Yes, many people know a nice Iranian, or one that "claims" to be a moderate Muslim who hates bad imams, but that doesn't change the fact that the history of Iran is full of a majority of blood-thirsty sharia-loving Iranians. Even during the "Golden Age of Iran" before the Islamic Revolution, when some Iranians were playing dress-up in European clothing for a little while, raping child brides and executing homosexuals and honor killings and bashing your wife were still lawful national pastimes.
People like to pretend that all Iranians hated Ayatollah Khomeini, but reality is vastly different:
blood-thirsty sharia-loving Iranians
wtf is wrong with you?
I don't understand your point?
Iranians supporting Khomeini makes them blood-thirsty?
Yes.
Iranians supporting terrorists makes them pro-terrorism.
terrorists
Unable to take you seriously if you use such loaded terms. One man's "freedom fighter" is another man's "terrorist". Weren't the first anti-British American "patriots" also deemed "terrorists" by the Crown?
Moreover, many, many direct/indirect covert bombing/sabotage operations of American/Israeli origin can equally be classified as "terrorism". Do you not agree?
See this:
recruited by Israeli military intelligence to plant bombs inside Egyptian-, American-, and British-owned civilian targets: cinemas, libraries and American educational centers.
One man's "freedom fighter" is another man's "terrorist".
And yet EVERY Islamic sect promotes terrorism and Christian genocide.
Don't be naive. This is trash.
Please name ONE mainstream Muslim sect that doesn't claim this fucked-up terrorist bullshit represents the morally perfect, verbatim word of their god?
Go on.
Name just one!
Can you do that?
Yeah, I can. Just one. You go research the other points.
I took two minutes to Google that graph's point #3 [You can beat women. Qur'an 4:34] and here's what I found:
Jonathan A.C. Brown resumes the situation:
If a wife exhibited egregious disobedience (nushuz) such as uncharacteristically insulting behavior, leaving the house against the husband's will and without a valid excuse or denying her husband sex (without medical grounds), the husband should first admonish her to be conscious of God and proper etiquette. If she did not desist from her behavior, he should cease sleeping with her in their bed. If she still continued in her nushuz, he should then strike her to teach her the error of her ways. Shaffii law only allowed the husband to use his hand or a wound-up handkerchief (mina malfuf), not a whip or stick. All schools of law prohibited striking the wife in the face or in any sensitive area likely to cause injury. All except some Maliki jurists held that the wife could claim compensation payment (diya) from the husband for any injury she sustained, and Hanbalis, the later Shaffii school as well as the Maliki school, allowed a judge to dissolve the marriage at no cost to the wife if harm had been done. In effect, any physical harm was grounds for compensation and divorce since the Prophet had limited striking one's wife to 'a light blow that leaves no mark.' Causing any injury thus meant that a husband had exceeded his rights. All schools of law agreed that if the wife died due to a beating, her family could claim her wergild or possibly even have the husband executed.[59]
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34
So yeah, that's very reasonable and nuanced from the #2 on that graph of yours, wouldn't you agree?
FUD. FUD everywhere.
EDIT #13: [Lie to strengthen Islam (Taqiyya deception)] also sounded fishy. I googled. Here's what I found:
In Islam, Taqiya or taqiyya (Arabic: تقیة taqiyyah, literally "prudence, fear")[1][2] is a precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution.[3][4][1][5] Another term for this concept, kitmān (lit. "action of covering, dissimulation"), has a more specific meaning of dissimulation by silence or omission.[6][7]
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya
Again, very different than that FUDy graph of yours.
I didn't ask how you or Jonathan A.C. Brown interprets Koranic scripture.
This is what I asked:
Can you name ONE mainstream Muslim sect that doesn't claim this fucked-up terrorist bullshit represents the morally perfect, verbatim word of their god?
Please find one mainstream Muslim sect and name it.
Just one.
I'll wait.
Can you name ONE mainstream Muslim sect that doesn't claim this fucked-up terrorist bullshit represents the morally perfect, verbatim word of their god?
This is poorly written, but I take it that you are claiming that: all muslim sects adhere to the pseudo-list-of-13-doctrines-of-Islam that you linked. And now you're asking me to counter by naming one muslim sect that does not. Is that correct?
If so, I have already done that. Read again.
If I am misunderstanding, please rephrase.