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.
Tags anti-Islam rhetoric , anti-islam sentiments , atheism , islam

Reply
Old 30th October 2017, 03:26 PM   #161
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,817
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post

IanS: I suggest you study radicalism a bit closer. Radicals are rarely very knowledgeable about their religion and are often recent converts. They find in terrorism some sort of justified release for their frustration, I think.

I do not need to study it any closer, thanks.

But you may need to take a more objective look at what I said in that previous post. Because I am talking there about the actual evidence put before UK courts in more than 200 terrorism related trials. The material produced before the courts is unarguable. And it showed that in “all” cases the defendants had acted largely from a sense of extremely devout religious Islamic belief.

You may not have experienced anything remotely close to that level of cases if you live in the US, but I can tell you that in the UK all those hundreds of court cases were reported in great detail in the UK broadsheet press with many long in-depth articles in the Sunday press from the Times, Telegraph, Observer, and also at times with numerous opinion polls conducted amongst the UK Muslim population, asking for their views on such things as “who was behind the 9-11 attacks”, whether or not the Islamic attackers “were justified in making the attacks on the London Tube system”, “who they blamed for all of the many thousands of Islamic terrorist attacks around the world”, “whether UK Muslims should obey the UK laws or whether they should have more allegiance to what they regarded as the laws of Allah” and “whether or not they would report Islamic neighbours if they thought they were involved in support for terrorism”, etc. etc. And the results of those opinion polls were often quite shocking, with significant percentages of UK Muslims defending all manner of Islamic fundamentalist beliefs inc. the belief that the London bombers and the 9-11 attackers were justified in making their attacks.

But the point I am making to you, is that the UK Muslims who answered the surveys in that way, i.e. with indirect, or sometimes even quite direct, support for terrorist mass murder, were in all cases motivated in such beliefs (and such actions) very substantially by (if not always entirely by) what they themselves were expressing as their extremely devout religious belief in the infallibility of the Koran and the need to obey the will of Allah.

By the way, in all of those hundreds of UK court cases, almost all of the 2000 or so defendants started off by denying the charges against them, even though during the trials almost every single one of them was found to be guilty. Though just be clear & fair, I should add that the vast majority of those 200+ UK cases have involved relatively minor offences such as downloading banned terrorist material, or making public protests in support of Islamic fundamentalist beliefs. Only about 15-20 of the cases have been major high-court trials involving full scale bomb plots or other mass murder plots with defendents convicted and sentenced to very long terms from 10 to 40 years (where 40 years was previously almost unknown as a sentence in UK trials).

The number of more minor cases passing through the UK courts seems to have diminished somewhat over the last 4 or 5 years, though as you will know from recent European news, the actual terrorist incidents on the streets in the UK, in France, in Germany & Belgium etc. have continued in relatively high numbers. But to repeat the point - in all the UK cases, where we have the actual evidence produced during the trials (mountains of it), all of the defendants were shown to be acting very substantially from motivations derived directly from their religious beliefs.

If you say that all these Islamic individuals have misunderstood what it says in the Koran, such that if they had a more precise understanding of their holy books then they would not be making, supporting, or justifying all these mass murder attacks and other lesser attacks, then all those individuals would vehemently disagree with you (as they showed in their UK trials), and so would all those that I mentioned in the UK opinion polls. And most importantly so too would a large number of so-called Islamic “scholars” around the world who preach to millions of Muslims telling them that their holy books and the very words of God himself do indeed require them to support a Jihadic quest for a so-called “Ummah” or Caliphate as a devoutly religious nation for all true believers etc.

And that of course is precisely the stated aim of IS. And before IS, it was also the goal of Al Qaeda under Osama Bin Laden. In respect of which, I am sure you must know that several thousand Muslims from the UK, France, Belgium etc., have in recent years travelled to Syria and elsewhere specifically to join groups like IS in attempting to create by force (i.e., by mass murder) that sort of religious Islamic “Ummah”.

The point is – the religion and it's beliefs are unarguably very dangerous indeed. And religions such as Islam (and Christianity) most certainly should be criticised for continuing to preach about the need for people to believe in an almighty creator with the insistence that the true words of their holy books must be obeyed by all (otherwise you will be sent to hell, by Allah/God himself).
IanS 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 October 2017, 04:12 PM   #162
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,620
Such polls are notoriously difficult to conduct and evaluate in a useful way, as is interpreting the implications of the answers in a reasonable way. Not everyone who believes the Iraq war was to some degree justified approves of every single bomb dropped or every single child killed.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 31st October 2017, 12:12 AM   #163
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Briefly, the Cairo declaration on Human rights was a direct consequence of the status of the Iranian Revolution as a forceful reaction of the Islamic world against Western imperialism. Its origins are largely found in the tensions between the "West" and the Islamic world that occurred as a result of the constant violent interference of Western countries in the internal politics of the Islamic world, not in any particular qualities inherent to Islam.
And what does any of this change about the Cairo declaration being a raised middle finger to the Universal declaration of human rights?

http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/cairodeclaration.html
"ARTICLE 1:
(a) All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah and descent from Adam. All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations. The true religion is the guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human integrity."

"ARTICLE 24:

All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.


ARTICLE 25:
The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration. "

They could as well have written:
"**** you rest of mankind, we are against universal (*) human rights, we only accept islamic human rights."

It would have been exactly the same.

And while the reasons that led them to do that are certainly important and interesting, it does not change that they did it and that this is a serious problem, that a sizable number of countries are in favor of abolishing the universal declaration of human rights and that they are all islamic and all claim to do this due to islam.

(*Meaning cross-cultural and cross-religion accepted rights whether one happens to be in Beijing, New York, Lagos, Sao Paulo or Kairo)
Carn 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 31st October 2017, 12:19 AM   #164
Kumar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Kumar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 13,880
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
No, you can criticise the religion, and I've been criticising Christianity for 25 years, by addressing its beliefs and practices. The same is true for Islam.
Its opposite side can also be true. Nothing is one sided.
__________________
To try reach to Absolute & Final(A&F) is my honest desire. Let the things be A&F or die in themselves, if odd. Just Logical & Equanimious Discussions, No commitments.
Kumar 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 31st October 2017, 12:21 AM   #165
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Such polls are notoriously difficult to conduct and evaluate in a useful way, as is interpreting the implications of the answers in a reasonable way. Not everyone who believes the Iraq war was to some degree justified approves of every single bomb dropped or every single child killed.
So not everyone who believes Muslim citizens of the UK waging a war against the UK on UK soil is to some degree justified approves of every single bomb detonated at a soft and civilian target and every single child killed.

And hence my general impression is confirmed, that if i ever tried to reduce whatever "Islamophobia" i have, the absolutely worst thing to do is actually listen to people trying to argue that Islam is not a problem.

Cause the straws they try to use to form an argument are just chilling right to the bone.

As here, it can be summarized as:
Do not worry about millions of muslim immigrants; the 10-40% of them in favor of treason and starting a civil war in your country are actually in favor of respecting the Geneva conventions in such a civil war; so there is realy no serious problem about having millions of muslim immigrants.

And that is supposedly a good argument against "Islamophobia". Which is, why its chilling right to the bone.

Last edited by Carn; 31st October 2017 at 12:22 AM.
Carn 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 31st October 2017, 12:21 AM   #166
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,925
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Is there anyone arguing in public in the way your comment 143 suggested and is not being called islamophobe/right-wing by what is called "mainstream media" or Southern Poverty Law Center or similar organizations?
Truly? I don’t know what this Southern Poverty Law Center says but I have spoke many times on this subject with my friends of SOS-Racisme and Amnesty International and they usually agree with my main statements. It would be interesting that you put here some statement or deeds of the Southern Poverty Law Center that you consider erroneous. I prefer discussing particular issues rather than global disqualifications —specially when I don’t know well the case and circumstances.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Cause i think it might be pretty tricky. Effectively the position would be:
- all religions are somehwat democracy-incompatible
- fortunately in some religions this was understood - e.g. Christianity - and somehow religion and democracy can coexist
-unfortunately in some religions such an understanding is yet to weak, hence we have to specifically discuss how those religion's scriptures and teaching is incompatible with democracy; and the religion with which the discussion is most urgent is Islam
(...)
Technically, you claimed superiority of Christianity over Islam, as you indicated that Christians have made the better job at ignoring the problematic passages of their scipture.
That suggest at least a temporary superiority of the religion and/or the adherents over the other.(…)
That suggest a relative-circumstantial superiority of some Christian tendencies over other Muslim tendencies. For example: we cannot assimilate the document of alleged “Arab Charter of Human Rights” drew up by the Afrab leaders with the thought of Arab people as a whole. And we cannot suppose that this circumstantial superiority is some kind of con-substantial superiority. In other circumstances, Islam has been more tolerant that Christianity. Change the circumstances and “superiorities” can change.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
That avoids the question, how should one act who thinks otherwise, so who thinks that some religions are due to the content of their scipture/theology "worse" than other religions.
Because we have not a clear way to valuate the whole set of statements of a complex totality as religion is. It would be more productive to debate on particular statements because in general all religions are a danger for freedom. For example:
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Claiming [X-god] wrote his laws on every human heart, so that all know them and can only be in sinful rebellion when not accepting the faith, allows for execution on the spot of those refusing to bow: wildly, sickly absolutist.
[I have removed the name of the particular god mentioned here.].
This is true for Islam and this is true for Christianity. This is even true for a “peaceful” religion as Buddhism, as you can see in the genocide of Burmese Rohingya.

So, it would be preferable to discuss on particular verses of the Koran and the Bible rather than establish a ranking of dangerous books. There are dangerous passages in the Bible and in the Koran? Yes, there are. Are they responsible of the Islamic terrorism and the state terrorism in the Palestinian Occupied Territories? Yes they are. Do we need to forbid the Koran and the Bible? Do we need to forbid Islamism and Judaism? No we needn’t do it. Let us debate with Muslims and Jews on particular subjects and the way their religion can be acceptable in democracy and respect for justice, and let the philosophical issue of the dangers of religion for particular circumstances. Secularism is the priority, and the danger with rankings of bad religions is that you risk to give support to “less dangerous” ones with a label of “democratic religion”. This is not right —no religion is democratic— and you risk to extend your support to racist interests. Think about it for a minute.
David Mo 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 31st October 2017, 01:00 AM   #167
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,461
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Please elaborate on the difference between legitimate criticism of islam and illegtimate abuse of islam; or better give examples of legitimate criticism of islam.
If I described individual instances of bad behavior on the part of muslims I encountered while working in the ME that would be legit criticism.

If I described that same behavior as being indicative of all muslims, that would not be legit criticism.

Get over yourself. Religious folks of every faith can be great, or reprehensible scumbags, depending on their inclinations.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 31st October 2017, 01:50 AM   #168
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,170
There is the general case of the danger of any truth narrative or model being taken as unerring. This is the problem I call Big Truth; applies to ideologies of any stripe, including mythical "perfect markets." The degree of absolutism, that is, lack of room for others to disagree freely without sanction, is what drives the tendency of adherents to feel that the ends justify the means.

There is the general case of radicalization, in which in-group dynamics and alienation play a role in bonding together with single purpose around a powerful narrative that enhances the group's authority in its own eyes. This is common to all religious and political extremists, and may often be the result of alienation or a sense of injustice (Bubba being outdone by uppity Obama, for example).

Then there are the specifics of what radical groups do, based on (1) the justifications found in the creed (and/or added by local leader/sect), and (2) IMO, the degree to which adherents feel there is an enabling narrative in the society around them; that is, that their actions will be applauded in the groups they have as reference. The latter is especially important for lone wolf attacks in which attackers imagine themselves heroes before an unseen audience.

Given the foregoing, what makes sense isn't comparative religion, which is a total distraction, but the following:

- Examination of the degree of absolutism - ability to coexist with contrary ideas - of any creed.
- The factors contributing to alienation or radicalization, which may or may not be a result of poor socioeconomic conditions (eg, wealthy GOP donors subscribing to radical racist ideas). Propaganda plays a heavy role here.
- The actual specific calls to action in any creed or doctrine which shape the eventual behavior.
- The enabling narratives themselves, and their support in the formal doctrine.

I suggest that readers actually undertake the research. Comparative religion alone is a huge mistake, as is thinking "everybody is good and has rights" means everything will work out in the end, "because noble savage." Or as I used to write this up:

Radical extremism and terrorism results from:
1. Triggering conditions.
2. Enabling narrative and mental shortcuts.
3. Access to resources and opportunity.

***
As for how Islam plays out over time, we have a large number of examples in the form of Muslim-majority nation states and their behavior, internally and on the international stage, especially since the time when the Ottoman Empire and last Caliphate fell. The historical reaction is a matter of record, and the doctrines developed in response to modernity and human rights there for those who wish to look.

Long live skepticism and the questioning of all assumptions.

***
ETA: See the principle of abrogation. This alone is enough to entirely radicalize all of Islam's teachings, as it places Sura 9 and its "verse of the sword" as the final word in all things.
Super-ETA: All the above applies, without modification to method, to the rise of radical white nationalism. Note the enabling narrative now comes from POTUS, making today's world a very dangerous one.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 31st October 2017 at 02:03 AM.
Hlafordlaes 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 31st October 2017, 02:53 AM   #169
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,817
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Such polls are notoriously difficult to conduct and evaluate in a useful way, as is interpreting the implications of the answers in a reasonable way. Not everyone who believes the Iraq war was to some degree justified approves of every single bomb dropped or every single child killed.

When you say "not everyone" who believes ...", that is an empty statement and an example of seriously mistaken thinking - a statement that begins "not everyone" is a statement in which your are requesting absolute certainty for everyone ... there is no such absolute certainty for anything in this universe, not even for things like scientific theories of Evolution, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics/Field-Theory etc. There can be no such blanket absolute certainty for anything, let alone a certainty for all humans to share exactly the same belief about anything. So that sort of argument is a completely misguided error from the start.

What we are talking about is the influence of religious belief (and in particular, according to the title of this thread, Islamic religious belief) and whether or not that makes a significant proportion of the most highly influenced & most devout individuals, dangerous in society.

And what I have tried to point out to you is that the actual evidence before the UK courts in over 200 trials (it's actually probably closer to 300 cases now ), does show beyond any argument that the defendants were in "all" cases, largely motivated in their criminal behaviour by a very strong sense of religious faith. In all cases they were acting from what they believed was a religious justification, or even a religious requirement, to wage a physical war against others who they regard as un-Islamic or insufficiently devout or not strict enough in their obedience to Islam.

What you are doing, and what all apologists for religious violence are doing, is wilfully ignoring what is staring you in the face. You are trying to excuse religious faith in religions like Islam (and Christianity, to a lesser extent), by claiming that the violent behaviour of the offenders is actually motivated by all sorts of other things rather than their religious beliefs. But what I am saying to you is that the actual evidence in hundreds of court trials, shows that you are wrong … in every single case the defendants were indeed mainly motivated by their extreme interest in Islamic religious faith and it's holy books.

And by the way, just to be clear about something – I am not particularly anti-religious, or even anti-Islam. Or more accurately – I was not anti-religious before the 9-11 attacks and before what slowly became clear about the nature of those attacks over the following couple of years, and what then lead to the attacks in Madrid, London and hundreds of other places all around the world. Before any of that, I never really thought about religion at all, and certainly had no views on Islam.

And nor do I think the US, UK and other western governments are always blameless in the way they have tried to make financial profits from trade deals inc. arms deals etc. with leaders in distinctly dubious regimes such as that in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries.

But what happened after 9-11, is not that the plotters of that attack simply continued their fight against the USA, but instead very large numbers of Muslims around the world have been motivated to declare their allegiance to what they call their religious “brothers” on the other side of the world, and to either travel to join them in their Jihad, or else more relevantly to what I've focused upon here, they have been motivated to plot all manner of mass murder attacks in the west, in the UK, in France, Germany, Belgium etc. Their justification, as shown by all the evidence in their hundreds of court trials, is that they support groups like Al Qaeda and IS in a worldwide quest to fight against what they call Christian Crusaders invading Arab/Muslim lands, and they support by physical mass murder and war a religious aim of creating an Islamic Ummah which will return all Muslims to a strict obedience with Koranic rule of the kind that dates back to the barbarity and ignorance at the times of Mohamed 1500 years ago.

Last edited by IanS; 31st October 2017 at 02:55 AM.
IanS 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 31st October 2017, 04:07 AM   #170
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,620
Faraway foreign country constantly interferes in the affairs of your homecountry and has historically been responsible for much of the political instability there. Someone successfully pulls off an attack on said very powerful country.

It's not hard at all to see why a sizable minority people might sympathize to some degree with terrorist orgs. "So what if they killed 3000 people? You dropped bombs that killed 100,000 people here!"
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 31st October 2017, 05:07 AM   #171
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,170
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Faraway foreign country constantly interferes in the affairs of your homecountry and has historically been responsible for much of the political instability there. Someone successfully pulls off an attack on said very powerful country.

It's not hard at all to see why a sizable minority people might sympathize to some degree with terrorist orgs. "So what if they killed 3000 people? You dropped bombs that killed 100,000 people here!"
Yet this is not sufficiently analytical, as it does not explain Osama bin Laden's reasoning that saving East Timor from genocide of the non-Muslim minority was an act of aggression against "Muslim lands" (one justification for 9/11). Nor does it cover the continued claim that any lands anywhere on Earth (Spain, SE Europe) that had ever been under Muslim rule are, today, an unjust usurpation of Islamic rule. See IanS's post above for more on the permanent conflict -- in Islam's own formulation - between al-Islam, the world of surrender, and al-Harq, the world of war. When your prophet himself decrees that no treaty with non-Muslims may last more than ten years, is legitimate only when Islam is temporarily weak, and is to be used to prepare to conquer, well, you get the last 1400 years of mayhem.

Sure, the Holy Roman Empire made war on Islam, unjustly and horribly, including massacres in Jerusalem. Screw the Holy Roman Empire, which has receded at great cost under the onslaught of reason. Islam's turn.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 31st October 2017 at 05:11 AM. Reason: Added stuff
Hlafordlaes 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 31st October 2017, 05:23 AM   #172
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,287
Originally Posted by Kumar View Post
Its opposite side can also be true. Nothing is one sided.
You're not adding anything to the discussion. Of course the opposite can be true. THAT'S MY POINT!
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon 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 31st October 2017, 05:24 AM   #173
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,287
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
There is the general case of the danger of any truth narrative or model being taken as unerring.
Yeah, but that's not always true.

















__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon 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 31st October 2017, 07:35 AM   #174
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,170
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Yeah, but that's not always true.

Unless we are dealing with... [pauses for a respectful hush]... that nectar of the best gods, the richest and most famousest, maple syrup. Unmitigated pure holiness for all time!
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes 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 31st October 2017, 11:27 AM   #175
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
When your prophet himself decrees that no treaty with non-Muslims may last more than ten years, is legitimate only when Islam is temporarily weak, and is to be used to prepare to conquer, well, you get the last 1400 years of mayhem.
I'm reasonably certain this is untrue. The ten-year limit was particular to the treaty of Hudaybiyah. Some classical jurists used this time limit as a precedent, reasoning that no truce with a non-Muslim nation could be permanent. However, there was widespread debate on this.

That this particular legal debate would be responsible for "the last 1400 years of mayhem" is an extremely spurious claim. Can you direct me to any study of how this bit of treaty law debate has affected foreign relations of Muslim countries for "the last 1400 years"?
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 31st October 2017, 11:39 AM   #176
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
If I described individual instances of bad behavior on the part of muslims I encountered while working in the ME that would be legit criticism.

If I described that same behavior as being indicative of all muslims, that would not be legit criticism.
Neither of these are examples of criticism of Islam. The first is criticism of some muslims, the second of all muslims.

Criticism of Islam for example would be:

Mohammed was a pedophilic 7th century war lord; as 7th century (and 6th and 8th and nearly any other centuries) war lords are on any decent ethical scale nearly at the bottom, only a being of supreme evilness would proclaim a 7th century warlord and on top of that a pedophilic one as an excellent pattern for conduct to emulate.

Hence, Sura 33:21
https://quran.com/33/21
"There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often."

is either man-made or - if supernatural origin - from some creature one should better not offer prayers towards.

As therefore at least a single verse of the Quran is not from the supreme good being, muslims should therefore consider discarding the believe that every single verse of the Quran is verbatim from the supreme good being.


Please note, that nowhere in this criticism i actually say anything about behavior of some muslims or muslims in general. I only called Muhammed a pedophile; which is a reasonable charge as according to some sources he supposedly found interest enough in a 6 year old girl to marry and supposedly had sex with her when she was 9-year old.

And yet, i would wager quite a sum, that if someone put that criticism of Islam in New York Times editorial or any other prominent place, the roar:"Islamophobia!!!!!" would be so deafening, that even someone like Trump would try to calm the anger.



What i do not understand is why some people have such a hard time to distinguish between:
- criticism of some/many/all muslims
- criticism of the body of text and thought that forms part of the core of Islam
Carn 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 31st October 2017, 12:04 PM   #177
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,620
Oh boy, here we go again. Muhammad married A'isha to secure a political alliance.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 31st October 2017, 12:15 PM   #178
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Truly? I don’t know what this Southern Poverty Law Center says but I have spoke many times on this subject with my friends of SOS-Racisme and Amnesty International and they usually agree with my main statements. It would be interesting that you put here some statement or deeds of the Southern Poverty Law Center that you consider erroneous. I prefer discussing particular issues rather than global disqualifications —specially when I don’t know well the case and circumstances.
https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/j...extremists#ali
"The Profiles: 15 Anti-Muslim Extremists"

"Ayaan Hirsi Ali"

All what the SPLC offers against her are statements against Islam. Hence, putting her unter the header "Anti-Muslims Extremists" is wrong.

At least she should be put under the header "Anti-Islamic Extremists".

And that is just the most obvious error; the inability to distinguish between criticism of Muslims and criticism of Islam (also somewhat demonstrated by BStrong who offered as examples for legitimate/non-lgitimate criticism of Islam actually examples of criticism of Muslims).

But its not that hard; when it comes to capitalism, Christianity or socialism everybody is at once able to distinguish between criticizing the idea itself and the adherents of the idea; just when the word "Islam" pops up that ability is lost at once.


Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
That suggest a relative-circumstantial superiority of some Christian tendencies over other Muslim tendencies. For example: we cannot assimilate the document of alleged “Arab Charter of Human Rights” drew up by the Afrab leaders with the thought of Arab people as a whole. And we cannot suppose that this circumstantial superiority is some kind of con-substantial superiority. In other circumstances, Islam has been more tolerant that Christianity. Change the circumstances and “superiorities” can change.
Nontheless you assume a current superiority.

As we had it about Dawkins earlier in this thread:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...vil-religion-/
"“If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world, it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.”"

So Dawkins holds the same position as you, that currently Christianity and other religions are superior to Islam in being at present less evil than Islam.

And for your position, he gets shunned as being too extremist:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-against-islam

So you see, your position about a only at present superiority of Christianity is also Islamophobic according to the islamophobia crowd.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Because we have not a clear way to valuate the whole set of statements of a complex totality as religion is. It would be more productive to debate on particular statements because in general all religions are a danger for freedom.
That avoids the question what someone should do who thinks some religions not being a danger for freedom and who thinks that some other religions are a danger to freedom.

And i think that actually many people are convinced that only some religions are a danger to freedom.

Reason is that there is the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster which is a recognized religion in Netherlands and New Zealand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying...r#Legal_status

I do not think there is any sane living soul on this planet who both holds modern democracy dear AND considers "Pastafarianism" a danger to freedom; yet i presume that a sizeable number of those holding modern democracy dear think there is generally some problem with some other religions.

So how should someone who thinks Christianity and Islam are a danger to freedom, but Pastafarianism is not a danger, voice his opinion, that only some religions are dangerous?

(And presuming that Pastifatianism is not a religion is not possible, as i am certain that the branches in New Zealand and Netherland would offer any number of sworn testimonies to the contrary.)
Carn 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 31st October 2017, 12:18 PM   #179
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,817
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Faraway foreign country constantly interferes in the affairs of your homecountry and has historically been responsible for much of the political instability there. Someone successfully pulls off an attack on said very powerful country.

It's not hard at all to see why a sizable minority people might sympathize to some degree with terrorist orgs. "So what if they killed 3000 people? You dropped bombs that killed 100,000 people here!"

Oh, certainly, it is indeed likely that many UK Muslims do think that terrorist attacks in the UK are justified on the basis that the UK joined forces (military forces) with the US and iirc about 50 other nations in a military response first to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda along with the Taliban in Afghanistan, and then with an invasion of Iraq. Indeed that's exactly what was shown in many of the polls that I described to you.

But you are presenting that as if you think it's some sort of valid justification for mass murder attacks on the streets of London, Paris, Madrid etc.

It certainly can never be any kind of justification to take the law into your own hands in that way and go around slaughtering random innocent people thousands of miles from where the actual military action is taking place against thousands of heavily armed Islamic terrorists.

In several of the most serious UK trials several of the defendants actually said “as you bomb us, so we bomb you!” (that's a quote from a “martyrdom video” made by one of the defendants). But who is he talking about when he says “you bomb us”? He was not taking about himself or any of his co-defendants, because they were not being bombed or harmed in any way at all … they were all living quite nice lives in the UK (and in many of these cases they were actually receiving quite substantial state aid, i.e. money, for all sorts of claimed social and personal problems). So who was he talking about when he said “us”? Well he meant the Islamic terrorists who had formed heavily armed groups like Al Qaeda and IS in Iraq & Afghanistan etc. But none of those defendants had ever met any of those Islamic terrorists in any of those far-flung countries!

What he meant was that he and his co-defendants regarded themselves as religious “brothers” fighting the battles of IS and Al-Q by extending it to random mass murder attacks in London.

Do you really think that is justified?

That's not justifiable in any sort of honest educated sane society.

But they clearly do believe it's justified, because they think their religion is under attack from the West (from “Christian Crusaders”, apparently). But their religion is clearly not under any actual military attack. Bin Laden, the Afghan Taliban, Saddam Hussein etc. were never under attack because of their Islamic faith. They found themselves under attack because of their own military attacks in foreign lands … i.e. the 9-11 attacks in the USA, and in the case of Saddam Hussein his invasion of Kuwait followed by 12 years in which he constantly flouted all the terms of his ceasefire/”surrender” agreement to the stage where he had become completely uncontrollable as far as that ceasefire agreement was concerned, and where in the light of what had happened in the 9-11 attacks, the USA, UK, Spain and iirc about 10 to 20 other western democracies decided that it was simply too dangerous to leave him in control of his military dictatorship at the heart of the middle-East …. but it was certainly NOT because of their Islamic faith that any of the militarised groups like AL-Q or Saddam's dictatorship were eventually confronted militarily by a coalition of western forces.
IanS 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 31st October 2017, 12:20 PM   #180
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Oh boy, here we go again. Muhammad married A'isha to secure a political alliance.
Then the criticism might be factualy incorrect or without base; but it would still not be criticism against today muslims.

And yet, it would still be called islamophobic.

Besides, even if he married her mainly or solely for political reasons, having sex with her when she was 9 or 10 would make him nonetheless a pedophilic.

(And there is no need to avoid the issue, why such a criticism of Islam should be Islamophobic, by pointing out that some people claim she was older when they had first sex; that again would make the argument only false and not islamophobic)
Carn 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 31st October 2017, 12:30 PM   #181
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Do you really think that is justified?
It does not even matter, whether its justified.

It matters that:
- few people of Japanese heritage went on revenge killing spree in US
- few people of Vietnamese heritage went on revenge killing spree in US
- few people of German heritage went on revenge killing spree in US
- few people of Korean heritage went on revenge killing spree in US
- few people of any South or Middle American heritage went on revenge killing spree in US (while the US did not drop many bombs there, interference in the internal affairs of south and middle american countries has been OFFICAL US policy for decades)
- few people of any Chinese heritage went on revenge killing spree in US (while it is not official policy, unofficially the US has since decades been prepared to go to war in regard to the by many Chinese considered as separatist Taiwan)

So going on a "you bombed the country my grandparents came from, therefore i now mow down civilians with a truck"-killing spree is something pretty unusual and out of scope; the logical thing to do, would be to look for characteristics such people have and which all those non-murdering Japanese, Vietnamese, Germans, Koreans, Chinese or Latin Americans in the US do not have; and then look closer into these charateristics to understand whether they are relevant for this realy, realy unusual behavior.
Carn 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 31st October 2017, 02:47 PM   #182
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by Carn View Post

So going on a "you bombed the country my grandparents came from, therefore i now mow down civilians with a truck"-killing spree is something pretty unusual and out of scope;
Somehow creepy; i wrote that before the latest news from Manhatten.

But we will have to wait and see whether it was a Japanese Buddhist or Shintoist who concluded from some of Shinto or Buddhist scripture that he had to revenge Hiroshima. That is just as likely as any other possibility that one could suggest.
Carn 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 31st October 2017, 03:02 PM   #183
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,817
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
It does not even matter, whether its justified.

It matters that:
- few people of Japanese heritage went on revenge killing spree in US
- few people of Vietnamese heritage went on revenge killing spree in US
- few people of German heritage went on revenge killing spree in US
- few people of Korean heritage went on revenge killing spree in US
- few people of any South or Middle American heritage went on revenge killing spree in US (while the US did not drop many bombs there, interference in the internal affairs of south and middle american countries has been OFFICAL US policy for decades)
- few people of any Chinese heritage went on revenge killing spree in US (while it is not official policy, unofficially the US has since decades been prepared to go to war in regard to the by many Chinese considered as separatist Taiwan)

So going on a "you bombed the country my grandparents came from, therefore i now mow down civilians with a truck"-killing spree is something pretty unusual and out of scope; the logical thing to do, would be to look for characteristics such people have and which all those non-murdering Japanese, Vietnamese, Germans, Koreans, Chinese or Latin Americans in the US do not have; and then look closer into these charateristics to understand whether they are relevant for this realy, realy unusual behavior.

Well this seems to be a side-issue about the use of words, but just to be clear - it was TubbaBlubba who raised that issue as if he thought it was justified ... and that's what I was putting to him, i.e. asking him "did he think such mass murder attacks on the streets of London, Paris, Madrid etc., were somehow justified?".

But quite obviously those Muslims who are carrying out the attacks in Europe, i.e. so-called "home grown terrorists" (they were all living in UK, France, Spain, Germany, Belgium etc.), did/do believe that their mass murder attacks are fully justified; otherwise they would not have been going to such extreme lengths to do it!

So I think that a "believed justification" actually is the problem. E.g.; if you as a UK Muslim (or as anyone else, of any faith, or of no faith) genuinely do not believe that such attacks are ever justified, then almost by definition you will not be carrying out any such attacks ... and you are unlikely also to be (honestly) answering opinion polls by saying that the attacks are for some reason “justified”.

Last edited by IanS; 31st October 2017 at 03:04 PM.
IanS 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 31st October 2017, 03:22 PM   #184
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,170
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I'm reasonably certain this is untrue....
My memory, it is true, can fail or misconstrue. However, my recollection is derived from the source I have already cited in this thread, addressing precisely policies regarding war and conflict, written largely by practicing Muslims, not apostates. Some, professors in Western countries, meaning they write with decent scholarship. Back in the day, I was searching purposefully for the refutation of my current position in honest fashion, and wishing to give a precise definition to "moderate Islam." This search also lead me to the 1990 Cairo Declaration, as it is one of the few statements on religious matters that one can say is at least a minimum common denominator to the sects and views represented; i.e., institutional or "official" Islam.

What I found instead is that moderation is derived from human tendencies toward vices and virtues, either because the cost is deemed a bother, or the empathy toward others impedes dehumanizing them.

As for the teachings, one can gleefully cherry-pick as an outsider, and find plenty to admire in the books of Mecca, but because the Koran is held to be divine dictation, its contradictions must be managed by making the last word said on any topic the definitive one (principle of abrogation). In come the books of Medina, and matters progressively worsen as an initial philosophy of peaceful religious teaching transforms into a dogma to be imposed, by the sword if needed.

As a literate man, I suggest you take a look at, yes, some YouTube videos, but not the usual grist, but statements made by Salman Rushdie. I hadn't listened to him on the topic until recently, and find he is quite succinct and noticeably well-informed.

Thus, with all the foregoing, you needn't take my word for it. Beyond that, I welcome you to your own due diligence.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 31st October 2017 at 03:25 PM.
Hlafordlaes 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 1st November 2017, 01:49 AM   #185
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,925
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/j...extremists#ali
"The Profiles: 15 Anti-Muslim Extremists"

"Ayaan Hirsi Ali"

(...)
At least she should be put under the header "Anti-Islamic Extremists".
(...)
But its not that hard; when it comes to capitalism, Christianity or socialism everybody is at once able to distinguish between criticizing the idea itself and the adherents of the idea; just when the word "Islam" pops up that ability is lost at once.
(...)
Nontheless you assume a current superiority.

As we had it about Dawkins earlier in this thread:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...vil-religion-/
"“If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world, it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.”"
So Dawkins holds the same position as you, that currently Christianity and other religions are superior to Islam in being at present less evil than Islam.
(...)
So you see, your position about a only at present superiority of Christianity is also Islamophobic according to the islamophobia crowd.


That avoids the question what someone should do who thinks some religions not being a danger for freedom and who thinks that some other religions are a danger to freedom.
And i think that actually many people are convinced that only some religions are a danger to freedom.
Reason is that there is the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster which is a recognized religion in Netherlands and New Zealand:
I followed Ayan Hirsi Ali’s stunning and ephemeral political career in Netherlands and I can say that she was provocatively anti-Muslims at that moment. I think that Hirsi Ali’s big problem was that her joined bad companions —conservative racists— and liked too much making news headlines. Yes, “we are at war with Islam” or Islam is “the new fascism” and a “destructive, nihilistic cult of death” don’t seem to me the best way to respect the freedom of beliefs. It sounds like a call for extermination.

A similar thing happens with Dawkins. I am not an enthusiastic supporter of his writings, although I agree with many things of them. But when he becomes a public personality he frequently seems to be a loudmouth. To say “I think Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today. I've said so, often and loudly” is not the best way of aiding Muslims’ integration in a democratic society. He is encouraging whose that claim for iron walls and inner ghettos and indirectly those that are putting bombs.

I never would say things as these and I am surprised that you don't be aware of it. My position is avoiding this kind of global disqualifications and rankings of perversion. My position is analyze the political and social conditions —neo-colonialism and discrimination— that link intolerance and violence with this or that Islamism. A conservative anti-Islam never would put it on the table. I don’t know if many Muslims would consider my position an outrage or worse. The extreme Islamists and many ulemas will do, of course. But I am not speaking for them.

And I am sure that my tactic is better for reaching a seriious criticism against Islamic religion that can be listened by Muslims than to blame them for fanatical, violent and stupid without distinction.

NOTE: Please, don’t take me for a ride. When I speak of religions I mean religions; not an ironical religion like the worship of Spaghetti Monster and its Beer Drinkers. Of course, little religions being not violent and tolerant may exist, but I am speaking of the big influential religions.

Last edited by David Mo; 1st November 2017 at 01:54 AM.
David Mo 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 1st November 2017, 05:32 AM   #186
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
My memory, it is true, can fail or misconstrue. However, my recollection is derived from the source I have already cited in this thread, addressing precisely policies regarding war and conflict, written largely by practicing Muslims, not apostates. Some, professors in Western countries, meaning they write with decent scholarship. Back in the day, I was searching purposefully for the refutation of my current position in honest fashion, and wishing to give a precise definition to "moderate Islam." This search also lead me to the 1990 Cairo Declaration, as it is one of the few statements on religious matters that one can say is at least a minimum common denominator to the sects and views represented; i.e., institutional or "official" Islam.

What I found instead is that moderation is derived from human tendencies toward vices and virtues, either because the cost is deemed a bother, or the empathy toward others impedes dehumanizing them.

As for the teachings, one can gleefully cherry-pick as an outsider, and find plenty to admire in the books of Mecca, but because the Koran is held to be divine dictation, its contradictions must be managed by making the last word said on any topic the definitive one (principle of abrogation). In come the books of Medina, and matters progressively worsen as an initial philosophy of peaceful religious teaching transforms into a dogma to be imposed, by the sword if needed.

As a literate man, I suggest you take a look at, yes, some YouTube videos, but not the usual grist, but statements made by Salman Rushdie. I hadn't listened to him on the topic until recently, and find he is quite succinct and noticeably well-informed.

Thus, with all the foregoing, you needn't take my word for it. Beyond that, I welcome you to your own due diligence.
You're the one making ridiculous claims, like a single treaty causing 1400 years of mayhem. Determinism much?
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 1st November 2017, 07:15 AM   #187
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,170
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
You're the one making ridiculous claims, like a single treaty causing 1400 years of mayhem. Determinism much?
I prefer a researched approach, as well as consideration of dogma and behaviors in a framework recognizing their relation, so I think we have now formally agreed to disagree and end discussion.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes 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 1st November 2017, 07:41 AM   #188
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
I prefer a researched approach, as well as consideration of dogma and behaviors in a framework recognizing their relation, so I think we have now formally agreed to disagree and end discussion.
And yet your "researched approach" is apparently nowhere near thorough enough to allow you to support your incredibly broad claims.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 1st November 2017, 01:27 PM   #189
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I followed Ayan Hirsi Ali’s stunning and ephemeral political career in Netherlands and I can say that she was provocatively anti-Muslims at that moment. I think that Hirsi Ali’s big problem was that her joined bad companions —conservative racists— and liked too much making news headlines. Yes, “we are at war with Islam” or Islam is “the new fascism” and a “destructive, nihilistic cult of death” don’t seem to me the best way to respect the freedom of beliefs. It sounds like a call for extermination.
Whether it is a sensible way of arguing her point does not change the slightest bit that you again - like the SPLC - only offered quotes against Islam.

You understand that to show someone is anti-Muslim it is insufficient to show that the person is anti-Islam?

Or are anti-Muslim and anti-Islam synonyms?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I never would say things as these and I am surprised that you don't be aware of it. My position is avoiding this kind of global disqualifications and rankings of perversion. My position is analyze the political and social conditions —neo-colonialism and discrimination— that link intolerance and violence with this or that Islamism. A conservative anti-Islam never would put it on the table. I don’t know if many Muslims would consider my position an outrage or worse. The extreme Islamists and many ulemas will do, of course. But I am not speaking for them.
That you would not use the words of Dawkins does not change that you hold a similar position: that Islam at present is somehow a bit lacking compared to other religions.

How would you voice such a position in the public square?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
NOTE: Please, don’t take me for a ride. When I speak of religions I mean religions; not an ironical religion like the worship of Spaghetti Monster and its Beer Drinkers. Of course, little religions being not violent and tolerant may exist, but I am speaking of the big influential religions.
Spaghetti Monster was only the first thing coming to mind.

There are literally thousands of religions; claiming they all are at odds with freedom sounds hard to believe; but as you modified to "big influential", well maybe.
Carn 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 1st November 2017, 01:40 PM   #190
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Well this seems to be a side-issue about the use of words, but just to be clear - it was TubbaBlubba who raised that issue as if he thought it was justified ... and that's what I was putting to him, i.e. asking him "did he think such mass murder attacks on the streets of London, Paris, Madrid etc., were somehow justified?".

But quite obviously those Muslims who are carrying out the attacks in Europe, i.e. so-called "home grown terrorists" (they were all living in UK, France, Spain, Germany, Belgium etc.), did/do believe that their mass murder attacks are fully justified; otherwise they would not have been going to such extreme lengths to do it!

So I think that a "believed justification" actually is the problem. E.g.; if you as a UK Muslim (or as anyone else, of any faith, or of no faith) genuinely do not believe that such attacks are ever justified, then almost by definition you will not be carrying out any such attacks ... and you are unlikely also to be (honestly) answering opinion polls by saying that the attacks are for some reason “justified”.

The so wise and learned scholar Tubbla implied that its human norm that such sort of justifications leads to polling affirmative about terrorist attacks.

But that is again completely at odds with data and observation; just because the US or someone else bombs or overthrows governments in some country immigrants to the US from that country do not cheer killing of innocents in the US. Only if the country happens to be an islamic one, the treasonous cheering for terrorist attacks against FELLOW citizens happen.

Hence, Tubblas attempt at "It has nothing to do with Islam" falls flat independent upon whether such justifications exist and whether they make any sense.


And furthermore, at least for Islamists there is anyway a true permanent ongoing justification.

All non-islamic countries agreed that human rights should be globally respected in every single country (though there is a lot of disagreement to which extent and regarding interpretation). That means that all non-islamic countries want any ideology incompatible with that goal to be gone from Earth's surface one way or another.

As what islamists consider to be Islam IS INCOMPATIBLE with human rights, the islamists are correct if they assume there is an ideological war against what they think Islam is aiming for destruction of what think Islam is.

And hence they always have their justification for acting in "self-defense" of what they think Islam is, in case another justification like some US war or some Israel military activity is currently unavailable.

Therefore the justifications are for fundamental matters irrelevant, although they are "tactically" relevant in the ongoing propaganda warfare.
Carn 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 1st November 2017, 01:41 PM   #191
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,170
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
And yet your "researched approach" is apparently nowhere near thorough enough to allow you to support your incredibly broad claims.
No. What I won't do is more of your homework for you. We are down to one-liners; this is over.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes 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 1st November 2017, 01:47 PM   #192
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
You're the one making ridiculous claims, like a single treaty causing 1400 years of mayhem. Determinism much?
That is the issue you do not understand:

While it is not the hyperbolic "determinism" you try to ridicule it, a single treaty 1400 years in the past can have considerable effects upon today, if it involved the founder or the founders of some religion, which today adherents try to emulate.

Simply accept it, when "devout" islamists would consider either to sign a 20 year or a 10 year peace treaty with some infidel enemy, the issue of what treaties Muhammed or some of his close consorts or sucessors signed would be looked into and discussed by such islamist; for they would want to avoid acting contrary to the examples set by their religions founder or founders, as acting contrary to the religions founder usually means one acts contrary to the respective god.

But you and many others somehow cannot accept that some religious people think like that.

And i cannot understand why.

Last edited by Carn; 1st November 2017 at 01:48 PM.
Carn 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 1st November 2017, 01:57 PM   #193
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
That is the issue you do not understand:

While it is not the hyperbolic "determinism" you try to ridicule it, a single treaty 1400 years in the past can have considerable effects upon today, if it involved the founder or the founders of some religion, which today adherents try to emulate.

Simply accept it, when "devout" islamists would consider either to sign a 20 year or a 10 year peace treaty with some infidel enemy, the issue of what treaties Muhammed or some of his close consorts or sucessors signed would be looked into and discussed by such islamist; for they would want to avoid acting contrary to the examples set by their religions founder or founders, as acting contrary to the religions founder usually means one acts contrary to the respective god.

But you and many others somehow cannot accept that some religious people think like that.

And i cannot understand why.
Could you direct me to the sources across 1400 years which document this phenomenon? Sounds pretty groundbreaking. I'm not interested in arguments by analogy, vast extrapolations or first-principles reasoning about "the minds of believers" and how you assume they understand their texts. Direct me to the sources that document the phenomena you consider central to your thesis or a dedicated study of them.

Unless you're just making assumptions based on 20th century radicalism and your personal reading of the Quran?
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 1st November 2017 at 02:02 PM.
TubbaBlubba 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 1st November 2017, 01:59 PM   #194
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
No. What I won't do is more of your homework for you. We are down to one-liners; this is over.
What's over? You made some incredibly broad claims which you failed to back up with examples across history, or dedicated studies of these particular phenomena.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 1st November 2017, 02:05 PM   #195
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Could you direct me to the sources across 1400 years which document this phenomenon? Sounds pretty groundbreaking.
The phenomenon of some believers considering what their religions founder would do in their situation?

That is so well known it is a wide spread meme:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_would_Jesus_do%3F

Just with Buddhists or Muslims its not Jesus, but Muhammed or Buddha with modifications due to differing theologies.

And the oldest religious organization seems to teach that literally since some 1500+ years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imitation_of_Christ
"The ideal of the Imitation of Christ has been an important element of both Christian ethics and spirituality.[4] References to this concept and its practice are found in the earliest Christian documents, e.g. the Pauline Epistles.[3]"

Its pretty crazy you are not aware about the concept.
Carn 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 1st November 2017, 03:00 PM   #196
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
The phenomenon of some believers considering what their religions founder would do in their situation?

That is so well known it is a wide spread meme:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_would_Jesus_do%3F

Just with Buddhists or Muslims its not Jesus, but Muhammed or Buddha with modifications due to differing theologies.

And the oldest religious organization seems to teach that literally since some 1500+ years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imitation_of_Christ
"The ideal of the Imitation of Christ has been an important element of both Christian ethics and spirituality.[4] References to this concept and its practice are found in the earliest Christian documents, e.g. the Pauline Epistles.[3]"

Its pretty crazy you are not aware about the concept.
Read what I wrote again:

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
I'm not interested in arguments by ... first-principles reasoning about "the minds of believers" and how you assume they understand their texts. Direct me to the sources that document the phenomena you consider central to your thesis or a dedicated study of them.
You have a _hypothesis_ at best. If you want to demonstrate that it is true, you need to show that Islamic society has actually worked the way you assume with some degree of consistency throughout history. That ultimately means looking at, contextualizing and interpreting primary sources from various eras (and no, Wikipedia calling something "important" does NOT demonstrate anything). That's the only way you can show that a phenomenon exists. Anything else is little better than a guess.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy

Last edited by TubbaBlubba; 1st November 2017 at 03:01 PM.
TubbaBlubba 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 November 2017, 01:28 AM   #197
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,925
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
Whether it is a sensible way of arguing her point does not change the slightest bit that you again - like the SPLC - only offered quotes against Islam.
You understand that to show someone is anti-Muslim it is insufficient to show that the person is anti-Islam?
Or are anti-Muslim and anti-Islam synonyms?
If Islam and Muslim are synonymous —see the English Oxford dictionary on line: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/islam and https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/muslim — I suppose that anti-Islam and anti-Muslims is the same attitude. It is regrettable but we have not any word to speak of people that live in Islamic countries but are not Muslims properly speaking. This happens also with Christian countries. But we don’t speak of Danish, French or Chilean as “Christian”. On the contrary we speak of “Muslim” when referring to Irakian, Morrocan or Indonesian as if they were an block. We have a typical racist outlook: we think that “all the Chinese are alike”. This is the starting point of neo-colonialism. I recommend you Orientalism, by Edward Said. It is a clarifying book on this subject.

If you made some difference between Islam and Muslim people you can explain it. It would be useful for the debate.

Originally Posted by Carn View Post
That you would not use the words of Dawkins does not change that you hold a similar position: that Islam at present is somehow a bit lacking compared to other religions.
How would you voice such a position in the public square?
I will never utter these words in a public square or a private room both because they are inappropriate and unverifiable. I would say that some interpretations of Islam are a serious danger for many people.

I am against every kind of terrorism either from extremist organizations or states. But I am also against any reductive thinking that justifies the war against whole categories of people. This is unfair and irresponsible. And it is frequently a disguise of some un-confessed interests. Terrorists are those that directly carry out and justify crimes against humanity. A more confuse implication would convert anybody in a terrorist. This is a big mistake.
David Mo 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 November 2017, 01:55 AM   #198
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
If you want to demonstrate that it is true, you need to show that Islamic society has actually worked the way you assume with some degree of consistency throughout history.
That i need not to show, here the important word highlighted:

"But you and many others somehow cannot accept that [b]some[b] religious people think like that."

So i need not show that Islamic societies worked "the way i assume" with some degree of consistency thoughout history, i only need to show that in today's world some Islamists base their today political decisions upon what they think the example given by Quran, Muhammed or someone in time close to him suggests.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp


"Article One:

The Islamic Resistance Movement: The Movement's programme is Islam. From it, it draws its ideas, ways of thinking and understanding of the universe, life and man. It resorts to it for judgement in all its conduct, and it is inspired by it for guidance of its steps."

"Peaceful Solutions, Initiatives and International Conferences:
Article Thirteen:

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know."

Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?

"But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah." (The Cow - verse 120).

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As in said in the honourable Hadith:

"The people of Syria are Allah's lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation.""

There you go; as one of the reasons for rejecting any "Peace Solutions, Initiatives and International Conferences" direct reference to Quran and Hadiths so to supposedly things said and done by Muhammed personally in the 7th century is offered.

So in this organization - which is highly relevant for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - a considerable number of people in 1988, when facing the issue how to act in respect to "Peace Solutions, Initiatives and International Conferences", did a WWMD? and checked Quran and Hadiths and came up with one should not trust those Jews/Infidels and hence reject any of those peace whatever things.

Therefore i have shown the phenomenon of some believers considering what their religions founder had done/said some 1400 years ago and would do in their situation and that such considerations actually have political effects in today's world.



That one should not focuse exclusively on such things as explanations/causes is obvious; but that one should not ignore such things is also obvious.

(And yes i noted, that Hamas has a new charta; which cannot change that from 1988 to 2017 at least some "WWMD?"-islamists based political decisions to some extent on "WWMD?" or variatiaons thereof; besides, the new Hamas charta still suggest that "its reference is Islam in its principles and goals", which still implies some "WWMD?" considerations on their side)

Last edited by Carn; 2nd November 2017 at 02:24 AM.
Carn 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 November 2017, 02:23 AM   #199
Carn
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,295
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
If Islam and Muslim are synonymous —see the English Oxford dictionary on line: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/islam and https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/muslim — I suppose that anti-Islam and anti-Muslims is the same attitude.
I do not consider the words to be synonymous. I asked whether you consider them synonyms.

Oxford dictationary links does not consider them synonyms, as it defines Muslim as:
"A follower of the religion of Islam."

If Islam and Muslim would be synonym, that would be a recursive definition. So the site will only offer that definition, if Islam and Muslim are not synonyms in their opinion.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
It is regrettable but we have not any word to speak of people that live in Islamic countries but are not Muslims properly speaking. This happens also with Christian countries. But we don’t speak of Danish, French or Chilean as “Christian”. On the contrary we speak of “Muslim” when referring to Irakian, Morrocan or Indonesian as if they were an block.
I recommend you realizing that other people being unable to use language correctly and call for example inhabitants of Irak Muslims instead of Irakis is entirely not my fault. And similar that when i say Muslim i mean Muslim as "follower of Islam" and hence do not imply any nationality or ethnic or "race" and half the world is too stupid to understand that i do not talk about people from some specific country or even from some larger region it is not my fault, although it is my problem.

As you see above, the dictionary you linked treats Muslims and Islam not as synonyms.

Hence, it is at least semantically possible to be Anti-Islam without being Anti-Muslim.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
We have a typical racist outlook: we think that “all the Chinese are alike”.
Cant talk about anyone else, but for me it a clear: NO!

I do not think that all the Chinese are alike. Why should i ever think such a stupid thing, when i have read many stories about Chinese individuals with differing and sometimes opposing views and have had contact with a limited number of Chinese who - what a unbelievable miracle - seemed to be indivudals?


Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
This is the starting point of neo-colonialism. I recommend you Orientalism, by Edward Said. It is a clarifying book on this subject.
Based on you also presuming i am racist, it seems more like a book "How to constantly misunderstand anything anyone says about Islam, so i can call him racist".

Maybe i should realy read it; such books are often quite some fun to follow the idiotic contortions some people do when setting up strawmans to burn them down.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
If you made some difference between Islam and Muslim people you can explain it. It would be useful for the debate.
Actually, it would be yours to show that i did not make such a difference.

But look at post 176. In it i went harshly against Islam and only offered a conclusion for Muslims to draw from my harsh criticism. Hence, i treated Islam and Muslims as being different from each other.

Last edited by Carn; 2nd November 2017 at 02:26 AM.
Carn 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 November 2017, 03:28 AM   #200
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11,620
Originally Posted by Carn View Post
That i need not to show...
Well, that settles it: you are just making things up to support your preconceived, bigoted prejudices, with little to no honest concern for the truth.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 01:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.