this website. It's the first hit you'll get. It's on the same page as well I believe.

This does not mean he has not read the Hadiths but it certainly does not mean he has either. (I say 'certainly not' because he didn't say anything compelling to substantiate the act of listing those passages.)

I think he just copied and pasted the passages as a 'gotcha' comment (rhetoric) towards a guy who is very inconsistent (I would also say 'contradictory' however I think Firas is sincere.) in his articulation of views.

And yes, Firas was stating religion played no role in the lulz, as Islam is perfect by nature. Plow and others suggested that the vast deaths caused via religious wars and persecution was "mostly" via man's aggression, and had nothing to do with the "pure" teachings of the religion. The "no true scottsman" argument, where people that committed these acts did so by not following the "true" meaning of the teachings of christianity/Islam.

This is what Firas said:

Spoiler: show

hey arvin!

yep lots of muslims from east asia and iran do not "fully" understand arabic.
that is a problem in Muslims. and thats one of the main problems where you get extremists.

lack of understanding, you get a bunch of people who hate westerner governments, do not understand the religion (because of the language) and a guy with a beard comes to them, and says, look look your religion says killing "ABC" people is jihad. and they follow like sheep.

in reality, when we refer to the teaching of the Prophet (PBUH) and the Koran, it never said anything of killing people, and you as a muslim basing those penalties on anyone.

using Islam as a justification to kill, i dont know but i dont see it as Islam's fault. people can twist anything in to their own interest. because its very clear about that issue.

Islam IS a religion. However, religion IS NOT simply 'Islam'. This is the distinction.

Just as the United States IS a democracy. However, democracy is not simply 'the United States'.

He clearly does not blame HIS interpretation of Islam:

[...]in reality, when we refer to the teaching of the Prophet (PBUH) and the Koran, it never said anything of killing people, and you as a muslim basing those penalties on anyone.

using Islam as a justification to kill, i dont know but i dont see it as Islam's fault. people can twist anything in to their own interest. because its very clear about that issue.

Firas leaves himself open to pot-shots.

Now - as a follow-up, he should clarify whether RELIGION (meaning these extremists interpretation of Islam; meaning the institution of religion and Islam to an extent (but obviously not a meaningful extent from his - Firas's - point of view; ) played a role or not.

To elaborate on what I'm saying here watch this Q & A on Lenin, Trotsky, Socialism & the Soviet Union from a lecture given by Noam Chomsky on Manufacturing Consent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQsceZ9skQI

Transcript:

Spoiler: show

QUESTIONER: But I think there's also, if I could continue, I think there is also a problem in the analysis that I've seen in your works, and that you presented tonight, in the sense that, I think we can tend to lose the forest for the trees -- that you present so many, you know, astonishing details about what is wrong with the system, and about what is wrong with the media, that we can tend to lose sight of what I think the really key question is, which is, why is this control necessary in the first place. And I would submit, at least, that I think it's because there's -- I've got a minute and a half, I swear to God it's no longer -- it's because there's antagonistic interests involved. They didn't talk about milkmaids and dairy- whatever it was, dairymaids, and spinsters, and laborers in the seventeenth century for no reason, it was because they were the working class. And what we see today in this country, I think, is quite frankly, let's speak bluntly, a ruling class which tries to control a working class population. And that's what it's about, is holding on to that power.

If that's the case, then it seems like to me the question that we face is how to organize to change that system, to challenge capitalism. And I think in that effort you do a disservice to your listeners, and to the people who respect your work, when you equate Lenin with Stalinism as blithely as you did tonight. I say that, and I think it's also important to point out that that is an unquestioned assumption, and also an easy applause-getter, we saw, that you share with the mainstream media. And I think if it were actually that simple, the horrific kinds of measures that even bourgeois historians describe as a counterrevolution under Stalin would not have been necessary if they were all the same to begin with.

Now, in short, to sum up, the situation that you have outlined tonight I think is extremely serious, and I think it's important that we all take it seriously. What we're talking about is literally the fate of millions of lives around the world, as particularly in the international politics that you describe. That being the case, then I think we need a full, and a serious, and a fair discussion of various different alternatives, not just talking about the horrors of capitalism, but actually how to change it to end the stuff once and for all.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well I think you made, yeah, I think- well, there's several questions there. One is about the discussion of the United States, and I think what I said is approximately what you said, except I didn't use some of that rhetoric. The- I, you know, which I don't particularly think is particularly helpful, to tell you the truth, either analytically or to understand or whatever. But it's the same picture. John Jay had it straight, the people who own the country ought to govern it -- and the people who own the country have, basically, now are a network of corporations and conglomerates, banks, and so on -- they ought to govern it, and the way they do it is by the methods we've described.

Now as far as the Soviet Union is concerned, I didn't happen to talk about it tonight, but I've written about this topic. I haven't just made the charge, I've written about it, and explained why I think it's true. And it doesn't bother me if I happen to agree with the mainstream media on this. Trotsky, to pick somebody who you remember, once- he was charged in the 1930s with agreeing with the fascists in his condemnation of the Soviet Union. And he pointed out that his critique was- to be true, he didn't- wasn't going to abandon it if somebody else happened to say it for different reasons. So the question is about the Soviet Union, and particularly about Lenin.

So, what was Leninism?

Well, in my- here we have to look at the facts. Now, you know, you look at the facts, I think here's what you find. Lenin was a right wing deviation of the Socialist movement, and he was so regarded. He was regarded as that by the Marxists, by the mainstream Marxists. We've forgotten who the mainstream Marxists were because they lost, and you only remember the guys who won. But, if you go back to the- to that period, the mainstream Marxists were people like, for example, Anton Pannekoek, who was head of education for the Marxist movement. And a serious- he's the one- one of the people who Lenin later denounced as an infantile leftist. But he was one of the leading intellectuals of the actual Marxist movement. Rosa Luxembourg was another mainstream Marxist, and there were others. And they were very critical -- in fact Trotsky was one, up until 1917 -- they were all very critical of Leninism, because of this, what they regarded, as this opportunistic vanguardism. The idea that the radical intelligentsia were going to exploit popular movements to seize State power, and then to use that State power to whip the population into the society that they chose.

Now that was quite inconsistent with Marxism as understood by the mainstream, sort of, I'd say left Marxists. From this point of view, Bolshevism was a right-wing deviation. Trotsky made the same points up until 1917.

Now, when Lenin came back to Russia, in April 1917, he took a different line, quite a different line from the one he'd had in the past. You take a look at Lenin's work, it shifted character in April '17. In April 1917 it became kind of libertarian. That's when he came out with the April Theses, and that's when he wrote State and Democracy, it came out- it came out a year later, but that's when it was written, and these were -- State and Revolution -- these were basically libertarian works. They were very much more in the mainstream of, sort of left, libertarian-socialism, from sort of, you know, this range that goes from Anarchism over to left Marxism of the Pannekoek/Luxembourg variety. And he talked about Soviets, and the need for, you know, workers organization and so on, and in fact came really closer to what the essence of socialism was always understood to be, after all the core of socialism was understood to be workers control over production. That was the core. That's where you begin with. Then you go on to other things. But the beginning is control by the workers over production. That's where it begins.

Then Lenin took power in October 1917 in what's called a revolution, but in my view ought to be called a coup. And the- then- and things followed that coup, or revolution, if you want to call it that.

One of the things that followed it was the immediate moves to destroy the soviets and the factory councils. Those were some of the first moves of Lenin and Trotsky after they took -- Trotsky joined at that point -- after they took State power.

In fact if you look at what Lenin wrote after that period, or did, you'll find it's a reversion to the earlier position. This sort of left deviation, is that, a deviation. You could ask why. In my view it was just opportunistic. He knew that in order to gain power he was going to have to go along with the popular currents that were developing, which were, in fact, spontaneous and libertarian and socialist, as most popular movements are, have been, in fact, since the 17th century. And being an astute politician, which he was, he sort of went along with that, and talked the line that the people wanted to hear. It's just like when an American politician goes somewhere, and his pollsters tell him, say so and so, he says it. It doesn't mean he believes it. And I think Lenin was doing the same thing without polls.

In any event, whatever your interpretation is, when he took power he reverted to the former vanguardism, and moved at once to eliminate the organs of workers control. Now that meant he was moving to destroy socialism, if socialism has as its core workers control over production. The soviets and the factory councils were instruments of workers control. And same- you could say they're defective instruments and they had to be worked out better, and so on, yeah, no doubt, but they were the instruments that had been developed in the course of popular struggle, for- to implement, basically, workers control. And those were the first things to go.

By early 1918 -- this is now- this is still really before the civil war set in -- Lenin's view was pretty clearly expressed. It was the view that- both he and Trotsky took the position, that what you need is what Trotsky called a labor army, which is submissive to the control of a single leader. He says modern, you know, progress and development and socialism requires that the mass of the population subordinate themselves to a single leader in a disciplined workforce.

Well, that has absolutely nothing to do with socialism. In fact, it's the exact opposite of it, and was criticized for that by the -- in a sense, in a spirit of some solidarity because, you know, the revolutionary forces were still operative -- he was criticized for that by people like Rosa Luxembourg and by Pannekoek and Gorter and the other mainstream, sort of, left Marxists. And that- and I think they were right. It seems to me that- and then it just goes on from there. I mean, Lenin reconstructed the Tsarist systems of oppression, often more efficiently -- Tscheka, KGB, and other techniques of control and oppression -- I think from that point on there was nothing remotely like socialism in the Soviet Union. I think it was in fact a- in my view it was a precursor of later forms of totalitarianism.

Now, you know, you could- that's what I think happened, and I think that's what you'll discover if you look at the facts. Now, why is it called socialism?

Well, I think there- see- I think that's complicated, and we should look at it. There's two- the Soviet Union calls it socialism. And, you know, after they took control of the- they did take control pretty soon of most of the international socialist movement, because of, primarily, the prestige of having created something, sort of, socialism.

Incidentally, just a side remark, Lenin remained, despite it all, a sort of an orthodox Marxist in many respects. And as an orthodox Marxist he didn't believe that it was possible to have socialism in the Soviet Union. This was supposed to be- up to his death, or, you know, shortly before his death, when he was still writing, you know, speaking lucidly, he took- kept the view that the Soviet revolution was a holding action. They're just going to hold things in place until the real revolution took place in Germany, because the revolution, according to Marxist doctrine, was going to take place in the most advanced sector of modern industrial capitalism, you know, for all the reasons that you read about in Marx. That's where the revolution had to take place. Obviously that wasn't the Soviet Union, so there couldn't be socialism there, it was just some kind of holding action. And that, presumably, gave some sort of justification for eliminating the socialist institutions. I don't think it's a real justification, but probably that was the internal justification. And again, in taking that view he was in accord with the mainstream Marxist tradition.

Well, after that comes the view that all of this is socialism. And why should the communist parties take that view? I think the reason is because they wanted to, sort of, exploit the moral force of socialism, which was quite real. You know, it's kind of hard to remember that today, but at that time it was very real. This was regarded as a, you know, as a progressive, moral force, and by associating their own destruction of socialism with the aura of socialism they hoped to gain credit, in the working classes and other progressive sectors.

Now, the West also identified that with socialism. And they did it for the opposite reason. They wanted to associate socialism with the brutality of the Russian State that undermined socialism. So what you had is that the two major world propaganda agencies, for their own quite different reasons, were claiming that this is socialism -- that this destruction of socialism is socialism. And it's very hard to break out of the control of the world's two major propaganda agencies when they agree. They agreed for different reasons, but they basically agreed, and that then became doctrine and dogma.

Well, I think people should ask whether that's true. Take a look back and see whether the moves that Lenin took, and that Trotsky supported him in taking, and that they both advocated, had anything to do with socialism as it was understood by the, say, in the Marxist tradition, or in the left libertarian tradition. And I think the answer that you'll discover when you look at that is that they didn't. In fact, this was a destruction of socialist institutions.

Well, you know, this may be true or it may be false. But if it's true, and I think the evidence pretty strongly supports it, then I don't see any reason why we shouldn't express that fact. And I certainly don't think that we should be deterred in expressing this fact if other people whose, you know, fascists, whatever, happen to condemn the Soviet Union, just for the same reasons that Trotsky mentioned in the 1930s.

Read the entire transcript OR watch the video OR skip to the cliff notes to understand my point:

Well, after that comes the view that all of this is socialism. And why should the communist parties take that view? I think the reason is because they wanted to, sort of, exploit the moral force of socialism, which was quite real. You know, it's kind of hard to remember that today, but at that time it was very real. This was regarded as a, you know, as a progressive, moral force, and by associating their own destruction of socialism with the aura of socialism they hoped to gain credit, in the working classes and other progressive sectors.

Now, the West also identified that with socialism. And they did it for the opposite reason. They wanted to associate socialism with the brutality of the Russian State that undermined socialism. So what you had is that the two major world propaganda agencies, for their own quite different reasons, were claiming that this is socialism -- that this destruction of socialism is socialism. And it's very hard to break out of the control of the world's two major propaganda agencies when they agree. They agreed for different reasons, but they basically agreed, and that then became doctrine and dogma.

Now, from what I understood - Firas is implying that he either understands the true meaning of Islam or is within the range of what is an acceptable interpretation of Islam.

The extremists would disagree with him obviously. What is the commonality between them? Not their interpretation. However they are both A) religious and B) Muslims.

What you're saying isn't exactly out of left-field but when I think back to what Chomsky said about socialism and how both the Soviet Union and the United States used it for their own gains - I have to disagree with your conclusions.

(Not implying that Islam is a 'moral force' like socialism or that socialism is a 'moral force'. I am simply trying to draw a rhetorical - and meaningful - parallel between Chomsky's argument about interpretation to Firas's comments about Islam and blah blah.)

Stating that 'Firas believes religion played no role' - is very different from Firas - who is not a religious fanatic or terrorist or crypto-religious-fanatic (which you touched on here) - saying:

[...]a system that "claims" to be complete and has no punishments is an incomplete system.
so i dont know why punishment here is called violence.
if there is a law that needs to be executed, or a punishment, Muslims are not responsible for this. The leader/president is the one responsible to decide on this.
people going out of their way and "defending" religion by violence, is actually a great sin. The Prophet (PBUH) have warned us many times of this.

A muslim should [implying he - Firas - has an interpretation of what a Muslims *should* blah blah] believe in God and the Prophet (pbuh), pray five times a day, fast in ramadan, give charity, perform hajj. this is his/her obligation as a muslim.

Back to your original quote:

Firas was stating religion played no role in the lulz, as Islam is perfect by nature.

I would sum everything I've said so far by this:

Firas believes his Islam is perfect but that religiousness is imperfect.

Meaning the structure of religion. Meaning, that he has his own view of what a Muslim should and should not do. He does not blame Islam for what a 'bad' (implied) Muslim does. He blames the interpretation and misreading of the source text.

Although, to be fair:

[...]so i dont know why punishment here is called violence.

If there is a law that needs to be executed, or a punishment, Muslims are not responsible for this. The leader/president is the one responsible to decide on this.

What does he mean here? Perhaps 'leaders' like Bin Laden are influencing Muslims to do X and Y which are not in accordance w/ the teachings of Islam? I dunno.

I think Islam does play a role. I think the role is not as meaningful as the culture/geopolitics/etc.

Chomsky didn't approve of the Soviet Union's conception of socialism. He does not equate socialism with 'the Soviet Union'. He didn't blame socialism. He blamed the Soviet Union's brand of 'socialism' (which he - Chomsky - says they 'used').

Now with ALL this said - I could be giving Firas way too much benefit of the doubt (within the context of our point of contention). I find him to be very inconsistent with his arguments.

I stated many times that religion wasnt the the sole cause, but merely a catalyst for such behavior, and my problem with such catalyst is they are "divinely" correct and much harder to remove (unlike economic/nationalist motivations which transition through time).

I agree religion isn't the only cause.

However, I don't think I ever said that you said it was all religion.

My argument in the last thread was that you were making a slippery slope logical fallacy that conflated moderate Muslims w/ extremists.

You then changed your definition of what it meant to be a 'moderate' Muslim. You made an analogy to right-wingers in the our country.

My conclusions about your commentary in the thread in question is based on our back and forth and some things you said to Plow.

I believe Plow then went on to talk about a 'great example of religiously motivated positive activity':

I generally consider the "good extremists" to be moderate, really. In this day and age moderation in religious context tends to apply more towards forcing your beliefs upon others than how you live your own life.

[...]Here is a great example of religiously motivated positive activity, in a field you love to talk about:

Lutheran Social Services

While those extremists you love to talk about are bombing abortion clinics, those terrible moderates at LSS are offering adoption and other child services relating to unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. Their services range from simply being an active, extremely trustworthy and highly regarded adoption agency, to psychological support for both the biological and adoptive parents after adoptions, to homes for children having trouble in foster care, and victims of abuse, and they even stretch into similar care for elderly in situations similar to those of children without healthy homes.

You went on to say:

The good those people do dont require a religion or god. The bad (specifying their theistic beliefs are divinely correct and thus never budging on the issue) has divided a nation and established a campaign that has actively attempted to squash scientific progress for the last 50 years, under a guise of divine purity.

You set up premises that suit your argument. That's called a...'No true Scotsman' - right?

Similarly you repeat this:

All Muslims are not the same to me. I am simply sticking with the "religion is inherently bad" argument, in which case the alcoholism analogy does relate as a degenerative psychosis that may or may not cause severe extremist acts.

Reply to this:

However, there are Muslims who aren't doing what those guys did. There are lots of Muslims being killed by those guys.

How do you reconcile that fact? If a Muslim denounces Islamic terrorism, does that mean he's not really a Muslim?

With this:

There are alcoholics that dont beat their wives, are they not really alcoholics?

That's the context for my skepticism towards your comment that you've 'read the Quran'.

[Neosutra]

Ah, because I associated Muslims with terrorism via the analogy of alcoholics and spousal abuse. That would be a matter of interpretation, as you dont have to beat your wife to be an alcoholic, and you certainly dont have to be violent to be Muslim.

However, one could argue that such faiths lend people to extremist acts (as a catalyst, not the sole cause, as we have stated), hence I treated Islam as a mental sickness similar to alcoholism.

I agree with most of the rest of what you said however.

You do have to admit that:

He clearly does not blame HIS interpretation of Islam.

Is nothing more than No True Scottsman in its purest form. How can we say that he is the one interpreting it correctly and not the terrorist?

I like specifically the Quran's perspective of women:

The Quran in Sura (Chapter) 2:223 says: Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like..

The Quran in Sura 4:11 says: The share of the male shall be twice that of a female .

The Quran in Sura 2:282 says: And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her. - This one is awesome lol.

The Quran in Sura 4:129 says: It is not within your power to be perfectly equitable in your treatment with all your wives, even if you wish to be so; therefore, [in order to satisfy the dictates of Divine Law] do not lean towards one wife so as to leave the other in a state of suspense

The Quran in Sura 4:34 says: 4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.

The Quran in Sura 65:1, 4 says: 65:1 O Prophet, when you [and the believers] divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting—period and count the waiting—period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden - Pedophilia ftw.

Ill post my favorite violence encouraging quotes later lol.