I understand this distinction you're trying to make and I addressed it in my two previous posts, but I just want to point out that this is only a distinction you're making now. You'll deny it I'm sure, but you do tend to move the goalpost when people call you on your statements. In most of the threads about "Muslims" or "Islam" (and there have been so many, Nik is right, they are becoming tiresome and you guys should really just create one giant thread for it) you Kulindahr, have at times let your critique of Islam slip into generalizations about Muslims. You've made blanket statements (not in this thread maybe, but in others) about "Muslims doing this and Muslims doing that" and only when someone presses you, do you shift to delineating the particulars of intent.
You're specifying Islam and the Qu'ran now (and we have no choice but to accept that as your argument because you have the right to clarify your statements) but you know, I know, and anyone carefully following this knows, that in the past you've made statements about Muslims. And you probably will again.
Otherwise what would be the point of ceaselessly repeating over and over again (in various threads) that you think the Qu'ran advocates violence and that Islam is based on this advocacy and that the Prophet is a terrorist? If that was all you were saying, you wouldn't have to repeat it countless times (tiresomely) would you? You go into threads that are often not just about Islam or its text and you post unspecific statements about Muslims amongst other posters who are less intelligent than you are, and who have no shame about promulgating their own bigotry. And you almost never correct them or make these distinctions (until someone calls you out for it) and so it's easy to conclude that you're walking a very thin line, and that you know that your remarks can be interpreted either way. The bigots think you fit in with them, and when the rest of us say something about it, you shift the goalpost to Islam and the Qu'ran.
So when people like Nik, Molten Rock, and falconfan (and others) take you to task for generalizations about Muslims, and accuse you of bigotry, you have to remember that they've likely read your posts in other threads as well, and so every time this topic comes up, they know what your position is going to be and they reasonably concur then that your critique of Islam (based on your belief that a religion is tied to its text) is not solely a critique of its text, no matter how much you may try to present it as such now.
1. "You guys" is a misnomer; I've rarely started a thread about anything Islamic.
2. If there was just one thread, you'd complain about lumping everything Islamic together.
3. Maybe that would be a good idea if it were done for all topics -- just one thread for everything about Obama, just one thread for everything about Congress, just one thread about gay rights, etc.
4. I have never made blanket statements about Muslims. That accusation has been made by the grammatically deficient, and it's still false.
5. But I have made statements about Muslims, everything ranging from ones who wish the terrorists would go away to those who wish all Muslims were terrorists. And I will continue to make such statements, because there are all sorts of different Muslims.
6. I tend to assume that people are intelligent and will take my statements as written. I'm not going to get into dumbing it down for people whose bigotry is strong enough that they read things into my posts which aren't there. My posts often get long enough without doubling the words so it will be understandable by the one-note reed players.
7. I don't shift goalposts: this thread has been about Islam, not Muslims, just as in the thread about Hamas I talked a bout Hamas, and people engaged in the fallacy of pretending I was talking about all Muslims. This is this thread, and that was that thread, and in each I talk about the topic. If people aren't willing to think clearly enough to stick to the topic in a thread and read posts that way, well, I already said I'm not going to dumb things down.
8. My critique of Islam is a critique of Islam. It isn't a critique of Muslims, or of any particular brand of Islam (Sunni, Shiite, etc., about which I know little more than that they often hate each other, each regarding the other as something like heretics), it's a critique of Islam.
And of course that critique is based on the texts, because they're what constitute any religion "of the book". If I talked about chemistry, I'd refer to the periodic table of the elements, which is the foundation there, I wouldn't worry about chemists' lab procedures or personal habits.
9. If others want to accuse me of generalizations about Muslims, they can spin that fantasy, because about the only Muslims I've ever specifically talked about are the terrorists -- except my complaint that the moderate, peaceful Muslims are in essence encouraging the extremists by not speaking up loudly, persistently, and visibly.
But all of you ought to go back and look at some of the threads in which Andreus participated, where positive things about Muslims were discussed, because your simplistic views about my position will be shattered.
](/images/smilies/bang.gif "Brick wall ](*,)")
