Jump to content

This week in Islam


kimmy

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

What kind of logic is this? So because Iran did NOT attack the tankers they will benefit from it?

I didn't say they did not.

yes, they can. They're wicked. They'll make the best of anything to make others look bad and to make Iran look innocent and responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Marocc said:

I didn't say they did not.

yes, they can. They're wicked. They'll make the best of anything to make others look bad and to make Iran look innocent and responsible.

When you can make a more coherent post I'll respond then. No idea what you are trying to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I think he's saying whether they did it or not, they'll say they did not and point fingers.  Kinda like any country.

The benefit they have by NOT attacking is to not have their nation annihilated by the USA. Which the USA is simply looking for any reason to blow Iran up. Dragging down the whole M.E into more of a quagmire which allows certain members to say ' look islam is bad' while completely ignoring the external factors that contribute to this problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

The benefit they have by NOT attacking is to not have their nation annihilated by the USA. Which the USA is simply looking for any reason to blow Iran up. Dragging down the whole M.E into more of a quagmire which allows certain members to say ' look islam is bad' while completely ignoring the external factors that contribute to this problem.

USA can't really do anything. And they won't. Except by isolating Ira economically but that's been going on for some time. Besides the problem with Iran is not an occasional provocation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Marocc said:

USA can't really do anything. And they won't. Except by isolating Ira economically but that's been going on for some time. Besides the problem with Iran is not an occasional provocation.

DO tell how many nations Iran has invaded over the past 20 years  compared to the number of nations the USA has taken down during the same time frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GostHacked said:

DO tell how many nations Iran has invaded over the past 20 years  compared to the number of nations the USA has taken down during the same time frame.

Are you bragging for USA? :wacko:

Do you know how much those wars cost USA and that the debt is now well over 20 trillion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, condemn them.

Yet the only meaningful condemnation that could lead to reformation should come from within Islam itself. But if the leadership of Islam has been taken over by these apostates, that could take centuries, if it happens at all. Hence the inclination among many, they must be removed from leadership, their authority must be removed. There are very few ways to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, GostHacked said:

DO tell how many nations Iran has invaded over the past 20 years  compared to the number of nations the USA has taken down during the same time frame.

Iran is accused of sponsoring terrorist groups. Nation invasion is old-school war.

Also I think the main issue with the ME is entirely a chess-board for superpowers to play around in, and ME countries are caught in the middle. The US might never invade Iran but we all know what the meddling is all about. Any US aggression toward Iran is a veiled attempt at casting hurt on China and the USSR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dialamah said:

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?

 

 

What can I say?  Do you want me to post a certain way, or can I choose how?  There was nothing in my post that needed references.  It was all with regard to the first sentence.

Challenge it if you want. Ignore it if you want.  It doesn't matter to me.

You certainly have the right to post however you want.  I wouldn't presume to question you.

Edit> Just out of curiosity, I looked back to see what the fuss was about. (I didn't realize it was only one page. That would appear lazy, I admit, but I work for a living) My post stands as is.  I couldn't see what was said that would change any of it, if indeed I had posted it with regard to a comment referring to the previous page. 

If I missed one item in ten then I wouldn't worry about that, but if I missed nine in ten I wouldn't mind them being pointed out to me.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Does the religion cause harm ?  Yes.  The difference is that nobody is starting a thread called "This Week in Alabama".  Or "Black Folks This Week".  The latter example could easily be supported but for some reason people recoil from blaming race for bad behaviour vs religion.

2) People who support scapegoating would be more likely to ban Islam.  They are now banning religious 'garb' in a ham-fisted attempt to appease bigots IMO.

Because nobody gets to choose their race.  They can, however, choose their religion.  Religion is a choice.  Always.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, bcsapper said:

No I didn't. 

Yes you most certainly did.

You can think that human beings are not influenced by their religion if you want, but you would be fairly lonely.

Cool, but it's got fuck all to do with thinking a religion and a people are one and the same thing. Islam isn't a race or haven't you heard?

'm only interested in those you would kill.

It's not like the right wing is a race or something.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes you most certainly did.

No I didn't.  I don't remember what we are talking about, but if I already told you once that I didn't, then I most certainly didn't.

 

Cool, but it's got fuck all to do with thinking a religion and a people are one and the same thing. Islam isn't a race or haven't you heard?

Is this some kind of sophistry to excuse the people who do bad things because of Islam, all the while excusing Islam because some people do bad things for it? 

I know Islam isn't a race.  Obviously, that's why the whole racism thing is BS.

 

It's not like the right wing is a race or something.

Neither is Islam.  I can't imagine wanting to kill them though.

 

 

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, bcsapper said:

1) Is this the "All" argument, or the "Bad Muslims are not really Muslims" argument?

2) My point was that one doesn't avoid saying what motivates them so as not to upset me.

3) 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.

1) It's exactly what I said.  People don't think whiteness makes white supremacists go wrong.  They do think that about Muslims.

2) White supremacists aren't motivated by, driven by their whiteness.  It's a completely different thing.

3) Maybe but the point is that YOU said you have a choice with your culture.  I suppose you kind of do.  We don't excuse egregious behaviour, no.  FGM and White Supremacist lynching are equally not accepted.  The point is still that nobody has started a thread about white people being fundamentally flawed and deficient but we have this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Goddess said:

Because nobody gets to choose their race.  They can, however, choose their religion.  Religion is a choice.  Always.

You are born into a culture and I would say shaking that off is only marginally easier than changing your skin culture.  Your every post proves that.  You chose your religion so you automatically think everybody on earth is free to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

 But if the leadership of Islam has been taken over by these apostates, that could take centuries, if it happens at all.  

  There's no Muslim 'pope'.  Like decentralized religions, you will have regional influences.  It will take a long time to reform religions, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

  There's no Muslim 'pope'.  Like decentralized religions, you will have regional influences.  It will take a long time to reform religions, yes.

No singular pope, but a cabal of like-minded men. For Shiites, it is the Ayatollah.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) It's exactly what I said.  People don't think whiteness makes white supremacists go wrong.  They do think that about Muslims.

2) White supremacists aren't motivated by, driven by their whiteness.  It's a completely different thing.

3) Maybe but the point is that YOU said you have a choice with your culture.  I suppose you kind of do.  We don't excuse egregious behaviour, no.  FGM and White Supremacist lynching are equally not accepted.  The point is still that nobody has started a thread about white people being fundamentally flawed and deficient but we have this thread.

1) It's not the whiteness that makes them go wrong.  It's their interpretation of what their whiteness means in relation to non-whites (And whites whose views differ) that does the trick.  Same with Muslims.

2) Okay.  Muslims are motivated by their religion, and white supremacists are motivated by something (not their colour.  Their intent to promote their colour above all else?).  Some Muslims end up being like the white me, and some end up being like the white supremacists. 

3) The choice is not with the culture.  The choice is whether of not to adhere to the nasty parts of the culture.  Everyone has that choice. 

If this thread tells lies, I'm sure you'll point them out.  If it tells the truth, then that's a very good thing.  If you want to start a thread about how awful we all are, go ahead, but it comes up in pretty much every thread anyway.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You are born into a culture and I would say shaking that off is only marginally easier than changing your skin culture.  Your every post proves that.  You chose your religion so you automatically think everybody on earth is free to.

Man, any religion that forces you to choose it must be the shits, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2019 at 8:44 AM, Rue said:

I get your argument. You are trying to defend free speech and religion. I get that. I also know you get that condonation through silence of extremist views can enable them to grow and spread and eventually be acted out. I have read enough of your posts to know you see the difficulty in balancing the two and we all do.

Its a hard one BC, protecting basic democratic fundamental freedoms without them being used as trojan horses to slip in extremist views to incite and recruit extremists.

I think BC myself, I have concerns with politicians who pander to extremists in ethnic communities to get their vote. I think Trudeau has done that repeatedly.

Some argue the Conservatives do it with right wing extremists.

To be balanced I will say politicians in general will pander for ethnic votes and not be opposed to using extremists in these communities to do so.

 

 

I'm sorry Rue, I missed this.  I believe my point was that one's views are one's views, and no-one has the right to force anyone to change them.  (Try and talk them into it, sure)

Even if their views mark them as a complete arsehole, all they are until they act upon them is just that.  And being a complete arsehole is not against the law, nor should it be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

No singular pope, but a cabal of like-minded men. For Shiites, it is the Ayatollah.

They're not like-minded.

Islam doesn't need a reform and terrorism is not the problem of real religious leaders.

Islamic countries are doing a lot to prevent terrorism - only, some of them have got their own terrorist organizations; like Iran has Hezbollah. They condemn and act against terrorism that doesn't suit their interests.

Changing this wouldn't be a change "from within Islam" or from Muslims. It would be a political change with no effect to Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Changing this wouldn't be a change "from within Islam" or from Muslims. It would be a political change with no effect to Islam.

But the Ayatollah is above the president. There is no politics in Islam, except Islam.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Iran is accused of sponsoring terrorist groups. Nation invasion is old-school war.

Also I think the main issue with the ME is entirely a chess-board for superpowers to play around in, and ME countries are caught in the middle. The US might never invade Iran but we all know what the meddling is all about. Any US aggression toward Iran is a veiled attempt at casting hurt on China and the USSR.

The main issue in the Middle East is the cold war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

But the Ayatollah is above the president. There is no politics in Islam, except Islam.

That is completely false.

ayatollah is only one authority for the Shias. Shias are only 10% of Muslims. Part of the other 90% don't even consider Shias as Muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bcsapper said:

1) It's not the whiteness that makes them go wrong.  It's their interpretation of what their whiteness means in relation to non-whites (And whites whose views differ) that does the trick.  Same with Muslims.

2) The choice is not with the culture.  The choice is whether of not to adhere to the nasty parts of the culture.  Everyone has that choice. 

3) If this thread tells lies, I'm sure you'll point them out.  If it tells the truth, then that's a very good thing.  If you want to start a thread about how awful we all are, go ahead, but it comes up in pretty much every thread anyway.

1) Ok.  How often do you see threads on here with thousands of posts blaming whiteness.

2) It's easy for you to say others should change their culture.

3) The point is that this thread exists, and exists for scapegoating.

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...