Islam - What's your view on it?

[prisonermonkeys]

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.

Honestly, I think there are some people out there - and I am not necessarily referring to anyone here - who like the idea of terrorism, even though they are vehemently opposed to it. Terrorism represents a threat that is pervasive as it is vague, and so long as it exists, then you don't have to think too carefully about what your culture or your country does. Because it doesn't matter what you do; terrorism will always be worse, so you'll always have the moral high ground. I think that there are some conservative governments out there who did just enough to keep terrorism at arm's length because it was politically convenient to keep the threat of terrorism alive. The Abbott government in particular seemed intent on inflaming tensions and trashing the relationship between the Muslim community and the rest of Australia so that they could appear tough on terrorism and keep ahead in the polls.

 

[mustafur]

Have what?

Lol, my computer shut off on me.

I was saying, it's fair to say by any measure that by and large Western countries have a higher standard of free thought and general rights from a human rights standpoint then the average Muslim majority country.

Western countries also tend to be Secular in far higher percentages.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Western countries also tend to be Secular in far higher percentages.

The separation of church and state is a curiously western invention. It goes back to the aftermath of the French Revolution when it was felt that the church had too much influence in government and had the willingness to misuse that influence. Thus, it was decided that the church could not influence the government and the government could not influence the church.

However, the idea never took hold outside Europe. For many people, religion provided moral guidance and what is morality but the thing that decides right from wrong in the absence of the rule of law? Hence the increased role that religion played in the day-to-day lives of everyday people and wider society.

 

[mustafur]

The separation of church and state is a curiously western invention. It goes back to the aftermath of the French Revolution when it was felt that the church had too much influence in government and had the willingness to misuse that influence. Thus, it was decided that the church could not influence the government and the government could not influence the church.

However, the idea never took hold outside Europe. For many people, religion provided moral guidance and what is morality but the thing that decides right from wrong in the absence of the rule of law? Hence the increased role that religion played in the day-to-day lives of everyday people and wider society.

When you say outside Europe are you talking about Now or several hundred years ago?

Because most of the world is Secular at this point.

The simple fact is being Secular still allows one a freedom, not given in a non Secular society, and it is something we can judge especially when one brings anti-secular thought with them.

 

[Scaff]

Lol, my computer shut off on me.

I was saying, it's fair to say by any measure that by and large Western countries have a higher standard of free thought and general rights from a human rights standpoint then the average Muslim majority country.

Western countries also tend to be Secular in far higher percentages.

I would argue that's being far to generous to some 'Western' countries, so of which still have religion as a primary focus of life, culture and government. It's also important to distinguish between the human rights a country affords its own people and how it then treats outside populations (or its own citizens abroad in some cases).

As such a more balanced comparison would be between faith nations themselves.

The separation of church and state is a curiously western invention. It goes back to the aftermath of the French Revolution when it was felt that the church had too much influence in government and had the willingness to misuse that influence. Thus, it was decided that the church could not influence the government and the government could not influence the church.

However, the idea never took hold outside Europe. For many people, religion provided moral guidance and what is morality but the thing that decides right from wrong in the absence of the rule of law? Hence the increased role that religion played in the day-to-day lives of everyday people and wider society.

The idea didn't always take hold in Europe or Western countries either.

The number of truly secular countries is depressingly small and even they are not immune to Human Rights abuses (North Korea I'm looking at you - however you could argue in that case that they swapped to the 'Kim' religion).

When you say outside Europe are you talking about Now or several hundred years ago?

Because most of the world is Secular at this point.

The simple fact is being Secular still allows one a freedom, not given in a non Secular society, and it is something we can judge especially when one brings anti-secular thought with them.

I disagree, very few truely secular countries exist. The UK and US for example are most certainly not.

Nor is being secular an automatic track to good Human Rights (North Korea and China for example).

Countries to fully provide the whole suite of Human Rights both domestically and in foreign policy are almost non-existent.

 

[mustafur]

So it's pure or nothing?

Here I thought we were capable to workout a difference between minuscule and large.

 

[Scaff]

So it's pure or nothing?

Here I thought we were capable to workout a difference between minuscule and large.

No.

I'm saying that you can't group in the manner in which people are attempting to and Human rights (in both Foreign and Domestic terms) need to be addressed as a whole.

Its far to complex an issue, with far to many factors involved to make blanket comparisons on the level that people are attempting to do here.

Yes women are massively oppressed in Saudi, yet oddly they still mandate that a women must be given 10 weeks paid maternity leave; the US for comparison is one of only three countries on the planet that mandate zero weeks paid maternity leave.
Source: https://www.buzzfeed.com/laraparker...round-the-worl?utm_term=.yi07YejpM#.eoOvnXaN0

The Muslim countries of Djibouti and Uzbekistan have both outlawed the death penalty, yet back in 2010 two US states were in the top ten 'countries' for executions per head of population.
Source: https://ourtimes.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/executions-in-2008/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country#Abolition_chronology

Its simply not as black and white a debate as some would like to make it out to be.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Honestly, IMO I think there are some people out there - and I am not necessarily referring to anyone here - who like the idea that western democracies and Christians have done evil things in the past and present, even though they are vehemently opposed to it, so they can feel better about the evil of Islamic terrorism and the difficulty of merging Islamic culture into Western culture. The past represents a threat that is pervasive as it is vague, and so long as it exists, then you don't have to think too carefully about what Islamic terrorists and Islamic ruled countries do to their own citizens. Because it doesn't matter what you do; western countries have done bad things so you'll always have a sort of perverted, even moral high ground from which to smugly cast judgment. I think that there are some liberal/progressive/left wing governments out there who pay lipservice to the carnage that is happening and the potential future carnage to the "western" way of life caused by mass Islamic migration.

 

[novcze]

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/

Thanks for great example of what can islam do to a country if there is no opposition, we should be wary especially if it's the country of origin of many illegal immigrants coming to Europe.

So if a country was once in promising development it negates current situation?

Oh, we're willing to accept that some are better than others.

Great.

There are just some of us who object to misrepresentation.

Agree.

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.

Yet it is you who is putting these things in the mouth of people who never said it.

 

[Scaff]

Thanks for great example of what can islam do to a country if there is no opposition, we should be wary especially if it's the country of origin of many illegal immigrants coming to Europe.

So if a country was once in promising development it negates current situation?

Congratulations on not bothering to read what I posted or bothering to answer the question I posed.

Well done.

Do you even know what happened in those three cases to change the tide or do you simply not care?

 

[mustafur]

No.

I'm saying that you can't group in the manner in which people are attempting to and Human rights (in both Foreign and Domestic terms) need to be addressed as a whole.

Its far to complex an issue, with far to many factors involved to make blanket comparisons on the level that people are attempting to do here.

Yes women are massively oppressed in Saudi, yet oddly they still mandate that a women must be given 10 weeks paid maternity leave; the US for comparison is one of only three countries on the planet that mandate zero weeks paid maternity leave.
Source: https://www.buzzfeed.com/laraparker...round-the-worl?utm_term=.yi07YejpM#.eoOvnXaN0
Its simply not as black and white a debate as some would like to make it out to be.

It depends what your going by, if you think having extra paid maturity outweighs having the right to go outside by yourself, being worth the same as a Male in terms in the Legal system, being allowed to drive, wearing clothes outside of a complete cover up, not be punished for being raped.

Hey you have great rights here, we pay you for longer leave when you have a child, but don't get raped now or we will send you to jail!

Listing the literal only thing that they have better in Saudi Arabia and then saying comparing the two isn't Black or White is playing with the truth of the situation.

 

[Scaff]

It depends what your going by, if you think having extra paid maturity outweighs having the right to go outside by yourself, being worth the same as a Male in terms in the Legal system, being allowed to drive, wearing clothes outside of a complete cover up, not be punished for being raped.

Hey you have great rights here, we pay you for longer leave when you have a child, but don't get raped now or we will send you to jail!

Listing the literal only thing that they have better in Saudi Arabia and then saying comparing the two isn't Black or White is playing with the truth of the situation.

Yes of course, that's exactly what I mean. /Sarcasm

 

[novcze]

Congratulations on not bothering to read what I posted or bothering to answer the question I posed.

you had discussion with mister dog, I only stepped in to appreciate Afghan example as what can radical islam do if they have no real opposition. It doesn't really matter how did they appear in such situation. Yes, I know about role of the USA in this, but we can't say what would happen in alternative history line.

 

[Scaff]

you had discussion with mister dog, I only stepped in to appreciate Afghan example as what can radical islam do if they have no real opposition. It doesn't really matter how did they appear in such situation. Yes, I know about role of the USA in this, but we can't say what would happen in alternative history line.

Actually it does matter, quite a lot given that Western countries are repeating the exact same actions that lead to the rise of radical Islam in a number of countries.

 

[Carbonox]

To me, the implications regarding women's rights in Saudi Arabia seem to be that the government only (slightly) cares about the rights of mothers (because "go forth and multiply" or however it's worded in Islam), not women as a whole. And that's not good enough.

 

[Scaff]

To me, the implications regarding women's rights in Saudi Arabia seem to be that the government only (slightly) cares about the rights of mothers (because "go forth and multiply" or however it's worded in Islam), not women as a whole. And that's not good enough.

So the implication from that is the US doesn't care about the rights of mothers, particularly those from poor families who would not be able to loose the income a working mother brings in.

It's also also not the only area of women's rights one half of the US political system would like to reduce.

Neither situation is good enough.

 

[mustafur]

So the implication from that is the US doesn't care about the rights of mothers, particularly those from poor families who would not be able to loose the income a working mother brings in.

It's also also not the only area of women's rights one half of the US political system would like to reduce.

Neither situation is good enough.

To be fair though we should highlight that, the US and Saudi stance on Maternity leave is an Economic stance, the Saudi position on their treatment of women that i'm highlighting is a Social one.

The Social stance is what this discussion was about was it not?

I mean can we really link economics in the same detail to religion as a Social platform?

For example, UAE which would be considered the most capitalistic Muslim Country(in Dubai and Abu Dhabi) offers 9 Weeks which is less then every country apart from the US in paid leave, and even Less then Hong Kong widely considered the most capitalistic market Today, all of which are significantly lower then the Social Democratic economy's of Scandinavia.

Which keep in mind can even go above if the Company is happy to do so(and does apply in many companies from all countries mentioned here).

Leave tends to revolve around the Countries Economic platform rather then it's social one.

 

[Scaff]

I'm going to address these in reverse for reasons that will, I hope, become obvious.

I mean can we really link economics in the same detail to religion as a Social platform?

For example, UAE which would be considered the most capitalistic Muslim Country(in Dubai and Abu Dhabi) offers 9 Weeks which is less then every country apart from the US in paid leave, and even Less then Hong Kong widely considered the most capitalistic market Today, all of which are significantly lower then the Social Democratic economy's of Scandinavia.

Which keep in mind can even go above if the Company is happy to do so(and does apply in many companies from all countries mentioned here).

Leave tends to revolve around the Countries Economic platform rather then it's social one.

The facts on the ground don't stack up in regard to this being a pure economic driver rather than a social one.

Of the world's largest economies the US is the only one which provides no legal amount of maternity leave, of the other countries that do not provide any (and the US is only one of three) they are about as different economically from the US as you can get.

The provision of maternity leave is a socio-economic one; in that the amount a country can afford to provide is based on economics; but the provision of it in the first place (and to a degree the amount a countries population is willing to accept taxes to pay for it) are social factors.

To be fair though we should highlight that, the US and Saudi stance on Maternity leave is an Economic stance, the Saudi position on their treatment of women that i'm highlighting is a Social one.

The Social stance is what this discussion was about was it not?

It may be for you, but I'm a bit funny in that I don't think its OK to remove rights for economic reasons in the same way that I don't think is OK to remove rights for social reasons.

The only reason to differentiate the cause is to identify it as part of the solution, not to provide an excuse to not discuss it.

In that argument lies the crux of the issue of why Human Rights globally need to be addressed and not just some countries, if you ignore the Human Right abuses of the West because 'they are not as bad' then you give those countries that are 'worse' a point on which to argue. And argue on it they do, Saudi and China execute a horrific number of people a year, but when the US has states that manage to make the top ten list of countries they use it as a counterpoint.

As such we have to put our own houses in order as well as working to get others to put their houses in order, one can't be done without the other.

 

[mustafur]

We can all say plenty can be done in any country, but we can all say what needs to come first.

Of course some are in the position where they can't even say what that is without risking punishment.

This is not to ignore the problems all countries may have, but to highlight that chopping off a head is not equlivent to say having your feelings hurt.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Honestly, IMO I think there are some people out there - and I am not necessarily referring to anyone here

Except that you're obviously referring to people here, whereas I wasn't, as evidenced by a specific example - unless Tony Abbott is a member here, of which I am unaware (and even if he puts his hand up now, I was unaware when I made that post).

I think that there are some liberal/progressive/left wing governments out there who pay lipservice to the carnage that is happening and the potential future carnage to the "western" way of life caused by mass Islamic migration.

Yeah, in the 1950s, we were all afraid of the carnage Jews would wreak as revenge for being silent collaborators in the Holocaust. It didn't happen. In the 1960s, we were all afraid of the carnage hippies and communists would wreak. Again, it didn't happen. In the 1970s it was communists and Asians, and while the 1980s were relatively free of fear, the Asians copped it again in the 1990s, and in the 2000s, it was the fear of the environmental lobby. Now in the 2010s, it's the fear of Muslims migrants (and you will note that I said "Muslim migrants" - just as you said "mass Muslim migration" - and not "terrorists"). Given the historical precedent, where absolutely none of the groups that we have feared would bring devastation actually brought it about, I see no reason to believe that Muslim migrants (again, "Muslim migrants", not "terrorists") will damage our culture.

Furthermore, your obvious misrepresentation of my comments - I have never ignored or disregarded the impact of terrorism - makes it pretty obvious that a) you're angling for a gotcha! moment, b) that you're in no position to judge what threatens a culture, and that c) you're unfit to make any decisions regarding it.

But, hey, what do I know? You keep that fear alive and well. Before long, you won't have to worry about mass Muslim migration destroying western culture, because you will have already ruined it yourself.

 

[mustafur]

Just for clarification @prisonermonkeys if X comes to a country and commits terrorism it's no longer X?

I do think a big problem here is the many sects of Islam and their vastly different attitudes towards each other yet being all labelled as one is a true issue of Bigotry.

However it's becoming clear what sect of Islam is becoming the issue here and we should be allowed to talk about it(wahhabism is what I'm referring to).

Which also comes off as Accidental Bigotry when you don't identify the differences and lump them all as one(aka saying ISIS aren't Islamic because they don't practice like the average Muslim you see that are Shia or Sunni).

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Just for clarification @prisonermonkeys if X comes to a country and commits terrorism it's no longer X?

If X comes to a country and commits an act of terrorism, they are no longer X. They are a terrorist.

 

[mustafur]

If X comes to a country and commits an act of terrorism, they are no longer X. They are a terrorist.

So by default, X is never at fault?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So by default, X is never at fault?

I didn't say that. I said that they're a terrorist.

 

[mustafur]

I didn't say that. I said that they're a terrorist.

It applies that when you say X can't be a Terrorist and be X.

 

[Scaff]

We can all say plenty can be done in any country, but we can all say what needs to come first.

Of course some are in the position where they can't even say what that is without risking punishment.

This is not to ignore the problems all countries may have, but to highlight that chopping off a head is not equlivent to say having your feelings hurt.

I've not even come close to saying that chopping a head off is the equivalent of having your feelings hurt, not even close.

However complaining about it when the flag bearer of the West is still executing people is comparable (unless you think that a critical mass of executions needs to be reached before its a problem), oddly enough its the exact comparison I made.

Just for clarification @prisonermonkeys if X comes to a country and commits terrorism it's no longer X?

You are aware that they can be both?

Or are all right wing Christian Norwegians terrorists because one of them was?

Muslim terrorists don't make all Muslims terrorists in the exact same way that Christian terrorists don't make all Christian Terrorists.

I do think a big problem here is the many sects of Islam and their vastly different attitudes towards each other yet being all labelled as one is a true issue of Bigotry.

However it's becoming clear what sect of Islam is becoming the issue here and we should be allowed to talk about it(wahhabism is what I'm referring to).

Which also comes off as Accidental Bigotry when you don't identify the differences and lump them all as one(aka saying ISIS aren't Islamic because they don't practice like the average Muslim you see that are Shia or Sunni).

On this I 100% agree and have no issue at all with people identifying that different sects exists and that the vast majority do not pose a risk to anyone, and in fact the sects that do (and its a very small number and even then not everyone within those sects) actually pose a greater risk to other Muslims than they do to non-Muslims.

Lets be brutally honest the main sect that is an issue is Salafism within the Wahhabi sect of Sunni Islam, and even then the Pursist are non-violent (mainly concerned with addressing religious perfection within themselves), Activists who while being non-violent in the whole would like to impose Sharia within all Muslim nations (which is an issue) and the radicals, who want everyone else to convert or die (and often both).

So on this point I 100% agree with you, to target all Muslims as a single group makes as much sense as targeting all Christians for the actions of the IRA and LRA, etc. Yet that is exactly what many in the west are quite happy to do, and the end result isn't going to be a resolution of the situation, quite the opposite its far more likely to drive people towards extremism that turn them away.

To be blunt one of the single biggest recruitment drives for IS would be if Trump gets elected.

 

[Dotini]

To be blunt one of the single biggest recruitment drives for IS would be if Trump gets elected.

Trump is campaigning on the basis of less intervention in the middle east, fewer regime changes. Or is it too late now for that, and the need is for more?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Trump is campaigning on the basis of less intervention in the middle east, fewer regime changes. Or is it too late now for that, and the need is for more?

Sadly that's a little late given his fervent support of interventions up until he decided to be President.

 

[mustafur]

I've not even come close to saying that chopping a head off is the equivalent of having your feelings hurt, not even close.

However complaining about it when the flag bearer of the West is still executing people is comparable (unless you think that a critical mass of executions needs to be reached before its a problem), oddly enough its the exact comparison I made.

I'm not trying to imply anything coming from you I was just grading severity of cases and using a wild example, death penalty is an issue but even on the issue of executions we can see there is a difference on how they are done and given out that we can comment on.

Being from a Country that doesn't practise it and my support for the non practice of it I'm critical of both just for reference, but atleast in my opinion Saudis method of this is significantly worse.

You are aware that they can be both?

I know this but I wanted to see Prisonermonkeys view on this which to be honest makes no sense to me that they are not both.

Or are all right wing Christian Norwegians terrorists because one of them was?

Muslim terrorists don't make all Muslims terrorists in the exact same way that Christian terrorists don't make all Christian Terrorists.

No they don't I know this, our main terrorist problem within Islam is at the face of it from that sect of Islam I was mentioning, I was just asking questions, I mean if there was a mass migration of this exact sect then alarm bells would be ringing, but this is not the case.

Of course there is the possibility many are in fact coming but religion being an idea means it's hard to identify until either the attack has happened or counter terrorists have identified them before they do such an attack.

 

[Dotini]

Sadly that's a little late given his fervent support of interventions up until he decided to be President.

He was never a "politician" up until last summer. Since there is a realistic chance of his election, the question stands.