Argus Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: The Pact of Umar is part of mainstream Islamic jurisprudence. It's WHY Zionists were allowed to buy and live inside the Ottoman Empire. As for it not being enforced today: how many new churches are built in your Egypt every year? A better question is how many are burned down by raging mobs of Muslims and how many Coptics are murdered. 2 "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
DogOnPorch Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 Just now, dialamah said: Oh, abrogation. Too funny. I know you fancy yourself some expert Islamic scholar but real experts disagree on the details of abrogation. In any case, if nearly 1.6 billion Muslims believe that their Koran tells them to live peaceful lives, why would abrogation matter? Unless of course, you continue to assert that only violent Muslims are 'real Muslims.' Show me the verses anyways... Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dialamah Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) Del Edited October 2, 2017 by dialamah
Goddess Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 22 minutes ago, dialamah said: Not joining the hate brigade around here means that I must therefore be some kind of idiot who thinks there are no bad Muslims in the world. I think it's more because you have so many excuses for the bad ones and underestimate their numbers. Also, views that many of us would consider extreme are not viewed as extreme to you, but perfectly reasonable. You're a bit confusing. You claim to not be a Muslim, and claim to not be religious but it always seems like when people are arguing which imaginary freind is better - the Tooth Fairy or a Unicorn - you have a very strong opinion that the Unicorn is far better. "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
dialamah Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 9 minutes ago, Argus said: A better question is how many are burned down by raging mobs of Muslims and how many Coptics are murdered. Less than you assume. And, those attacks are condemned by most Muslims - just as most Canadians condemned Bissonette's actions in shooting Muslims in their Mosque.
Argus Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 12 minutes ago, dialamah said: There are approximately 1 Million peaceful Muslims in Canada. There are close to 1.6 billion peaceful Muslims around the world. Unless of course one is going to claim that if they aren't out killing apostates and unbelievers, they aren't 'real Muslims'. I know the gullible fall for this line of 'reasoning', but I guess I can't fix stupid. Your position continues to be that any Muslim who isn't actively killing someone right this moment is 'peaceful' and should be accepted as a noble, kindly, tolerant person, but that simply isn't the truth nor anything close to it. Take that tolerant bastion of love and peacefulness Egypt, as an example. So moderate! So mainstream! Why it would be a wonderful place for anyone to live woman, Christian, gay, Atheist, anyone! Or not. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/mona-eltahawy-egypts-war-on-atheism.html?mcubz=3 "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
DogOnPorch Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 10 minutes ago, dialamah said: Del No worries...you can't show me any peaceful verses as none exist. I accept your surrender on this matter. Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
dialamah Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, Goddess said: I think it's more because you have so many excuses for the bad ones and underestimate their numbers. Also, views that many of us would consider extreme are not viewed as extreme to you, but perfectly reasonable. You're a bit confusing. You claim to not be a Muslim, and claim to not be religious but it always seems like when people are arguing which imaginary freind is better - the Tooth Fairy or a Unicorn - you have a very strong opinion that the Unicorn is far better. No. I have a very strong opinion that some of the posters on this forum are the type of people who fan the flames of anti-Muslim sentiment in Canada and if they gain too much of a toehold in Canada, our country will end up doing something stupid - like we did to the Japanese or the Chinese not so long ago. I will say that I am heartened by the fact that a year ago on FB posts, when the Muslim hate flowed in comments there was very little pushback but now I see a lot more from people who value the same things I do - fairness, honesty, accuracy, reasonableness. There is little else to fight hatred and intolerance, since I'm just not a fan of violence. When one is presented with all-or-nothing statements like "Islam is violent; they always kill non-believers" and I point out they do not with proof, why do you think I am the one who is unreasonable, anyway? Why do you accept, without objection, those kinds of statements, but continually object to my statements - backed by facts almost 100% of the time - as defending the indefensible?
dialamah Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 11 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: No worries...you can't show me any peaceful verses as none exist. I accept your surrender on this matter. The post I deleted was addressing a comment made by Argus. You are just so full of yourself. When you admit that the Ahmadiyya are a legitimate expression of Islam, we can move on to the next lesson of why they are, including the verses of the Koran that support their peace-loving ways.
Rue Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: Generally, Germans during WW2 were good people...loved their kids...walked their dogs. Not sure what your point is. In my world both psychiatry and history have shown me all humans have the ability to heal or harm the world in the actions we take. I don't see the potential for depravity in homo sapiens limited to only one sub type defined by specific religious or political views. I think we all can stink or smell sweet. depending on the circumstances. Certainly the Nuremberg trials proved that.
dialamah Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 18 minutes ago, Argus said: Your position continues to be that any Muslim who isn't actively killing someone right this moment is 'peaceful' and should be accepted as a noble, kindly, tolerant person, but that simply isn't the truth nor anything close to it. Take that tolerant bastion of love and peacefulness Egypt, as an example. So moderate! So mainstream! Why it would be a wonderful place for anyone to live woman, Christian, gay, Atheist, anyone! Or not. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/mona-eltahawy-egypts-war-on-atheism.html?mcubz=3 *sighs* So you've moved the goal posts: didn't you claim that Muslims "always" kill non-believers? There are non-believers still alive in Egypt. If you want to claim that non-believers/Christians are treated as second class citizens in Egypt, I agree.
Rue Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 41 minutes ago, eyeball said: I can easily acknowledge that people who snap in this fashion are inspired by their extreme religious beliefs it's just that I also acknowledge that the extremeness of these beliefs were stirred up and inflated by decades of extreme western interference in the Muslim world. The ongoing effort of racist assholes who seemingly celebrate that interference and insist on maintaining the fear and loathing and hatred of Muslims are every bit as extremist. You are perfect enemies for each other. If in fact you can easily prove who "these people who snap in this fashion" are and that they are "inspired by their extreme religious beliefs" why didn't you provide a list of their names and prove of their beliefs? I would suggest you provided no example of either because you simply through these references out with no thought. You then refer to "racist assholes" but if these people are in fact anti Islam they would not be racist but anti Islamic as Muslims are not a racial group. Then you made a reference to an inference racists celebrate without ever referencing the inference which rendered the reference meaningless. You also suggested an inference can be celebrated which is not possible as they are not expressed and so could nto be celebrated. You then make some accusation that someone maintains fear and loathing and hatred of Muslims again with no reference to any words anyone said to indicate that. This renders your response illogical and incoherent. If you provide a specific reference to someone's words and then explain why you think they are illogical or unfair, I would be glad to consider them. Until then you knee jerk react with no specific position you have evidenced or supported..
dialamah Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) 23 hours ago, Rue said: Democracy simply refers to the concept that the people of a society delegate representation of their view by people they elect to represent their views. It stops there. Any political ideology at that point expressed by the elected representatives that goes on to be violent in expression is not part of the concept of democracy. Democracy as a concept does not define the delegation of representation as being violent, on the contrary, its to be done peacefully/ If people act in a violent way democratic societies have laws for that which in fat prohibit the violence. intrinsic to a society being democratic is freedom of expression and lack of violence in reaction to difference of opinion. When a democratic nation engages in a war with another country or in actions to contain terrorism those actions of war or counter-terrorism are implemented by a non democratic entity called a military force. No one claims the military or wars or counter-terrorism is a form of democracy. Its carried about by organizations that don't allow free speech. When emocracies engage in war or use military which are not democratic that does not mean democracy is inherently violent but it does mean if a system of democracy in a country is endangered by another country that is or is not democratic, democracy may become limited in application and/or suspended until the war or counter-terrorism is resolved. It doesn't make the democratic system violent, it makes the need to counter violence to democracy at times violent. Democracy is not a religion. It does not define what political views are appropriate or inappropriate, the people do through partisan political policies. Democracy necessarily allows freedom of speech and people to have different ideologies-those differences fall outside democracy when defining them-they become separate political ideologies that may or may not believe in the democratic method of electing representatives. Agreed. My attempted parallel fails. Quote While it is inaccurate and inherently unfair to say all Muslims are violent or should be assumed to be violent or can never evolve to be non violent the religion as its expressed mainstream today is violent. The fact is freedom of thought is not going to be permitted for a non Muslim or Muslim in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or in any mosque or Muslim country as it is for any of us in Canada Muslim or non Muslim Muslim and not just in Canada but Israel or any democratic nation as opposed to a sharia law nations. That is a fact and the difference between the two. i don't think there is much freedom of thought allowed in any religion, honestly. I don't know how devout a Jew you are, but can you really say you have 'freedom of thought' around the basic tenets of Judaism? I don't see mainstream Islam as being violent; to me, it's fundamentalist, paternalistic and patriarchal and too intolerant towards anyone not a Muslim and not male - but for most Muslims, that intolerance does not translate into violence. I talk about Egypt because my sister lives there so I think it's easier to get a sense of what is true for at least Egyptian Muslims. There is ongoing debate on the Muslim brotherhood, on the status of women, on homosexuality. She told me the other day that there are some companies in Egypt that will not hire women with a headscarf because it's seen as too religious and too old-fashioned, and of course other places that won't hire a woman unless she wears a headscarf. She says that most women wear a headscarf in public, and that the number of women who wear the full niqab/burka and the number of women who wear nothing on their heads seem to be about the same. Of four other women in her immediate family - all born and raised in Egypt - one dresses similarly to my sister (conservatively Western), two wear a headscarf in public, but it's rather casual while the last one is very particular about ensuring she shows very little skin, though she does not wear the niqab. Each husband allows his wife to wear what she prefers. My sister also talks about a woman she works with, the only one she knows who wears a niqab - and that woman's 11-year-old daughter, who does not even wear a headscarf, though she would be of an age to were her parents determined that she should. She talks about a Muslim man she knows who denies there is any homosexuality in Egypt - it just doesn't exist as far as he's concerned, and her husband - who admits it exists, but doesn't like it. I also remember when her husband, imagining I might want to make Egypt my permanent home and knowing I was not Muslim, introduced me to his unmarried Christian friend. This diversity of thought and behavior I see among Muslims, from my sister's family to other Muslims I know and have talked to is what I believe to be the accurate representation of Muslims everywhere. This is why I get so frustrated with statements like "Muslims hate gays/apostates/non-believers and kill them" or "Muslims are inherently violent" or "Muslims can't/won't change their ignorant, backward ways". I am not unaware of the problems of Islam, or of the generally authoritarian regimes in these countries - but I am also aware of the ways in which the people in the region are attempting to change Islam and change their culture, through laws, education and social activism. They aren't stupid, they aren't barbarians; they are human. And 50 years ago, we weren't a lot different in our social attitudes and even in some of our laws. Edited October 2, 2017 by dialamah
Rue Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 57 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: Show me the verses anyways... I actually produced some. The point is there are violent references and passages and peaceful ones in the Koran just like there are in the Bible. Quoting verses can be done but no one denies the Koran has violent verses just like no one denies the Bible has some violent verses. How the Koran is used is the question. I believe the point Dialamah made is not all Muslims just like not all Christians use the Koran to justify violence Surely I as a Jew am not violent because Leviticus tells me to stone homosexuals. I think that is her point. I am not sure reading out a Koranic verse and assuming it is to be read in isolation and can only be read in one way is any more helpful than when Altai tried to do the same with the Old Testament,.
eyeball Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Rue said: If in fact you can easily prove who "these people who snap in this fashion" are and that they are "inspired by their extreme religious beliefs" why didn't you provide a list of their names and prove of their beliefs? Their names are in the news, what they did happened there's nothing to prove and why would I need to prove to you they're inspired by religion? The thing you're ignoring is that the religion also gets inspired - in this case by the fact so many people in the western world acted and continue to act like complete assholes throughout much of the Muslim world. And please stop trying to pretend you don't know what that means in the context of this discussion. I know damn well you do. Edited October 2, 2017 by eyeball I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Guest Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 2 hours ago, marcus said: If an overwhelming majority, ike over 99.99% of Muslims in Canada have condemned the attacks by these lone wolves in Canada, then why do you keep saying it's Islam and Muslims who have a problem? You need to start acknowledging and accepting that you can't just paint a broad stroke. This has nothing to do with a religion. If it did, Canada would be in flames right now, with its 1 million+ Muslim population. The rest of the Muslim world is not represented by ISIS. White supremacists and Nazis don't represent white folks, but they are still white, and their whiteness is what defines them. I don't mean to imply that bad Muslims represent good Muslims, any more than bad white folks represent good white folks. Just that they are bad Muslims. I don't know about the 99.99% figure, and I don't care about just Canada. I never consider "just Canada"
Argus Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 1 hour ago, dialamah said: *sighs* So you've moved the goal posts: didn't you claim that Muslims "always" kill non-believers? There are non-believers still alive in Egypt. You certainly have a habit of placing your sense of rightness on quibbling details. Did the prophet kill EVERY SINGLE PERSON who was an unbeliever? No, of course not. He was content to conquer them and slaughter most while taking their women as sex slaves. Does that make it better to you? So sure, if you like, there were some non-Muslims allowed to reside within conquered Muslim areas, as long as they bowed to their Muslim masters. But at the same time Islam was pushing against its non Muslim neighbours on all sides, and kept pushing as long as it could and as hard as it could, seeking to conquer all non-Muslim territories in the name of Islam. And while it allowed 'people of the book' to remain as third class citizens in some Muslim territories it most certainly did NOT accept anyone else. They certainly had little interest in letting Hindus stay alive when they were slaughtering hundreds of millions of Indians. 1 hour ago, dialamah said: If you want to claim that non-believers/Christians are treated as second class citizens in Egypt, I agree. Not even second class. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 40 minutes ago, Rue said: I actually produced some. The point is there are violent references and passages and peaceful ones in the Koran just like there are in the Bible. Quoting verses can be done but no one denies the Koran has violent verses just like no one denies the Bible has some violent verses. And yet you yourself said more than half of the Koran deals with how to treat unbelievers, and that most of the 'good' were in earlier passages which are contradicted and thus superseded in later passages. 1 "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
DogOnPorch Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Rue said: Not sure what your point is. In my world both psychiatry and history have shown me all humans have the ability to heal or harm the world in the actions we take. I don't see the potential for depravity in homo sapiens limited to only one sub type defined by specific religious or political views. I think we all can stink or smell sweet. depending on the circumstances. Certainly the Nuremberg trials proved that. A small percentage of Germans were actually involved in the SS/Final Solution/Death Camps/Gestapo. We bombed Germany into dust...twice over...day n' night. Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Goddess Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 1 hour ago, dialamah said: Why do you accept, without objection, those kinds of statements, but continually object to my statements - backed by facts almost 100% of the time - as defending the indefensible? This is untrue. I check what everyone says, not just you. I am sure not all Muslims are violent. And not all of them hate Jews. I just believe these views are a lot more prevalent than you think. A lot more mainstream than you think. For instance, when I see 30-40 Muslims attack a young Israeli girl on a town's facebook page and not one of the other 100 Muslims on the site stop any of the rest of them, you are trying to tell me that these 30-40 Muslims are like the only ones in the world who hate Jews. How did all the Muslims in the world who hate Jews all end up in Fort Mac? Sorry, but it makes more sense to me that hatred of Jews is a lot more mainstream than you like to admit. You also deny that these mainstream beliefs have any effect on them, just because they didn't actually kill the Israeli girl. You argue that Muslims in general love Jews and respect women. I just don't see that being played out nearly as often as I see the opposite. Those beliefs are the roots of the hatred and violence Islam. Someone who is taught from birth that women are a sub-class of humanity that they are free to beat as they feel necessary and that Jews are dogs and pigs, that prays 5 times a day for victory over non-believers - these are extremist views to me and the holders of such beliefs only need a small push to become violent - an imam who preaches radical Islam or a father who feels his honour has been shamed by a daughter who refuses to wear a hijab or wants to date a non-Muslim and enlists the help of his sons to kill her. That kind of hate is like walking around with a loaded machine gun - at some point your'e going to use it on someone. You only denounce the actual violence, but make excuses for and deny the hate and beliefs that precede it. If there is as little hate, intolerance and violence in Islam as you say, then it is not in need of any reform. This is why you are confusing - on one hand you will occasionally, reluctantly agree that Islam needs reform, while at the same time insisting there is nothing going on in Islam that needs reform and it's all just bad press, Islam being picked on for no reason. 1 "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
DogOnPorch Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 1 hour ago, dialamah said: The post I deleted was addressing a comment made by Argus. You are just so full of yourself. When you admit that the Ahmadiyya are a legitimate expression of Islam, we can move on to the next lesson of why they are, including the verses of the Koran that support their peace-loving ways. I'm better than you, yes. Smarter, too. Likely better educated in these subjects...and older thus wiser. Ahmadis are apostates according to mainstream Islam...which is the problem (mainstream Islam)...not your selected minority branch which doesn't see Muhammad as the true Prophet. If Islam was based on your minority sect, there'd likely be no Islamic terrorism. But Muhammad said I have been made victorious with TERROR and have had the keys and treasures of the world handed to me. https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/186 Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Goddess Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 6 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said: When you admit that the Ahmadiyya are a legitimate expression of Islam, Does mainstream Islam say they are a legitimate expression of Islam? I have a freind who subscribes to these beliefs and he says they are not accepted as legitimate by mainstream Islam. Maybe your accusation is better directed to mainstream Islam, not the Dog? Unless you know something that my freind doesn't...... "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
DogOnPorch Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 Just now, Goddess said: Does mainstream Islam say they are a legitimate expression of Islam? I have a freind who subscribes to these beliefs and he says they are not accepted as legitimate by mainstream Islam. Maybe your accusation is better directed to mainstream Islam, not the Dog? Unless you know something that my freind doesn't...... Check your quotes...that t'wasn't me. Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Goddess Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 Just now, DogOnPorch said: Check your quotes...that t'wasn't me. Oh, sorry Dog. LOL 1 "There are two different types of people in the world - those who want to know and those who want to believe." ~~ Friedrich Nietzsche ~~
DogOnPorch Posted October 2, 2017 Report Posted October 2, 2017 1 minute ago, Goddess said: Oh, sorry Dog. LOL What dialamah asks is that we judge Nazism based on Oskar Schindler...not Himmler or Heydrich. Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Recommended Posts