Islam - What's your view on it?

[Scaff]

Feel free to debunk his arguments.

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Oh look Christians are instructed to kill unbelievers as part of the faith as well.

He also followed the normal pattern of verbal slight of hand by forgetting utterly that Jihad is not just violent, but rather simply means struggle.

Then again I have already explained this to you in regard to another of his videos in he Nice thread, so I'm a little surprised you have forgotten it so soon.

Next time please actually explain what nonsense he is banging on about so I can save myself from watching his blindly biased bollocks.

 

[mister dog]

Well that would be great @Scaff, it it weren't for the fact that he never mentioned that Islam is the only religion that calls for violence in the video.

Also not wanting to watch a 6 mins video, because of prejudices you have about the person in question is a bit narrow minded if you don't mind me saying.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Who are you to accuse others of prejudice? You're the most prejudiced person on the forums.

And I would hardly call not wanting to watch the video because of the obvious agenda and the fallacies driving his argument "prejudice".

 

[Scaff]

Well that would be great @Scaff, it it weren't for the fact that he never mentioned that Islam is the only religion that calls for violence in the video.

He stated that Muslims are instructed to kill unbelievers as a part of faith and that should a Catholic kill someone (a relation for example) that would not be because of religion.

Now aside from being a poor comparison, it implies that Christian religous text doesn't do the same, certainly he doesn't mention it. Given that should his video not also be warning about the risk posed by Christian Fundamentalists being required to kill unbelievers?

Also not wanting to watch a 6 mins video, because of prejudices you have about the person in question is a bit narrow minded if you don't mind me saying.

Actually its more about his prejudices rather than my own.

If I honestly thought it would be something different from him then it would be of interest, but I watched enough of them now to know what pattern they will follow, what bias they will use and what he will ignore in his own faith but condemn other faiths for.

Its no different from his anti-atheist diatribes.

What I do find interesting is that I'm sure you would condemn a video if it were to be posted of a Muslim selectively quoting the Bible to portray Christians as war warmongering aggressors who will kill and invade because they are doing Gods work. Most would consider it to be outright fanatical propaganda designed to stir up anti-Christain hate, yet you seem to be utterly OK with doing exactly that, simply because you have picked Islam as a target.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

you have picked Islam as a target.

Like I said, it's being driven by the need to prove that your way of life is "right". Because it can only ever be black and white - two cultures cannot co-exist; no, one must clearly be superior to the other, and people like mister dog will be damned if they let someone else trump their culture.

 

[mister dog]

He stated that Muslims are instructed to kill unbelievers as a part of faith and that should a Catholic kill someone (a relation for example) that would not be because of religion.

Now aside from being a poor comparison, it implies that Christian religous text doesn't do the same, certainly he doesn't mention it. Given that should his video not also be warning about the risk posed by Christian Fundamentalists being required to kill unbelievers?

It is a poor comparison but by the pope which he rightly points out, it is pretty clear that these 'Catholic' murders he uses are plain murders, by a Catholic, that are not inspired by his religion but by relational circumstances. How on earth can you compare that to Islamic terrorist attacks which are 100% inspired by religion?

What I do find interesting is that I'm sure you would condemn a video if it were to be posted of a Muslim selectively quoting the Bible to portray Christians as war warmongering aggressors who will kill and invade because they are doing Gods work. Most would consider it to be outright fanatical propaganda designed to stir up anti-Christain hate, yet you seem to be utterly OK with doing exactly that, simply because you have picked Islam as a target.

Honestly if a Muslim would extend the same courtesy to a Catholic i couldn't care less if he did, as it would be his full right to do so if there was a reason for it. But you know what, that doesn't happen because it is not relevant to the current times we live in.

Catholics aren't the ones that are committing thousands of terrorist attacks worldwide nowadays, inspired by their religion and out of hate of everyone that isn't a Catholic.

Like I said, it's being driven by the need to prove that your way of life is "right". Because it can only ever be black and white - two cultures cannot co-exist; no, one must clearly be superior to the other, and people like mister dog will be damned if they let someone else trump their culture.

I've had it with you and your wild accusations about me. If you can't have the decency to give proper arguments but need to resort to wild exaggerations each time someone posts an opinion that you don't like..
I bet that if it weren't because you were restricted by the AUP you'd probably have called me a racist or Nazi already. That's the stigma lefties love to use on anyone who dares to speak up and calls the issues with Islam (or migrants) for what they are.

 

[Kuusi]

I bet that if it weren't because you were restricted by the AUP you'd probably have called me a racist or Nazi already. That's the stigma lefties love to use on anyone who dares to speak up and calls the issues with Islam (or migrants) for what they are.

And what would that be, exactly?

 

[mister dog]

And what would that be, exactly?

Open a newspaper 👍

 

[TenEightyOne]

Open a newspaper 👍

Breasts, horse racing or house prices?

 

[Scaff]

It is a poor comparison but by the pope which he rightly points out, it is pretty clear that these 'Catholic' murders he uses are plain murders, by a Catholic, that are not inspired by his religion but by relational circumstances. How on earth can you compare that to Islamic terrorist attacks which are 100% inspired by religion?

I don't believe I did?

However that does nothing to change the fact that your video shows someone doing exactly the same, he's not pointing out the issue with the comparison the Pope used, he's using it as a way to infer than all Muslims are instructed by God to kill all unbelievers (as is a reoccurring trope in his videos).

Honestly if a Muslim would extend the same courtesy to a Catholic i couldn't care less if he did, as it would be his full right to do so if there was a reason for it. But you know what, that doesn't happen because it is not relevant to the current times we live in.

Catholics aren't the ones that are committing thousands of terrorist attacks worldwide nowadays, inspired by their religion and out of hate of everyone that isn't a Catholic.

Ahh I see, because you are unaware of Christian terrorism then it doesn't exist and doesn't need addressing.

You are aware that Christian based, far right terrorist carry out more attacks and kill more people than any other group in Europe and the US?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/19/the-rise-of-the-far-right-in-europe-is-not-a-false-alarm/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...errorism-the-hate-the-gop-refuses-to-see.html
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/041609_extremism.pdf
http://www.alternet.org/story/146438/the_return_of_christian_terrorism
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/01/ame...tian-fundamentalist-and-far-right-extremists/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marvin-meadors/is-right-wing-extremism-t_b_8094482.html
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02...ing-extremists-equal-greater-threat-isis.html
And many, many, many more if you need the sources, keep in mind that this is not a new phenomenon either.

But don't worry if you keep your eyes really tightly shut its not real and you can keep insisting its only the 'evil' Muslims wot done it.

I bet that if it weren't because you were restricted by the AUP you'd probably have called me a racist or Nazi already. That's the stigma lefties love to use on anyone who dares to speak up and calls the issues with Islam (or migrants) for what they are.

I bet that if it weren't because you were restricted by the AUP you'd probably have called me a racist or Commie already. That's the stigma righties love to use on anyone who dares to speak up and calls the issues with Christians (or the far right) for what they are.

 

[Kuusi]

Open a newspaper 👍

Very evasive answer there! 👍

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If you can't have the decency to give proper arguments but need to resort to wild exaggerations each time someone posts an opinion that you don't like

Seems to work well enough for you. Every time something happens, you're the first one to call it extremism without so much as a shred of evidence. You routinely make unfair, sweeping generalisations about millions of people, but can't take it when someone finds your general attitude appalling.

I bet that if it weren't because you were restricted by the AUP you'd probably have called me a racist or Nazi already.

Why would I call you a Nazi when none of your posts call for Nazism?

That's the stigma lefties love to use on anyone who dares to speak up and calls the issues with Islam (or migrants) for what they are.

Ah, the old "I call it like I see it" argument; the flimsiest pretext used by people who seem to think that they are entitled to say what they like without consequence and expect everyone to thank them for it.

Are you sure you want to open the floodgates of "I call it like I see it"? Because if you do, other people might decide to call it like they see it, where the it in question is you.

 

[novcze]

Like I said, it's being driven by the need to prove that your way of life is "right". Because it can only ever be black and white - two cultures cannot co-exist; no, one must clearly be superior to the other, and people like mister dog will be damned if they let someone else trump their culture.

out of curiosity, what is this culture that can trump European culture? ... immigrant muslims in Europe (because let's face it, islam is not indigenous in Europe) are from cultures that can objectively be seen as inferior, especially if you take human rights perspective.

I think your conclusions about mister dog are bit jumpy

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Australian police have arrested a man on suspicion of planning a terrorist attack.

out of curiosity, what is this culture that can trump European culture?

Any other culture. And it doesn't have to be able to supersede European culture to inspire this reaction, it just has to be perceived as trying to. Because as long as you can create fear of someone trying to hijack your homeland, cut out your values and force you to identify with something that doesn't represent you, being right or wrong doesn't come into it.

 

[Scaff]

out of curiosity, what is this culture that can trump European culture? ... immigrant muslims in Europe (because let's face it, islam is not indigenous in Europe) are from cultures that can objectively be seen as inferior, especially if you take human rights perspective.

Well that smacks rather heavily of colonial-era 'White Man's Burden' and 'Manifest Destiny' nonsense.

Given how objective it is I'm sure you will not mind exploring that, over the full course of European History. As you might quickly discover that European Culture as a whole most certainly doesn't have a great track record on Human Rights at all.

Not that culture can be that easily defined or even realistically be easily discussed in objective terms.

 

[mister dog]

Well that smacks rather heavily of colonial-era 'White Man's Burden' and 'Manifest Destiny' nonsense.

Given how objective it is I'm sure you will not mind exploring that, over the full course of European History. As you might quickly discover that European Culture as a whole most certainly doesn't have a great track record on Human Rights at all.

Not that culture can be that easily defined or even realistically be easily discussed in objective terms.

Isn't it striking that each time anyone makes the comparison between human rights violations in the Muslim world and the West, he or she has to set the clock back at least 100 years?

This kind of demonstrates the long way we have come in the West since then; rights for women, gay people, freedom of speech, separation of church and state, laws that protect minorities... the list goes on. Can you say the same for the Muslim world? You can't deny that in the case of human rights they still have a long way to go right?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You can't deny that in the case of human rights they still have a long way to go right?

My government actively pursues a policy of mandatory detention for asylum seekers who arrive illegally. They are locked up in detention facilities in Nauru (and, until recently, Papua New Guinea) where they are forced to live in substandard housing indefinitely and denied access to proper medical care or adequate legal representation. The entire policy is designed to make the idea of arriving illegally horrifying - and to put that in context, many of the people in detention are fleeing war, persecution, torture and the use of rape as a weapon. On the rare occasion where someone like the UNHCR is able to gain access to the site, they have universally condemned it as torture; a recent UN group even went so far as to suggest that it was a crime against humanity.

So I think it's pretty reasonable to suggest that we all have a long way to go when it comes to human rights.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

I didn't say "a lot of Muslims", I don't know why you thought we were debating the figure?

However, at least now you know that the quran's self-stated perfection (as with the bibble) is open to interpretation by regular muslims and scholars alike.

I don't understand your link, it seems to corroborate what I said?

As one would expect, Islam teaches that the Qur'an is perfect, the complete revelation of Allah to mankind. The Qur'an is held to be flawless, completely unassailable in what it says, both in fact and doctrine. Because of this perceived completeness and perfection, Islam is viewed to be the ultimate religion, the final religious revelation from Allah to man, superseding all previous belief systems. With the completion of the Qur'an, Muslims believe, the need for revelation ended and Allah's message to man was concluded.

 

[Scaff]

Isn't it striking that each time anyone makes the comparison between human rights violations in the Muslim world and the West, he or she has to set the clock back at least 100 years?

This kind of demonstrates the long way we have come in the West since then; rights for women, gay people, freedom of speech, separation of church and state, laws that protect minorities... the list goes on. Can you say the same for the Muslim world? You can't deny that in the case of human rights they still have a long way to go right?

Lets give it a crack shall we.

Extraordinary rendition
Routine use of torture
Indefinite detention without trial
Australia treatment of refugees (in violation of International law)
The invasion of a country based on faked information and an OK from God (its fine because he told two people it was OK).
The execution of citizens without trial.
Assassination
Illegal military action in sovereign states.

It seems that the West is quite happy to put human rights aside as long as it believes the ends justify the means (which is ironically part of the reason for enshrining human rights and a key reason why it should never be used to circumvent them).

I've never denied that some countries outside of the 'West' still have a way to go in terms of Human Rights, but to claim that you need to set the clock back 100 years to find it in the West is fanciful nonsense.

 

[Dotini]

As one would expect, Islam teaches that the Qur'an is perfect, the complete revelation of Allah to mankind. The Qur'an is held to be flawless, completely unassailable in what it says, both in fact and doctrine. Because of this perceived completeness and perfection, Islam is viewed to be the ultimate religion, the final religious revelation from Allah to man, superseding all previous belief systems. With the completion of the Qur'an, Muslims believe, the need for revelation ended and Allah's message to man was concluded.

I agree that Islam is the most perfect religion ever seen on Earth. It has way more ammunition in its memetic arsenal than any other. Some religions offer inner peace. Others offer inner peace together with life after death. Some will include reconnection with family and friends. Some religions offer death to infidels, or payment from them. Some will simply say convert or die. Some religions offer slavery of your wife and rape of the children of other women. Islam is the complete package, the most highly evolved and perfected system for the control and government of mankind ever conceived and implemented on Earth. And the most successful. It is the Borg. It appears to me to be quite sustainable. My cousin Karl insists it cannot sustain indefinitely, but he does not explain how not. I think Mohammad was once quoted as quipping that his visions might have been inspired by the Djinn rather than God. So its possible that the Djinn - and not God - are the origin of not only Islam but all visionary religions.

 

[Scaff]

I don't understand your link, it seems to corroborate what I said?

As one would expect, Islam teaches that the Qur'an is perfect, the complete revelation of Allah to mankind. The Qur'an is held to be flawless, completely unassailable in what it says, both in fact and doctrine. Because of this perceived completeness and perfection, Islam is viewed to be the ultimate religion, the final religious revelation from Allah to man, superseding all previous belief systems. With the completion of the Qur'an, Muslims believe, the need for revelation ended and Allah's message to man was concluded.

I'm not aware of a single religious text that doesn't say its the absolute word of God(s) and is perfect.

Yet I'm also not aware of a single one that isn't full of contradictions and open to numerous interpretations. As such you get sects within each and every religion based on how this interpretation is read, the majority will cherry pick what they want and a few will take a more literal view, of that few some of them will attempt to use it to target the rights of others.

The above can and should be applied to every religion.

 

[mister dog]

I've never denied that some countries outside of the 'West' still have a way to go in terms of Human Rights, but to claim that you need to set the clock back 100 years to find it in the West is fanciful nonsense.

Ok so you are saying that on the subjects of womens rights, gay rights, free speech, freedom of religion, social welfare and protection of minorities Islamic countries are more or less on par with the west? Really?

Women that get raped in Saudi Arabia are jailed for gods sake, and in Iran they still execute people for being gay.
And that is ignoring the more rogue states like Afghanistan were they stone people to death. Those practices date from the middle ages in western countries.

 

[mustafur]

Are we playing the game where if any human rights are trampled on its all the same, or are we willing to accept that some are definitely worse then others.

Whilst I would say what Australia is doing is pretty bad, chopping off heads in the public square sounds more brutal.

Saudi Arabia the west's great ally is a cancer on this world.

 

[Scaff]

Ok so you are saying that on the subjects of womens rights, gay rights, free speech, freedom of religion, social welfare and protection of minorities Islamic countries are more or less on par with the west? Really?

Women that get raped in Saudi Arabia are jailed for gods sake, and in Iran they still execute people for being gay.
And that is ignoring the more rogue states like Afghanistan were they stone people to death. Those practices date from the middle ages in western countries.

No.

I didn't even come close to saying that at all, to such a degree that I'm not even convinced you bothered to read what I posted. Which is no big surprise.

My point was that the west is not the shining beacon of Human Rights that you used as justification for the superiority of European culture.

Now let me ask you a question, what created the conditions in these countries for these groups to take control?

You see it wasn't always like that at all, the Ottoman empire as an example legalised homosexuality in 1858, Iran had a moderate democratic government until the 1950s and pre-Soviet invasion Afghanistan was a very different place.

http://www.barnorama.com/afghanistan-1970s/

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Are we playing the game where if any human rights are trampled on its all the same, or are we willing to accept that some are definitely worse then others.

Oh, we're willing to accept that some are better than others. There are just some of us who object to misrepresentation. Some people would have us believe that the West is a shining beacon of civilisation while the Muslim world is inhabited exclusively by barbaric degenerates, and that clearly isn't the case.

 

[mustafur]

Oh, we're willing to accept that some are better than others. There are just some of us who object to misrepresentation. Some people would have us believe that the West is a shining beacon of civilisation while the Muslim world is inhabited exclusively by barbaric degenerates, and that clearly isn't the case.

But it's fair to say but any real measure we have

 

[Scaff]

But it's fair to say but any real measure we have

Have what?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Have what?

A way of measuring the Muslim world relative to the Western world.

 

[FoRiZon]

To be honest, I think Islam (as a society) should be reformed in a way. Muslim World hasnt fare better in eyes of the world (Extremism excluded) and I think its time to change, like don't spend too much on formalism (only thinks about religious rules and not about the world as a whole), etc.

Of course, you can criticize Islam as religion as you want. Just dont say that people who has that religion as wholly insane or "subhuman" like some people uttered in here because, holy crap.

 

[Scaff]

A way of measuring the Muslim world relative to the Western world.

I would argue that we have no real measure based on the issues with trying to do that with the 'Western world' and 'Muslim world' group into two homogeneous pots, when far too much variance exists within those individual groups.

Do we treat Russia and Holland (to pick two examples) as the same? Do we treat Saudi and Jordan the same?

None of these countries is perfect and some are better than others, but to focus solely on one group and ignore the other set a dangerous precedent.