Why is Islam so dangerous?

[The_Fisher_King]

Ask Anjem Choudary and he'll find them for you,
or you can put your glasses on and check Quran 8:39

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

Fight them until they convert or pay the
jizya, basically killed them all if they don't convert or pay taxes. Doesn't say leave the women and the children, or the elderly and incapacitated.
To my standards that's pretty violent I must say.
How is it you couldn't find that?

I have considered it all and still see Islam as the primary source of violence among all current religions and is not getting better.
Compare Europe before and after the huge Muslim migration. Rapes, sexual attacks on music concerts, terrorists attacks, attacks on Jews for no other reason than religious hate, etc, etc, etc. I am concerned and I don't see the purpose of people like you trying to deflect attention from the source of violence.
I know the Bible has violent passages, I know there are crazy people that are Christians, or Jews or whatever but there is a major problem approaching and you choose to be blind to it.

That was the last time the FBI used OLD SCHOOL definitions of "Terrorism". That report included some crimes that are not up the the standards we use today to define what a terrorist act is. I would put that report where it belongs, in the trash can.

Have you considered the possibility that the Qur'an in truth contains a mix of time- and society-specific teachings and more universal ones? i.e. some things in it were never meant to be applied to every time and place. Context then becomes particularly important to understanding at least some verses of the Qur'an. The problem then becomes not so much the Qur'an - and therefore Islam (given the relationship between the two) - but those who continue to see it as a timeless book every part of which should be applied all of the time in every part of the world.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Ask Anjem Choudary and he'll find them for you,
or you can put your glasses on and check Quran 8:39

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

Fight them until they convert or pay the
jizya, basically killed them all if they don't convert or pay taxes. Doesn't say leave the women and the children, or the elderly and incapacitated.
To my standards that's pretty violent I must say.
How is it you couldn't find that?

I have considered it all and still see Islam as the primary source of violence among all current religions and is not getting better.
Compare Europe before and after the huge Muslim migration. Rapes, sexual attacks on music concerts, terrorists attacks, attacks on Jews for no other reason than religious hate, etc, etc, etc. I am concerned and I don't see the purpose of people like you trying to deflect attention from the source of violence.
I know the Bible has violent passages, I know there are crazy people that are Christians, or Jews or whatever but there is a major problem approaching and you choose to be blind to it.

That was the last time the FBI used OLD SCHOOL definitions of "Terrorism". That report included some crimes that are not up the the standards we use today to define what a terrorist act is. I would put that report where it belongs, in the trash can.

Why have you left out parts of this verse????? Deliberately it seems and also deliberately out of context.

Here is the complete verse folks..

2:193 And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

And why have you deliberately left out Sura 2:190???

I have included many translations so it is clear.

2:190

2: 190 And fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight against you; but transgress not by attacking them first, for GOD loveth not the transgressors.

George Sale

2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:

J M Rodwell

2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.

N J Dawood

2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

Marmaduke Pickthall

2:190 AND FIGHT in God’s cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression –for, verily, God does not love aggressors.

Muhammad Assad

[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.

Rashad Khalifa

The Quran forbids premeditated murder

 

[loverofhumanity]

Ask Anjem Choudary and he'll find them for you,
or you can put your glasses on and check Quran 8:39

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

Fight them until they convert or pay the
jizya, basically killed them all if they don't convert or pay taxes. Doesn't say leave the women and the children, or the elderly and incapacitated.
To my standards that's pretty violent I must say.
How is it you couldn't find that?

I have considered it all and still see Islam as the primary source of violence among all current religions and is not getting better.
Compare Europe before and after the huge Muslim migration. Rapes, sexual attacks on music concerts, terrorists attacks, attacks on Jews for no other reason than religious hate, etc, etc, etc. I am concerned and I don't see the purpose of people like you trying to deflect attention from the source of violence.
I know the Bible has violent passages, I know there are crazy people that are Christians, or Jews or whatever but there is a major problem approaching and you choose to be blind to it.

That was the last time the FBI used OLD SCHOOL definitions of "Terrorism". That report included some crimes that are not up the the standards we use today to define what a terrorist act is. I would put that report where it belongs, in the trash can.

All you’re doing is cherry picking which is what the terrorists themselves do.

Try to be fair and just by looking at context.

Here it’s saying the True context if you read it all.

Sura 60:8-9

8 God does not forbid you, with regard to those who did not fight you on account of religion and did not expel you from your homes, from treating them righteously and being just toward them. Truly God loves the just.

9 God only forbids you, with regard to those who fought you on account of religion and expelled you from your homes and supported your expulsion, from befriending them; whosoever befriends them, they are the wrongdoers.

 

[sayak83]

Ask Anjem Choudary and he'll find them for you,
or you can put your glasses on and check Quran 8:39

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

Fight them until they convert or pay the
jizya, basically killed them all if they don't convert or pay taxes. Doesn't say leave the women and the children, or the elderly and incapacitated.
To my standards that's pretty violent I must say.
How is it you couldn't find that?

I have considered it all and still see Islam as the primary source of violence among all current religions and is not getting better.
Compare Europe before and after the huge Muslim migration. Rapes, sexual attacks on music concerts, terrorists attacks, attacks on Jews for no other reason than religious hate, etc, etc, etc. I am concerned and I don't see the purpose of people like you trying to deflect attention from the source of violence.
I know the Bible has violent passages, I know there are crazy people that are Christians, or Jews or whatever but there is a major problem approaching and you choose to be blind to it.

That was the last time the FBI used OLD SCHOOL definitions of "Terrorism". That report included some crimes that are not up the the standards we use today to define what a terrorist act is. I would put that report where it belongs, in the trash can.

This is the repetition of the same set of verses in the Cow chapter. There was a good discussion of this in the first two-three posts in the thread here,

Justification for war and violence in the Quran

However, there is nothing in the verses that justify the killing of civilians in those sentences of the Quran.

Fight in the way of God those who fight against you, but do not transgress. God does not love transgressors.
And slay them (those that fight against you) wheresoever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you, for strife/persecution/temptation/sedition (fitnah) is worse than slaying.
But do not fight with them near the sacred mosque until they fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the recompense for disbelievers. But if they desist, then truly Allah is forgiving and Merciful.
Fight them until there is no more strife/persecution (fitnah) and worship is devoted to Allah. But if they desist, then there is no more enmity save against the wrongdoers.
A sacred month for a sacred month and retribution for forbidden things. So whosoever transgresses against you, transgress against him in a like manner, and reverence God, and know that God is with the reverent.

As a military doctrine, its not very extremist and lays down reasonable rules for just war,
1) No initial aggression.
2) Fight only against those who are fighting against you.
3) Desist when there is a chance of peace treaty.
4) Conduct war within moral standards and not to transgress them.
5) Only take land from where you were initially expelled from.

 

[Notanumber]

“Stay Quiet and You’ll Be Okay”

That’s what Mohamed Atta told the doomed airline passengers on 9/11.

And we still hear the exact same message today, from the powerful but shadowy lobby that is working behind the scenes to gut the First Amendment and prohibit “hate speech”—or any criticism—of Islam.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Of course it would and I think that would be the most logical way to go for a Muslim country so that is my point:
Why none of the 53 Muslim countries dare to implement what they believe to be the perfect law system given to them by God?

Same reason none of the predominantly Christian countries implement 100% religious based laws, I guess.

You keep misunderstanding me.
I really don't care what the Bible or the Quran says, what I care is how people react after reading those scriptures.
Some Muslims (terrorists) get all aggressive and violent and cold heartedly commit the most heinous criminal acts against innocent people based on the readings of the Quran.
On the other hand Christians read the Bible and its violent passages and somehow use their common sense and know what not to do. See the difference violence.

Except that, of course, there ARE Christians who interpret the Bible as justification for violence

Could it be difference of INTERPRETATION?
Could it be evil people (Imams) promoting evil interpretations of the same scriptures moderates use?
Listen to Anjem Choudary and you'll understand what an evil Imam think Islam should look like.
Are we getting in on the same page now?

Right, evil people are the problem, not Islam.[/QUOTE]

 

[Raymann]

You don't know anything about the middle east or Islam. To hear you talk you'd think you know more than Muslims know.

I see, and what makes you think that?
I know more about Islam than I do about Christianity and I grew up Catholic.

I assume you do have evidence to show "That was the last time the FBI used OLD SCHOOL definitions of "Terrorism"."

"Beginning with the report for 2004, it replaced the previously published Patterns of Global Terrorism."

"The figures in this Annex are not directly comparable to statistics reported in pre-2005 editions of Patterns of Global Terrorism, or to the figures NCTC reported in 2005. Those figures were compiled on the basis of a more limited methodology tied to the definition of "international terrorism," which is also contained in 22 U.S.C. • 2656f."

Here is an example of the new reports

... some things in it (the Quran) were never meant to be applied to every time and place.

Why not?
In this case Muslims are at war. Not a rare occasion for them. Wouldn't the teachings of this passage apply on a war today? I don't see why not. I guess in my opinion this is one of those passages that can be used at any time.

Why have you left out parts of this verse????? Deliberately it seems and also deliberately out of context.

I just copied it from the following website.

Quran 8:39 Sahih International

As you can see that's all it shows there.
Why would I hide parts that any Muslim would know is there anyway?
Would the context make it look less violent?
My understanding is this particular fight was initiated by the Muslims so the typical excuse "fight them only if they fight you" doesn't apply in this case.

The whole point is that groups like ISIS easily can use this example and be legally violent according to Islam.

All you’re doing is cherry picking which is what the terrorists themselves do.

Exactly. This whole thread is about finding out why Islam is so violent.
So you said it, one of the problems might be that terrorists are cherry picking passages from the scriptures.
I am not here to prove the scriptures are violent I'm here to prove the scriptures can be used for peace or for violence depending on who is doing the interpretation.
That's a pretty bad problem islam has to overcome.

As a military doctrine (Islam), it's not very extremist and lays down reasonable rules for just war,
1) No initial aggression.
2) Fight only against those who are fighting against you.
3) Desist when there is a chance of peace treaty.
4) Conduct war within moral standards and not to transgress them.
5) Only take land from where you were initially expelled from.

Well, Quran 8:39 is not a good example where Muslims obeyed those rules, isn't it?
They started the fight therefore there's no end until everyone has converted or agreed to pay the tax.
Option 3) was never even considered in this case.
There's a lot ISIS like about these verses.

Same reason none of the predominantly Christian countries implement 100% religious based laws, I guess.

Not at all. Christian majority countries don't have the option to implement religious laws because their governments are for the most part secular. The church has no say on the implementation of laws.

That's not the case with most Muslim majority countries.
They could easily implement 100% Sharia if they wanted to.
As a matter of fact many rules are based on Islam but somehow they're reluctant to go all the way Sharia.

there ARE Christians who interpret the Bible as justification for violence

In the whole scheme of things today that's very rare.
I don't think I ever heard of a Christian committing suicide in order to kill as many non christians around him, have you?

Right, evil people are the problem, not Islam

Agreed but the evil people we're talking about didn't get the memo that Islam is not supposed to be violent and they truly believe their way is the right way.

 

[ChristineM]

Beginning with the report for 2004, it replaced the previously published Patterns of Global Terrorism."

"The figures in this Annex are not directly comparable to statistics reported in pre-2005 editions of Patterns of Global Terrorism, or to the figures NCTC reported in 2005. Those figures were compiled on the basis of a more limited methodology tied to the definition of "international terrorism," which is also contained in 22 U.S.C. • 2656f."

Only the report by the FBI was on terrorism in the US, not global. The link you provided gives no comparable report

 

[sooda]

Ask Anjem Choudary and he'll find them for you,
or you can put your glasses on and check Quran 8:39

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

Fight them until they convert or pay the
jizya, basically killed them all if they don't convert or pay taxes. Doesn't say leave the women and the children, or the elderly and incapacitated.
To my standards that's pretty violent I must say.
How is it you couldn't find that?

I have considered it all and still see Islam as the primary source of violence among all current religions and is not getting better.
Compare Europe before and after the huge Muslim migration. Rapes, sexual attacks on music concerts, terrorists attacks, attacks on Jews for no other reason than religious hate, etc, etc, etc. I am concerned and I don't see the purpose of people like you trying to deflect attention from the source of violence.
I know the Bible has violent passages, I know there are crazy people that are Christians, or Jews or whatever but there is a major problem approaching and you choose to be blind to it.

That was the last time the FBI used OLD SCHOOL definitions of "Terrorism". That report included some crimes that are not up the the standards we use today to define what a terrorist act is. I would put that report where it belongs, in the trash can.

Your expertise is very shallow.. Basically a Muslim can fight a defensive war AFTER the Holy months. They are forbidden to kill non-combatants or livestock.. They may not destroy trees, crops, water sources.

What is your agenda?

Jizya is a small tax .. less than Muslims pay.. against able-bodied men who want to avoid military service.

 

[sooda]

I see, and what makes you think that?
I know more about Islam than I do about Christianity and I grew up Catholic.



"Beginning with the report for 2004, it replaced the previously published Patterns of Global Terrorism."

"The figures in this Annex are not directly comparable to statistics reported in pre-2005 editions of Patterns of Global Terrorism, or to the figures NCTC reported in 2005. Those figures were compiled on the basis of a more limited methodology tied to the definition of "international terrorism," which is also contained in 22 U.S.C. • 2656f."

Here is an example of the new reports

Why not?
In this case Muslims are at war. Not a rare occasion for them. Wouldn't the teachings of this passage apply on a war today? I don't see why not. I guess in my opinion this is one of those passages that can be used at any time.

I just copied it from the following website.

Quran 8:39 Sahih International

As you can see that's all it shows there.
Why would I hide parts that any Muslim would know is there anyway?
Would the context make it look less violent?
My understanding is this particular fight was initiated by the Muslims so the typical excuse "fight them only if they fight you" doesn't apply in this case.

The whole point is that groups like ISIS easily can use this example and be legally violent according to Islam.

Exactly. This whole thread is about finding out why Islam is so violent.
So you said it, one of the problems might be that terrorists are cherry picking passages from the scriptures.
I am not here to prove the scriptures are violent I'm here to prove the scriptures can be used for peace or for violence depending on who is doing the interpretation.
That's a pretty bad problem islam has to overcome.

Well, Quran 8:39 is not a good example where Muslims obeyed those rules, isn't it?
They started the fight therefore there's no end until everyone has converted or agreed to pay the tax.
Option 3) was never even considered in this case.
There's a lot ISIS like about these verses.

Not at all. Christian majority countries don't have the option to implement religious laws because their governments are for the most part secular. The church has no say on the implementation of laws.

That's not the case with most Muslim majority countries.
They could easily implement 100% Sharia if they wanted to.
As a matter of fact many rules are based on Islam but somehow they're reluctant to go all the way Sharia.

In the whole scheme of things today that's very rare.
I don't think I ever heard of a Christian committing suicide in order to kill as many non christians around him, have you?

Agreed but the evil people we're talking about didn't get the memo that Islam is not supposed to be violent and they truly believe their way is the right way.

Your expertise is as an armchair internet surfer.

What do you think of the suicide of Samson?

 

[Firemorphic]

I just copied it from the following website.

Quran 8:39 Sahih International

As you can see that's all it shows there.

Ok, try this, some non-Sahih translations:

"And fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God alone. And if they desist-behold, God sees all that they do"

"And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do."

"And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do."

"And fight them until there be no persecution and the way of life—all of it—be for God. Then, if they refrained themselves, then, truly, God is Seeing of what they do."

"And fight them until there is no strife, and religion is wholly for God. But if they desist, then truly God sees whatsoever they do."



Hmmm, ok there buddy. What am I supposed to be scared and shocked by?


And that's not even taking into consider the preceding verse itself (and of course the following verse which is kind of a bubble-buster), which gives a frame of reference but not a context(s), historical and otherwise.

 

[Firemorphic]

Your expertise is as an armchair internet surfer.

Reading this thread I see that all written over his posts

 

[sooda]

Reading this thread I see that all written over his posts

Lots of people jumped on that bandwagon after 9-11.. Overnight they were "experts".. Some of them have earned a good living at it .. never mind the prohibition of Lashon Hara.

Others crave being the center of attention. Typically they will tell you that they no more about Islam than Muslims.

The terrorists LOVE them. They have become recruiters for the disenfranchised.

 

[Firemorphic]

Lots of people jumped on that bandwagon after 9-11.. Overnight they were "experts".. Some of them have earned a good living at it .. never mind the prohibition of Lashon Hara.

Others crave being the center of attention. Typically they will tell you that they no more about Islam than Muslims.

The terrorists LOVE them. They have become recruiters for the disenfranchised.

True, this kinda stuff ain't worth even spare change in Islamic jurisprudence.
And Yes, they're practically pimping up terrorists while having no knowledge of what terrorists are or what their function is against regular Islam.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Not at all. Christian majority countries don't have the option to implement religious laws because their governments are for the most part secular. The church has no say on the implementation of laws.

That's not the case with most Muslim majority countries.
They could easily implement 100% Sharia if they wanted to.
As a matter of fact many rules are based on Islam but somehow they're reluctant to go all the way Sharia.

Your argument here is built on begging the question and double standard. Beyond that, I answered your question. You choose to employ a fallacious double standard, I really can't help you with that.

In the whole scheme of things today that's very rare.
I don't think I ever heard of a Christian committing suicide in order to kill as many non christians around him, have you?

And now you're shifting the goal posts. In terms of gross body count, in recent years, by non-state actors, then sure, Muslims have killed more people. If you only consider suicide bombing to be terrorism, than sure, Muslims again. But those are pretty overwrought and contrived conditions to put on things. Indeed, it seems like the sort of conditions one would put on a definition for the express purpose of propping up an agenda. The fact is that before approximately the 1970s, "terrorism" as generally understood, was almost the exclusive preserve of Christian issue motivated groups, the Irish, Basques, Quebecois and similar. Modern Islamic terrorism is directly traceable to two things, resistance to Israel, and resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. It's a system of assymetric warfare based, like virtually all warefare, on issues of land and resources. The religion aspect, such as it is, is absolutely a tacked on afterthought. Groups like ISIS that, arguably, are motivated more primarily by religion are a recent phenomenon, not representative of the vast majority of Muslims, and almost wholly a response to external forces. As I said before, terrorism is a tactic used by the disempowered and desperate. It has no inherent religious component. The majority of terrorism deaths of recent times (for a certain value of 'terrorism', and certain value of 'recent') have been caused by Muslims. In earlier times they were mostly caused by Christians. In 50 years time, who knows? Could be Buddhists. Could be atheists. Could be Christians again. Go where there is any group disempowered (or perceiving itself to be disempowered) group struggling against a significantly more powerful group, and you will find terrorism. Religion isn't the motivating factor. Although demonising a religion certainly can be.

Agreed but the evil people we're talking about didn't get the memo that Islam is not supposed to be violent and they truly believe their way is the right way.

And? How is that the fault of the 98% of Muslims who denounces them?

 

[sooda]

“Stay Quiet and You’ll Be Okay”

That’s what Mohamed Atta told the doomed airline passengers on 9/11.

And we still hear the exact same message today, from the powerful but shadowy lobby that is working behind the scenes to gut the First Amendment and prohibit “hate speech”—or any criticism—of Islam.

I don't remember that.. Who reported that Atta said they would be OK?

Atta was Egyptian and a follower of Sayeed Qubt and al Banna .

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I don't remember that.. Who reported that Atta said they would be OK?

Atta was Egyptian and a follower of Sayeed Qubt and al Banna .

Before 9/11, that's what virtually all terrorism experts would have recommended, and would have been true. 9/11 is a hugely non representative event that, unfortunately, massively skews public opinion on such matters because it was so high profile. For a great many people, the idea of terrorism is inextricably linked to 9/11, even though it was so utterly unique and unlike anything before or after.

 

[sooda]

I see, and what makes you think that?
I know more about Islam than I do about Christianity and I grew up Catholic.



"Beginning with the report for 2004, it replaced the previously published Patterns of Global Terrorism."

"The figures in this Annex are not directly comparable to statistics reported in pre-2005 editions of Patterns of Global Terrorism, or to the figures NCTC reported in 2005. Those figures were compiled on the basis of a more limited methodology tied to the definition of "international terrorism," which is also contained in 22 U.S.C. • 2656f."

Here is an example of the new reports

Why not?
In this case Muslims are at war. Not a rare occasion for them. Wouldn't the teachings of this passage apply on a war today? I don't see why not. I guess in my opinion this is one of those passages that can be used at any time.

I just copied it from the following website.

Quran 8:39 Sahih International

As you can see that's all it shows there.
Why would I hide parts that any Muslim would know is there anyway?
Would the context make it look less violent?
My understanding is this particular fight was initiated by the Muslims so the typical excuse "fight them only if they fight you" doesn't apply in this case.

The whole point is that groups like ISIS easily can use this example and be legally violent according to Islam.

Exactly. This whole thread is about finding out why Islam is so violent.
So you said it, one of the problems might be that terrorists are cherry picking passages from the scriptures.
I am not here to prove the scriptures are violent I'm here to prove the scriptures can be used for peace or for violence depending on who is doing the interpretation.
That's a pretty bad problem islam has to overcome.

Well, Quran 8:39 is not a good example where Muslims obeyed those rules, isn't it?
They started the fight therefore there's no end until everyone has converted or agreed to pay the tax.
Option 3) was never even considered in this case.
There's a lot ISIS like about these verses.

Not at all. Christian majority countries don't have the option to implement religious laws because their governments are for the most part secular. The church has no say on the implementation of laws.

That's not the case with most Muslim majority countries.
They could easily implement 100% Sharia if they wanted to.
As a matter of fact many rules are based on Islam but somehow they're reluctant to go all the way Sharia.

In the whole scheme of things today that's very rare.
I don't think I ever heard of a Christian committing suicide in order to kill as many non christians around him, have you?

Agreed but the evil people we're talking about didn't get the memo that Islam is not supposed to be violent and they truly believe their way is the right way.

That's not true in the case of Sudan .. Sudan was chided by other Muslim countries for overly strict interpretations of Islam.

Most Muslims are not violent.. In fact, they are much like us.. The violent ones talk like you..

 

[sooda]

Reading this thread I see that all written over his posts

Well, to be fair.. most of his internet sources are just like him.. Instant experts.. They have never lived or worked in the Muslim world either... and they have been earning a living promoting hate and ignorance since 9-11.

 

[Audie]

I disagree here. I believe most people see things like murder and theft as bad. There is universal agreement on basic good and bad right and wrong, moral and immoral things. There are some deviations but minor ones.

Disagree with what? Your reasons have zero to do
with what I said. You said there was no terrorism
and only defensive warfare.

I said the books are open to interpretation,
as are "terrorism" and what is offense, or defense.

Pearl Harbour was terrorist and defensive in
nature.

As for what you say of universal values- of
course there is general agreement that there is
good and bad.

But there are huge differences in what is "good",
what is murder, what is theft, what is bad.

I wont give you a course in anthropology but I
will say your statement shows you could use
one.

Finally, not the least is found in your reply,
of an acknowledgement of the stunningly
obvious fact that people read into "sacred"
text what they will.

Your formulaic auto- pilot and irrelevant
resopnse is very typical of what comes from
cult members.

Can you do better than that?