The post-terror ‘good news’ story came from Islam’s most persecuted sect

One part of it is that, after a couple of days pause, we always get the ‘Muslim good news story’.

Every community deserves even-handed coverage. Not all Muslims are terrorists, not all British are Brexiters, not all Americans are gun nuts, etc.

By mocking the phenomenon of the "Muslim good news story," the author seems to say that Muslims only deserve condemnation for the actions of a small minority of them.

Ben Reilly wrote:

One part of it is that, after a couple of days pause, we always get the ‘Muslim good news story’.

Every community deserves even-handed coverage. Not all Muslims are terrorists, not all British are Brexiters, not all Americans are gun nuts, etc.

By mocking the phenomenon of the "Muslim good news story," the author seems to say that Muslims only deserve condemnation for the actions of a small minority of them.

Oh my, its the minority sect of Muslims who are most persecuted by other Muslims and not treated as Muslims by the main Muslim sects, that came out in solidarity for the Christians over this murder.
Can you not see this point?
The author is rightly questioning why again it is them and not other Muslim sects, the main ones?
The fact you see this as mocking, when again it rightly questions this, shows again you look to shield and downplay why.
He is right how the left media do this as clockwork in regards to such attacks post a Muslim feel good story as if on que everytime.
When the Iraq war happened we saw marches protesting against the war at levels of half a million and more in western countries.
We have not seen numbers comparable numbers, not even close from Muslims anywhere around the world protesting against Islamic terrorism. This is a small Muslim sect anf there support united against terrorism is actually big for their numbers, and they put the others to shame.

This sect of Islam is small and does not represent the majority of peaceful Muslims. This is just another example of a right winger looking for one group to deem "the good ones."

All in the name of tribalism, mind!

Ben Reilly wrote:This sect of Islam is small and does not represent the majority of peaceful Muslims. This is just another example of a right winger looking for one group to deem "the good ones."

All in the name of tribalism, mind!

And a feeble reply failing again to say why there was not numbers from the main Muslim sects, but mainly from the persecuted sect and then offers up smiles as a deflection.

Immaturity at its best.

The regressive motto

Deflect, divert and cover up.

Its people like you that continue to deny asking why this is a problem, you want to continue to shield problems from discussion

And the only reason "good Muslim" stories are published like that is because so many idiots forget that there are any in the first place ...

Ben Reilly wrote:And the only reason "good Muslim" stories are published like that is because so many idiots forget that there are any in the first place ...

No they are posted actually to defkect away from the actual terror invent itself.
The point is it done underhandedly which attempts to downplay the horro of the event by going.
"oh look a couple of hundred Muslims who are hated by all other Muslims turned out in solidarity for Christians"

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:This sect of Islam is small and does not represent the majority of peaceful Muslims. This is just another example of a right winger looking for one group to deem "the good ones."

All in the name of tribalism, mind!

And a feeble reply failing again to say why there was not numbers from the main Muslim sects, but mainly from the persecuted sect and then offers up smiles as a deflection.

Immaturity at its best.

The regressive motto

Deflect, divert and cover up.

Its people like you that continue to deny asking why this is a problem, you want to continue to shield problems from discussion

Nope, not rehashing that debate. First explain how people who are not Muslims have committed some of the worst atrocities imaginable and then we can debate whether one particular religion is the problem.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


And a feeble reply failing again to say why there was not numbers from the main Muslim sects, but mainly from the persecuted sect and then offers up smiles as a deflection.

Immaturity at its best.

The regressive motto

Deflect, divert and cover up.

Its people like you that continue to deny asking why this is a problem, you want to continue to shield problems from discussion

Nope, not rehashing that debate. First explain how people who are not Muslims have committed some of the worst atrocities imaginable and then we can debate whether one particular religion is the problem.

And there we have it

Deflect, divert and cover up

I am now asked questions on unrelated envents

Okay you want to know why non-Muslims have killed many, but no where near as much as religions have?
They all share one thing in common.
Hateful ideologies

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


And a feeble reply failing again to say why there was not numbers from the main Muslim sects, but mainly from the persecuted sect and then offers up smiles as a deflection.

Immaturity at its best.

The regressive motto

Deflect, divert and cover up.

Its people like you that continue to deny asking why this is a problem, you want to continue to shield problems from discussion

Nope, not rehashing that debate. First explain how people who are not Muslims have committed some of the worst atrocities imaginable and then we can debate whether one particular religion is the problem.

And there we have it

Deflect, divert and cover up

I am now asked questions on unrelated envents

Okay you want to know why non-Muslims have killed many, but no where near as much as religions have?
They all share one thing in common.
Hateful ideologies

Nope, Massive over simplification of the reasons men kill each other.

Hate is not always part of it. Or are you saying it Was Hate the Drove the English to attempt Geoncide of natives?

Hate is the reason for the peasenat, Profit is the reason for the Masters

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


And there we have it

Deflect, divert and cover up

I am now asked questions on unrelated envents

Okay you want to know why non-Muslims have killed many, but no where near as much as religions have?
They all share one thing in common.
Hateful ideologies

Nope, Massive over simplification of the reasons men kill each other.

Hate is not always part of it. Or are you saying it Was Hate the Drove the English to attempt Geoncide of natives?

Hate is the reason for the peasenat, Profit is the reason for the Masters

Wrong, it is a hateful ideology.

Show me an ideology that was not hateful where masses of people were murdered?

Yes it was racial hatred by many Europeans that saw them not only muder but subject peoples to near abject slavery even if not African. The same groups of Europeans that White Australians are descended from.

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


And there we have it

Deflect, divert and cover up

I am now asked questions on unrelated envents

Okay you want to know why non-Muslims have killed many, but no where near as much as religions have?
They all share one thing in common.
Hateful ideologies

Nope, Massive over simplification of the reasons men kill each other.

Hate is not always part of it. Or are you saying it Was Hate the Drove the English to attempt Geoncide of natives?

Hate is the reason for the peasenat, Profit is the reason for the Masters

Wrong, it is a hateful ideology.

Show me an ideology that was not hateful where masses of people were murdered?

Yes it was racial hatred by many Europeans that saw them not only muder but subject peoples to near abject slavery even if not African. The same groups of Europeans that White Australians are descended from.

point one
Mongols, Romans, English, China, Incans etc So pretty much everyone most of the time. the driver is Land money power, the oppoent is irrelevant.  

Point 2
not even I  suggest the Brit is so callous to do it from hate
it was greed, the same driver that has caused empries to be built for thousands fo years.

veya_victaous wrote:

Didge wrote:


Wrong, it is a hateful ideology.

Show me an ideology that was not hateful where masses of people were murdered?

Yes it was racial hatred by many Europeans that saw them not only muder but subject peoples to near abject slavery even if not African. The same groups of Europeans that White Australians are descended from.

point one
Mongols, Romans, English, China, Incans etc So pretty much everyone most of the time. the driver is Land money power, the oppoent is irrelevant.  

Point 2
not even I  suggest the Brit is so callous to do it from hate  
it was greed, the same driver that has caused empries to be built for thousands fo years.

They all followed hateful ideologies

You do reliase they had political systems and laws do you not. The romans for example treated all non-Romans as Barbarians
So again you are wrong. The peoples you listed all enslaved people as well.

Your second point is racist, as being British is just a concept and state of mind, and yet you are again using hate speech through guilt by association. That makes you no better and in fact worse than you claim of Brits, as its you promoting the hate

Ben Reilly wrote:

One part of it is that, after a couple of days pause, we always get the ‘Muslim good news story’.

Every community deserves even-handed coverage. Not all Muslims are terrorists, not all British are Brexiters, not all Americans are gun nuts, etc.

By mocking the phenomenon of the "Muslim good news story," the author seems to say that Muslims only deserve condemnation for the actions of a small minority of them.

Hey there, whoa cowboy! You just done lumped terrorists into the same melting pot as brexiters! WTF??
I hate it when you Texans chew cigars and wear big cowboy hats whilst stereotyping others.

Every thing in Texas is big, including their ego's,

It's just their willies that are small!!

nicko wrote:Every thing in Texas is big,   including their ego's,

It's just their willies that are small!!

You some kind of expert on the subject?

No more than you are!!

Ben Reilly wrote:

nicko wrote:Every thing in Texas is big,   including their ego's,

It's just their willies that are small!!

You some kind of expert on the subject?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I want to go back to this whole "obligatory good Muslim story" bullshit.

If you don't think stories about Muslims who do good things should be written, you're saying that because a minority of Muslims carry out terrorist attacks, that should be the entire story of Islam.

That's shitty.

Ben Reilly wrote:I want to go back to this whole "obligatory good Muslim story" bullshit.

If you don't think stories about Muslims who do good things should be written, you're saying that because a minority of Muslims carry out terrorist attacks, that should be the entire story of Islam.

That's shitty.

Again failing to see the point due to your own insensitivities.
You then make more unfouded claims to things not said and again failing to see this is being critical and ironic, that the group that really did turn out in solidarity for the Church was the most persecuted Islamic sect who are not treated as Muslims by other Muslims.
So I ask again why is it which you failed to answer, that when the Iraq war happen, hundreds of thousands turned out to protest the war?
Why is it we have not seen world wide marches, by Muslim organisations, saying not in Islams name?
Is that unfair to question why, when many groups organize protests?
Or is this you being over sensitive to the fact there is a good story published in order to diminish the link between Islam on Muslims, which all it does it further link the two together.
As why publish a feel good story on Muslims in the first place if such as claimed have nothing to do with Islam?
Its leftist thinking, contradictive and backwards

Surely it's the media you should be pissed at then?

eddie wrote:Surely it's the media you should be pissed at then?

Who says i am pissed at anyone?

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:Surely it's the media you should be pissed at then?

Who says i am pissed at anyone?

You sound pissed at someone.

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:

Who says i am pissed at anyone?

You sound pissed at someone.

Then you badly interpret words.
So you are mistaken and have read wrong again.

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I want to go back to this whole "obligatory good Muslim story" bullshit.

If you don't think stories about Muslims who do good things should be written, you're saying that because a minority of Muslims carry out terrorist attacks, that should be the entire story of Islam.

That's shitty.

Again failing to see the point due to your own insensitivities.
You then make more unfouded claims to things not said and again failing to see this is being critical and ironic, that the group that really did turn out in solidarity for the Church was the most persecuted Islamic sect who are not treated as Muslims by other Muslims.
So I ask again why is it which you failed to answer, that when the Iraq war happen, hundreds of thousands turned out to protest the war?
Why is it we have not seen world wide marches, by Muslim organisations, saying not in Islams name?
Is that unfair to question why, when many groups organize protests?
Or is this you being over sensitive to the fact there is a good story published in order to diminish the link between Islam on Muslims, which all it does it further link the two together.
As why publish a feel good story on Muslims in the first place if such as claimed have nothing to do with Islam?
Its leftist thinking, contradictive and backwards

It's just like when a Christian commits an act of violence in the name of Jesus -- Christians say that the attacker's action had nothing to do with Christianity, and it's understood that means "the spirit of Christianity" or "true Christianity."

Nobody's saying the attacker himself didn't consider himself a Christian -- of course he did. Muslim terrorists consider themselves Muslims, and think they're helping the Islamic cause. But the broader Muslim community steps in and says no, that's not what the religion is all about.

Now, why give the violent murderers control over a narrative that impacts billions of people across the world? It's just mean-spirited, shortsighted and narrow-minded.

Are we so stupid that we're incapable of focusing on the problem of Islamist terrorism if the media keeps printing stories about Muslims who are good people? No, we're not, and we shouldn't act like we are.

Absurd reasoning again.
The point is either within Christian or Muslim they will follow tennants of the faith and justify their acts by direct beliefs found within each religion. Again we are talking about myths here which have multiple works which nobody can say what is the true Christianity or Islam. If you start to make a claim on what is the correct form of each faith. The  you go down the road to what has already caused countless wars and deaths within each faith itself for centuries. Nobody has the ability to state what is the correct version, as its all based on faith. There are over 40,000 denominations of Christianity, are you going to tell the other 39,999 they are all wrong and only one is right?

So there is the first problem with religions itself when they are believed literally based on a certain interpretation of those faiths. So when you have faiths where the very aspect of challenging that faith induces such insenitivities, because it challenges the very entire belief system for people. This goes back to my point on education. Christianity did not progress in the west based off a good version of any new versions. What happened is the west became more enlightened with rational thinking around science and secularism. That is why it will remain problematic, where a majority amount of Muslims do not adhere or back those who look to progress Islam. They see this instead as a direct challenge to Islam itself.

Look at the very thread started on here in regards to Islam and homosexuality. Both resident Muslims believe that Islam cannot change on homosexuality and they base this off a falsehood. Where already slavery is endorsed in the Quran and hadiths, Islamic countries and many scholars now denounce slavery. Which means the religion can change, but the point is many Muslims are against any change based on their rigid belief systems. Which again all boils down to a fear.

So its not just about terrorism, because many suffer in Theocratic Islamic countries due to persecution based again off prejudice beliefs found within the religion. Unless people are willing to stand up and challenge these beliefs. Where instead we have people inadvertently defend these ideologies through a misplaced perception claiming bigotry against Muslims. Even though the same people have no problem being highly critical of Christianity. Will ensure the problem will not get resolved and many Muslims will contionue to not question these aspects of their faiths, because people are shying away from challenging through these mispalaced beliefs around it being bigoted or Islamophobic..

So again why is it not wrong to challenge why only a core of those who came out were in fact from a Muslim sect that is regarded as non-Muslim? The point you miss in your whole reply Ben, when as seen others claim ISIS are not Muslims, when as seen here many Muslims do not count those who turned out from this minority Islamic sect to be Muslims as well.

Ben Reilly wrote:

One part of it is that, after a couple of days pause, we always get the ‘Muslim good news story’.

Every community deserves even-handed coverage. Not all Muslims are terrorists, not all British are Brexiters, not all Americans are gun nuts, etc.

By mocking the phenomenon of the "Muslim good news story," the author seems to say that Muslims only deserve condemnation for the actions of a small minority of them.

The author of that article is Douglas Murray who is an extreme RW Neocon bigot and Islamaphobe who counts people like Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, David Horowitz to name but a few as freinds that he respects. He also belives Tommy Robinson is an OK guy and that the EDL are a grassroots movement that says a lot that he agrees with. He can even out-Trump Trump with his rhetoric which is as bad if not worse.

Here's an extract from his speech that he divered in Holland in 2011.

The first thing to do is to address the problem at home unsparingly. It is late in the day, but Europe still has time to turn around the demographic time-bomb which will soon see a number of our largest cities fall to Muslim majorities. It has to. All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop. In the case of a further genocide such as that in the Balkans, sanctuary would be given on a strictly temporary basis. This should also be enacted retrospectively. Those who are currently in Europe having fled tyrannies should be persuaded back to the countries which they fled from once the tyrannies that were the cause of their flight have been removed. And of course it should go without saying that Muslims in Europe who for any reason take part in, plot, assist or condone violence against the West (not just the country they happen to have found sanctuary in, but any country in the West or Western troops) must be forcibly deported back to their place of origin

http://web.archive.org/web/20080201133647/http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000809.php

He claims to have depublished that speech by the message remains the same and the foot soldiers of the North Amercan Islamaphobic multi-million dollar industry carry his thoughts and their thoughts to social media outlets just like here.

They're part of the problem - not the solution.

And as can be seen its not douglas Murray who is an extremist but regressives making unfounded claims about a homosexual.


So Irn tell me, do you not think homosexuals have a right to be concerned with people coming to this country that believe that homosexuality is a crime and should be punished and will increase the likleyhood of hate crimes not only against homosexuals but other groups? You think that makes him an extremist do you?
Or is it you can only smear people, in the worst possible way to deligitimize their views?
That you cannot counter their views.



Douglas Kear Murray (born 17 July 1979) is a British writer, journalist and commentator.^[1] He was the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion from 2007 until 2011,^[2] and is currently the associate director of The Henry Jackson Society.^[3]
Murray appears regularly in the British broadcast media, commentating on issues from a neoconservative standpoint, and he is often critical of Islam. He writes for a number of publications, including Standpoint, the Wall Street Journal and The Spectator. He is the author of Neoconservatism: Why We Need It (2005) and Bloody Sunday: Truths, Lies and the Saville Inquiry (2011).

Murray has appeared on a number of British current affairs programmes, including the BBC's Question Time,^[13] This Week,^[14] HardTalk,^[15] the Today programme,^[16] The Big Questions,^[17] and The Daily Politics,^[18] in which he presented a piece arguing that multiculturalism is neither multiracialism, nor is it pluralism. Murray has written for The Guardian^[19] and Standpoint,^[20] and in 2012 he was appointed a contributing editor of The Spectator.^[21]


Under the headline "Anyone know any Irishman jokes?" Murray wrote a column querying a council having "to pay thousands of pounds in compensation" to a union official who had been told an Irish joke by a Conservative councillor, writing "you can reflect on the ramifications for the taxpayer of a society that decides it needs officials to arbitrate on jokes".^[22] The Federation of Irish Societies (an organisation that represents Irish clubs and societies in Britain)^[23] lodged a formal complaint about the blog to the Press Complaints Commission.^[24] Murray wrote about the incident in an article for The Spectator.^[25]


In 2016, through The Spectator, he organised a competition for offensive poems about Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, with £1,000 as top prize. This was in reaction to the Böhmermann affair, in which German satirist Jan Böhmermann was prosecuted within his own country for such a poem.^[26] The winner was Boris Johnson, Conservative MP and former Mayor of London, who is one-eighth Turkish.^[27]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Murray_(author)


Irn once again proves he cannot debate the points but attacks the authors

Its all he knows in how to debate

Didge wrote:Absurd reasoning again.
The point is either within Christian or Muslim they will follow tennants of the faith and justify their acts by direct beliefs found within each religion. Again we are talking about myths here which have multiple works which nobody can say what is the true Christianity or Islam. If you start to make a claim on what is the correct form of each faith. The  you go down the road to what has already caused countless wars and deaths within each faith itself for centuries. Nobody has the ability to state what is the correct version, as its all based on faith. There are over 40,000 denominations of Christianity, are you going to tell the other 39,999 they are all wrong and only one is right?

So there is the first problem with religions itself when they are believed literally based on a certain interpretation of those faiths. So when you have faiths where the very aspect of challenging that faith induces such insenitivities, because it challenges the very entire belief system for people. This goes back to my point on education. Christianity did not progress in the west based off a good version of any new versions. What happened is the west became more enlightened with rational thinking around science and secularism. That is why it will remain problematic, where a majority amount of Muslims do not adhere or back those who look to progress Islam. They see this instead as a direct challenge to Islam itself.

Look at the very thread started on here in regards to Islam and homosexuality. Both resident Muslims believe that Islam cannot change on homosexuality and they base this off a falsehood. Where already slavery is endorsed in the Quran and hadiths, Islamic countries and many scholars now denounce slavery. Which means the religion can change, but the point is many Muslims are against any change based on their rigid belief systems. Which again all boils down to a fear.

So its not just about terrorism, because many suffer in Theocratic Islamic countries due to persecution based again off prejudice beliefs found within the religion. Unless people are willing to stand up and challenge these beliefs. Where instead we have people inadvertently defend these ideologies through a misplaced perception claiming bigotry against Muslims. Even though the same people have no problem being highly critical of Christianity. Will ensure the problem will not get resolved and many Muslims will contionue to not question these aspects of their faiths, because people are shying away from challenging through these mispalaced beliefs around it being bigoted or Islamophobic..

So again why is it not wrong to challenge why only a core of those who came out were in fact from a Muslim sect that is regarded as non-Muslim? The point you miss in your whole reply Ben, when as seen others claim ISIS are not Muslims, when as seen here many Muslims do not count those who turned out from this minority Islamic sect to be Muslims as well.

Obviously you should be dictator of the world, because nobody else has an opinion that matters in the light of your devastating wisdom.

Seriously, you need to regroup and focus.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:Absurd reasoning again.
The point is either within Christian or Muslim they will follow tennants of the faith and justify their acts by direct beliefs found within each religion. Again we are talking about myths here which have multiple works which nobody can say what is the true Christianity or Islam. If you start to make a claim on what is the correct form of each faith. The  you go down the road to what has already caused countless wars and deaths within each faith itself for centuries. Nobody has the ability to state what is the correct version, as its all based on faith. There are over 40,000 denominations of Christianity, are you going to tell the other 39,999 they are all wrong and only one is right?

So there is the first problem with religions itself when they are believed literally based on a certain interpretation of those faiths. So when you have faiths where the very aspect of challenging that faith induces such insenitivities, because it challenges the very entire belief system for people. This goes back to my point on education. Christianity did not progress in the west based off a good version of any new versions. What happened is the west became more enlightened with rational thinking around science and secularism. That is why it will remain problematic, where a majority amount of Muslims do not adhere or back those who look to progress Islam. They see this instead as a direct challenge to Islam itself.

Look at the very thread started on here in regards to Islam and homosexuality. Both resident Muslims believe that Islam cannot change on homosexuality and they base this off a falsehood. Where already slavery is endorsed in the Quran and hadiths, Islamic countries and many scholars now denounce slavery. Which means the religion can change, but the point is many Muslims are against any change based on their rigid belief systems. Which again all boils down to a fear.

So its not just about terrorism, because many suffer in Theocratic Islamic countries due to persecution based again off prejudice beliefs found within the religion. Unless people are willing to stand up and challenge these beliefs. Where instead we have people inadvertently defend these ideologies through a misplaced perception claiming bigotry against Muslims. Even though the same people have no problem being highly critical of Christianity. Will ensure the problem will not get resolved and many Muslims will contionue to not question these aspects of their faiths, because people are shying away from challenging through these mispalaced beliefs around it being bigoted or Islamophobic..

So again why is it not wrong to challenge why only a core of those who came out were in fact from a Muslim sect that is regarded as non-Muslim? The point you miss in your whole reply Ben, when as seen others claim ISIS are not Muslims, when as seen here many Muslims do not count those who turned out from this minority Islamic sect to be Muslims as well.

Obviously you should be dictator of the world, because nobody else has an opinion that matters in the light of your devastating wisdom.

Seriously, you need to regroup and focus.

Do I Ben, based on your worst deflecton and ufounded accusation to date?
Again my values, are democracy, not a theocracy or a disctatorship, but thanks again for proving your inability to grasp something so simple.

Again the point to note, based on your thinking of what constitutes a Muslim.
Most Muslims do not consider ISIS as Muslims.
Most Muslims do not consider Ahmadiyya Muslims. to be Muslims at all.

Ahmadiyya Muslims wrote:However, in many Islamic countries the Ahmadis have been defined as heretics and non-Muslim and subjected to persecution and often systematic oppression.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya#Persecution

To the majority of Muslims this is not a story about Muslims at all, as they do not class them as Muslims.
To you also they are not Muslims, based on what is a true Muslim, based on the view of the views held by the majority of Muslims

To me they are Muslims, as nobody can prove their claim on Islam and it happens to be the ones most persecuted and not treated as Muslims, by the majority of the world Muslims.

Now has this point sunk in yet?


And based on my last point Ben.
You speak out for women's rights, homosexual rights, ethnic, racial rights etc as I do in the west formed from Christian doctrines but we then move miles apart when it comes to countries ruled by mythical laws formed from Islamic teachings. I speak out, you instead remain either silent or defend Islam.

I would ask how you can even sit there claiming to champion people oppressed, when you are defending the ideology that oppresses them?

And you have the nerve to call me a dictator, when I am universal in my views.

You again wrongly think its bigoted to speak out on an ideology due to your misguided belief that its bigopted against Muslims, but have no problem doing the same oin Christianity. In fact I am the same on any religion, that denies the well being and equality of others.

Think about the many women, homosexuals, ethnic and religious minorities etc that you failed to proected by either your wall of silence or your wall of protection to an ideology.

Also I would love to know you deduced anything that was based on a dictatorship in regards to teaching enlightenment, secularism, equality and science to combat extremism?

I'm not sure why every good news story on here has to be picked apart.

eddie wrote:I'm not sure why every good news story on here has to be picked apart.

There is a simple reason and exposed by Ben's poor views.
He thinks he can decide what a Muslim is.
I do not decide whether you are a believer or not do I?
ISIS happen to follow the most literal interpretation of the Quran, hadiths and claims to the historicity of Muhammad
Ahmadiyya Muslims follow a different version of Islam.
Both are seen as not Muslims by the vast majority of Muslims

I posted the actual story on this being a Good news story of Muslims.

Many Muslims would not see it as a Good news story on Muslims, as they do not see them as Muslims and neither would Ben based on his poor methodology on what makes a person a Muslim based off beliefs that have zero evidence. Ben does this based off the majority view of what Muslims believe. Its because of the very fact others deny people a status in a religion that has seen centuries of religious wars. Hence why you do what happened in the west. You teach enlightenment, equality, secualrism and science, which then leads to then many people adopting these views into their faith.

Is Ben a Muslim?

You mean because he isn't a racist SOB and can use reason and intellect, and doesn't get swayed by the obsessional rants?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

Again failing to see the point due to your own insensitivities.
You then make more unfouded claims to things not said and again failing to see this is being critical and ironic, that the group that really did turn out in solidarity for the Church was the most persecuted Islamic sect who are not treated as Muslims by other Muslims.
So I ask again why is it which you failed to answer, that when the Iraq war happen, hundreds of thousands turned out to protest the war?
Why is it we have not seen world wide marches, by Muslim organisations, saying not in Islams name?
Is that unfair to question why, when many groups organize protests?
Or is this you being over sensitive to the fact there is a good story published in order to diminish the link between Islam on Muslims, which all it does it further link the two together.
As why publish a feel good story on Muslims in the first place if such as claimed have nothing to do with Islam?
Its leftist thinking, contradictive and backwards

It's just like when a Christian commits an act of violence in the name of Jesus -- Christians say that the attacker's action had nothing to do with Christianity, and it's understood that means "the spirit of Christianity" or "true Christianity."

Nobody's saying the attacker himself didn't consider himself a Christian -- of course he did. Muslim terrorists consider themselves Muslims, and think they're helping the Islamic cause. But the broader Muslim community steps in and says no, that's not what the religion is all about.

Now, why give the violent murderers control over a narrative that impacts billions of people across the world? It's just mean-spirited, shortsighted and narrow-minded.

Are we so stupid that we're incapable of focusing on the problem of Islamist terrorism if the media keeps printing stories about Muslims who are good people? No, we're not, and we shouldn't act like we are.

Careful Ben, you are using reason and are not a bigotted fool, so, par for the course, you must be a 'muzzie'

sassy wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

It's just like when a Christian commits an act of violence in the name of Jesus -- Christians say that the attacker's action had nothing to do with Christianity, and it's understood that means "the spirit of Christianity" or "true Christianity."

Nobody's saying the attacker himself didn't consider himself a Christian -- of course he did. Muslim terrorists consider themselves Muslims, and think they're helping the Islamic cause. But the broader Muslim community steps in and says no, that's not what the religion is all about.

Now, why give the violent murderers control over a narrative that impacts billions of people across the world? It's just mean-spirited, shortsighted and narrow-minded.

Are we so stupid that we're incapable of focusing on the problem of Islamist terrorism if the media keeps printing stories about Muslims who are good people? No, we're not, and we shouldn't act like we are.

Careful Ben, you are using reason and are not a bigotted fool, so, par for the course, you must be a 'muzzie'

Maybe you can point out this reason you think he has made, instead of your usual poor unfounded accusations.

Maybe you missed the point in regards to being critical of ideologies.

If you think that is wrong, then you would also believe that Nazism should be protected from criticism, but that would be believeable based on your recent antisemitism. Where you claimed the holocaust had nothing to do with antisemism, due to your falsified claim Jews are not semtic. Again though I state that people no matter Muslims should have equality under the law, just as every one else.
Beliefs should not have any protection from criticism, if you think so again, you then backed the belief of Blasphemy.

You see that is how people reason Sassy, where all it leaves you doing is attacking the poster and not the points, but hey, you are protected to be able to do this

So you could not even pick out a single point you thought Ben had reasoned and are now attempting to derail the thread, as per clockwork