Jump to content

This week in Islam


kimmy

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Not about whether I "like" it.

 

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I would love it to leave the site, but...

I was guessing you didn't like it, but you seem not to...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This statement belongs in a hyperbolic chamber.  "Islam has ANY bearing on...." "...is in ANY WAY involved" who would claim that is has NO bearing ?  Weather and bird migrations have bearings on things so why wouldn't Islam ?

I already offered (I think in this thread) to have people agree with a statement that Islam has somewhere between NO impact and ALL impact and lo-and-behold not many wanted to go for it.  It's easier to accuse the other side of extreme points of view, of course.  Also more interesting, I suppose, to some.

But it is the other side with extreme points of view. Their points of view are guided entirely by emotion, while mine is guided by facts. How many cites have I posted with regard to evidence and information about the nature of Islam's influence on the culture and values of the Islamic world, and how that culture has embraced a deeply violent intolerance of anything which goes against the teachings of Islam? Yet you have posters here who insist that terrorism and extremism has nothing to do with Islam, and that Islam, indeed is as humane and peaceful and progressive as western Christianity. In fact, women are treated with respect in the Muslim world! These people cannot be described as anything else other than extreme in their devotion to Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dialamah said:

We could discuss the effect Islamic terrorism has on world events, or that there are Islamic terrorists because that is the reality.  

Unfortunately, some take the position that "Islam is evil and has no redeeming value, and Muslims are almost universally backward, ignorant savages" and anyone who points out how false are those broad generalizations of Muslims is accused of 'defending barbarism' and 'unwilling to admit there are Islamic terrorists', 'avoiding reality', 'hating Canada', etc. 

There is no discussion to be had with those people.  There are only attempts to present some facts to offset rampant islamaphobia so that massacres such as happened in Quebec don't become common.

 

We can discuss the effect Islamic terrorism has on the world, or we can discuss Islam.  The two do not have to converge.  There is a picture my sister sent me, reproduced here, that says a lot about the left's attitude to Islam.

16195210_1888221111398147_69278413319840

 

The comparisons are disingenuous, and intended to shut down valid criticism of a religion that rules countries, and has many elements that are completely abhorrent to any culture that values freedom, equality, etc.

But if you say so, why, you're a bigot who thinks all Muslims are suicide belt wearing nutcases.

Edited by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Unfortunately, some take the position that "Islam is evil and has no redeeming value, and Muslims are almost universally backward, ignorant savages" and anyone who points out how false are those broad generalizations of Muslims is accused of 'defending barbarism' and 'unwilling to admit there are Islamic terrorists', 'avoiding reality', 'hating Canada', etc. 

You continually post strawmen on what the other side has asserted in an effort to defend your own mindless and sweeping defense of Islam.  In fact, no one really discusses the Islamic religion and its value, other than its rigid moral code and its requirement of death for this, that or the other offense (punishments broadly supported throughout the Muslim world). Aside from its deeply violent intolerance we discuss the violence which is perpetrated by some of its devotees based upon that deeply violent intolerance, and the inadvisability of bringing to Canada the people with the sorts of beliefs which gives rise to that violence virtually everywhere in the Muslim world.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You guess I don't like it but I seem not to no like it ?    Anyway, the topic is still viable so let's move on.  PM me if you have questions about moderation but let's continue please.

After this:  I was guessing because I posted that before you posted the second of the quotes (that you subsequently misquoted).  I didn't want you to think I was using that as my reasoning, as it came after my original post. 

I just couldn't continue with my day if I didn't clear that up...

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Argus said:

But it is the other side with extreme points of view. Their points of view are guided entirely by emotion, while mine is guided by facts. How many cites have I posted with regard to evidence and information about the nature of Islam's influence on the culture and values of the Islamic world, and how that culture has embraced a deeply violent intolerance of anything which goes against the teachings of Islam? Yet you have posters here who insist that terrorism and extremism has nothing to do with Islam, and that Islam, indeed is as humane and peaceful and progressive as western Christianity. In fact, women are treated with respect in the Muslim world! These people cannot be described as anything else other than extreme in their devotion to Islam.

Probably just as many cites that have been posted that show just how inflated your view of Islamic extremism/terrorism is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

This statement belongs in a hyperbolic chamber.  "Islam has ANY bearing on...." "...is in ANY WAY involved" who would claim that is has NO bearing ?  Weather and bird migrations have bearings on things so why wouldn't Islam ?

I already offered (I think in this thread) to have people agree with a statement that Islam has somewhere between NO impact and ALL impact and lo-and-behold not many wanted to go for it.  It's easier to accuse the other side of extreme points of view, of course.  Also more interesting, I suppose, to some.

 

I asked that question a while ago: At what point can the religion be blamed for the way its followers are acting on it?

And the answer was given: At NO point is the religion in any way responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Omni said:

Probably just as many cites that have been posted that show just how inflated your view of Islamic extremism/terrorism is. 

So there haven't been 30,000 terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam since the World Trade Center bombings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I asked that question a while ago: At what point can the religion be blamed for the way its followers are acting on it?

And the answer was given: At NO point is the religion in any way responsible.

 

I bet the answer was it's not the religion, it's the interpretation.   There are many different Christian sects, some quite extreme; is that the fault of 'Christianity', or is it the fault of the 'interpretation'.

If Islam can give rise to such extreme differences in belief as ISIS and the Ahmadiyya Muslims, a strictly pacifist sect 10 million strong around the world, then it should be clear that the interpretation is the key, not the religion itself.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Is it a factor ?

I think it's a factor inasmuch as people can take certain passages or hadiths or fatwas and use them to support their agenda of violence.   Violence seems like a naturally occurring phenomenon among humans and certainly having a way to justify it as a divine right or obligation makes it easier for the more conscientious to overcome any scruples they may have.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Is it a factor ?

I believe it is a factor. Not the only one.

Either it's okay to beat and kill your wife in Islam or it's not.  

If it's acceptable in Islam, then it's a bigger factor than we know.

If it's not acceptable in Islam, it certainly seems to be one of those things that Islam tolerates. 

This is just one example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blaming Islam for its excesses is like blaming America for its. 

It's Muslims and Americans that are to blame, and no one would argue, in either case, that such a description applied to all of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Argus said:

So there haven't been 30,000 terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam since the World Trade Center bombings?

Contrary to your version of the immigration systems both here and in the US, refugees/immigrants are highly vetted which is why terrorist types aren't likely to get through. If you look at actual stats. from the US, they need to be much more concerned by home grown Hispanics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I think it's a factor inasmuch as people can take certain passages or hadiths or fatwas and use them to support their agenda of violence.   Violence seems like a naturally occurring phenomenon among humans and certainly having a way to justify it as a divine right or obligation makes it easier for the more conscientious to overcome any scruples they may have.  

Individual people can and do certainly interpret things however they want. How do you explain entire countries based on the violent interpretations? Does the religion still bear NO responsibility?

I agree that violence is a naturally occurring human phenomena. Take out the extreme fundies and the terrorists from all religions and I still think Islam has more than its fair share of beliefs that promote violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I believe it is a factor. Not the only one.

Either it's okay to beat and kill your wife in Islam or it's not.  

If it's acceptable in Islam, then it's a bigger factor than we know.

If it's not acceptable in Islam, it certainly seems to be one of those things that Islam tolerates

This is just one example. 

 

Wife beating is not acceptable.   Even Saudi Arabia has made a (half-hearted) attempt at disapproving of spousal violence; unfortunately they stop short of forbidding 'discipline'.

Most countries in that region are still underdeveloped on the 'human rights' scale, and it's true that patriarchal religions such as Islam and Christianity in that region tend to have more social support for enforcing submission by women to men regardless of laws that may (or may not) be in place, which results in more spousal abuse, including homicide and a strong tendency among authorities to not take the problem seriously.    It's not a lot different in India, which doesn't claim either Islam or Christianity as their main religions, so to me the issue of family violence and female subjugation isn't related to a specific religion, though I would say that any patriarchal religion can be used to justify violence based on an expectation that women should subject themselves to men.  

What do you mean by 'tolerate' exactly?   Because to me it sounds as if you expect Islamic countries to somehow eliminate spousal violence completely.   Am I misunderstanding you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

Individual people can and do certainly interpret things however they want. How do you explain entire countries based on the violent interpretations? Does the religion still bear NO responsibility?

 

What *countries* are based on the violent interpretations?   ISIS is certainly, but it's not a country, so I'm a little confused here.

Quote

Take out the extreme fundies and the terrorists from all religions and I still think Islam has more than its fair share of beliefs that promote violence.

 
 

I think if we removed the extreme fundies, we'd remove the terrorists by default.   I think removing fundies would also remove patriarchal beliefs that result in most spousal violence, FGM, anti-gay sentiment, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

What *countries* are based on the violent interpretations?   ISIS is certainly, but it's not a country, so I'm a little confused here.

 

Any country you wouldn't be blatantly homosexual, adulterous, blasphemous, or atheistic in, I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Any country you wouldn't be blatantly homosexual, adulterous, blasphemous, or atheistic in, I guess. 

Oh, I see .. the 'anti-Canadian' values Argus is so fond of.   I agree completely, countries in that region have a terrible record on human rights.  And, I hate to point this out, but the one or two Christian-majority countries in that region are not a lot different (except perhaps in the case of blasphemy) - so again, this is not a specifically Islamic problem.

It's pretty easy to blame *Islam* for the problems because it's a Muslim-majority region, but in doing that I think the real reasons behind the problems will be missed.  It's more important to stamp out FGM whether it's practiced by Muslims or Christians than it is to accuse Muslims and Islam of being barbaric.   It's more important to support work that will create societies in which women are equal to men, and allow homosexuality without fear of jail or death, whether the primary religion in a country is Islam, Christian, Hindu, or Sikkhism.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Oh, I see .. the 'anti-Canadian' values Argus is so fond of.   I agree completely, countries in that region have a terrible record on human rights.  And, I hate to point this out, but the one or two Christian-majority countries in that region are not a lot different (except perhaps in the case of blasphemy) - so again, this is not a specifically Islamic problem.

It's pretty easy to blame *Islam* for the problems because it's a Muslim-majority region, but in doing that I think the real reasons behind the problems will be missed.  It's more important to stamp out FGM whether it's practiced by Muslims or Christians than it is to accuse Muslims and Islam of being barbaric.   It's more important to support work that will create societies in which women are equal to men, and allow homosexuality without fear of jail or death, whether the primary religion in a country is Islam, Christian, Hindu, or Sikkhism.   

Sure, but you asked the question. What don't you like about the answer?  There are countries where such positions implied by my post are enshrined in law. Certainly any Christian country with the same laws would be judged equally barbaric. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Wife beating is not acceptable.   Even Saudi Arabia has made a (half-hearted) attempt at disapproving of spousal violence; unfortunately they stop short of forbidding 'discipline'.

Most countries in that region are still underdeveloped on the 'human rights' scale, and it's true that patriarchal religions such as Islam and Christianity in that region tend to have more social support for enforcing submission by women to men regardless of laws that may (or may not) be in place, which results in more spousal abuse, including homicide and a strong tendency among authorities to not take the problem seriously.    It's not a lot different in India, which doesn't claim either Islam or Christianity as their main religions, so to me the issue of family violence and female subjugation isn't related to a specific religion, though I would say that any patriarchal religion can be used to justify violence based on an expectation that women should subject themselves to men.  

What do you mean by 'tolerate' exactly?   Because to me it sounds as if you expect Islamic countries to somehow eliminate spousal violence completely.   Am I misunderstanding you?

Yes, you are misunderstanding me. I agreed with you that violence seems to be a naturally occurring human phenomena so I don't think it will ever be eliminated from any country or religion.

I respect your experiences with Islam but they are different from mine. When you visit your sister (Egypt?), you're under their protection and likely do not experience the things I have.

Yes, I believe spousal abuse is tolerated in Islam in Canada. And in many other Muslim countries, it is not just acceptable but expected.

When I see neighbor women getting cuffed across the back of the head, have my hand slapped away by a man because I dared to hand food tickets to his wife instead of their 6 year old son, get assaulted because I dared to tell a man No on something he's being clearly unreasonable about, when I can't accept a job offer in Saudi because others who have worked there warn me about how I'll be treated and/or killed, when I see a group of Muslims attack an Israeli girl on a hometown Facebook page telling her she should kill herself and they hope all her family in Israel are killed.....yes, it is tolerated and acceptable. It makes me wonder if they treat their wives like that public, how much worse is it at home? But I dare not say anything or I'm a racist Islamophobe.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Sure, but you asked the question. What don't you like about the answer?  

 

???   I was uncertain about something Goddess posted, you clarified, it made sense to me, so I responded and that means "I don't like the answer"?    I feel like I'm missing some whole thought process here.   

 

Quote

There are countries where such positions implied by my post are enshrined in law. Certainly any Christian country with the same laws would be judged equally barbaric. 

 

True, and I suppose they are when people notice them.   Perhaps if terrorists were coming out of those countries, after decades of interference from other, more powerful countries including invasions based on false premises etc, there'd be a ban on Christians along with claims about Christianity being a barbaric religion, and it's adherents possessing anti-Canadian values etc.  

And I'd be called an un-Canadian, mindless defender of a barbaric faith as I pointed out endlessly that the actions of a few hundred thousand Christians against the actions of all 2.2 billion of them did not define Christianity and all Christians.

 

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...