On Sun Feb 15, 2015, 09:59 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

The Copenhagen murderer was a Muslim
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218181669

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Bigoted flame bait

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Feb 15, 2015, 10:12 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Is it true?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agreed with alerter. I suspect the intent of this post isn't to start a debate, but to bash.


Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ground truth is likely to turn out that the Copenhagen murderer was motivated by Islam. An analysis of murders over the past 15 years will show a fair number were because of fanatic Islam. It also will likely be concluded that the NC murders were committed by a fanatic atheist. So the Denmark murder motivated by religion, nd the NC murders motivated by lack of religion. Fine debate it - get everything out in the open. But hide it? My inference is that you want it hidden because you don't like the facts. Don't hide it and have a robust discussion/debate.

So I'll leave a challenge for whoever put in this rather lame and failed alert. If you really believe this and aren't just alert trolling, go to the thread I linked to and denounce or alert on THAT one as "flamebait", just as I did. Because there are no reasons to regard this one as clearly so and that one as clearly not, other than hypocrisy and personal animosity, and I'd hate to think you were motivated by either of those.

And to the jury who will inevitably be evaluating the alert on THIS post as a "call-out": It's not…I'm not naming any individual here. The alerter is anonymous and has chosen to be and they opened the door on this. I have every right to challenge their attempt to shut down discussion and question what their real motives were. And even if you do try to convince yourself that it's a call-out, call-outs are not against site rules, so that won't work either.

I don't see anything in that article that says "This guy is a MUSLIM." I don't see the word "Muslim" anywhere in that article, in fact. All it says is that the guy was inspired by the Charlie Hebdo business. Nothing more.

Moreover, in the DU link you mention, the article cited is this one:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chapel-hill-shooting-craig-stephen-hicks-condemned-all-religions-on-facebook-prior-to-muslim-massmurder-arrest-10038126.html

The article specifically identifies the individual as an "anti-theist." Should the poster have used that term instead of "atheist?" Is there a quantifiable difference? Is that your objection?

What is your specific complaint? That the poster didn't give you the "actual headline?"

It probably was too long for the space provided in "reply title," I should think. It was:

If you are going to start complaining about some imagined failure to excoriate the "world's Muslims" you'd do well to use an article that at least MENTIONS the word "Muslim" in it as a basis for your (IMO, failed) thesis.

Are you going to quibble about the difference between 'Muslim' and 'Islamic'?

Apparently you don't, based on your comments. And that's not a "quibble," either.

If so, that seems a major development in world religion you need to tell us about. If not, then 'a Muslim' in the OP title is entirely justified.

Yes, it was a quibble. You know that very well. You also misleadingly said "the guy was inspired by the Charlie Hebdo business. Nothing more" when it also said, as a quote, "He could also have been inspired by material sent out by (ISIS) and others".

link he was griping about when you jumped in.

You're looking for a pointless little fight to brighten your day and not even being subtle about it. Run along.

And it seems she's already demolished your arguments, since you've got nothing but snark left to respond with.

in such a negative fashion.

That's not snark, either--that's an "I'm not putting up with snark" POV. Nor am I tolerating your "lumping" argument, as I'm sure you've figured out by this point.

Your claim turned out to be incorrect, as it happens. You were "arguing" in a "negative fashion", but you seem to think you are allowed to reply to someone in a thread, but no-one else should reply to you, even if it's a direct quotation from the article to show you were wrong.

Your "gotcha" direct quote doesn't actually say what you want it to say.

You incorrectly say the OP is wrong about something; someone else corrects you; you say they are arguing negatively; and then you say you're not going to talk to them any more, because you say something doesn't say what it says.

Keep that positive outlook up, MADem!

I find that a no-text, title-only reply that says "fail" without explanation is a marvellously positive thing to say, always. It advances the discussion so much.

I don't think you have a leg to stand on about 'deflecting', when one of your replies to me was, in full:

"I was conversing with the thread starter and trying to ascertain his objections to the

link he was griping about when you jumped in.

You're looking for a pointless little fight to brighten your day and not even being subtle about it. Run along. "

That was very deflective, and slightly rude. You didn't make an attempt to address my post.

Yes, that's correct. And I told you why in no uncertain terms. I'm uninterested in "discussing" with you, because it's an unproductive exercise, as I've learned in past interactions with you. This is why I let you know, straight up, that I wasn't interested in talking to you.

Yet here you are, still and again.

Maybe read articles you post? That's been going around a lot.

Your opinion is noted.

And you still have that matter of failing to read the links you refer to to sort out.

Is there something in the air? so many people I've encountered have done that, defeated by their own references...

"You're looking for a pointless little fight to brighten your day" and "Run along" are nothing but.

And you ARE looking for a fight to brighten your day, so there's that whole fact-based thing to contend with, as well.

Willful blindness is the only reason that anyone would not connect the dots here. (They're big dots and REALLY close together). What religions have rabidly advocated for anti-blasphemy laws everywhere in the world? What religion motivates people to commit for perceived blasphemous slights to their prophet and their faith? How many people can you name that commit mass murder for a religion other than their own?

And yes, there is a fundamental difference between atheism and anti-theism, but many people here seem not to grasp that they are not the same. And my "thesis" is to get people to question whether assuming that a murder was motivated by "atheism" simply because the killer was an atheist and the victims were at least ostensibly religious is appropriate, since there are no tenets or devoutly held convictions of atheism that call for the random murder of other people just because they worship. On the other hand, Islam does call for the murder of blasphemers and apostates, among others, and some Muslims (though thankfully not most…good thing it's a religion of PEACE) act on those urgings.

atheists/anti-theists are being treated differently? Which is it?

Why not try educating on the subtle differences on the a/anti-theist bit, instead of "lumping" as you're doing? Sounds a bit like "You didn't get the players on MY team right, so I'm going to excoriate that OTHER team, over there, for it!"

And of course, that sort of response is not only immature, it's incorrect.

All Muslims are alike you say? They're all on the same page? Tell that to the shi'a in Pakistan, why don't you?


A man walks past broken glass and doors after an explosion in a Shi'ite mosque in Peshawar February 13, 2015. At least 19 people were killed on Friday in the Pakistani city of Peshawar in a gun and bomb attack on the Shi'ite mosque, the latest sectarian violence to hit the South Asian nation. (REUTERS/Fayaz Aziz)

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/shiite-mosque-attack-in-pakistan-slideshow/

Make sure you click on the link and look at ALL the slides--just so you get a clear view of the situation. If, however, you are disturbed by images of people who are dead, injured or grieving, by all means, skip the link.

So the answer to "so, you're lumping all Muslims together, that's your point?" is obviously 'no'. That was in the post you replied to.

Make sure you look at ALL the post before clicking on 'reply'.

'Immature'? Why are you trying to make this personal?

If you had, you would have read this:

On the other hand, Islam does call for the murder of blasphemers and apostates, among others, and some Muslims (though thankfully not most…good thing it's a religion of PEACE) act on those urgings.

Your accusation that I was "lumping" all Muslims together is horseshit, since I clearly stated that most do not engage in this kind of violence, even though some do.

If you have nothing better to do than level deliberately false accusations, please stop wasting my time. If you'd like to apologize for that kind of crap, I'd be happy to educate you on the important differences between atheism and anti-theism. Otherwise, we're done here.

You can't toss a bomb into a room, and then, later, come running in with a broom and dustpan, and pretend that you had nothing to do with the explosion in the first place.

Born at night, not last night, after all.

And that's not a "false accusation"--it is what you did, here.

Or did you just imagine that?

I guess it is possible that Hicks was influenced by extreme antitheists who flaunt their bigotry toward Islam on internet message boards.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=180868

At least for some here. Can't wait to see how our friend will try to spin this.

Just as crimes committed in the name of religion are not crimes motivated by religion. They are motivated by extremist ideology that co-opts religion in an attempt to promote intolerance and bigotry.

The Crusades were launched in the name of Christianity, but they certainly were not motivated by the teachings of Jesus.
All these horrendous crimes are perpetuated by individuals whose intolerance has reached a level where they hate and fear those who are different.

The US invasion of Iraq was committed in the name of patriotism. Do you think it was motivated by patriotism?

Let's review:

You:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218181669#post12


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218180843#post20

So now you are seriously going to base your retort on a ridiculous game of semantics?

Accusing me of playing a "ridiculous game of semantics" explains a lot.

I think I made it clear where I stand on this. Against bigotry and intolerance of others' religious beliefs and against the distorted belief that any of these criminals act in good faith when they claim their deeds to be righteously motivated by any religion or by atheism.

You:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218181669#post12


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218180843#post20

I really don't need to explain much of anything. Your own words speak volumes, just not in the way you had hoped.

I disagree with Kwassa on this. As I said, the crime may well have been committed in the name of atheism, but definitely not motivated by atheism.

Do you agree?

I think the claim of something that is done "in the name of atheism" can be more accurately described as being motivated by atheism. The "name of atheism" makes no more sense than the "name of veganism". Arguably it makes even less sense because at least with veganism you have some manner of dogma and ideology. It's certainly possible for someone to be motivated by atheism, just like it's possible for someone to be motivated out of a desire for Jodi Foster.

other than a thinly veiled No True Scotsman argument? I know you'd like to argue that no one could possibly be motivated to commit a crime by their religious beliefs, and that anyone who claims to have been must either be lying or not a "true" Christian/Muslim/etc.

But that's simply fallacious and

I have never argued otherwise. That does not mean that those beliefs are shared by others. If Hicks was motivated by his antitheism, should all antitheists be condemned for his actions because they share similar beliefs? Of course not. Neither should those who commit crimes in the name of Islam or Christianity. Why should an entire religion be blamed for the distorted views and beliefs of small groups of individuals? Most atheists are not antitheist extremists whose mission is to eliminate religion. Most antitheists do not hate religious believers and most of those who do hate believers do not go to the extreme of killing them. Same applies to all people, regardless of their religion.

He actually, ACTUALLY tried to argue that saying "This crime might well be motivated by or committed in the name of atheism." was NOT insinuating that the murders in NC were motivated by atheism. ("Did somebody insinuate that the murders in NC were motivated by atheism?&quot

And it took several exchanges of doubling down on that nonsense before he got red-faced enough to realize how ridiculous it made him look. One might even say that he marginalized himself.

But apparently his code of "civility" doesn't require him to actually apologize directly to the person he dishonestly accused of making shit up.

I think the gripe comes down to insufficient room to put a subject line title in, myself!

For want of an extra few spaces for a subject line, we end up with this....

Right where Major Nikon was kind enough to point to.

And since we both participated in that thread, I have to wonder about your honesty in trying to imply that I hadn't, or in pretending that you weren't aware of it. Yes, I'm sure you'll pull out the "I can't be bothered to read every post in every thread" canard, but given your visceral hatred of me, I find it very unlikely that you weren't closely following a subthread of one of your cohorts making a (vain)effort to make me look bad. At the very least, you failed to do even the minimum of research to justify an accusation that I was making something up out of thin air. The level of civility that you claim to value here would have dictated otherwise, one might think, but apparently not.

And if you have any more evidence for your other accusation (more than zero, that is), feel free to share it. Feel free to point to those posts.

a steaming pile of nonsense.

Islam does not "rabidly" advocate for anti-blasphemy laws.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference has been putting pressure on the UN for decades to condemn any defamation or criticism of religion (Islam being the only one they really give a fuck about), and to criminalize blasphemy, even in non-Muslim nations. They have continued to try to be allowed to dictate laws to countries other than their own (basically the whole world), after having it explained over and over why they have NO right to expect that people in other countries be jailed (or whipped or stoned, if they really had their way) simply for offending them or their faith. And yet, they continue to press for this unconscionable suppression of basic human rights, year after year after year. Say that isn't "rabid" if you like, but I think it fits just fine. And this is not just a few radical Islamic leaders..The OIC has over 50 member NATIONS who are pressing for this. It doesn't really make a fuckworth of difference if you try to lamely minimize it as a "fundamentalist" problem, when fundamentalists like this ARE the controlling force of Islam in the world today. Your list of "non-fundamentalist" Islamic nations fighting just as long and just as hard AGAINST the UN blasphemy resolution will have how many names? And your list of other religions trying to criminalize blasphemy everywhere in the world (which is what my post specifically requested) also seems conspicuously short.

There aren't numerous passages calling for such laws in the Koran

Where did I say there were? Nowhere. You just pulled a misrepresentation of my position out of your ass. And how is that even relevant since that absence hasn't stopped the bulk of the Islamic world from trying to force it on the rest of UN member nations, not to mention their own citizens, now has it? Big fragging whoop-de-doo that it isn't written down in the Koran…the practice of Islam in real life is what matters. Just as it wouldn't matter if the Koran itself didn't call for the execution of blasphemers and apostates, as long as some practitioners of Islam threaten and carry out violence against such people, and many, many others tacitly support such violence or other unjust and uncivilized punishments, it is still an Islamic problem. I doubt the people who were slaughtered in Paris were thinking, as the bullets ripped into their bodies, "Thank goodness the reasons I'm being murdered aren't actually written down in the Koran!"

The Islamic nations in the Medieval times were far more advanced than European Christian ones.

Again, big fragging whoop-de-doo. We're not living in Medieval times, so this is nothing but a lame attempt at diversion, that you know perfectly well is irrelevant to how Islam is practiced in the world today.

Also, the Christian's and Jew's Bible makes explicitly nasty recommendations for blasphemers.

So? Another silly irrelevancy. You seem to be short of examples of multiple murders being committed over perceived slights to the Christian or Jewish faith in the recent news. Even though the Bible calls for it, Christians and Jews still aren't shooting up offices over offensive cartoons, and even though the Koran allegedly doesn't call for it, Muslims are. If you were being honest, you'd have acknowledged that.

Finally, many members of many religions, even early Buddhists, have committed mass murder in the name of their religions.

Need I say it? Not news and big fragging whoop-dee-doo. Just another deliberate misrepresentation of what I asked, which was: "How many people can you name that commit mass murder for a religion other than their own?" In fact, you pretended that I asked exactly the opposite question.

So, I suggest you stop making irrational "Islam is the worst religion" rants like your one above.

Another lame and dishonest attempt to put words in my mouth. Point to where I said, QUOTE "Islam is the worst religion" UNQUOTE. You can't, because you made that up too. The well, Ok..you didn't say EXACTLY that, but I KNOW that's what you meant, so I'm entitled to put it in quotes anyway and pretend you did mentality is very familiar to me on this board among certain types.

Attacks on Muslims in this country have dramatically increased since 9/11, and they always increase during times of conflict with Muslim nations like now. Rants like yours and Maher's recent ones don't help that problem at all.

Well, let's see…we've got people responding to offense and hurt feelings with violence, murder and the attempt to suppress basic human rights, people responding to violence and murder with more violence and murder, and people responding to violence and murder with words that advocate neither, but only offend people…people like you. And here you are, expending your wrath on the last type.

Since your main tactic in discussion seems to be blatant intellectual dishonesty, right across the board, I see no reason to waste further time on you. I'm sure someone like you needs to get the last word in, so enjoy talking to yourself. I'd wish you smooth sailing, but I'm just not that much of a sea-lover.

wished you smooth sailing after all But I'm sure we'll see you again...

I see no place for organized religions that promote the conversion of non-believers through threats of punishments, in this world 'or the next' ....

That said, I am also a pacifist, with no desire to ever harm anyone ...

Yep .... atheist AND anti-theist here ...

That is the headline in your link, not the dishonest, deflective bullshit you posted.

This is being reported as a potential terrorist attack, not as potential hate crime.

Through the miasma of your hate of religion, are you able to glean the difference between terrorism and a hate crime?

to contextualize for people. A very simplistic, reductionist way of summarizing that is typical of the media. But who would read a 300 word headline? Most people only read the headline it seems.

People were murdered in Copenhagen and Chapel Hill. That should be the headline, that should be the focus of the articles. The violence is what caused the deaths. The rationale for the violence will vary but the violence is the point here.

Anyone who blames atheists, or anti-theists for the violence in N. Carolina overlooks the fact that the person who killed 3 people had anger issues and easy access to a firearm.

Anyone who blames Islam for the violence in Copenhagen is conflating religion with violence. There is no link.

Everyone who commits violence claims to have a good reason for the violence. We should not allow violent people to define or defend their violence by claiming to be inspired by anything.

We should not allow violent people to define or defend their violence by claiming to be inspired by anything.
-
I agree with the word defend, but not define. It is important to know the "Why" so that we can take steps to minimize the recurrence. If a community starts killing each other due to lead poisoning in the drinking supply, we can take steps to purify the water. If people start killing each other due to religious poisoning, we can start a discussion to deal with the problem. So far, religious privilege has stifled any real conversation. All we get is that broad brush argument and that claim they are not true (fill in the blank)s.

Police Say They Killed Suspect in 2 Attacks in Copenhagen
The police have identified the suspect as a 22-year-old native of Denmark who was already known to security services as a gang member with a violent criminal record, but they did not name him.

The dual attacks in Copenhagen had a copycat resemblance to last month’s attacks in Paris, in which jihadist gunmen killed cartoonists at the newspaper Charlie Hebdo and followed with gunshots aimed at a Jewish target. But the police said there was no immediate indication that he had any link to jihadist groups.

If that has changed, then post a real headline or information, otherwise, the title you use is not honest or accurate.

to point out the potential inappropriateness of simpy using bare religious affiliations (or assumptions about them) to draw conclusions about motives for crimes, and the double standard that seems to exist. But for someone who committed mass murder at a meeting about blasphemy, attended by someone previously targeted for death by Muslim extremists for blasphemy, and who also shot up a synagogue, the arrows all point in one direction. As noted, how many people do you know of who commit mass murder and put their own lives and liberty at risk to advance the beliefs of a religion not their own.

And in the end, the deeper issue behind ALL of this, is theists and anti-theists trying to keep a scorecard on whether religious beliefs are more likely to motivate people to acts of violence and murder than the lack of religion. So far, religion is well ahead, and not in a good way. And if it were to come out that this fellow was an Anglican or a Jain, he still didn't pull these targets out of a hat. But if you have a non-laughable scenario for his motives that doesn't involve Islam, feel free to share it. Until then, I'll go with the overwhelmingly likely.

While it it likely that the killer in Copenhagen is a Muslim, it has not yet been announced that he is.

My title was far more appropriate because it was already known that the Chapel Hill murder was an atheist when I posted the OP. Your title will be appropriate when we know for sure he was a Muslim.

since you complain a lot about me not answering your questions:

Islamic faith doesn't have a single dictate about the portrayal of Mohammed, though there is a strong customary interpretation that it is against the religion to do so.

It would not hurt Muslims to do some soul-searching on this, though those most in need of it are least likely to do so.

No, they are not all required to apologize. Why should they?

and the only reason for singling out that ONE thing about the killer in your title was to imply that he had been motivated by atheism to kill three people (for which you had no direct evidence, or even non-laughable logic for why atheism would have motivated him to do that). Otherwise, why mention that out of any other label you could have inserted (like "Caucasian male&quot ? On the other hand, the Copehagen killer was clearly motivated by Islam, even in the unlikely event that he was not a Muslim himself (and the dots there weren't hard to connect). That "customary interpretation" as you so flippantly call it, has been responsible for many deaths, and many more threats of death, so trying to pretend it isn't a real part of Islam as people actually practice it is bullshit.

And no, Muslims in general should not feel the need to apologize or explain for this person. The point, which you missed completely, was to point out the hypocritical double standard that caused many people, including here, to place a similarly unreasonable expectation on prominent atheists in the Chapel Hill case.

I did single out the idea that atheism was the motivation for his killing the three Muslim students.

You know what? That still might be true, knowing what we know today. It is not a laughable idea, it is quite a plausible idea, if the killer was so motivated. There is no reason, at this point, to discount it as a valid factor. None. Zero. Zip. Is it the only factor? Probably not, knowing other elements of his life now. It could be a combination of his atheism and those other factors.

The Copenhagen killer, we now know, is a Muslim, and declared his love of ISIS, which we didn't know when you wrote this OP. The signs were there, but we didn't have the confirmation.

So actually, as I already noted, my OP was valid at the time I posted it, and still is, and yours was invalid at the time you wrote it, but has since been confirmed.

Name one aspect, dictate or requirement of an atheistic worldview (NOT an anti-theistic worldview-you've already proven you don't have a clue what the difference is) that could plausibly have motivated him to kill these three people, when he would not have if he hadn't been an atheist. Point to any pattern of behavior among atheists elsewhere that this mirrors.

Right here…right now…and don't give me BS about how you've already done it, because you haven't. You can't cite it or point to it. Everyone is watching, so put up or shut up. If your next post doesn't start with that, everyone will know you're spouting crap.

I can do both for the Copenhagen murders…you can't do either for Chapel Hill. And yes, any idiot knew the Copenhagen killer was a Muslim based on plain logic..sorry if it gets your goat that I was completely right about something you desperately wanted not to be true, but tough.

Why can't Hicks be an anti-theist?

YOU restricted the argument:

I did single out the idea that atheism was the motivation for his killing the three Muslim students.

You know what? That still might be true, knowing what we know today. It is not a laughable idea, it is quite a plausible idea

I simply asked you to back up your own claim. You were asked to justify ATHEISM as a plausible motivating factor, because that's the label YOU put in your post title, NOT anti-theism. You failed miserably, in front of everyone watching. That's the whole point here. Yes, he can be an anti-theist too, but anti-theism is not what YOU claimed motivated him.

Just cut your losses and stop flailing, kwassa. While I admit that smacking down your nonsense is not the least fun I've had this year, you're just not worth any more of my time if this is all you have.

Atheists come in several different flavors, of course. Hicks appears to be both anti-theist and atheist. One can be atheist without being anti-theist, but one can't be anti-theist without being atheist.

Quite simply, Hicks can be the type of atheist that hates all religion. He can be an anti-theist. His strong atheism is his motivation.

Despite all your outrage and the insults you fling, you really haven't said anything to disprove this. You haven't refuted a single point of my original OP. Your attack is completely illogical, in fact.

Not all atheists are anti-theists and not all anti-theists are atheists. One is not a subset of the other. Someone can believe in a god and still think that organized religion, or certain flavors of it, are a bad thing. Many religious believers are hateful towards and highly critical of religious practices and belief in gods other than their own, making them far more antitheistic than many atheists. It would be idiotic to claim that someone has to hate every religion, religious practice and religious believer (as opposed to just some of them) in order to qualify as an anti-theist. You're not claiming that, are you? Because if you are, stand up and say so explicitly.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Period. It makes NO requirements on what you think of people who do believe. None. You failed dismally in providing evidence otherwise. Again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism

I am using the term as a the first definition, and you are apparently using it as the second definition.

This might explain quite a bit. Without an agreement on terms, there can be no discussion.

that your claim that all anti-theists are atheists is bullshit. Without that claim, your whole argument, in turn, is bullshit.

If you'd like to be made to look even more of a fool than you already do, just say the word. I can cite a whole host of virulently anti-theistic sentiments expressed by believers in god.

Still waiting for your answer to this:

Name one aspect, dictate or requirement of an atheistic worldview (NOT an anti-theistic worldview-you've already proven you don't have a clue what the difference is) that could plausibly have motivated him to kill these three people, when he would not have if he hadn't been an atheist. Point to any pattern of behavior among atheists elsewhere that this mirrors.

Because this: Quite simply, Hicks can be the type of atheist that hates all religion. He can be an anti-theist. His strong atheism is his motivation. was a completely lame answer. You cited an anti-theistic motivation, NOT an atheistic one. Atheism is about not believing. It is not about hating. If you don't get that, just admit it..no one will think any less of you.

So, no, the OP was not 'invalid'.

They were working on a theory, they had no proof.

"there is a strong customary interpretation that it is against the religion to do so" - are you saying that Sunni customs, as practised for over a thousand years by most of its followers, aren't part of the religion? You don't get to tell them that what they regard as their faith is not Islamic faith.

and I gave an example to prove it.

No, that is not what I am saying, and I don't know why you choose to misinterpret what I am saying.

It is not a dictate of the Quran. Perhaps I wasn't specific enough for you.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad

A faith is not just what gets written down in its first book. Saying there's more to Islam than the Quran is more than "a distinction without a difference".

You ignored that.

"Islamic faith doesn't have a single dictate about the portrayal of Mohammed"

Your initial claim was about the Islamic faith. You tried to wiggle out of that claim (once you realized your error) in #65 by pretending you meant it was "not a dictate of the Quran" all along.

muriel_volestrangler has corrected you appropriately. You should probably stand down before you embarrass yourself further.

trotsky is right, of course. That you said 'dictate' doesn't mean anything, though. As Wikipedia says, there are hadith that prohibit depictions of figures. That, by anyone's standards, is a dictate of the faith. And a fatwa is a religious ruling that is basically a dictate.

People do not have collective responsibility for everything any member of their faith or non-faith group does.

(Just been having an argument on GD about whether Jews in Europe should share collective responsibility for whatever the Israeli government should do.)