Amir Khan gets attacked online by some religious Muslims for putting up a Christmass tree

[Bald1]

That argument can't hold up because there is no revelation telling Christians to celebrate Christmas on dec 25 and co-opt a Pagan holiday. God would also be a liar to tell people to celebrate Christmas as Jesus' birthday when he wasn't born on that day.

Just as I can't prove that God didn't give Mo some insight about a rock, you can't disprove that Christmas trees were revealed to Pagans in anticipation of Christianity. Allah works in mysterious ways and changed the seasons for Jesus birthday.

Why is your fairy tale more valid than the zombie jew one? And why should it be given more consideration than any of the others?


Btw, I'm not having a go at you personally as you're a reasonable guy. I'm just mocking the double standard *some* Muslims hold when it comes to tolerance.

 

[zebby23]

I think the problem is there are atheists like that.. then there's the atheists that will openly mock Christians and Jews but won't openly mock Islam or the eastern religions and will start mocking someone that believes there MIGHT be something (I fall in this last group) and they start mocking you instantly thinking you're a Christian which is when I pull the "no... I believe in Odin. He promised to kill all the Ice Giants.. you see any Ice Giants" and then THAT kind of atheist will have this dumbfounded "well shit... now what" look on their face.


Gervais or however you spell his name, the dude from the original version of The Office in the UK is horribly guilty of that double standard. If one is going to be a mocking atheist mock everything.

Ya I'm actually guilty of this and I've tried to be better. As an atheist you have to understand the transition that happens. You go from being a child and essentially being forced to believe because your parents bring you to church and bible school and the like. Then at around 16-17 you start to develop your own thoughts which sometimes leads to questioning the process. Then you start reading other material that contradicts everything in the bible and start listening to people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others as they use science to negate many things you believed growing up. This makes the atheist who is now 21-25 a little angry because you feel like you have been forced to believe something that isn't really true and you lash out. Also by this time you have done enough research to know (in your mind) religion is nonsense so then (armed with a little knowledge) go out and debate people. Unfortunately many atheists immediately go for the jugular and turn off the christians they are debating/conversing with. While the atheist knows SOME of the arguments they are nowhere near versed enough in the subject to seriously debate it so they resort to smug tactics. I'm guilty of all of these things.

What gets me upset is when the religious folk will not even concede basic points that science has already established. Age of the earth and things like that. If we can't agree on basic scientific principles what is the point of talking?

 

[Gregolian]

Ya I'm actually guilty of this and I've tried to be better. As an atheist you have to understand the transition that happens. You go from being a child and essentially being forced to believe because your parents bring you to church and bible school and the like. Then at around 16-17 you start to develop your own thoughts which sometimes leads to questioning the process. Then you start reading other material that contradicts everything in the bible and start listening to people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others as they use science to negate many things you believed growing up. This makes the atheist who is now 21-25 a little angry because you feel like you have been forced to believe something that isn't really true and you lash out. Also by this time you have done enough research to know (in your mind) religion is nonsense so then (armed with a little knowledge) go out and debate people. Unfortunately many atheists immediately go for the jugular and turn off the christians they are debating/conversing with. While the atheist knows SOME of the arguments they are nowhere near versed enough in the subject to seriously debate it so they resort to smug tactics. I'm guilty of all of these things

I never grew up in a religious family. Mom from Japan but the way they deal with religion is far less... invasive I guess? It's not as rigid as Catholicism or the other Protestant branches here in the States... no weekly mass and shit. Dad came from an Eastern European family that WAS Catholic until they couldn't pay the tithe for a bit due to medical reasons and got moved from the front pew to the back pew and his grandparents went and had a "fuck this shit" mentality to it.

Then my dad was in Vietnam and saw a dude praying during a mortar attack that was due to rotate back home the next day to see his wife and 12 month old (he had to leave shortly after the kid was born)... mortar hit the fucking foxhole and they couldn't even find a whole dog tag in the remains.

 

[zebby23]

I never grew up in a religious family. Mom from Japan but the way they deal with religion is far less... invasive I guess? It's not as rigid as Catholicism or the other Protestant branches here in the States... no weekly mass and shit. Dad came from an Eastern European family that WAS Catholic until they couldn't pay the tithe for a bit due to medical reasons and got moved from the front pew to the back pew and his grandparents went and had a "fuck this shit" mentality to it.

Then my dad was in Vietnam and saw a dude praying during a mortar attack that was due to rotate back home the next day to see his wife and 12 month old (he had to leave shortly after the kid was born)... mortar hit the fucking foxhole and they couldn't even find a whole dog tag in the remains.

It's stories like this and babies with cancer and homeless people that allow me to comfortably know there is no god. No god (unless a total asshole) would allow such things to occur

 

[tramendous]

Just as I can't prove that God didn't give Mo some insight about a rock, you can't disprove that Christmas trees were revealed to Pagans in anticipation of Christianity. Allah works in mysterious ways and changed the seasons for Jesus birthday.

Why is your fairy tale more valid than the zombie jew one? And why should it be given more consideration than any of the others?


Btw, I'm not having a go at you personally as you're a reasonable guy. I'm just mocking the double standard *some* Muslims hold when it comes to tolerance.

You and I are looking at this completely differently. What I am saying is that within Christianity itself there is no evidence for Christmas. There is revelation in the Quran about the Kaaba. This is a very important difference because a Muslim can say he is following his religion in regards to that but a Christian cannot go back to his Bible and say our religion has that in it.

I am not a Christian but I made my argument that nowhere in Christianity does it say God did any of that. Thus a Christian can at most say maybe God did all of that.

However, there are many verses in the Quran and it is common knowledge that Paganism is not allowed for Muslims.

Btw The "God in mysterious ways" argument is not often brought up in Islam because the legalist schools of thought are much more common and influential than the mysticism schools of thought btw

 

[Jopious Extronimous]

I do agree that the whole meme of making a fuss about some anon twitter or online comments isn't necessarily indicative of anything, and I have said as much in past threads. The difference here is that the sentiments expressed by critics of Khan's Christmas tree behavior are reflecting intolerant strains within the Ummah. Right now, the Indonesian police have warned Islamists not to raid gatherings of Christmas revelers (link found in earlier post) . And below article from Reuters was published yesterday.

”We have never heard of Islamic scholars forbidding Muslims to wish Merry Christmas before, for example. Now, this is a common phenomenon,” he said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...n-grow-as-saudi-ties-strengthen-idUSKBN1EF103

It isn't really about just a few intolerant Muslims. It is deeper than that.

That's what your thread should be about then. Can you show a connection to any of the people who've "attacked" khan online and these intolerant strains in the Ummah, or Indonesia? Or are they fat white guys trolling for all we know? That's my issue here. What could be the cheeto and monster energy drink-fueled instigation of teenagers is now framed as a real mass reaction to whatever topic wants to be presented with an extra level of importance.

Taylor Swift not talking politics is the biggest non-story I've ever seen in my life, but take the comments from her fansites, describe it in a hyperbolic manner and boom- you've got a news story titled "Fans outraged because Taylor Swift refuses to denounce Trump!" It's getting insane.

So if someone on this site threatened to kill you and your family, you wouldn't care?

Fuck no. I'd take my little sister in a knife fight against half this site. Seriously, that shit carries about as much weight as Scyther's 'evidence'. It's words coming from the mouths of fans. People content to view, not do. If Ben Saunders tells me he's coming to elbow my mom's face in, I'll take it seriously.

 

[hillelslovak87]

In the eyes of some Muslims, aren't pagans even lower than adherents to other religions?

Traditionally, they'll call Christians people of the book, then behead them.

 

[Gregolian]

It's stories like this and babies with cancer and homeless people that allow me to comfortably know there is no god. No god (unless a total asshole) would allow such things to occur

See... I am on the fence.

IF a non-pagan God exists he/she can't be good all the time can they because supposedly according to the "books" we were created in their image and we're all flawed as fuck.

This is why if I had to pick a religion it'd be "something like the Greeks or Vikings had" cause those Gods were responsible for thunderstorms and shit and were chronicled, for the most part, as assholes.

 

[MicroBrew]

That's what your thread should be about then. Can you show a connection to any of the people who've "attacked" khan online and these intolerant strains in the Ummah, or Indonesia? Or are they fat white guys trolling for all we know? That's my issue here. What could be the cheeto and monster energy drink-fueled instigation of teenagers is now framed as a real mass reaction to whatever topic wants to be presented with an extra level of importance.

Taylor Swift not talking politics is the biggest non-story I've ever seen in my life, but take the comments from her fansites, describe it in a hyperbolic manner and boom- you've got a news story titled "Fans outraged because Taylor Swift refuses to denounce Trump!" It's getting insane.

It is highly likely the people criticizing Khan are Muslims, because their sentiments against Muslim cultures mirrors the intolerant attitudes in many Muslim dominant societies.And the rise of fundamentalist intolerant Islam in Europe makes it highly likely these comments were from Muslims.

I never said there was a direct connection between the commenters and the Islamists in Malaysia and Indonesia; the connection is Islamic cultural chauvinist thinking.

 

[JbModest]

I'm not sure how the "hard to judge" meme applies here. I was just saying to him that Muslim religion is against Paganism. It is a monotheistic faith.

He said that Prophet Muhammad co-opted a Pagan belief when Islam states that the Kaaba was from Abraham

Behold! We gave the site, to Ibrahim, of the (Sacred) House, (saying): "Associate not anything (in worship) with Me; and sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or stand up, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer).

— Quran, Chapter 22 (Al Hajj) verse 26[22]

Now he can continue and say that the above is false but he cannot say that Muslims co-opted a pagan belief since they believe it was given to Abraham. This is different than Christmas where most Christians know it was a pagan holiday and that Jesus was not born on that day and was not born in winter.

So it was co-opted from Judaism.

 

[Jopious Extronimous]

It is highly likely the people criticizing Khan are Muslims, because their sentiments against Muslim cultures mirrors the intolerant attitudes in many Muslim dominant societies.And the rise of fundamentalist intolerant Islam in Europe makes it highly likely these comments were from Muslims.

I never said there was a direct connection between the commenters and the Islamists in Malaysia and Indonesia; the connection is Islamic cultural chauvinist thinking.

So why isn't the thread titled "Amir Khan attacked by possible muslims online'"? You're admittedly uncertain they are muslims, so why frame it with abject certainty? That very anonymity online that leaves you uncertain is what's exploited by trolls threatening to kill pepople. It makes it just as likely these comments are from trolls as they are from muslims. So to me that "highly likely" is honestly closer to 50/50. And that's not enough to justify the presentation of this topic.

 

[Bald1]

You and I are looking at this completely differently. What I am saying is that within Christianity itself there is no evidence for Christmas. There is revelation in the Quran about the Kaaba. This is a very important difference because a Muslim can say he is following his religion in regards to that but a Christian cannot go back to his Bible and say our religion has that in it.

I am not a Christian but I made my argument that nowhere in Christianity does it say God did any of that. Thus a Christian can at most say maybe God did all of that.

However, there are many verses in the Quran and it is common knowledge that Paganism is not allowed for Muslims.

Btw The "God in mysterious ways" argument is not often brought up in Islam because the legalist schools of thought are much more common and influential than the mysticism schools of thought btw

True enough. There's no evidence in the bible that God gave humanity Christmas. Yet it is used in pertnership with Christianity anyways.

Are you sure you want to use "the lack of evidence is evidence in itself" line of reasoning when talking about religion, or god?

 

[Bald1]

So why isn't the thread titled "Amir Khan attacked by possible muslims online'"? You're admittedly uncertain they are muslims, so why frame it with abject certainty? That very anonymity online that leaves you uncertain is what's exploited by trolls threatening to kill pepople. It makes it just as likely these comments are from trolls as they are from muslims. So to me that "highly likely" is honestly closer to 50/50. And that's not enough to justify the presentation of this topic.

I haven't heard of one single instance of atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, or anyone else catching grief for the Christmas tree tradition. From anyone. Not from within their own religions, or from Christians crying cultural appropriation. Hell, a Muslim shopkeeper was murdered by Muslims last year in the UK for daring to wish "Merry Christmas" to costumers. It's not a far fetched idea that something along those lines happened once again.

 

[Jopious Extronimous]

I haven't heard of one single instance of atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, or anyone else catching grief for the Christmas tree tradition. From anyone. Not from within their own religions, or from Christians crying cultural appropriation. Hell, a Muslim shopkeeper was murdered by Muslims last year in the UK for daring to wish "Merry Christmas" to costumers. It's not a far fetched idea that something along those lines happened once again.

I don't think you fully understand the point I'm making.

 

[MicroBrew]

So why isn't the thread titled "Amir Khan attacked by possible muslims online'"? You're admittedly uncertain they are muslims, so why frame it with abject certainty? That very anonymity online that leaves you uncertain is what's exploited by trolls threatening to kill pepople. It makes it just as likely these comments are from trolls as they are from muslims. So to me that "highly likely" is honestly closer to 50/50. And that's not enough to justify the presentation of this topic.

Because the article implies they are Muslims and other Muslims assume they are and the odds they are Muslim is extremely high. You are just trying to nitpick semantics here. What those commenters said is NOT a rare or unheard of sentiment in Muslim society; infact it has a large following.

It is not close to 50/50, more like 98/2 the critics are Muslims.

Are you going to sit there and tell me that the thousands of comments I have read online that disparage Blacks can not possibly be attributed (in general) to rightwingers, that it could just as likely be liberal false flags? You realize there is such a thing called common sense and what is plausible, based on observation and evidence.

Even this mainstream Pakistani daily says it is from some of his followers. The commenters have Muslim names.
https://tribune.com.pk/story/158938...posting-photo-christmas-tree-betraying-islam/

When you see criticism against Islam and Muslims on Western forums and websites, don't tell me you would think it is a 50/50 chance most of the comments are from Muslims themselves.

 

[Bald1]

I don't think you fully understand the point I'm making.

You're saying it "could be" people other than Muslims. Sure. I'm saying if it was a Muslim, it wouldn't be the 1st instance.

 

[Jopious Extronimous]

Because the article implies they are Muslims and other Muslims assume they are and the odds they are Muslim is extremely high.

What kind of logic is this!? The article implies, other muslims assume, therefore the odds are high? No. Just no. The article implies it because it's presenting a point that can only be made if they assume they are really muslims. If the reality of them possibly being online trolls is acknowledged, the entire point is gone.

You are just trying to nitpick semantics here. What those commenters said is NOT a rare or unheard of sentiment in Muslim society; infact it has a large following.

That's not the point. I'm not nitpicking semantics, I'm asking you present the truth. The truth is you are not certain these people are muslims, you are not certain they're anything more than bored kids online. And the fact that you have to say "well it's likely" is just making my point.

It is not close to 50/50, more like 98/2 the critics are Muslims.

See this is complete bullshit. The comment sections of every corner of the internet are filled with instigating that comes from nothing but a place of childish idiocy. To suggest any spot online has only a 2% chance of having shit like "ill kill your family" posted by trolls is denying reality. This is like saying 98% of the people here can likely bench 250 because MMA fans have benched it before.

Are you going to sit there and tell me that the thousands of comments I have read online that disparage Blacks can not possibly be attributed (in general) to rightwingers, that it could just as likely be liberal false flags?

You're really going to extremes if you're interpreting what I've labeled 'bored kids' as "liberal false flags". What exactly do you think I'm arguing here? No I don't think they're "liberal false flags" I think the majority are bored kids being assholes because it gets them attention.

Let me ask you this, do you think 98% of the racist shit said against blacks online is said by truly racist white people? If you think it is, we're simply never going to agree on this because we live in 2 different realities.

You realize there is such a thing called common sense and what is plausible, based on observation and evidence.

Yes, I know what the word 'likely' means. Can you tell me why you've presented 'likely' as abject certainty in this thread?

Even this mainstream Pakistani daily says it is from some of his followers. The commenters have Muslim names.
https://tribune.com.pk/story/158938...posting-photo-christmas-tree-betraying-islam/

When you see criticism against Islam and Muslims on Western forums and websites, don't tell me you would think it is a 50/50 chance most of the comments are from Muslims themselves.

....what?! Why are you thinking in this frightening 2-directional way? Bored kids are bored kids. They're not the opposite of whatever's being disparaged. If dogs say bad things about cats online, I don't think half of them are secretly cats. Where are you getting that impression from?

My issue here isn't with what muslims really believe, it's with a few anonymous comments online being presented as a mass reaction to something by a specific people. It's not a large reaction, and you truly don't know who these people really are. And you suggesting there's only a 2% chance they're online trolls tells me you either haven't been online much, or you're going to present this story simply how it plays best regardless of that facts.

You're saying it "could be" people other than Muslims. Sure. I'm saying if it was a Muslim, it wouldn't be the 1st instance.

Then we completely agree with eachother.

 

[Bald1]

What kind of logic is this!? The article implies, other muslims assume, therefore the odds are high? No. Just no. The article implies it because it's presenting a point that can only be made if they assume they are really muslims. If the reality of them possibly being online trolls is acknowledged, the entire point is gone.



That's not the point. I'm not nitpicking semantics, I'm asking you present the truth. The truth is you are not certain these people are muslims, you are not certain they're anything more than bored kids online. And the fact that you have to say "well it's likely" is just making my point.



See this is complete bullshit. The comment sections of every corner of the internet are filled with instigating that comes from nothing but a place of childish idiocy. To suggest any spot online has only a 2% chance of having shit like "ill kill your family" posted by trolls is denying reality. This is like saying 98% of the people here can likely bench 250 because MMA fans have benched it before.



You're really going to extremes if you're interpreting what I've labeled 'bored kids' as "liberal false flags". What exactly do you think I'm arguing here? No I don't think they're "liberal false flags" I think the majority are bored kids being assholes because it gets them attention.

Let me ask you this, do you think 98% of the racist shit said against blacks online is said by truly racist white people? If you think it is, we're simply never going to agree on this because we live in 2 different realities.



Yes, I know what the word 'likely' means. Can you tell me why you've presented 'likely' as abject certainty in this thread?



....what?! Why are you thinking in this frightening 2-directional way? Bored kids are bored kids. They're not the opposite of whatever's being disparaged. If dogs say bad things about cats online, I don't think half of them are secretly cats. Where are you getting that impression from?

My issue here isn't with what muslims really believe, it's with a few anonymous comments online being presented as a mass reaction to something by a specific people. It's not a large reaction, and you truly don't know who these people really are. And you suggesting there's only a 2% chance they're online trolls tells me you either haven't been online much, or you're going to present this story simply how it plays best regardless of that facts.



Then we completely agree with eachother.

Not really. It could be others is less likely than it is Muslims. You say 50/50, I say 90/10.

 

[Jopious Extronimous]

Not really. It could be others is less likely than it is Muslims. You say 50/50, I say 90/10.

So most people here can bench 250?

 

[Bald1]

So most people here can bench 250?

Non sequitur.