We werent talking about the US here so dont try that trick, we were talking about slavery within the context of Islam, and whether Muslims could get rid of slavery on their own or only with external intervention.
Then there was a little misunderstanding. I wasn't talking about slavery in context of Islam. I was talking of it in general in response to your post which asked me
What happens if the host sees it as medicine, and doesnt agree with your diagnosis? Should you deny him this placebo, when you're not even his doctor?
I just gave you an example, call it analogy if you wish, wherein something wrong is done away with even against the wishes of its beneficiaries. Would you call abolition of slavery by force in the context of USA an infringement of the freedom of those who wished it to continue?
:popcorn:Poor choice of wording then, rephrase the wording to mean irrelevent rather than something that implies physical damage & carnageMaybe its a language problem or a culture thing at FFI. You dont need to use dramatic language to make a point. Its childish & immature, and just retracts from the discussion because all we end up doing is arguing about the details.
You could give the same advice to the starter of the other poll too. The wording was chosen to match the other poll. Almost all the criticisms of this poll and its choices apply to the other poll as well. How come the other poll is ok and this one is not? Is it because it was started by me? How come the same choice of wording is peaceful, politically correct and fully acceptable at the other thread? I would make the same statement about the other poll: "Maybe its a language problem or a culture thing at CEMB. You dont need to use dramatic language to make a point. Its childish & immature, and just retracts from the discussion".
If you noticed, I stated that for me destruction/neutralization of Islam mean the same thing and I also wondered how it is possible to "destroy" Islam if you take the question literally.
I have been stating my position again and again. Too bad that the parallel between the two threads is bothering you.
I think if you stop doing that, and we might find that we almost agree with each other. But I am not sure if thats what you want, I think you just like drama & arguments for the sake of arguments.
I just want consistency in your position.
I could have asked the same question to Hassan (what does he mean "destroy Islam?"), but I got his meaning. I could understand that literal destruction of Islam or any other religion is not possible so he must have meant rendering it impotent, irrelevant, defanged and so on an so forth. Why is it so difficult for you to understand the same here? When I ask if you want to destroy HIV, I surely don't mean we would be able to find and maybe bomb all the HIV into oblivion.
Sorry, but you are sidetracking the issue with technicalities.