ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 19th June 2019, 02:35 PM   #561
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,179
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Really good site to give you the details https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/

Boils down to everything has to be in line with all English laws regardless of anything else. A "sharia court" in the UK can only make decisions that are in line with English law they have no way to create any laws, impose any "sharia laws". or come to any agreements that would be contrary to UK law.

Thanks for the linked article.

Although I can see that perhaps theoretically a "Sharia court" cannot enforce Sharia law, I can see in some cases this may effectively happen. A woman may find herself trapped in a community, endorsing any decision made by those Sharia experts. Perhaps even worse she may have to accept the ruling as binding.*

From your article:

Quote:
The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal is an example of this approach. It appoints one qualified lawyer and one expert in Islamic law to each case. In this way, it tries to ensure that the decision reached is in line with both secular and religious law.

So if both parties agree, arbitral tribunals can decide certain issues by applying religious principles.
This bothers me much. I don't think we should accomodate any of this "religious principles" rulings in any shape or form.


* It appears I was mistaken in my understanding of the term arbitration. I found the following:

Quote:
Arbitration*is the process of bringing a business dispute before a disinterested third party for resolution. The third party, an arbitrator, hears the evidence brought by both sides and makes a decision. Sometimes that decision is binding on the parties. To*arbitrate*a matter is to bring it before an arbitrator. An arbitrator is a spectator, witness, or hearer.*

............

Arbitration is often confused with*mediation,*which is an informal process of bringing in a third party who goes between the*disputing parties*to help them settle a dispute. The*mediation process*is not binding on the parties, and the mediator does not hear evidence. The mediator meets with the parties for discussion. The mediator tries to bring the parties together by discussion and caucusing (a separate discussion). Litigation, arbitration, and mediation are all involved in settling business disputes.
I did confuse arbitration with mediation.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2019, 02:38 PM   #562
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,179
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
In the case of corporate binding arbitration , the decisions of the are binding and enforceable, much like a court order.
It can part of a TOS or 'contract'.

Well thanks for that. I did conflate arbitration and mediation - see above ^.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 11:36 AM   #563
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,260
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Thanks for the linked article.



Although I can see that perhaps theoretically a "Sharia court" cannot enforce Sharia law, I can see in some cases this may effectively happen. A woman may find herself trapped in a community, endorsing any decision made by those Sharia experts. Perhaps even worse she may have to accept the ruling as binding.*



From your article:







This bothers me much. I don't think we should accomodate any of this "religious principles" rulings in any shape or form.





* It appears I was mistaken in my understanding of the term arbitration. I found the following:







I did confuse arbitration with mediation.
But the "we" isn't you or I, no one can force you or me to agree to arbitration by a "sharia court" only those that wish to be bound by such an arbitration are bound by it. (Albeit as I said there can be abuse but that's a problem with all arbitration and we need strong regulation.)

I really can't see any benefits to us trying to remove arbitration from the legal process, it's such an intrinsic part of civil life I think this would be worse than throwing out the baby with the bath water. This would be throwing out the bath water, the bath, the bathroom, the house and the baby for no gain.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 02:05 PM   #564
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,179
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
But the "we" isn't you or I, no one can force you or me to agree to arbitration by a "sharia court" only those that wish to be bound by such an arbitration are bound by it. (Albeit as I said there can be abuse but that's a problem with all arbitration and we need strong regulation.)

I really can't see any benefits to us trying to remove arbitration from the legal process, it's such an intrinsic part of civil life I think this would be worse than throwing out the baby with the bath water. This would be throwing out the bath water, the bath, the bathroom, the house and the baby for no gain.
Try and think of yourself as a woman in a Muslim community. When the weight of community sentiment, is telling you to accept the Sharia court as arbitrator, and abide by the its decision, do you think you could resist?

Now I know some here will jump on me, as assuming to know what a Muslim woman would feel, but I refer to the knowledge gained from those who have broken free, and told their story. A certain amount t of common sense can be applied also, from the knowledge of how discriminately Sharia views women.

No I am not suggesting arbitration should be removed from the legal process, but I think we should be careful about who is, or are, appointed as arbiters.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.

Last edited by Thor 2; 20th June 2019 at 02:06 PM.
Thor 2 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 12:02 AM   #565
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,399
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
OK, well I take it that you are doubting the figures that I have given? That doubt also implies that you have come to different conclusions to me on the basis that you are either unaware of those figures or else you believe they are seriously in error.

I don't suppose you are disputing the figures for the dead and injured in the London Tube bombing, because apart from those figures being extremely well known (you can look them up in seconds), I also gave numerous links to official enquiries that reported all those figures.

Similarly I don't suppose you are disputing the figures for dead and injured in the Madrid Train bombing, because I again gave links for that (and again those figures are very well known).

I don't suppose you can be disputing the figures for the dead and injured at the Manchester pop concert either (23 dead + 139 injured), or the dead and injured at the Bataclan rock concert (130 dead+ 413 injured), or the Charlie Hebdo attacks (12 dead + 11 injured) plus several immediate follow-up attacks (5 more dead + 11 more injured), or the Truck attack in Berlin (12 dead +56 injured) and in Nice/France truck attack (86 dead +458 injured), or the London Bridge Attacks (8 dead + 48 injured), or the Westminster Bridge Attacks (6 dead +50 injured), or numerous other attacks that I may have alluded to in passing (in previous posts) … because again all those are very well known and not disputed by anyone.

If you are referring to the number of UK Muslims under UK Intelligence surveillance, then try this -

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7923966.html

And by the way in case you are not familiar with the Independent Newspaper, that is part of the serious/responsible broadsheet press in the UK, and it's also the one UK newspaper that for at least 10 years after 9-11 took a very strong editorial line against Bush, Blair and any aspect of invading Iraq, i.e. it was very far to the left of any other UK media inc. the BBC on the stance it took against the West and against the UK in particular taking almost any action against Islamic fundamentalists.

Also see this report from the Times Newspaper

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...ists-3zvn58mhq

Also, see this report from the Telegraph re such numbers -

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ils-new-plans/

Here's a recent overview from the Telegraph with the focus on what MI5 knew and whether they should have acted more quickly, i.e. just as reminder of some of the most recent UK attacks -

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...terror-attacks


In earlier posts I had noted that shortly after the 2005 London Tube bombing, MI5 started to make public statements on the number of Islamic terrorist suspects that they had under surveillance in the UK. The outgoing head of MI5 then gave the figure of “about 4000” such suspects under various levels of surveillance. That figure was then repeated for several years by the later head of MI5. See this for from 2007 example -

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/u...ain-say-962126

More recent reports have given figures of 3000 suspects. However, many academic experts as well as the UK police have said the actual figure is probably much higher than 3000 or 4000.

On which point also note that we are now into what I think is about our 6th week of daily BBC reports from the Inquiry into the London Bridge Attacks (there's no court trial of the attackers, because they were all shot dead at the scene), and where over the past week we have been hearing evidence from senior MI5 officers who had been accused of failing to act upon much earlier tip-offs about one of the attackers in particular (Khuram Butt), and one of the officers just explained to the enquiry that MI5's resources are so stretched that they were simply unable to keep as close watch on the plot & the attackers as they would have really wished.

I've never disputed those numbers in the UK and Europe, but what I have said is that I disagree with your conclusions about them.
While they are tragic and need to be dealt with, I feel the response is way overblown. The anti-muslim scare is a nice and easy political target to score points in dealing with something that is nowhere near the threat it is made out to be.
As I pointed out, deaths by cigarette companies outstrip death by terrorism by 2 orders of magnitude in Europe.
There are a number of parties in Europe that are currently going all out in putting everything in combating the 'Muslim threat' and claiming that if they were but in power they'd make everything better by removing Islam from Europe. Never mind that their proposed methods are against any form of freedom of religion and speech and their actual policies are otherwise non-existent or based upon Brexit levels of fantasy.
The damage they (will) do is, to me, far more threatening and extensive than the few deaths caused by terrorism, especially as most potential terrorists get caught in our already quite effective surveillance.


Originally Posted by IanS View Post
If you are disputing the worldwide number of people killed since 9-11 by terrorist attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, in the UK & Europe, and various other parts of the world, then just the civilian deaths alone (i.e. not counting the people deliberately killed by the wars that groups like IS and Al-Qaeda have been waging against anyone who opposed them), then according to the graph in the link below, just from 2006 to 2017, the numbers is almost 250,000 civilians -

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...cks-worldwide/


Just to repeat, that does not count a large number of deadly attacks such the Madrid Train Bombing, The London Tube bombing, the Bali Night Club bombing and numerous others, all of which took place before 2006. And it also excludes those who have been killed in 2018 and 2019.

If you were complaining about the figure that I gave earlier where I probably put the number of people killed by Islamic fundamentalists since 9-11 (that's 2001) at “perhaps around” 300,000, then what I was actually estimating there included also all the great many more who have been killed not by individual mainly making attacks against complete strangers in public places, but also the number who have been killed trying to fight off groups like IS and Al-Qaeda as they entered countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (and many other countries) specifically to wage a religious war (a Jihad) against anyone who opposed their attempt to seize national and regional power.

So if you include, as I was doing, all those people who have been killed by IS and Al-Qaeda on the Islamist's self-declared battle fields, then not only would the figure be vastly higher than even I had thought, i.e. vastly higher than my guess of 300,000, but (in view of the figure above of 250,000), that total number could easily be over 1 million people killed!

For example, the Wiki link below puts the total number of dead in Syria alone (i.e. presumably inc. all the people killed in the military fighting, inc. members of IS themselves), as between 370,000 to 570,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual...rian_Civil_War


Here's another wide ranging report into the total number of deaths caused in Iraq after the US-UK-Others invasion of 2003 (see link below). But please do not tell me that most of the deaths talked about in that link were caused by US bombing in places like Mosul, because in giving this link (and the astonishing death-toll figures therein) I am NOT trying to claim that all or most of the deaths reported there (ie in the link) were due to IS or similar insurgent groups fighting there. However, what I think is quite obvious, is that almost all the deaths caused by the US (and/or by the UK, and or others with bombing raids & suchlike) were absolutely NOT attacks targeted at any Iraqi civilians at all, but which afaik have quite obviously been attempts to remove all the IS and other Islamic insurgent groups that were trying to seize power in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein …

… IOW, afaik, there would have been none of these deaths due to the US (&/or UK and others) simply murdering ordinary Iraqi people for the hell of it … the deaths are really all due to trying to combat the attempted take-over of Iraq by the religious fundamentalists from IS, Al-Q and other terrorist organisations -

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...er-us-invasion

In case anyone can't be bothered to read the above – the estimates for deaths in Iraq alone since the 2003 invasion ended, are as high as 2.4 million. And I just added “in Iraq alone” to remind readers to think how many more deaths you could add from Syria, Afghanistan, and dozens of other war-torn regions where Islamist terror groups are pursuing their wars.

In Syria, it is only very recently (just 2 or 3 months ago) that ISIS were finally defeated in their last stronghold of Baghouz by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) who were (and are) mainly composed of indigenous Syrian Kurdish, Arab & Assyrian groups opposed to both ISIS and to Assad, and who were of course quite heavily backed by US Air power. So, whilst it's true that a lot of IS fighters were killed by US bombing, and no doubt those bombs also killed many civilians who were caught up in the various war zones that ISIS had established, the majority of the deaths and injuries were caused by the fact that ISIS had entered Syria from surrounding regions with the sole aim of killing vast numbers of people in a terrorist war waged in order to establish themselves as a religious dictatorship ruling the nation from the word of God in their holy books …. IOW, what I am saying is that a large proportion of that total of 400,000 deaths in Syria, is actually due to religious fundamentalist fighters from ISIS trying to take over the country in the name of God.

You can argue about whether or not the US and other western forces should ever have been in Syria, but the fact of that matter is that US, UK and French forces (who were afaik the main forces that initially tried to aid the people's uprising against Assad) were not trying to target any ordinary civilians in Syria (and in fact afaik they were specifically doing everything possible to avoid any civilian casualties), but in contrast to that ISIS were brutally killing anyone who stood in their way, either civilians or any local fighting forces that tried to oppose them, and then of course they found themselves fighting against those air attacks from US forces who backed the Syrian Defence Force.

So I'm just pointing out that if it were not for IS trying to take over by waging a religious war in Syria, then we would not have seen a figure anywhere near 400,000 dead there.
And this is the second thing where I do not disagree with the numbers, but I do disagree with your analysis.
The deaths cited here, to me, are part of a series of savage civil wars, that would have happened with our without Islam.
Not only that, but a lot of those wars are, again in my opinion, the result of 50+ years of those countries being on the forefront of the political chess game between the West and the East, where both sides were happy to support any form of dictatorship provided they towed the line.
Once the Cold War ended, both sides dropped their dictators and then tried to wash their hands of the consequences.

Like your last example. It's nice to point at ISIS as if they appeared from a vacuum, but it wasn't Islam that turned Iraq into an anarchy without any infrastructure, that was the direct result of the two gulf wars.

It also wasn't Islam that in a half-arsed attempt at 'freeing the people' supported any resistance against the Syrian regime.

It also wasn't Islam that then made the West and Russia intervene against each other's freedom fighters in a nice Cold War reprisal.

Had that not happened, ISIS would never have arisen.
And had we not made those strikes, the motive for several terrorist attacks in Europe would not have existed.

So I do not contend the deaths, I just do not blame a religion for the result of decades of repression and destruction in which the West had a reasonable part to play. Most of it intended well, but the road to hell and all that.
Lukraak_Sisser is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 09:47 AM   #566
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,810
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post

Like your last example. It's nice to point at ISIS as if they appeared from a vacuum, but it wasn't Islam that turned Iraq into an anarchy without any infrastructure, that was the direct result of the two gulf wars.
Given that ISIS is a Sunni group, which began by targetting Shias as a means of provoking reprisals and starting an internecine war, I fail to see how you can discount Islam as a factor here.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
It also wasn't Islam that in a half-arsed attempt at 'freeing the people' supported any resistance against the Syrian regime.
Perhaps you missed the presence of the Al Nusra Front and the numerous other jihadist groups fighting in Syria.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
It also wasn't Islam that then made the West and Russia intervene against each other's freedom fighters in a nice Cold War reprisal.
You also seem to have overlooked the presence of Iran and Hezbollah, both of which are Shia, and which are fighting a proxy war with the Sunnis.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post

So I do not contend the deaths, I just do not blame a religion for the result of decades of repression and destruction in which the West had a reasonable part to play. Most of it intended well, but the road to hell and all that.
We have been over this already. Syria was supported by Russia, remember? So was Iraq, remember? Iran's western-appointed government was overthrown by an Islamic revolution, which is currently engaged in at least two wars, and is actively oppressing its people.
The roots of Muslim hatred for the West lie in the 1950s- Sayeed Qutub being the father of modern jihadism. His hatred of the west did not stem from oppression by the west.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 05:20 AM   #567
Parsman
Muse
 
Parsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 660
Perhaps things are changing?

https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...-ire-on-the-us

All religion(s) seem to be on the retreat, which isn't to say that the zealots of any faith couldn't do us a lot of harm in the meantime.
__________________
I was not; I have been; I am not; I am content - Epicurus

When you're dead you don't know that you're dead, all the pain is felt by others....................the same thing happens when you're stupid.
Parsman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 02:33 PM   #568
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,179
Thanks for that Parsman, a most interesting article. There is cause for optimism it seems.

The still very low level of acceptance of homosexuality in those Arab countries, is in stark contrast to attitudes in the West now. Lots of room for improvement there, although locking horns with the Islamic religion is needed.

The incidence of depression is disturbing, and the higher levels of this in women not surprising I suppose.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2019, 03:20 PM   #569
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,179
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post

Snip


The roots of Muslim hatred for the West lie in the 1950s- Sayeed Qutub being the father of modern jihadism. His hatred of the west did not stem from oppression by the west.

Ah yes Sayeed Qutub - or Sayyid Qutb - transliterations from one script to another can be problematic.

Quote:
Qutb is also known for his intense disapproval of the society and culture of the United States, which he saw as materialistic, and obsessed with violence and sexual pleasures. He advocated violent, offensive jihad. Views on Qutb vary widely.[citation needed] He has been described by followers as a great thinker and martyr for Islam, while many Western observers see him as a key originator of Islamist ideology. Some western commentators believe Qutb is an inspiration for violent groups such as al-Qaeda.

Some here have mentioned how Muslims, and other religious groups, have co-existed peacefully in the past, and suggested it is Western aggression that has aggravated the situation. Although there may be a modicum of truth in this, it would seem that modern day prophets, like Qutb, may be responsible for stirring up Islamic folk.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2019, 04:40 AM   #570
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,810
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Some here have mentioned how Muslims, and other religious groups, have co-existed peacefully in the past, and suggested it is Western aggression that has aggravated the situation. Although there may be a modicum of truth in this, it would seem that modern day prophets, like Qutb, may be responsible for stirring up Islamic folk.
I'm not sure there is even a modicum of truth in this. Hatred and intolerance of other faiths are embedded in the Quran, and evident throughout the Muslim world for pretty much all of its history.
The only peaceful co-existence was because of oppression, and even that didn't last long: there are numerous examples of pogroms against Jews and Christians in the Ottoman Empire and elsewhere.
Just to head off the inevitable howls of outrage, yes, I am well aware that Christian Europe was equally intolerant. That doesn't mean it was OK. Two wrongs don't make a right.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2019, 04:18 PM   #571
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,179
My daily bike ride takes me past a mosque. As the weather cools down I've been leaving my ride till later in the day so a few times have passed by about 11.30 am or so. On Fridays a couple of times I observed a flood of worshipers leaving the mosque. They've all been men.

After a small amount of research, I see there is some conflict on the issue of women being allowed into mosques, or a least in some cases, having adequate space to worship. They must be kept separate it seems.

Given the hangup Islam seems to have in relation to women's entitlements and religious obligations*, it is hardly surprising Islam struggles with issues like sexual and gender ambiguity. What's to be done with those who don't fit the mould?


* As I read, it is compulsory for men to attend the mosque, but not so for women.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 08:23 AM   #572
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,223
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Some here have mentioned how Muslims, and other religious groups, have co-existed peacefully in the past, and suggested it is Western aggression that has aggravated the situation. Although there may be a modicum of truth in this, it would seem that modern day prophets, like Qutb, may be responsible for stirring up Islamic folk.
Heh! Still at it, are we?

Some here have suggested that there are inherently violent elements within Islam, both within its scripture and within its de facto observance. While there may be a modicum of truth in that obvious and trivial observation, it would seem -- as clearly shown in this thread -- that Western aggression has played a role in aggravating the violence as far as Islamism, and no campaign to deal with that violence can afford not to incorporate measures that address this

Whether one sees the glass as half full or half empty is a matter of both semantics and, as well, of one's bias, especially when one of these perspectives -- each equally valid -- is seen as a derail and/or as not quite as relevant as the other.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 03:01 PM   #573
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,179
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Heh! Still at it, are we?

Some here have suggested that there are inherently violent elements within Islam, both within its scripture and within its de facto observance. While there may be a modicum of truth in that obvious and trivial observation, it would seem -- as clearly shown in this thread -- that Western aggression has played a role in aggravating the violence as far as Islamism, and no campaign to deal with that violence can afford not to incorporate measures that address this

Whether one sees the glass as half full or half empty is a matter of both semantics and, as well, of one's bias, especially when one of these perspectives -- each equally valid -- is seen as a derail and/or as not quite as relevant as the other.

Some progress perhaps? Maybe my efforts, and more so that of others, have had some effect. The tone in many previous posts in your camp, have seemed to dismiss any inherent violence in Islam itself, putting the blame solely at the feet of Western aggression.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 08:44 PM   #574
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,223
Camp, what camp? I don't know if you, or others here, are trying to somehow drum up some kind of chorus -- I doubt it, but who am I to comment with any kind of certitude on what you or others intend? -- but I at any rate have been consistent in my position throughout this thread, starting from my first post here (that I believe you'd responded to).

All three things being argued here are, in my view, blindingly obvious. First, it is clear that Islam can, and has, foster(ed)/facilitate(d) violence. Second, we can say that exact same thing for practically all religions -- certainly when it comes to the Abrahamic faiths, each is as bad as the other. And third, it is clear that Western aggression has greatly aggravated the situation in so far as Islam, and no strategy can be complete, or truly effective, if this last isn't addressed as well.

No amount of flooding the thread with minutiae -- that are irrelevant beyond a point as far as this short argument (and that more than one poster has argued against, here) -- can strengthen the importance of any one perspective. This thread itself is clear evidence of this.

Last edited by Chanakya; 2nd July 2019 at 08:52 PM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:07 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.