You want to forget about India because you know little of it? How about getting yourself some education on the subject of inter-religious conflict in one of the world's most populous nations?

Ricky is being obtuse, and you guys are scoring easy points there. But disproving his dumb assertions is not the same thing as proving your own position.

Yes, our comparative debating prowess shouldn't inflate our egos, or convince us that we are right

rickyp wrote:fate

Interesting how Ricky instantly goes to "Arabs" rather than "Muslims." Was your question more religious, political, or both?

First, all arabs aren't Muslim. In Egypt the Coptic Christian are a significant minority...
And all Muslims aren't the same either.

rickyp wrote:A seal of approval from the Pompous One, doesn't mean you've proven anything.

danivon wrote:

rickyp wrote:A seal of approval from the Pompous One, doesn't mean you've proven anything.

They haven't proven anything. Unfortunately, they have been able to disprove some of the stuff you say, and the way you present stuff does not help your cause or the content itself.

I've advised you before to do a few things before posting (especially a long one), and here is what I think you should do.

1) Don't just spell-check (although that would be nice), sanity check before you hit - partly because spellcheckers don't see grammar errors or logical errors.
2) In addition, a bit of fact-checking would not go amiss before stating things as fact.
3) If quoting someone, make sure it's clear who you are quoting especially if it's someone on another site (links).
4) Try not to assume that if someone disagrees with you, they are stupid or antagonistic.

You are being obtuse because you are trying to win small points and deny the nature of some Islamic violence, when it's clear that's what it is. Al Shabaab are an Islamicist group, who control parts of Somalia and are associated with Al Qaeda. While many Muslims may see them as 'unIslamic' in the same way that Christians will dissociate from those who act in their name, that's not the same as the Breivik and Page cases - where both see themselves as 'culturally' Christian, which means they are not religious and are really talking about a white tribe based on European 'Christendom'.

One good example within the same religion (because it's one that has the distinctions, not because it's in any way more prone to violence):

There are Jews and there are Jews. A lot of Jews are religious. Some, are extreme Orthodox. They argue that they represent the 'pure' religion. However, when they act up (as they can do), moderate Jews will want to dissociate, but have to accept that the Orthodox hotheads are Jewish in religious terms.

At the other end, there are what is called 'secular Jews'. These are people who are of Jewish heritage but are not religious. You get Athiest Jews, Buddhist Jews, etc. If any were to be violent or annoying in behalf of the Jewish people, that would not be religious violence. And despite the fact that people who adhere to Judaism and people of Hebrew descent are both called 'Jews', there's actually a subtle difference.

The hardcore violent Muslims are like Orthodox, but Page/Breivik are more like the Secular. That's why they are not comparable, and that's why to try and link them is disingenuous.

Now, if that's to pompous for you, tough.

The Brotherhood's supreme leader Mohammed Badie called on Muslims worldwide this week to defend Jerusalem, saying "Zionists only know the way of force." He said that Jews were spreading "corruption," had slaughtered Muslims and desecrated holy sites.

The Muslim Brotherhood aimed to assuage Coptic fears while speaking in English to American audiences. The reality was different. When Coptic homes and shops were looted in a village near Alexandria in January, Brotherhood parliamentarians and Salafis organized a reconciliation session that didn't punish the attackers but ordered the Copts to evacuate the village.

Soon after, the Brotherhood's Sayed Askar denied that Copts face any problems in building churches, saying they have more churches than they need. Elections featured accusations that Copts backed the old regime. When attempts to build a non-Islamist coalition were led by businessman Naguib Sawiris, a Copt, the Brotherhood's website accused him and his co-religionists of treason.

Westerners may debate how moderate Egypt's Islamists are, but for Copts the questioning is futile. Their options are limited. While Copts are the largest Christian community in the Middle East, they're too small to play a role in deciding the fate of the country. They are not geographically concentrated in one area that could become a safe zone. The only option is to leave, putting an end to 2,000 years of Christianity in Egypt.
...

What can be done to save them? Egypt receives $1.5 billion in U.S. aid each year, and Washington has various means to make Egypt's new leaders listen. Islamist attempts to enshrine second-class status for Copts in Egypt's new constitution should be stopped. Outsiders should also keep an eye on Muslim Brotherhood politicians who are planning to take control of Coptic Church finances. At a minimum, donors should demand that attacks on Copts be met with punishment as well as condemnation.

“Everyone flocks to Mecca for one thing and one thing only, to pray. It’s amazing – like a resort for praying. Hotels are fully booked, and the shops and restaurants are packed,”

danivon wrote:DF, the hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) is one of the five pillars of Islam. Oddly, 'killing infidels' is not one of the other four, which are salat (daily prayer), zakat (giving of alms), sawm (fasting in Ramadan) and the shahada (the creed 'there is no god but God, Muhammed is his prophet').

They are what the religion is centred around, being the core things expected of Muslims.