Jump to content

This week in Islam


kimmy

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I always thought Muslims were Islamic.  How do you differentiate them?  I just go with good and bad.

One is a religion and the other is a human being.

Quote

It's just that you said something about killing all right wingers in another thread.  

Yes I did say something about that.

Quote

I guess there are right wingers, and there are right wingers.  Right?

You should go read the original meaning of the term sometime.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

One is a religion and the other is a human being.

Yes I did say something about that.

You should go read the original meaning of the term sometime.    

A religious human being.  A conservative, right wing religious human being, generally.  At least, the ones I pick on are.

I was only referring to what you meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It should include showing how bad some Muslims are.  Who the hell is doing all the bad stuff in the name of Islam?  Southern Pentecostals?

Again with the "all".  Is there no other argument?

"Condemning acts of violence and depravity carried out under the Islamic banner."  One can do that without also saying "This is who Muslims are."

For example:  the Syrian refugee who is accused of killing a girl here in Vancouver.  Our local "critics of Islam" said things suggesting this boy committed this crime because Muslims think pedophilia is acceptable and that women have no value.  They also said that this is the danger of letting Muslims into our country, implying that their religious beliefs means they'll start attacking women/children at will. 

This is a clear case of using a single event to "prove" how bad Muslins are.  In the meantime, there are around 500,000 Muslim men who have not murdered or raped anyone, but these daily non-events are ignored or dismissed as proof that Muslim men aren't generally depraved animals about to rape and murder little girls.

A genuine critic of Islam would have no problem in condemning the actions of the refugee, while not also implying that this is a "norm" in Muslim society.  Murder and rape is illegal in Muslim countries, just as it is here.  

A genuine "critic of Islam" can criticize the patriarchal attitudes of Islam, without portraying Muslim men as misogynistic monsters.  A genuine "critic of Islam" understands that Muslims are individuals and that defining all of them by their most extreme individuals is not helpful nor even reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

"Condemning acts of violence and depravity carried out under the Islamic banner."  One can do that without also saying "This is who Muslims are."

For example:  the Syrian refugee who is accused of killing a girl here in Vancouver.  Our local "critics of Islam" said things suggesting this boy committed this crime because Muslims think pedophilia is acceptable and that women have no value.  They also said that this is the danger of letting Muslims into our country, implying that their religious beliefs means they'll start attacking women/children at will. 

This is a clear case of using a single event to "prove" how bad Muslins are.  In the meantime, there are around 500,000 Muslim men who have not murdered or raped anyone, but these daily non-events are ignored or dismissed as proof that Muslim men aren't generally depraved animals about to rape and murder little girls.

A genuine critic of Islam would have no problem in condemning the actions of the refugee, while not also implying that this is a "norm" in Muslim society.  Murder and rape is illegal in Muslim countries, just as it is here.  

A genuine "critic of Islam" can criticize the patriarchal attitudes of Islam, without portraying Muslim men as misogynistic monsters.  A genuine "critic of Islam" understands that Muslims are individuals and that defining all of them by their most extreme individuals is not helpful nor even reality.

Sure. I think criticism of individual Muslims is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.  Same as everybody really.  And if they form themselves into a group I think it's okay to criticise the group too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

A religious human being.  A conservative, right wing religious human being, generally.  At least, the ones I pick on are.

No, what you wrote is that a thing is no different than a human being and then you picked on the thing.

 

Quote

I was only referring to what you meant.

I usually adhere to the original definition of the term right wing.  You should try it some time.  

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Sure. I think criticism of individual Muslims is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.  Same as everybody really.  And if they form themselves into a group I think it's okay to criticise the group too.

I am a critic of Patriarchy and I want to point out to you that Robert Pickton is a white guy who raped and killed quite a few women.  David Jennings is a convicted pedophile, deemed a dangerous offender.  Also a White Male.  Christopher Neil, another white Canadian Male, serving 5 years for child-sex crimes.  

I have now made a watertight case that the group known as White Males are generally rapists and murderers.  Sure, not all of them rape and kill, but there are cases daily on the news where some white guy has raped and/or murdered a woman or girl so clearly this is something that is normal and common in this group.  And even if a white man hasn't yet followed his nature, he may at any moment.  So we must be wary of White men, perhaps limit their access to public spaces, or figure out some way to contain them to protect our society.

Clearly, the above reasoning is ridiculous - unless it's a Muslim person doing the crime, in which case this "reasoning" is supposed to be accepted as "criticism of Islam".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, what you wrote is that a thing is no different than a human being and then you picked on the thing.

 

I usually adhere to the original definition of the term right wing.  You should try it some time.  

No I didn't.  You can think that human beings are not influenced by their religion if you want, but you would be fairly lonely.

I'm only interested in those you would kill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I am a critic of Patriarchy and I want to point out to you that Robert Pickton is a white guy who raped and killed quite a few women.  David Jennings is a convicted pedophile, deemed a dangerous offender.  Also a White Male.  Christopher Neil, another white Canadian Male, serving 5 years for child-sex crimes.  

I have now made a watertight case that the group known as White Males are generally rapists and murderers.  Sure, not all of them rape and kill, but there are cases daily on the news where some white guy has raped and/or murdered a woman or girl so clearly this is something that is normal and common in this group.  And even if a white man hasn't yet followed his nature, he may at any moment.  So we must be wary of White men, perhaps limit their access to public spaces, or figure out some way to contain them to protect our society.

Clearly, the above reasoning is ridiculous - unless it's a Muslim person doing the crime, in which case this "reasoning" is supposed to be accepted as "criticism of Islam".

Not at all.  As far as I'm concerned, only the white males who have actually done anything wrong should be criticised.  Those who think what they did is right and good could be criticised too, I guess,  but only because they are arseholes.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

There is a punishment for sex outside of marriage too?  It gets worse.  What is it?

Flogging and stoning are often in the laws of Muslim countries. It is a deterrent, the required proof is almost impossible to provide.

7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

It's fine to talk about what people believe in and say they have misinterpreted the religious texts according to their own ends and means. They can be dismissed as apostates.

What I find harder to dismiss is what religious leaders of Islam themselves are saying. These are the shepherds who teach common folk what the obscure words in the holy books actually mean, and how it should be interpreted in a modern context. What are the Ayatollahs and the majority of Imams saying? What is their message to the people? Harsh intolerance pervades Islamic belief, both in the book (as it does in other old books) and in the streets. And it comes from the top level of religious leadership, with good agreement among a majority of theologians. All males, of course. To me it's the misogyny and over-arching patriarchy that is the most problematic.

 

Religious leaders of Islam say a lot of different things. There's nothing obscure about the Quran. Nor is it intolerant.

The problem is not so much that people think all Muslims are what they think Islam is, but that they don't know what Islam is so they think what some Muslims are is what Islam is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bcsapper said:

1)What about White Supremacists?  No-one has a problem with blaming race there, but I don't care, because I know they don't mean me.  It's the same with Islam. 

2) Bastards are bastards, no matter what race or religion.  Religion is easier though to blame for stuff though, because with race you have no choice.

3)Yeah, I'm pro choice, so people can wear whatever they say they want to wear.  It doesn't change what the garb is, or what it signifies. 

1) What ?  Does anybody say they're wrong BECAUSE they're white ?  That's a weird take IMO.

2) Nobody is scapegoating bastards or saying bastards are historically inhuman, or batards should be banned.  To say you have a 'choice' with religion is like saying you have one with culture.  But you're born into your culture just as you are with your skin.

3) 'Signifies' is a tough one because some things clearly 'signify' while others infer things.  Someone told me once if I talk about Woody Allen movies, then it means I don't care about victims of child abuse.  But the Hammer and Sickle really does mean something, as does the cross.  I'm ok with censuring one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

1) What I find harder to dismiss is what religious leaders of Islam themselves are saying. These are the shepherds who teach common folk what the obscure words in the holy books actually mean, and how it should be interpreted in a modern context.

2) To me it's the misogyny and over-arching patriarchy that is the most problematic.

 

1) Yes, condemn them.  Condemn the preachers who twist holy books to leverage hate and suspicious.

2) Religions were male-dominated from the outset, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I always thought Muslims were Islamic.  How do you differentiate them?  I just go with good and bad.

It's just that you said something about killing all right wingers in another thread.  I guess there are right wingers, and there are right wingers.  Right?

There appears to be as much diversity in Islam as there is with Christianity. Meaning various sects and offshoot groups. Overall some similar beliefs, but there are differences (I am not versed in those differences)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bcsapper said:

It should include showing how bad some Muslims are.  Who the hell is doing all the bad stuff in the name of Islam?  Southern Pentecostals?

Again with the "all".  Is there no other argument?

Nations we consider allies are doing a lot of bad stuff in the name if Islam.  Saudi Arabia. We are helping them do a genocide in Yemen. And Saudi Arabia is most likely responsible for the oil tanker attacks in the Persian Gulf and area. Iran has NOTHING to gain by blowing up oil tankers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Nations we consider allies are doing a lot of bad stuff in the name if Islam.  Saudi Arabia. We are helping them do a genocide in Yemen. And Saudi Arabia is most likely responsible for the oil tanker attacks in the Persian Gulf and area. Iran has NOTHING to gain by blowing up oil tankers.

I doubt any of those incidents are done in the name of Islam. More likely they are done in the name of more power and profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Not at all.  As far as I'm concerned, only the white males who have actually done anything wrong should be criticised.  

Except that isn't what you are doing.  You say "I only blame the bad ones" while simultaneously supporting and defending people who lump all Muslims into the group of the "bad ones", and criticizing people who keep pointing out that Muslims cannot be defined by the worst of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) What ?  Does anybody say they're wrong BECAUSE they're white ?  That's a weird take IMO.

2) Nobody is scapegoating bastards or saying bastards are historically inhuman, or batards should be banned.  To say you have a 'choice' with religion is like saying you have one with culture.  But you're born into your culture just as you are with your skin.

3) 'Signifies' is a tough one because some things clearly 'signify' while others infer things.  Someone told me once if I talk about Woody Allen movies, then it means I don't care about victims of child abuse.  But the Hammer and Sickle really does mean something, as does the cross.  I'm ok with censuring one of them.

1) Is this the "All" argument, or the "Bad Muslims are not really Muslims" argument? My point was that one doesn't avoid saying what motivates them so as not to upset me.

2) Cultures can be really bad too.  (Look at FGM) Do we excuse egregious behaviour because of where one is born?  What about White Supremacists who are from the US deep south?  Not their fault?  One does have a choice, otherwise there wouldn't be so many Muslims whose only response to blasphemy might be a shake of the head.

3) Sure, I'm not saying there aren't women who choose to wear it.  The trick is to have the choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

There appears to be as much diversity in Islam as there is with Christianity. Meaning various sects and offshoot groups. Overall some similar beliefs, but there are differences (I am not versed in those differences)

Absolutely.  And as well as being some of those people who are the hardest on Muslims, Muslims are also some of those who are the hardest done by.  Those Chinese are right bastards (Not all of them!)

59 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Nations we consider allies are doing a lot of bad stuff in the name if Islam.  Saudi Arabia. We are helping them do a genocide in Yemen. And Saudi Arabia is most likely responsible for the oil tanker attacks in the Persian Gulf and area. Iran has NOTHING to gain by blowing up oil tankers.

Yeah, I'm not keen on either of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I doubt any of those incidents are done in the name of Islam. More likely they are done in the name of more power and profit.

This is absolutely correct.

 

59 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Yes they do. They like to be blamed for things for which there is no evidence, so they can note down another time they were "blamed for nothing" .

Can you explain what you are trying to say here??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Except that isn't what you are doing.  You say "I only blame the bad ones" while simultaneously supporting and defending people who lump all Muslims into the group of the "bad ones", and criticizing people who keep pointing out that Muslims cannot be defined by the worst of them. 

No I don't.  As I said earlier, I didn't even read back.  Why would I have anything but no feelings at all for a Muslim (or anyone else) who felt the same as I do about blasphemy, apostasy, etc, etc.  Why would I care?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

As I said earlier, I didn't even read back

So, having no clue what was said or what MH was referring to, you jumped in with this:

"Islam needs no help to look bad.  That's part of the problem with the left's view (except me).  They have blinkers (as with Argus's most recent cartoon) and therefore have to describe legitimate criticism of Islam as Islamophobia because to not do so is to acknowledge it, and they cannot do that.  For some reason they are afraid."

You assumed that whatever was said was "legitimate criticism", because you "didn't read back" and that objections to what was said was therefore illegitimate and should be challenged, all the while declaring yourself unbiased and fairminded.  

Do I have that right?

 

 

Edited by dialamah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...