This week in Islam

[DogOnPorch]

Yup...Islam is the problem as I mentioned. Individual Muslims aside. 

Oskar Schindler was a good Nazi.

Do you know who Oskar Schindler was, dialamah?

[DogOnPorch]

....apparently not...or she isn't saying.

Anyways....dialamah asks us to judge the Nazi Party by the actions of Oskar Schindler rather than Himmler or Goering....to use an analogy most can understand.

 

 

 

Edited November 10, 2018 by DogOnPorch

[dialamah]

55 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

.dialamah asks us to judge the Nazi Party by the actions of Oskar Schindler rather than Himmler or Goering....to use an analogy most can understand.

My message gives Muslims a choice:  They can live peacefully with others, pursue a moderate or even a progressive lifestyle and still worship Allah.  This is supported in the Quran.   

Your message gives them no choice:  They must be murderers if they want to worship Allah successfully; this is the only choice the Quran offers.

Which message do you suppose is safer for Western nations?   Or even for Muslims?

If we are going to use analogies from Nazis and Jews, I would say I'm Oskar Schindler and you are part of Himmler's anti-Jew propaganda machine.

[DogOnPorch]

9 minutes ago, dialamah said:

My message gives Muslims a choice:  They can live peacefully with others, pursue a moderate or even a progressive lifestyle and still worship Allah.  This is supported in the Quran.   

Your message gives them no choice:  They must be murderers if they want to worship Allah successfully; this is the only choice the Quran offers.

Which message do you suppose is safer for Western nations?   Or even for Muslims?

If we are going to use analogies from Nazis and Jews, I would say I'm Oskar Schindler and you are part of Himmler's anti-Jew propaganda machine.

 

You're Oskar Schindler, eh? 

Unfortunately you are not Almighty Allah...who wrote the Quran you defend. This book, as I'm sure you're aware, is filled with examples of "anti-Jew propaganda".

And that's what you defend.

 

[dialamah]

Having recently been accused of being an "apologists" and of working against Muslim reformers, I decided to do a little bit of research to see where my views feel into "apologists" and working against reformers.  I found this blog by Faisal Saeed al Muttar, in which he attempts to define genuine criticism of Islam vs. anti-Muslim bigotry.  He identifies six different groups as follows:

• Muslim Conservatives 
• Muslim Moderates
• Muslim Reformers
• Pseudo-Liberal Apologists
• Genuine Critics of Islam
• Pro-Christian Right Anti-Muslim Groups
• Far-Right Jewish Groups

I did not consider the first three at all; I'm not Muslim so they do not apply.  I am also not far-right, nor Jewish, so my only two choices are the Pseudo-Liberal Apologists and Genuine Critics of Islam.  So, which am I?

It seems I share several characteristics of what he describes as "Genuine Critics of Islam":  

(Genuine critics of Islam) think that there is a connection between some interpretations of the religion and bad or violent behavior. They share many agreements with Muslim Reformers. 

They care about issues such as women’s rights and LGBT rights. They are acutely aware of extremist groups in the Muslim world and around the globe and see a clear link between violence and some interpretations of the fundamentals of Islam. They view Islam itself as a major reason human rights are poorly upheld in most majority-Muslim countries. Most are also very critical of Christianity but are likely to argue that the Enlightenment has had a “buffering” effect on Christianity that Islam has yet to undergo, leaving Islam in need of enlightenment or reformation.

I agree with this; it is the interpretation of Islam that is the primary problem, that Christianity is equally as oppressive/violent, but has been modified through growth of secularism and that Islam needs reforming.  I have posted all of these opinions.  

I have highlighted the one item that I may not entirely agree with:  I think these governments have the same goal (absolute control of the people) as any secular oppressive government, and have the added "benefit" of being able to use religion to support their oppression.  

He also says about genuine critics of Islam:

They tend to differentiate between Islam as a set of ideas and interpretations and Muslims as people. Often, they mostly rely on statistics from organizations such as Pew and Gallup to resist making generalizations about Muslims as a whole.

I do this, often, in these forums.  

_________________________________________________

Here is his description of Pseudo-Liberal apologists:

(They) agree with Moderate Muslims’ argument that terrorist groups such as ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Boko Haram have nothing to do with Islam and are either a result or a creation of Western imperialism. Pseudo-Liberal Apologists tend to agree that Islam is a peaceful religion and that those who speak out against it are motivated by racism, hatred of minorities or the “other,” or hold a neoconservative imperialist agenda and desire to kill all Muslims and steal resources from Muslim-majority countries. They tend to think that the greatest enemy of world peace is Western capitalism, a view they share with many Moderate and Conservative Muslims.

I agree that the political factor is significant in terms of the growth of terrorists groups;  I think I do not clearly state that I also recognize how interpretation of the Quran and certain Hadiths give them permission to pursue violence with God's approval.

"Islam is a peaceful religion" is a difficult one.  I think these are just words, that Islam promotes peace just as much as it promotes violence and that it is the individual who decides which Islam they will follow.  

I do not think that *everyone* who speaks out against Islam is racist, hates minorities or the "other" or even wants to kill Muslims.  I think most people are informed by easy-to-access media and know very little about Islam, quite possibly don't know any Muslims and are understandably concerned due to terrifying media stories, whether fake, semi-true or absolutely true.  So, on this forum, I try to post positive Muslim stories to offset all the negative media. 

At the same time,  I think it's important to call out those who promote the message that Muslims are inherently violent and backward, and that they cannot/will not change.  

I tend to believe that Capitalism is significantly responsible for violence around the world.  It may or may not be the 'greatest threat to World Peace"; I am not sure.

_____________________________________________

Here is how he describes Far-right Anti-Muslim types; I have bolded the attitudes I've seen expressed on this forum and to which I have objected:

(They) believe that there is a cosmic war between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. They tend to view all Muslims as fanatics and terrorists. Some of them consider the prophet of Islam to be the Antichrist and may believe there is a connection between Islam and satanism. They generally hold negative views about other immigrant or minorities too; Ann Coulter is a prominent example of this tendency.

They usually view fundamentalism as the only true form of Islam, going so far as to accuse Muslims who are not fundamentalists of lying or of practicing Taqyia (lying in defense of the faith). Many in this group trade in utterly counterfactual conspiracy theories—for example, that all Muslim Americans want to impose Sharia law or want to convert Europe into “Euro­Arabia.”

They operate on a platform of fearmongering, pressing for agendas that have nothing to do with human rights or secular liberal values but rather with imposing their own theocracies or authoritarian views on the rest of us.

______________________________________

So I would describe myself primarily as a 'Genuine Critic of Islam", with a tendency toward "Pseudo-Liberal Apologists".   Anyone else willing to define themselves against these definitions?  

[Guest]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

 

So I would describe myself primarily as a 'Genuine Critic of Islam", with a tendency toward "Pseudo-Liberal Apologists".   Anyone else willing to define themselves against these definitions?  

There must be a wide range of parameters if we're both to be Genuine Critics of Islam, but hey, who knows?

[DogOnPorch]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

There must be a wide range of parameters if we're both to be Genuine Critics of Islam, but hey, who knows?

 

Who are we to challenge the very word of Almighty Allah?

Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you.

https://quran.com/2/216

Thus the problem. No matter how many 'experts' one hauls-out to justify and fortify what peaceful bits exist in the Quran...the Quran still says what it says in its entirety.

 

[DogOnPorch]

Plus...I should point-out. Most of the peaceful bits in the Quran/Hadiths apply only to Muslims if not only to Muslim men. Women get a lesser deal...

Even after death...

The people say, "O Allah's Apostle! We saw you taking something from your place and then we saw you retreating." The Prophet replied, "I saw Paradise and stretched my hands towards a bunch (of its fruits) and had I taken it, you would have eaten from it as long as the world remains. I also saw the Hell-fire and I had never seen such a horrible sight. I saw that most of the inhabitants were women." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! Why is it so?" The Prophet replied, "Because of their ungratefulness." It was asked whether they are ungrateful to Allah. The Prophet said, "They are ungrateful to their companions of life (husbands) and ungrateful to good deeds. If you are benevolent to one of them throughout the life and if she sees anything (undesirable) in you, she will say, 'I have never had any good from you.' "

http://cmje.usc.edu/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/018-sbt.php#002.018.161

Edited November 11, 2018 by DogOnPorch

[Goddess]

On 11/10/2018 at 11:26 AM, dialamah said:

Your message gives them no choice:  They must be murderers if they want to worship Allah successfully; this is the only choice the Quran offers.

Maybe let all the other Muslims know that Dog's interpretation is incorrect.  The Ahmadiyaa Muslims ( also Kurds, Sufis, Rohingya, etc) are frequently massacred by their fellow for Muslims for not being true Muslims.

On 11/10/2018 at 11:26 AM, dialamah said:

My message gives Muslims a choice:  They can live peacefully with others, pursue a moderate or even a progressive lifestyle and still worship Allah.  This is supported in the Quran.   

Your message gives them no choice:  They must be murderers if they want to worship Allah successfully; this is the only choice the Quran offers.

It seems to me that it's the Koran that offers people the choice.  I have a problem with that.

[dialamah]

32 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It seems to me that it's the Koran that offers people the choice. 

True also.  So what is so objectionable about talking about the good choice, instead of focussing on the bad choice?

[Goddess]

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

True also.  So what is so objectionable about talking about the good choice, instead of focussing on the bad choice?

It's not about focusing on one or the other.  It's the ones making the bad choices that are the ones we have to deal with.  And as long as the Koran offers the choice - there will be ones who choose the bad one.

My frustration (and Dog's too, I suppose) is that the book offers the choice to its followers and presents them both as legitimate by rewarding either choice.

 

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

It's not about focusing on one or the other.  It's the ones making the bad choices that are the ones we have to deal with.  And as long as the Koran offers the choice - there will be ones who choose the bad one.

My frustration (and Dog's too, I suppose) is that the book offers the choice to its followers and presents them both as legitimate by rewarding either choice.

 

 

It's not as if there was a peaceful Muhammad. The example of the Prophet is that he was a warlord who took slaves and executed many prisoners...himself. Rape too...not to mention the underage stuff....even by 7th century standards.

Jesus...quite the opposite.

Mohammad's Companions were no better. Especially Omar who proved to be a good general and able to exploit the use of light-horsemen (and camels) to defeat much heavier armed & armored foes. He and the other Companions conquered an Empire that...let's face it...still exists on a religious level: "The (traditional) Muslim World."

It was also Omar who decided that Jerusalem (freshly defeated in the Siege of 637 AD) was the very place that Muhammad flew to in a dream aboard a winged beast (griffon-like) to receive the Quran from Allah (the furthest mosque). Thus Jerusalem's significance in Islam....a bit of iconoclasm/appropriation...but there it is. Omar allowed a limited number of Jews to return to Jerusalem after the siege under Dhimmi status to help reinforce his claims in return for living in peace. Nice guy...like a mob boss...lol.

In the early days of Islam (Meccan), Big Mo had his followers do the Qibla (pray) towards Jerusalem in an attempt to win over the Jews to his apparent status of Moses Mk II...but they rejected Muhammad leading to today's very Judaism/Islam issues. This being the other Islamic connection to Jerusalem. Muhammad never traveled to Jerusalem physically...though there is some tales of him travelling to some other cities in the region as a child with an uncle who was a merchant. Wishful thinking for the most part...but who knows? He certainly knew the city existed and its importance to the Jews.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Mosque

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar

It was the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini (yes, him) that repaired the Dome of the Rock (the actual site of Big Mo getting the Quran...ex Jewish Temple and Roman garbage dump) from the ruins it had been left-in during Ottoman Times. Took donations from the Muslim World and pocketed the change to give it the first modern gold covering. He wanted to display his family's importance to the world and solidify his claim of being related to Muhammad and the real boss as opposed to those darn rival Hashemites he hated so much.

Sam Clemens had toured the region in the 1860s and found Jerusalem to be nearly deserted...as for the city's significance to Islam once the Jews/Christians didn't control it.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3176/3176-h/3176-h.htm

 

 

[eyeball]

49 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Jesus...quite the opposite.

 

Not when he's in Dad mode, then he makes Big Mo look like a saint.

[GostHacked]

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Not when he's in Dad mode, then he makes Big Mo look like a saint.

Jesus got RIGHT pissed with the money changers and kicked them out of temple.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Not when he's in Dad mode, then he makes Big Mo look like a saint.

Good point, apart from the fact that Dad didn't exist. 

[DogOnPorch]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Not when he's in Dad mode, then he makes Big Mo look like a saint.

Only you would think Muhammad a saint worthy of your worship. 

You do realize Revelations is a myth...right? Flaming swords, etc. Or do you actually believe that BS?

You're free to point-out where Jesus actually went into 'Dad mode'.

[DogOnPorch]

3 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Jesus got RIGHT pissed with the money changers and kicked them out of temple.

 

Oh dear. He got right pissed. Who did he kill in response?

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Jesus got RIGHT pissed with the money changers and kicked them out of temple.

The way I see it is that Jesus was finally seeing the light - that economics cannot be allowed to trump virtue.

Of course the usual suspects probably had a jolly old lol, made some nasty reference to whatever it was that passed for commies back then and promptly nailed the stupid sap to a stick.

Edited November 14, 2018 by eyeball

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Good point, apart from the fact that Dad didn't exist. 

It's the thought that counts.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Only you would think Muhammad a saint worthy of your worship. 

You do realize Revelations is a myth...right? Flaming swords, etc. Or do you actually believe that BS?

No, I'm just fucking with you is all.

I'm not surprised the irony of you asking if people actually buy the religious bullshit they're peddled is lost on you isn't it?

You're free to point-out where Jesus actually went into 'Dad mode'.

When he went back to heaven silly, after rolling the stone... I thought you knew history and shit.

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

No, I'm just fucking with you is all.

I'm not surprised the irony of you asking if people actually buy the religious bullshit they're peddled is lost on you isn't it?

 

 

When he went back to heaven silly, after rolling the stone... I thought you knew history and shit.

 

You're free to believe in 'Heaven'.

[DogOnPorch]

Speaking of our great leader...and his quest for Islamic superiority.

Red China 'slaps down' JT's request that they pay Muslims the proper respect they deserve.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-canada-uighurs-letter-1.4906522

[GostHacked]

On 11/13/2018 at 9:20 PM, DogOnPorch said:

 

Oh dear. He got right pissed. Who did he kill in response?

What do you mean? Did you read 'kicked' as 'killed' ??? 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, GostHacked said:

What do you mean? Did you read 'kicked' as 'killed' ??? 

 

This was your example of Jesus being violent like Muhammad. 

 

[dialamah]

Sunni Muslim leaders reject Wahhabism.

http://maktabah.org/blog/?p=3619&fbclid=IwAR0eCgL5Q8vDMDswEirQg-m-RyMmYkAo9cE8wK-YB-Lu7-3XJ2xs_eZhUto