When people use words in a way different from ours in the privacy of their church, it has nothing to do with the rest of us; this does not make them villains.
Jon Doe, "Allah is the Arabic word for God."
And Krishna is the Hindu name for God. Would you feel comfortable praying to "Lord Krishna"? What does this have to do with what the word means to those who actually use it?
Would you feel comfortable praying to "Lord Krishna"? I would not. Noone asks us to do so; most certainly there is nothing of that sort in mystomachisturning's post.
You see nothing of that sort, I do see something of that sort. If I didn't, I wouldn't have said anything.
"When people use words in a way different from ours in the privacy of their church, it has nothing to do with the rest of us; this does not make them villains.
1. I did not say he was a villain, please don't flog that strawman here, thanks. 2. I don't care if they say that a 1939 Huppmobile is "God" -- in the "privacy of their church". However, once the claim enters the marketplace of ideas, it's fair game for challenge.
If he does not want people to challenge his claim that "Allah" is "God", then he should not make the claim in public. If he does make that claim in public, then he's very naive (not to mention thin-skinned) if he seriously believes that others won't challenge it.
He has every right to make the claim -- but he has no right to insist that it be accepted.
What I find curious is the islamist logic that seems to be at play here -- the claims of islam are presented, not for debate, but with the implicit message that they must be accepted, and anyone who doesn't accept them is out of line.
Well, I'm sorry. I don't accept them. I say that "Allah" is not "God", and I have plenty of evidence to back it up. If I'm out of line for saying that "Allah is not God", then so is anyone who insists that "Allah is God."
You can't have it otherwise, unless we're all under shariah law. And we ain't.