This week in Islam

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Oh, I'm sorry.  I was rather surprised at the notion.  I thought I'd been missing something.  I'll try to be quicker next time.

I imagine she will be able to dig up a case or two of Western countries killing for blasphemy.  One or two cases will "prove" that Western countries of a couple decades ago are exactly the same as Muslim countries today.

[dialamah]

Love the lack of reading comprehension among the usual suspects here.  I specified certain social issues relating to women's rights and gay rights, and made no claims about blasphemy.   

But of course, pretending that I said killing people for blasphemy was part of Western culture a couple of decades ago displays the complete irrationality of Goddess when it comes to discussing Islam and Muslims.   

[Goddess]

40 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Love the lack of reading comprehension among the usual suspects here.  I specified certain social issues relating to women's rights and gay rights, and made no claims about blasphemy.   

But of course, pretending that I said killing people for blasphemy was part of Western culture a couple of decades ago displays the complete irrationality of Goddess when it comes to discussing Islam and Muslims.   

You specifically denied that Islamic culture is in any way centuries behind:

Quote

Islamic culture is approximately 50 years behind Western culture in terms of what is socially acceptable.

Then you provided 2 examples of your claim, specifically saying that they were just  EXAMPLES of the many other ways Islam is only a few decades behind.

Quote

For example, it was legal to rape your wife until the 1980s, in Canada.  My mother had to get my father's permission to get birth control in the late 50s. 

Quote

Yes, we are certainly more progressive than virtually any Islamic country, not to mention virtually every country in the world, but that progress is measured in decades, not centuries.

I think I comprehended what you were saying just fine.  If you'd like to amend your initial claim, you are, of course, welcome to.

Edited December 21, 2018 by Goddess

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Love the lack of reading comprehension among the usual suspects here.  I specified certain social issues relating to women's rights and gay rights, and made no claims about blasphemy.   

But of course, pretending that I said killing people for blasphemy was part of Western culture a couple of decades ago displays the complete irrationality of Goddess when it comes to discussing Islam and Muslims.   

 

Defender of the Faith

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

(They are using "Imagine" to try and prevent suicides in Japan.  I would have thought it would have the opposite effect)

Anyway, I think the problem with Islam is that it can well see "that as the human race evolves the logic and inherent humanity of secularism will increasingly become apparent and displace religious division, superstition and blind devotion".  It will fight that with ever increasing barbarity.  It's the twenty first century, we have self driving cars, probes on Mars, 5G networks that connect almost everyone on the planet, and two men have just been sentenced to death in Pakistan for blasphemy.  And as the Asia Bibi episode has shown us, much of the enlightened world quakes in its shoes when the prospect of upsetting their own sleeping giant rears its ugly head.  Sure, Islam will eventually go away, but it will leave a bloody mess behind it

To be a secularist doesn't necessarily equate with being an atheist. I was born and raised a Roman Catholic and although I'm not observant I still nominally consider myself to be a Catholic. (Actually, I believe that most Roman Catholics in the West are actually philosophical Protestants, but that's another discussion.) I think religious practice and belief should remain a personal matter. My concern has to do with the broader societal role and protection accorded religion and whether it serves any broadly beneficial purpose. The concept of religiously based "rights and freedoms" is highly problematic when viewed in a rational context. Religion is an institution created by humans and adherence to various strains of it arise from social custom and/or choice rather than out of any kind of biological imperative. In contrast, equality rights related to race, gender, sexual orientation and most forms of disability are grounded in biological or physical characteristics over which one has no choice. Thus, to me, there is no philosophically valid basis on which to justify the notion of religious rights and freedoms. An objective and diverse society should therefore abandon the idea. We should simply allow for freedom of personal conscience and private religious affiliation within the framework of a secular society. I think it would be much healthier to do this than to permit religion a broader and protected role.

[dialamah]

@Goddess I specifically and consciously chose the words "in terms of what is socially acceptable"  because I knew you would do your damndest to twist what I say into the worst possible interpretation.    I used some specific examples of what used to be socially acceptable and no longer is.   

33 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I think I comprehended what you were saying just fine

Then comprehend this:  I admire these things about you - your sense of humor, your determination to help women escape cult-like religions.  I believe you are a very compassionate woman, and that your contribution to what you believe in is extremely important and valuable.

But I am tired of holding my tongue at your continued assumptions about what I believe and your accusations based on your assumptions, your accusations that I lie, your twisting of everything I post to support your assumptions about me.  I offered you and Argus and DoP the respect of removing Islamophobe from my vocabulary and moderating my speech in hopes of having more fruitful discussions, as well a s trying to make clear those areas where we agree. 

No more though:  you shall be getting what you give.

[dialamah]

8 minutes ago, turningrite said:

To be a secularist doesn't necessarily equate with being an atheist. I was born and raised a Roman Catholic and although I'm not observant I still nominally consider myself to be a Catholic. (Actually, I believe that most Roman Catholics in the West are actually philosophical Protestants, but that's another discussion.) I think religious practice and belief should remain a personal matter. My concern has to do with the broader societal role and protection accorded religion and whether it serves any broadly beneficial purpose. The concept of religiously based "rights and freedoms" is highly problematic when viewed in a rational context. Religion is an institution created by humans and adherence to various strains of it arise from social custom and/or choice rather than out of any kind of biological imperative. In contrast, equality rights related to race, gender, sexual orientation and most forms of disability are grounded in biological or physical characteristics over which one has no choice. Thus, to me, there is no philosophically valid basis on which to justify the notion of religious rights and freedoms. An objective and diverse society should therefore abandon the idea. We should simply allow for freedom of personal conscience and private religious affiliation within the framework of a secular society. I think it would be much healthier to do this than to permit religion a broader and protected role.

Well said.  I don't care what people believe, I only care that it not be harmful. 

Nonetheless It is a concern to me that religion can result in coercion of people, especially women and children, easier.  How does a society effectively counter that, while still allowing private adherence to personal belief?  That is a tough balance, imo, not just with Islam but any religion.  

[dialamah]

35 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Defender of the Faith

Islamaphobia.

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

@Goddess I specifically and consciously chose the words "in terms of what is socially acceptable"  because I knew you would do your damndest to twist what I say into the worst possible interpretation.    I used some specific examples of what used to be socially acceptable and no longer is.   

 

First, you denied that Islam is centuries behind and then you provided examples.  

It's not my fault you changed the argument to only what is socially acceptable in order to defend Islam.

 

41 minutes ago, dialamah said:

How does a society effectively counter that, while still allowing private adherence to personal belief? 

A society would have to stop catering to a religion's demands.  It's one thing to have a private belief that you must stop work 5 times a day to pray.  It's another thing to demand prayer rooms and foot washing stations be installed in all public buildings and offices, at the expense of taxpayers.  The rest of society should not have to bend over backwards to accommodate and finance their endless demands.  Same for the seperate school system - there should be no Catholic schools, no Islamic schools.  If the Catholic school system was scrapped, I'm sure there would be some rumblings of discontent but if Islamic schools were scrapped, I'm not so sure Muslims wouldn't wage jihad over it.  And before you tell me I'm an Islamophobe for thinking that, I would remind you that the UK refused to help Asia Bibi because they were afraid of the Muslim backlash that would come.

Edited December 21, 2018 by Goddess

[dialamah]

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It's not my fault you changed the argument to only what is socially acceptable in order to defend Islam.

Liar.  

8 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I'm not so sure Muslims wouldn't wage jihad over

Islamophobe.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

To be a secularist doesn't necessarily equate with being an atheist. I was born and raised a Roman Catholic and although I'm not observant I still nominally consider myself to be a Catholic. (Actually, I believe that most Roman Catholics in the West are actually philosophical Protestants, but that's another discussion.) I think religious practice and belief should remain a personal matter. My concern has to do with the broader societal role and protection accorded religion and whether it serves any broadly beneficial purpose. The concept of religiously based "rights and freedoms" is highly problematic when viewed in a rational context. Religion is an institution created by humans and adherence to various strains of it arise from social custom and/or choice rather than out of any kind of biological imperative. In contrast, equality rights related to race, gender, sexual orientation and most forms of disability are grounded in biological or physical characteristics over which one has no choice. Thus, to me, there is no philosophically valid basis on which to justify the notion of religious rights and freedoms. An objective and diverse society should therefore abandon the idea. We should simply allow for freedom of personal conscience and private religious affiliation within the framework of a secular society. I think it would be much healthier to do this than to permit religion a broader and protected role.

Absolutely.  No argument from me.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that religious freedom is the right to believe what one wants, and worship whomever one wants, and that's that.  Follow all the rules otherwise.  There are varying degrees of accommodation that various people think are appropriate but I would probably be against most of them. 

[Goddess]

44 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Liar.  

Islamophobe.

Ahhhhhhh, it's a full-on jihad against an unbeliever.  Haha, OK.

[dialamah]

15 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Ahhhhhhh, it's a full-on jihad against an unbeliever.  Haha, OK.

You started it, and slapped my hand away every truce I attempted.  No doubt you thought lashing out in hate and fear should be accommodated because you're such a good, white Canadian Christian.

[Argus]

A total of thirteen of dialamah's favorite people have now been arrested for attacking a pair of Scandinavian hikers. The two women were dragged out of their tents, and their heads hacked off with knives while the gentle, tolerant, kindly, and of course, totally moderate Muslim men chanted that God was great, and took pictures and videos. Then they posted them on the internet and sent them to one of the girls' mothers. Such brave warriors of Islam! Unfortunately, they were arrested as they were attempting to flee the country, probably to emigrate to Europe or Canada where they would be warmly welcomed by dialamah and her ilk.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6519527/ISIS-fanatics-sent-video-showing-Scandinavian-tourist-beheaded-friends.html

Edited December 22, 2018 by Argus

[dialamah]

My favorite people are those who aren't bigots, full of hate and fear - regardless of color or creed.  My least favorite people are those who spew hatred, whether its a Palestinian schoolteacher, an Imam in New York or a stupid bunch of white Canadians on an internet forum.

I blame people like you, Argus, Goddess and DoP, along with people like Osama bin Laden, al Baghadi, Shekau, who spread lies and nurture hatred for "the other".  You are only different in degree, not agenda or motivation.

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

My favorite people are those who aren't bigots....a stupid bunch of white Canadians on an internet forum.

 

[eyeball]

On 12/13/2018 at 9:31 AM, Goddess said:

I'm sure Dia would allow women to take whatever precautions they feel are necessary to protect themselves from rape by men.  I'm sure she would allow women to be aware of the signs that a man could be dangerous - the way he dresses, the way he acts, the things he says.  I'm sure she allows that women who take precautions and try to be aware of their surroundings do not hate ALL men.

But her standards are different for how we approach Muslim extremism.  We are to automatically assume (not just assume but to actually believe) that ALL Muslims would never be extreme in their beliefs.  We are racist Islamophobes or xenophobes if we want to take reasonable precautions or are aware that certain types of Muslim dress, actions and speech would indicate a higher likelihood of extremism and danger. 

The only automatic assumption on display here is one that's predicated on a stupid belief that all Muslims are required to be extreme due to instructions written in a book from the 6th century. 

Quote

 

She also does not allow that taking precautions (either as a country or an individuals) and being aware does not mean that a person hates ALL Muslims.

 

It'll be a long time before I allow myself to believe you're capable of living up to that sentimental qualifier, your automatic assumptions are just to strong.  Your assumptions are what you need to take precautions against.  It's one thing to have a belief but its another thing entirely when the belief has you. Get a grip.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, dialamah said:

I blame people like you, Argus, Goddess and DoP, along with people like Osama bin Laden, al Baghadi, Shekau, who spread lies and nurture hatred for "the other".  You are only different in degree, not agenda or motivation.

In another thread you agreed with bcsapper we are headed for hard times with weakling leaders afraid to do what needs to be done.
The reason for that is you, and people like you; spineless, ignorant and shrill in your desperation that we keep smiling and be as inoffensive as possible as the boat goes onto the rocks rather than do anything to prevent it. You will continue to fight to ensure every policy is as inoffensive as possible and ignores the needs and realities of our country and society Then you'll snivel when things start falling apart and look for others to blame. But the blame will be on you, not on those who tried to turn the ship before it ran aground. If you had a family motto it would be "Just keep smiling at them and maybe they won't hurt us!"

 

[Argus]

3 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

It takes a devoted neomarxist idiot to blame 'white people on an internet forum' for Muslim terrorism and equate them with Osama bin Laden.

 

Edited December 22, 2018 by Argus

[dialamah]

@Argus.  Hate is hate.  Your hatred and demeaning of Muslims is no more acceptable than any random Muslim person's hatred and demeaning of Westerners.  What motivates them and you, as well as killers like bin Laden, is hatred.  Your hatred is not more acceptable just because you haven't killed any Muslims.  

 

Edited December 22, 2018 by dialamah

[dialamah]

@Argus, @Goddess

 

[dialamah]

46 minutes ago, Argus said:

In another thread you agreed with bcsapper we are headed for hard times with weakling leaders afraid to do what needs to be done.
The reason for that is you, and people like you; spineless, ignorant and shrill in your desperation that we keep smiling and be as inoffensive as possible as the boat goes onto the rocks rather than do anything to prevent it. You will continue to fight to ensure every policy is as inoffensive as possible and ignores the needs and realities of our country and society Then you'll snivel when things start falling apart and look for others to blame. But the blame will be on you, not on those who tried to turn the ship before it ran aground. If you had a family motto it would be "Just keep smiling at them and maybe they won't hurt us!"

 

The reason is stupidity like yours:  "Let's not do any fucking thing about global warming because my six-figure income might drop a few dollars."  "Let's not help anyone less fortunate because my six figure income might drop a few dollars."  "I am going spread hate and lies, because hatred and lies is so darn effective at promoting peace and prosperity."

You are as stupid as any Islamic extremist.

Edited to add:.  Spineless people embrace hatred and spread lies.   Like you do.

Edited December 22, 2018 by dialamah

[Argus]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

The reason is stupidity like yours: 

I think your problem is your low level of intelligence renders you incapable of understand my positions. You read what I wrote, and then your ignorant ideological beliefs translate that into the stupid simplistic crap you parrot back below.

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

"Let's not do any fucking thing about global warming because my six-figure income might drop a few dollars." 

I'd love to do something about global warming if someone could show how. I simply don't buy the idiotic argument we ought to spend tens of billions of dollars and damage our economy in order to ever so slightly lower our emissions while countries like China are massively increasing theirs. Thatg's basic arithmetic, a subject you appear to have failed in school - presuming you ever went to a school.

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

"Let's not help anyone less fortunate because my six figure income might drop a few dollars." 

Never been my position either, just your simpleton's understanding of it. My own belief is we should do our best to eliminate poverty and give the poor opportunities, not just hand them cash and pat them on the head.

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

"I am going spread hate and lies, because hatred and lies is so darn effective at promoting peace and prosperity."

I don't lie about things. I just don't hide them like you do. I make judgements based on demonstrated behaviour, and I don't care what motivates that behaviour or what colour someone is. You're so frantically politically correct, however, you can't bear the thought of anyone condemning someone who might have 'brown' skin, so you make up excuses for them.

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Edited to add:.  Spineless people embrace hatred and spread lies.   Like you do.

Yeah, okay.

Senator Argus: "The Huns are attacking our villages and slaughtering people! We must attack them!"
Senator Dia: "Not so fast! Most Huns are wonderful and kindly people with a lovely culture of peace and tolerence! Now if you have proof that a particular Hun commited a crime then of course you can arrest them! But we must not blame all Huns for the vioelence of a tiny, tiny few!"

Senator Argus: "We need to build up the army to deal with the growing menace of the Huns!"
Senator Dia: "No, No! That would alarm our neighbours and cause offense! The Huns will be nice to us if we're nice to them! Besides, we need to spend money on improving the lifestyles of the poor!"

Senator Argus: "The Hun scouts are already in Rome. We need to kill them and close the gates!"
Senator Dia: "Why you horrible bigot you! Wanting to target the poor Huns! You have no proof these Huns are going to attack us! You're just a xenophobe! Leave them alone! All we need to do is respect them and they'll respect us back!"

Senator Dia: "Hey, why is Rome burning! Damn those right wing military people for not protecting us!"

[scribblet]

In case there is any doubt about the ongoing Muslim rape gangs, this is from 2018

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/grooming-gangs-rotherham-suspects-victims-girls-rape-uk-nca-prosecutions-a8609511.html

 

[Argus]

Iran rejects changing the law to ban girls under 13 from marrying.

According to a member of the Legal and Judicial commission, Yahya Kamalpour, the motion was rejected after Grand Ayatollahs and sources of emulation" vehemently opposed it.

Without referring to a time frame, Ms. Seyavoshi announced that more than 300 girls under nine, and between 30,000 to 40,000 girls under 13-14 years old marry in Iran.

Earlier on December 4, a prominent member of the Islamic Republic's Cultural and Social Council for Women had defended child marriage, arguing it protects girls from a life of prostitution and illegal abortions.

Rohafza’s comments reflect the position of the conservative clerical establishment toward child marriage. Insisting that Prophet Muhammad is the perfect example for all Muslims, they note that he married a six-year-old bride, Aisha, with whom he consummated the marriage when she was only nine years old

https://en.radiofarda.com/a/iran-parliament-rejects-ban-on-marriage-of-underage-girls/29673527.html