Reply to Spectrum:
Go through my post line by line and tell me which point is not factual or not in line with the OP
“So where is the bigotry?”
More or less everywhere.
Most newcomers will assimilate in time. But there is is a big difference because Islam is an ideology based on the immutable theistic belief, if you assimilate you will go to hell! This is a very serious and critical threat that will keep most Muslims from assimilating with non-Muslims [kuffar -derogatorily].
If you condemn all Muslims because of what some or most Muslims do, then that is bigotry. You are entitled to criticise aspects of the belief with which you disagree. You are not entitled to assume that all ‘believers’ believe exactly the same thing. That is also bigotry.
There are Muslims who drink and mixed well with non-Muslims. Generally these are Muslims who are ignorant of the central ethos of Islam based on the Quran. Those who interact and are friendly with non-Muslims are doing so as being-more-human and not as good Muslims per-se.
You have mentioned an “immutable theistic belief”
– that if you assimilate you will go to hell. You then mention Muslims who try to assimilate. This is either a direct contradiction of your own claim or the ‘assimilaters’ are not true Muslims. If the latter, then you are committing the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy and your views do not correspond to observation. This is bigotry. If you are criticise these ‘Muslims’ on the basis that they are ignorant – and you have – then that is your opinion and not a fact. It is bigotry. You cannot possibly know exactly why every Muslim labels themselves as such. Yet you have determined that they may be ‘not as good Muslims per-se’. That is bigotry. You have also implied that ‘being-more-human’ is in conflict with being a good Muslim (of which you seem to have a very narrow and not clearly-stated definition). That is bigotry.
You mention Taqiyya and I, too, find the principle objectionable. You do not appear, however, to understand that it is interpreted differently by different groups and individuals and, in some instances, it only applies at times of personal threat. There are parallels in other holy books; human and animal sacrifice or the concept of original sin which must be atoned down the generations. Yet you close your eyes to these. You select what suits your argument and are blind to similarities elsewhere. At a minimum this is bias but it seems to me to be far closer to bigotry.
Note the terrible evil laden elements in the OT are abrogated and overriden by the more pacifist maxims of the NT.
This is your view but it is clearly not the view of huge numbers of Jews and Christians. For starters it would throw out many of the significant stories in Genesis and Leviticus which are critical to many religious groups, as well as the ten commandments or the 613 commandments or whatever. If your ‘pacifist maxims’ of the New Testament accept as reasonable the words of Jesus when he tells slaves to obey their masters or that most of the concepts of eternal torment are introduced in the New Testament or if you think that it is reasonable to reject half of the Bible because it does not conform to your personal ideas, then I do not consider that such an argument can, in any way, be regarded as ‘fact’. And, before you mention it, I understand that you claim that God definitely doesn’t exist. We have discussed this on several occasions.
Jesus commanded Christians in the NT to love one's enemies and if any Christian were to hate and kill non-Christians, surely Jesus will F..k them on Judgment Day and send the person to hell.
If you can find some logic in loving one’s enemies in order to send them to hell and still call this a ‘pacifist maxim’, then that is more than I can. It is anything but factual. Or even sensible.
This is why there are no Christians killing non-Christians in the name of Jesus but rather they are compelled by their own personal lust of killing and evil.
Are you serious?!! Do you expect us to ignore the Crusades, the concepts of a ‘just war’ or a ‘holy war’ or various inquisitions or pogroms? Or the Balkan Wars? Central African Republic? The Mansami National Christian Army in India? Maronite militias in the Lebanon? God’s army in Myanmar? The list could fill a book. Or is this another ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy; you decide what motivates these groups? By ignoring the ‘facts’, you demonstrate bigotry.
Of course, not every Muslims will be that evil but if only 20% of Muslims [very possible] strive to comply to ensure a secure passage to eternal life and paradise, then we have 300 million evil prone Muslims on the war path against non-Muslims. Note even one lone wolf is bad enough, and it took 18++ to do a 911 and we have a potential pool of 300 million!!
Firstly, you equate striving to ensure a secure passage to eternal life and paradise with ‘evil prone’ which, in itself, is nonsense. You imply that, if a minority of Muslims is ‘evil prone’, then we should reject the whole of that group. Yet you do not apply the same strictures to other beliefs. That is bigotry. If “one lone wolf is bad enough” and you want to condemn a group for the actions of a lone wolf, then that is bigotry.
I have tackled your use of figures and statistics before. You couldn’t justify them then and you haven’t attempted to do so now. Your employment of ‘facts’ is, to put it extremely mildly, individualistic.
This why we have this objective statistics;
This is why we have a problem. Statistics are never, in themselves, objective. They have to be interpreted. You never seem to have grasped the idea that most statistical methods produce a level of probability, not certainty. They have inbuilt uncertainties. They can be used to suggest conflicting ideas.
I am certainly not an apologist for Islam. Many of its principles horrify me. I would resist with passion any attempt to turn my part of the world into a caliphate. But I don’t believe that all Muslims want to do that. I have spoken to many who are wonderful people and to others who are horrible. Rather like any other group of people to whom we could apply labels, including atheists, gardeners and quiltmakers.
Don't be an ostrich to the above facts and brush them off.
The ‘facts’ are very, very thin on the ground and you have employed them in extremely dubious circumstances .
We all know that some Muslims kill people and that this is a serious problem. It does not follow that all Muslims want to do the same. I have spoken to passionate Muslim opponents of the Paris massacres. They carried posters declaring, ‘Not in My Name’. I do not judge all Christians by the fundamentalist fruitcakes. I do not assume that all atheists are supporters of Stalin or Mao Zedong. If I have a problem with a particular point of view, then I think it is reasonable to confront the person who espouses that point of view. It is not reasonable to assume that, because two people agree on a certain aspect of theology or morality, then they agree on everything else. That leads to prejudice and bigotry.