This week in Islam

[Marocc]

9 hours ago, scribblet said:

Not sure what the above has to do with this thread,

It's about a renewed Hitler's Germany type of oppression against certain Muslims out there. Over a million of them — so far. Not that I thought you'd care, but the thread is about Islam, basically. I like to share relevant information. (Just imagine that kind of thing happening to Christians on Muslims' land. How horrific would that be? A disgrace, disgusting.)

9 hours ago, scribblet said:

You are free to continue denying, I provided links,

I provided the real information behind the lies in your links. I'm not particularly interested in going through a ton of articles that I already know are wrong — but I may go through some if there is some particular issue/detail you wished I'd address.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Marocc said:

I guess not. Why?

There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy. — Blaise Pascal

Because you answer horror with horror.  As though it matters.

There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy, as long as others who serve him don't imagine for a minute they are not serving him in the correct manner; the second unhappy and rational, until they imagine they have found him, when they become irrational and vicious if they find anyone not serving him in what they see as the correct manner, and the third are so different from the previous two groups that any attempt to describe them by any member of said groups is both irrational and pointless.  — Not Blaise Pascal at all!

Edited January 2, 2020 by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal

[Marocc]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Because you keep trying to answer horror with horror.  As though it matters.

You think it's an answer to your posts about terrorism and such because that's what you would do, I assume. But it isn't. I think you are less likely to follow such news as I do that relate to the Muslim people, — and may well relate to acts of terrorism as well — I like to share those with you so that you may gain advantage from it.

Nevertheless, your complaint is extremely hypocritical..

Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core. —Hannah Arendt

[Guest]

Just now, Marocc said:

You think it's an answer to your posts about terrorism and such because that's what you would do, I assume. But it isn't. I think you are less likely to follow such news as I do that relate to the Muslim people, — and may well relate to acts of terrorism as well — I like to share those with you so that you may gain advantage from it.

Nevertheless, your complaint is extremely hypocritical..

Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core. —Hannah Arendt

I do, do I?  How do you know? 

You don't know of course.  You just assume, because it suits you.

I don't often post about terrorism.  I post about the mundane horrors of Islam, such as the attitude in many countries toward apostates, blasphemers, wayward cartoonists, wayward sexual partners, women who won't wear what they are told, dammit, etc.  Terrorism sometimes gets mixed in.  It's tough to avoid.

I have followed, and abhorred, the treatment of Muslims by Myanmar, China, and Islam, among others.  Such horrors are easy to follow for anyone with a functioning sense.

So, not hypocritical then.

You, on the other hand, might well be.  I haven't actually found a comment by you where you state categorically your view on the particular nastiness that intolerant Muslims practice when it comes to people who don't agree with them.

Hannah Arendt spoke of the banality of evil, if I remember correctly.  She was ahead of her time.

[Marocc]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

How do you know? 

Didn't say I know.

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

You just assume, because it suits you.

It would suit you too, to acknowledge it when you make assumptions.

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I don't often post about terrorism.

I meant the plural you.

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I have followed, and abhorred, the treatment of Muslims by Myanmar, China, and Islam, among others. 

That's good, but does it mean that 1) I can't mention new developments in the situation and 2) I ought to know what you personally have information of already?

You have many times abhorred the treatment of some people by some Muslims. Are you done with that?

So yes — hypocritical.

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

I haven't actually found a comment by you where you state categorically your view on the particular nastiness that intolerant Muslims practice when it comes to people who don't agree with them.

This environment doesn't call for those in my opinion, but if you want to hear my personal opinion on a particular matter, you can ask for it.

Some reasons I don't think it is called for:

— You will dismiss nearly anything and everything I say, be it good or bad.

— you don't understand Islam. Hence it would be difficult to explain my perspective and be understood properly

— I am interested in such discussion when it is constructive. Muslims are not to speak evil of others whether it is a lie or the truth, unless there is a valid reason to do so.

— You usually insist on placing Muslims in certain categories which I do not accept and that way my attempts at giving my view might do more harm than good. I believe the placing of Muslims into the categories in itself is harmful.

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Didn't say I know.

It would suit you too, to acknowledge it when you make assumptions.

I meant the plural you.

That's good, but does it mean that 1) I can't mention new developments in the situation and 2) I ought to know what you personally have information of already?

You have many times abhorred the treatment of some people by some Muslims. Are you done with that?

So yes — hypocritical.

This environment doesn't call for those in my opinion, but if you want to hear my personal opinion on a particular matter, you can ask for it.

Some reasons I don't think it is called for:

— You will dismiss nearly anything and everything I say, be it good or bad.

— you don't understand Islam. Hence it would be difficult to explain my perspective and be understood properly

— I am interested in such discussion when it is constructive. Muslims are not to speak evil of others whether it is a lie or the truth, unless there is a valid reason to do so.

— You usually insist on placing Muslims in certain categories which I do not accept and that way my attempts at giving my view might do more harm than good. I believe the placing of Muslims into the categories in itself is harmful.

You're saying I'm a hypocrite because I abhor the treatment of non-Muslims by Muslims, and the treatment of Muslims by non-Muslims.

You, on the other hand, abhor the treatment of Muslims by non-Muslims, and are completely non-committal about the treatment of non-Muslims by Muslims.  Okay.  Must be some new definition of hypocrisy I wasn't aware of.

This environment would love your opinion on whether or not a person with religious beliefs has any right to try and impose those beliefs on someone else.  That's all it's about really.  Either all those Muslims I talk about are barbaric, primitive, troglodytes or they are justified in their actions by some words they believe are holy.  I really don' t care about the rest of them.  They are just normal.  Lots of people are normal.

You don't know I'll dismiss it until I do, and then you'll know I had good reason.  If, as your comment seems to indicate,  your main argument is that any person who does what you think a good Muslim would not do is not a Muslim at all, I would simply point out all the Muslims who do and think they are as much a Muslim as you.

Muslims, by their actions, place themselves in categories.  The same as anyone else.

I don't need to understand Islam.  I just need to know the difference between right and wrong.  And levels of that difference.

How would your view do more harm than good?  It's an internet forum, not the United Nations.

 

Edited January 2, 2020 by bcsapper

[Marocc]

14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You're saying I'm a hypocrite because I abhor the treatment of non-Muslims by Muslims, and the treatment of Muslims by non-Muslims.

No, but because you appeared to object to talking about the situation in China since you have expressed sympathetic opinions regarding it in the past. You have expressed sympathy to people and groups mistreated by some Muslims also, but feel no urge whatsoever, to stop talking about it. That is hypocritical.

18 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

are completely non-committal about the treatment of non-Muslims by Muslims. 

To me there is no difference whether a Muslim mistreats a Muslim or a non-Muslim, but this type of topic tends to put Muslims into categories. I cannot accuse anyone of something out of suspicion.

if you say (a) Muslim(s) somehow mistreated (a) non-Muslim(s), and I have no way of knowing if it is true or not — or finding out is too time consuming — I won't say anything to it. It doesn't mean I haven't seen it, acknowledged it and noted for myself it may have happened, but I can neither deny it nor affirm it with no knowledge of the facts.

29 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

This environment would love your opinion on whether or not a person with religious beliefs has any right to try and impose those beliefs on someone else. 

I thought that was obvious. No, no one has a right to do that.

32 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

your comment seems to indicate,  your main argument is that any person who does what you think a good Muslim would not do is not a Muslim at all,

What comment? I have never said that. Muslims are not allowed to say someone is not a Muslim if they say they are a Muslim.

36 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Muslims, by their actions, place themselves in categories.  The same as anyone else.

It depends on the context and the categories.

37 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't need to understand Islam.

Not understanding it will limit your ability to understand things connected to it, which might be harmless if you were honest about what you know and what you don't know.

39 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

How would your view do more harm than good? 

I might misunderstand and say something that isn't true or be misunderstood, which may lead to someone being led astray because of me, or to someone acquiring false information from me. Or I might accidentally place Muslims into categories and be wrong. I fear to have such deeds with me on the Day of Judgment.

[eyeball]

On 1/1/2020 at 8:01 AM, bcsapper said:

Do you find it odd that a person can be thoroughly contemptuous of, and disgusted by, the excesses of both Islam and the Chinese?

I find it odder that you don't mention the excesses of China's dictatorship. Your contempt doesn't seem very thorough.

 

Quote

With a bit of luck and some good judgement, those who take the trouble to avoid religion will be able to - Not Blaise Pascal

China's dictators have taken a lot of trouble some would say excessively to avoid and even eradicate religion so maybe that's why you aren't contemptuous of them.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

I find it odder that you don't mention the excesses of China's dictatorship. Your contempt doesn't seem very thorough.

 

China's dictators have taken a lot of trouble some would say excessively to avoid and even eradicate religion so maybe that's why you aren't contemptuous of them.

I did.  The thing is, no-one defends them.  So there's nothing to argue about.

If you'd like to insist that it is racist to find fault with them go ahead.  I'd argue that.

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Marocc said:

No, but because you appeared to object to talking about the situation in China since you have expressed sympathetic opinions regarding it in the past. You have expressed sympathy to people and groups mistreated by some Muslims also, but feel no urge whatsoever, to stop talking about it. That is hypocritical.

Well, as I said in the post above to eyeball, no-one defends the situation in China.  No-one says that anyone who finds them a bunch of barbaric bastards is racist, and is tarring them all with the same brush. (Of course, once bitten and all that.  I did make sure to say "not all of them" when I last called them bastards)

Could you do me a big favour and show me where I expressed sympathetic opinions regarding it in the past.  If you can, I'll agree I was hypocritical.  If you can't, I'll continue to think the hypocrite is you.  Along with being a liar.

19 hours ago, Marocc said:

To me there is no difference whether a Muslim mistreats a Muslim or a non-Muslim, but this type of topic tends to put Muslims into categories. I cannot accuse anyone of something out of suspicion.

Me neither.  Anyone who advocates any kind of punishment for blasphemy, apostasy, adultery, improper dress, etc is a barbaric moron.  Regardless of religion.  Or lack of, really.

 

19 hours ago, Marocc said:

I thought that was obvious. No, no one has a right to do that.

Great.  It's always nice to agree on something.

 

19 hours ago, Marocc said:

What comment? I have never said that. Muslims are not allowed to say someone is not a Muslim if they say they are a Muslim.

Perhaps I was wrong.  If a person claims to be a Muslim, and does something you would consider unislamic, you would still consider them a Muslim?

 

19 hours ago, Marocc said:

It depends on the context and the categories.

No, it doesn't.  There is no context that can excuse the actions that place them into the categories I put them.  The rest, I don't care about.

 

19 hours ago, Marocc said:

Not understanding it will limit your ability to understand things connected to it, which might be harmless if you were honest about what you know and what you don't know.

No, it doesn't.  There is no level of understanding that can excuse the acts that I am talking about. 

 

19 hours ago, Marocc said:

I might misunderstand and say something that isn't true or be misunderstood, which may lead to someone being led astray because of me, or to someone acquiring false information from me. Or I might accidentally place Muslims into categories and be wrong. I fear to have such deeds with me on the Day of Judgment.

Don't worry about it.  It's not going to matter. If, in the end, there is a God, I'll tell her it was all my fault.

[Marocc]

30 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I did.  The thing is, no-one defends them.  So there's nothing to argue about.

Now, if you're truly passionate about debate you know you will find the debate. You don't just sit around and expect it to come to you.

There are plenty of people who defend China. If you had a particular problem with them you'd find the people who do defend China.

The Chinese must seem very distant to you. It may be you'll only begin to care when they invade Canada and ask you to pay for a Chinese passport.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Now, if you're truly passionate about debate you know you will find the debate. You don't just sit around and expect it to come to you.

There are plenty of people who defend China. If you had a particular problem with them you'd find the people who do defend China.

The Chinese must seem very distant to you. It may be you'll only begin to care when they invade Canada and ask you to pay for a Chinese passport.

On here?  I haven't noticed anyone calling me a bigot for finding fault with them.

Not yet, anyway.

[Marocc]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

On here? 

No.

40 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's not going to matter. If, in the end, there is a God, I'll tell her it was all my fault.

Surah Abasa

34. That Day shall a man flee from his own brother,

35. And from his mother and his father,

36. And from his wife and his children.

37. Each one of them, that Day, will have enough concern (of his own) to make him indifferent to the others.

43 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

There is no context that can excuse the actions that place them into the categories I put them

How many of them have you met?

44 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

If a person claims to be a Muslim, and does something you would consider unislamic, you would still consider them a Muslim?

Yes. (With possible exceptions regarding certain spoken statements that may express clear disbelief.)

The Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) dispatched Usāmah ibn Zayd in a detachment to Al-Huraqah, a sub-tribe of Juhaynah. When they reached the idolaters and overtook them, a man from the idolaters escaped. Usāmah and a man from the Ansār chased him in order to kill him, and when they reached him, the man said: "There is no god but Allah." The Ansasri man left him when he said that. Usāmah, on the other hand, killed him. When they returned to Madīnah, and the news reached the Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) he asked Usāmah: "Did you kill him after he had said There is no god but Allah?" Usāmah said: "Yes, O Messenger of Allah, He only said it to save himself from being killed." The Prophet repeated the question: "Did you kill him after he had said There is no god but Allah?" Usāmah said: "Yes, he only said it to save himself from being killed. He brought harm to the Muslims and killed so and so of them." The Prophet (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) said to him: "Did you split open his heart to verify his intention? What would you do with (his statement) 'there is no god but Allah' when it comes on the Day of Judgment? Who will intercede for you, speak on your behalf and argue your case when the word of monotheism is brought and it is said to you: 'How could you kill someone who proclaimed it?'" Usāmah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "I wished I had not embraced Islam before that day", because if he were a disbeliever who had just embraced Islam, Allah would pardon him. However he committed this act while he was a Muslim.

https://hadeethenc.com/en/browse/hadith/4816

48 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Could you do me a big favour and show me where I expressed sympathetic opinions regarding it in the past.

I mean sympathetic to those being oppressed.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Marocc said:

No.

Well, for arguing, I only frequent this place and (to a lesser extent) the "other place".   I don't like forums where I have ten pages to catch up on when I get home from work.

 

7 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Surah Abasa

34. That Day shall a man flee from his own brother,

35. And from his mother and his father,

36. And from his wife and his children.

37. Each one of them, that Day, will have enough concern (of his own) to make him indifferent to the others.

I'm not overly worried about it.  You can blame me if it helps you get in.

16 minutes ago, Marocc said:

How many of them have you met?

Quite a few.  I grew up in Bradford, in the UK, (I'll always remember being quite surprised at the anti Rushdie demonstrations and book burnings in 1989 there.  I'd already left by then though, so I wasn't an eye witness) and lived in the Lower Mainland for 22 years. 

But that's really not a point worth making.  When I was in the Lower Mainland I knew a lot of Chinese people too.  None of them locked any Muslims up, nor suggested that as a future course of action.

 

26 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Yes. (With possible exceptions regarding certain spoken statements that may express clear disbelief.)

More agreement.  I can't imagine anyone expressing clear disbelief in a religion also insisting they are adherents of said.

 

 

[Marocc]

9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

You can blame me if it helps you get in.

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

Whoever calls to guidance will have a reward similar to those who follow him, without detracting from their rewards at all. Whoever calls to misguidance will have sin upon him similar to those who follow him, without detracting from their sins at all.

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2674, Grade: Sahih

https://abuaminaelias.com/forty-hadith-on-knowledge/

9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Quite a few.

How many are the ones you judge?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Marocc said:

How many are the ones you judge?

I don't have any actual numbers.  I don't keep records of such things.  If any of them ever said they thought that imposing their religion on anyone else in any way whatsoever was justified at any time, under any conditions, or any circumstances, ever, I'm sure I judged them. Harshly.

Let's face it, I sure judge harshly anyone else who does that!

 

 

[Marocc]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I don't have any actual numbers.  I don't keep records of such things.  If any of them ever said they thought that imposing their religion on anyone else in any way whatsoever was justified at any time, under any conditions, or any circumstances, ever, I'm sure I judged them. Harshly.

So if 200 Saudi Arabian people in Saudi Arabia were holding up an illegal business of selling randomly exploding refrigerators, would it be ethical to judge 'harshly' all Saudi Arabians in Saudi Arabia? For all you know it may be it is mainly the Saudi arabians buying these exploding refrigerators!

[DogOnPorch]

24 minutes ago, Marocc said:

So if 200 Saudi Arabian people in Saudi Arabia were holding up an illegal business of selling randomly exploding refrigerators, would it be ethical to judge 'harshly' all Saudi Arabians in Saudi Arabia? For all you know it may be it is mainly the Saudi arabians buying these exploding refrigerators!

The order to fight the Unbeliever comes straight from the Quran...your god.

And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

https://quran.com/8/39

Why should anybody want to have your death cult in their midst? Any good answers?

[Marocc]

33 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

The order to fight the Unbeliever comes straight from the Quran...your god.

And?

it doesn't matter whether you want it or not.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Marocc said:

So if 200 Saudi Arabian people in Saudi Arabia were holding up an illegal business of selling randomly exploding refrigerators, would it be ethical to judge 'harshly' all Saudi Arabians in Saudi Arabia? For all you know it may be it is mainly the Saudi arabians buying these exploding refrigerators!

Absolutely not, no.  That's why I make a point of using the phrase "not all of them" more often than any other phrase, with the possible exception of "oh, you bloody idiot" when I'm watching the footy.

[eyeball]

19 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I did.  The thing is, no-one defends them.  So there's nothing to argue about.

If you'd like to insist that it is racist to find fault with them go ahead.  I'd argue that.

No you didn't mention China's dictatorship at all.  You simply said the Chinese - you made no attempt to differentiate between China's people and China's dictatorship and clearly spoke as if one was precisely the same as the other.  DOP lumps all Muslim's together in the same unthinking manner.

10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Absolutely not, no.  That's why I make a point of using the phrase "not all of them" more often than any other phrase, with the possible exception of "oh, you bloody idiot" when I'm watching the footy.

You always back peddle like this after your sloppy way of thinking is pointed out to you.  At least DOP is consistent.

Edited January 3, 2020 by eyeball

[Guest]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

No you didn't mention China's dictatorship at all.  You simply said the Chinese - you made no attempt to differentiate between China's people and China's dictatorship and clearly spoke as if one was precisely the same as the other.  DOP lumps all Muslim's together in the same unthinking manner.

You always back peddle like this after your sloppy way of thinking is pointed out to you.  At least DOP is consistent.

Oh, crap.  If that's the best you got I'm surprised you bother.  Are you really suggesting I was excusing the government in favour of blaming a few peasants down the bottom corner there when I said "not all of them"?   Honestly, is that your argument?

As for your second point, that doesn't make any sense either.  Marocc's quote gives me the opportunity to make the same point I always, without question, make.  Which is that twats are twats and I don't care about the rest.  Certainly not enough to post about them.

Why does that bother you so much that you make up rubbish like this in response?

Edited January 3, 2020 by bcsapper

[Marocc]

29 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Absolutely not, no.  That's why I make a point of using the phrase "not all of them" more often than any other phrase

I have noticed. It sounds.... Malicious.

It isn't enough to say a few words if they don't express themselves in your thinking in general.

If I was you with all those 'evil' Muslims you know, I'd either go and confront them or forget about it. Here you are talking about some other Muslims. You talk about some vague group of certain kind of (but vaguely described by you) people who call themselves Muslims or who have an Arab sounding name or who come from a Muslim majority country. It does seem like it is those you judge with your 'harsh' judgement. Am I wrong?

What use is your 'harsh' judgement to the world?

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Marocc said:

I have noticed. It sounds.... Malicious.

It isn't enough to say a few words if they don't express themselves in your thinking in general.

If I was you with all those 'evil' Muslims you know, I'd either go and confront them or forget about it. Here you are talking about some other Muslims. You talk about some vague group of certain kind of (but vaguely described by you) people who call themselves Muslims or who have an Arab sounding name or who come from a Muslim majority country. It does seem like it is those you judge with your 'harsh' judgement. Am I wrong?

What use is your 'harsh' judgement to the world?

No, you're either genuinely wrong (fair enough) or you're being disingenuous. 

First of all, it is absolutely enough to say those few words because they express my thinking completely.  By now it ought to be a given, but when people are looking for ways to deflect from the awful facts, it pays not to give them an in. (They deflect anyway, but that's beside the point)

 

I don't know any evil Muslims.  I only know of evil (evil?  It's just a word that might or might not fully describe who I'm talking about) Muslims.  Those who would punish acts such as blasphemy, apostasy, adultery, homosexuality, etc.   Those who think Sharia law is a good idea.  Those who think women should wear what they say they should.  That's why evil doesn't fit exactly.  Those who would take a machete to a blasphemous Bangladeshi blogger are evil.  Those who would write a strongly worded letter to the editor decrying the increasing tendency of women to show their hair are just wrong.  The latter are well within their rights though.

So, nothing vague then.  If you are still unsure of which Muslims I am talking about let me know and I'll try again.

If you would like to speak up in their defence, please do, and I'll respond. It might just be to agree to disagree.   After all, it's only opinion.

Edited January 3, 2020 by bcsapper

[eyeball]

On 1/1/2020 at 8:01 AM, bcsapper said:

...the excesses of both Islam and the Chinese?

...the Chinese what...people, religion government?

On 1/2/2020 at 11:10 AM, eyeball said:

I find it odder that you don't mention the excesses of China's dictatorship. Your contempt doesn't seem very thorough.

 

23 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I did. 

Clearly you didn't

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Are you really suggesting I was excusing the government

No, I'm suggesting your sloppy writing style reflects your sloppy way of thinking.  How is anyone to tell what the hell you're suggesting?  You just said Islam and the Chinese. You either conflated a religion with a race or the other way around, why?  I'm not surprised DOP didn't correct you for mistaking Islam for a race, my guess is because you guys roll the same way and for much the same reason.  See how easy it is to lump things together?

Quote

Why does that bother you so much that you make up rubbish like this in response?

I'm not making up rubbish, I'm pointing it out.  You made no attempt whatsoever to differentiate between a hateful regime and the ocean of humanity under it's thumb until the difference was pointed out to you.  You do this a lot in threads that involve Islam and Muslims along with your caveats and back-peddling but after awhile it's hard to tell if you're just being ignorant or...worse.

At least DOP is consistent.