This week in Islam

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I'm sure you could find evil acts by Christian groups, just as you can find them oppressing women. 

 

 

The idea was to separate church and state in the West. Not so much with Islam where the mosque is the state ultimately.

[dialamah]

23 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

With regard to ISIS, they are the worst Islam has to offer. 

Yes, they are a terror group and their methods of instilling terror are especially horrific.  

Quote

My point was that they are worse than the worst any other religion has to offer. 

I think it's arguable whether or not Islam "offers" ISIS.  They can certainly claim Islam as their rational for their political desire to have an Islamic State, but they are not supported by the majority of the followers of Islam.  To me, personally, considering ISIS a representative example of what Islam offers is about the same as considering pedophiliac priests as representative of what Catholicism offers.  

Quote

Because they expressely wanted to be.

Yes, and they are succeeding - you'd think all of us would be smart enough not to paint all Muslims with the ISIS brush, but as so many people amply demonstrate, their strategy is working.  Unfortunately, it's not making Westerners any safer - the more Muslims are marginalized, accused and attacked, the more likely it is their unstable members will act out.  Kinda like most White Supremacists aren't actually violent, but they do have their folks who think it's up to them to "do something" for the White folks - so off they go to their target with their guns.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

More than half the Islamic holy books concern themselves about how Muslims should treat/deal with undelivered (and little of it is kind). I don't think they got THAT from the bible.

1. The passages you refer to deal with "wartime" behavior.

2.  The wartime practices described in the Koran were also practiced by every other group, before and after them, during "wartime" - including modern Western countries.

3.  There are many passages in the Koran detailing how to treat others during "peacetime", which is much different than the "wartime" behavior.

4.  In the OT, God's chosen people, Isrealites or whatever they were called, while they were small in number, moved on when they were threatened by other groups.  Once they got some power, they began fighting back and God encouraged them to murder, rape and enslave other peoples.

5.  When Mohammed initially began his "ministry", he moved on when threatened by other groups.  Once they got some power, they began fighting back, and Allah encouraged them to murder and enslave other people (seems to me rape wasn't one of the things encouraged by Allah).

6.  Just because you and others like to lean on the New Testament to "prove" how different Christianity is (and always will be) from Islam, the truth is that as soon as Christianity gains power, it reverts to it's roots - and looks almost exactly like Islam does today - and in some places in the world, it does still look almost exactly like Islam.

7.  Have to say this - I would be happier in a world where there was no religion - all religions think they have "God" on their side, giving them leave to impose cruel, inhuman and barbaric practices "for the good" of the individual or group.  In the West, it's only progressive secularism that keeps them at bay; just consider the way the religious right is chipping away at women/gay rights in the States.   In Canada, the religious right is boasting about how they now have 45 MPs who'll vote for pro-life policies.  If anyone thinks they'd stop there if they succeeded, they'd be very surprised to see how far they'll push.

8.  That doesn't mean all Christians are "evil", or support what the religious right is doing.  

9.  Conservative Muslims are the natural allies of the religious right, so lucky for us the religious right is anti-Muslim.   People who worry about Muslims imposing Sharia law should pay as much attention to the fundamentalist Christians who would love to make us into a "Christian" nation and eliminating or reducing many of the progressive policies we've implemented over the last few decades.

Edited December 1, 2019 by dialamah

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Right To Left said:

Naturally, you don't consider European colonization of almost the entire world (joined and superseded by the American Empire) to be a barrage of Christian violence throughout the world, even though religion was one of the justifications...along with inherent racial supremacy over "backward" people who can't or don't deserve to rule themselves.

Why don't you try asking me what I think of something before pompously telling me what I think and don't think?

1 hour ago, Right To Left said:

Islamophobia would be more credible if not for the many religious and ethnic non-Arab minorities who lived in their own villages mostly undisturbed until the 20th century. And what really blows apart your case is that when the US and Euro colonialists choose sides in the Arab and Muslim realms, they pick the most extreme theocrats who also believe in strict ruling hierarchies. 

I'm not sure what you are even talking about, or what you think about my case. Let me give you an astonishing clue. This is the year 2019. I am wholly uninterested with your desire to justify the religious fanaticism in the Muslim world by harking back to actions taken before my birth.

However, I am interested in how western liberals who decry the slightest hint of prejudice against women or gays as anathema worthy of destroying the person who evidences that prejudice can justify in their own minds their wholehearted embrace of Islam and ferocious defense of it any time it is criticized.

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Marocc said:

Yes. It isn't really violence inciting you. Not physical violence.

Sometimes when you react to things strongly you should ask yourself, who is profiting of my reaction? Much of the money made in the world is made out of reactions. Control is also seized through reactions.

Humans have emotions. We react to tragedy. We react to violence. It isn't all some vast conspiracy of people trying to provoke those reactions. And that I might react with disgust and contempt towards something like, say Nazi death camps, does not suggest I should then ignore it and uncritically refuse to challenge Nazism.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Right To Left said:

Note that with all the talk of a Muslim guy with a beard going on a knifing attack on London Bridge, apparently he couldn't get a real suicide vest either! And yet this is story was overrunning the MSM while other shootings and knife attacks in England have gone without more than a notice in local media....and why is that?

Because, I believe, the West is concerned with violent Islam as Muslims move into the West in ever greater numbers. And because the potential is there among Muslim terrorists for much, much more than just the occasional stabbing. I mean your violent street punk might sometimes stab someone, but he's not hoping to progress to biological or chemical weapons he can gleefully dispense into malls and arenas. He's not dreaming of getting his hand on nukes so he can blow up London or New York. He doesn't even have any aspire to fly airplanes into buildings or poison water supplies.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Marocc said:

(ignoring the non-existent statistics presented) You are aware that people of various ethnic backgrounds are citizens of USA, right? White men didn't just evolve out of apes there.

And this is relevant how? Are you questioning the black crime rate vs white crime rate in the US?

[Argus]

29 minutes ago, dialamah said:

1. The passages you refer to deal with "wartime" behavior.

2.  The wartime practices described in the Koran were also practiced by every other group, before and after them, during "wartime" - including modern Western countries.

3.  There are many passages in the Koran detailing how to treat others during "peacetime", which is much different than the "wartime" behavior.

It's not as simple or simplistic as that. The Islamic religion is based upon the Koran, the Hadiths and the Sira. These contain the doctrine of Islam. And unlike the bible, they are mainly focused on how to deal with unbelievers. 64% of the korean is about how to deal with unbelievers, 37% of Hadiths, and 81% of the Sira are about unbelievers and how to deal with them. And little of that is kindly. And most of the passages which are kindly are taken from Muhamed's time in Mecca and are overruled by later passages of his time in Medina.

https://www.politicalislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/PDF-Look-Inside/The_Hadith_look_inside.pdf

29 minutes ago, dialamah said:

6.  Just because you and others like to lean on the New Testament to "prove" how different Christianity

It isn't a matter of 'leaning' on the new testament. The new testament is about Christ, and it is thus the main focus of Christianity. The old testament is the Jewish bible and precedes Jesus' coming. More importantly for our purpose, no mainstream Christian church anywhere in the world teaches the Old Testament as literal or suggest anyone anywhere carry out the violence or behaviour from it. And since most Christian churches are hierarchical you won't find local parish priests doing it either.

But Islam never had a reformation period, and it is not hierarchical, which leaves individual immans to say pretty much what they want. So you have imams and mullahs all over the world preaching the worst from these books. And given the Koran is considered to be the literal word of God Muslims take that seriously.

 

 

 

[Argus]

Well, more irony. From one of the fatal victims of the stabbing spree.

 

 

 

 

[Marocc]

16 hours ago, Argus said:

The Islamic religion is based upon the Koran, the Hadiths and the Sira.

Not the Sira. The Quran and the Hadith.

16 hours ago, Argus said:

And unlike the bible, they are mainly focused on how to deal with unbelievers

COULD there be anything wrong with saying that without reading them?

16 hours ago, Argus said:

And most of the passages which are kindly are taken from Muhamed's time in Mecca and are overruled by later passages of his time in Medina.

Nothing in the Quran is abrogated.

[Marocc]

19 hours ago, Argus said:

I don't like country music so yeah.

But aside from the rare outrage like that, the majority of violence in the US takes place in Black districts with Black victims and Black assailants. And it grossly distorts US crime statistics.

You said this and I took it to mean you refer to US crime statistics showing a greater number than it should, but maybe I misunderstood you and you merely meant they affect the statistics significantly.

17 hours ago, Argus said:

And this is relevant how? Are you questioning the black crime rate vs white crime rate in the US?

Yes I am of course.

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, Marocc said:

 

Nothing in the Quran is abrogated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)

Says you.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Marocc said:

Not the Sira. The Quran and the Hadith.

COULD there be anything wrong with saying that without reading them?

Others who appear to not be entirely biased have said that. Are you denying it?

Quote

Nothing in the Quran is abrogated.

Untrue.

Edited December 2, 2019 by Argus

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Marocc said:

You said this and I took it to mean you refer to US crime statistics showing a greater number than it should, but maybe I misunderstood you and you merely meant they affect the statistics significantly.

Yes I am of course.

Why?

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43

[Marocc]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Others who appear to not be entirely biased have said that. Are you denying it?

Yes.

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Untrue.

Why do you think so? Are you qualified to say so?

[Marocc]

7 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)

Says you.

Wikipedia —

[DogOnPorch]

53 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Wikipedia —

 

And you're not even an authority to argue an argument from authority.

[Marocc]

On 12/1/2019 at 10:07 PM, Argus said:

Humans have emotions. We react to tragedy. We react to violence. It isn't all some vast conspiracy of people trying to provoke those reactions. And that I might react with disgust and contempt towards something like, say Nazi death camps, does not suggest I should then ignore it and uncritically refuse to challenge Nazism.

That is irrelevant. You're making exaggarations to avoid my point. There are people who will take advantage of your "natural" reactions. Also, your reactions can be changed in time on purpose. Do you think all your reactions are basically almost like a 'biological' phenomenon?

[Right To Left]

On 12/1/2019 at 3:11 PM, Argus said:

Because, I believe, the West is concerned with violent Islam as Muslims move into the West in ever greater numbers. And because the potential is there among Muslim terrorists for much, much more than just the occasional stabbing. I mean your violent street punk might sometimes stab someone, but he's not hoping to progress to biological or chemical weapons he can gleefully dispense into malls and arenas. He's not dreaming of getting his hand on nukes so he can blow up London or New York. He doesn't even have any aspire to fly airplanes into buildings or poison water supplies.

Well look what England has This Week in Christendom: a 12 year old boy died after being run over by a car that mounted the curb in Essex and also hit several children and adults in the incident causing a range of injuries. CAR CRASH PROBE Man, 51, arrested on suspicion of murder after boy, 12, killed in hit-and-run crash outside his school

It seems the driver's name is Terry Glover, and he appears to be white...so this story is in the back pages and whether or not it was deliberate vehicular manslaughter, being white and not being Muslim means no talk of terrorist attack and no international story repeated for three days on every newscast! 

[Right To Left]

On 12/1/2019 at 3:05 PM, Argus said:

Why don't you try asking me what I think of something before pompously telling me what I think and don't think?.

Okay,  is colonialism, especially settler colonialism a crime caused by an ideology of Christian supremacy? 

Quote

I'm not sure what you are even talking about, or what you think about my case. Let me give you an astonishing clue. This is the year 2019. I am wholly uninterested with your desire to justify the religious fanaticism in the Muslim world by harking back to actions taken before my birth.

Well, whenever I want to understand a major conflict, I want to know the history and contributing circumstances, including outside interference.

Quote

However, I am interested in how western liberals who decry the slightest hint of prejudice against women or gays as anathema worthy of destroying the person who evidences that prejudice can justify in their own minds their wholehearted embrace of Islam and ferocious defense of it any time it is criticized.

And western conservatives share the same contempt for women and gays, but think pointing fingers at Muslim conservatives deflects attention and makes them look better.

[Right To Left]

On 12/1/2019 at 2:50 PM, dialamah said:

1. The passages you refer to deal with "wartime" behavior.

2.  The wartime practices described in the Koran were also practiced by every other group, before and after them, during "wartime" - including modern Western countries.

3.  There are many passages in the Koran detailing how to treat others during "peacetime", which is much different than the "wartime" behavior.

4.  In the OT, God's chosen people, Isrealites or whatever they were called, while they were small in number, moved on when they were threatened by other groups.  Once they got some power, they began fighting back and God encouraged them to murder, rape and enslave other peoples.

5.  When Mohammed initially began his "ministry", he moved on when threatened by other groups.  Once they got some power, they began fighting back, and Allah encouraged them to murder and enslave other people (seems to me rape wasn't one of the things encouraged by Allah).

6.  Just because you and others like to lean on the New Testament to "prove" how different Christianity is (and always will be) from Islam, the truth is that as soon as Christianity gains power, it reverts to it's roots - and looks almost exactly like Islam does today - and in some places in the world, it does still look almost exactly like Islam.

7.  Have to say this - I would be happier in a world where there was no religion - all religions think they have "God" on their side, giving them leave to impose cruel, inhuman and barbaric practices "for the good" of the individual or group.  In the West, it's only progressive secularism that keeps them at bay; just consider the way the religious right is chipping away at women/gay rights in the States.   In Canada, the religious right is boasting about how they now have 45 MPs who'll vote for pro-life policies.  If anyone thinks they'd stop there if they succeeded, they'd be very surprised to see how far they'll push.

8.  That doesn't mean all Christians are "evil", or support what the religious right is doing.  

9.  Conservative Muslims are the natural allies of the religious right, so lucky for us the religious right is anti-Muslim.   People who worry about Muslims imposing Sharia law should pay as much attention to the fundamentalist Christians who would love to make us into a "Christian" nation and eliminating or reducing many of the progressive policies we've implemented over the last few decades.

#7 We seem to be following all of America's bad examples, so I would suspect we're about 20 years behind the US mess as it's reported now that 80% of counties across America do not have one single abortion clinic. This is a process of denying reproductive choice first to women in the lower end of the economic spectrum, who cannot take time off and travel just to have an abortion!  It has also been reported that Kentucky has passed a law requiring doctors to implant ectopic pregnancies within the womb of the pregnant woman, and if he fails to do so or the woman refuses both can be charged with murder if the embryo/fetus dies.....what a world!  Taking this with the zealous fundie District Attorneys investigating women who have miscarriages and threaten murder charges, it's pretty obvious the abortion issue never had anything to do with "life'. It's all about control. 

About #9, the religious right may be anti-Muslim, but the CIA and State Dept. like the English colonialists before them certainly were not! They invariably sided with the most extreme, reactionary Salafist Muslim sects like the Wahabbi's. They first went from being an isolated cult to spiritual leaders when the Saud formed a partnership with them and put them in charge of religious education. And because the Saudis were patriarchal, autocratic fascists with no funny notions about democracy or Arab nationalism, the British and then the Americans did what they could to help Saud's forces take over the Arabian Peninsula. Maybe it was so that future generations of Anglo/American patriarchal religious conservatives could point fingers at someone else and condemn them for being extremists! 

And the British patronage of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was pretty much the same story. Whenever clowns like Robert Spencer yammer on about "no Islamic reformation," he needs to be confronted by a real historian who can point out the Muslim World was much more reformed until the Americans and Brits needed a way to free up large oil deposits that were just sitting there underground......not doing anything!

[Marocc]

6 hours ago, Right To Left said:

owns like Robert Spencer yammer on about "no Islamic reformation," he needs to be confronted by a real historian who can point out the Muslim World was much more reformed until

Reformed how and since when?

6 hours ago, Right To Left said:

Salafist Muslim sects like the Wahabbi's.

Such a sect doesn't exist.

[dialamah]

32 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Such a sect doesn't exist.

Adherents of Wahabism prefer to be called Salafists; perhaps that's a term you will accept for the ultra-conservative, "purist" version of Islam as taught by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

Anyway, denying that there is a widely- followed version of Islam commonly known as Wahabism isn't really helpful.  It makes you seem as dogmatic as DoP.

[DogOnPorch]

19 minutes ago, dialamah said:

It makes you seem as dogmatic as DoP.

 

I only use what Islam teaches as my "dogma". That you don't like what the Quran says or if it bursts your wee bubble about its message to the Unbeliever...too bad.

[dialamah]

18 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

I only use what Islam teaches as my "dogma". That you don't like what the Quran says or if it bursts your wee bubble about its message to the Unbeliever...too bad.

You only "use" those parts of what Islam teaches that supports what you choose to believe.  That is what fanatics and extremists do.  (Non-fanatical believers do too, but they're not as dogmatic as fanatics are, they don't deliberately spread lies and dehumanize people and they don't engage in violence.)