Islam - What's your view on it?

[LeMansAid]

One would assume a government would do that, but I think there lies part of the issue.

As far as I've seen, many governments in Muslim countries rely quite a bit on Islam to create laws. As you said, if they want you to swallow the line that Islam has no problems, then they will in turn refuse to re-write the rules influenced by it. Coming from some countries that have religious councils that are only there to "correctly" decipher the Quran & advise the government accordingly, anyone proposing a law change could potentially be seen as going against a religious passage that led to it in the first place. And to those councils, what the Quran says, typically goes.

Basically, in that part of the world, some of those leaders take what the Quran says to heart too literally when making decisions. After all, a couple of those countries are the ones who opposed the UDHR & adopted the Cairo Dec. because it said the same thing except in accordance with Shariah Law.

I was comparing secular standards of clarity to Islam's, using government as an example of a secular rationale. It may seem odd, but even a government that doesn't separate church and state will likely still have a secular level of clarity of definition. How they arrive at their decision of what message to convey is meaningless in this context. In fact, it's telling, that if purely isolating the subject of clarity, a government choosing an incorrect interpretation of Islam and memorialising it in law, would likely be far superior on that topic, than Islam itself. The government is still effectively secular in it's presentation, in that it is not accounting for the supernatural in how it chooses to articulate laws. That government would logically simply choose the most succinct and thorough explanation.

Sure, go ahead, ignorant people may insult you but it is highly unlikely that anyone would actually do harm to you. Christians aren't the ones killing people for insulting their book or religion.

Tell that to the doctors doing their jobs to the fullest - including performing abortions. Nothing to be concerned about there eh?

Oh, and before you go off half-cocked about the rights of an unborn child, take a moment to reflect on the fact that some Christians choose to compromise the rights of an actual postnatal child, based on their religion, by not taking them to a doctor even if the child has a life-threatening illness or disease. Feel free to thank me for saving you that embarrassment.

 

[mister dog]

Tell that to the doctors doing their jobs to the fullest - including performing abortions. Nothing to be concerned about there eh?

This example of attacks on abortion clinics is always used to demonstrate Christian violence, but when was the last assassination of an abortion doctor again? That doesn't really compare to the literally thousands of people that are slaughtered in the name of Islam every year.

Not saying that you are making said comparison, but one needs to put that in perspective I think.

 

[Scaff]

Sure, go ahead, ignorant people may insult you but it is highly unlikely that anyone would actually do harm to you. Christians aren't the ones killing people for insulting their book or religion.

I'm sorry but yes Christians do kill people for insulting God, you just don't live in a place in which it occurs. That doesn't make it non existent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Every religion has its followers who are willing to kill based on dogma.

This example of attacks on abortion clinics is always used to demonstrate Christian violence, but when was the last assassination of an abortion doctor again? That doesn't really compare to the literally thousands of people that are slaughtered in the name of Islam every year.

Not saying that you are making said comparison, but one needs to put that in perspective I think.

What level of murder makes it a problem? I wasn't aware that a certain threshold needed to be reached before it could be used as an example of religiously inspired murder?

 

[mister dog]

What level of murder makes it a problem? I wasn't aware that a certain threshold needed to be reached before it could be used as an example of religiously inspired murder?

Where do I state it can't be used as an example exactly? I'm saying it just isn't a very good one if you look at the huge difference in casualties.

 

[Scaff]

Where do I state it can't be used as an example exactly? I'm saying it just isn't a very good one if you look at the huge difference in casualties.

The point it addressed was a claim that Christians are not killing anyone for insulting their religion, as such scale doesn't come into it. All that's required to show that to be untrue is a single example, however many more example do exist.

 

[mister dog]

The point it addressed was a claim that Christians are not killing anyone for insulting their religion, as such scale doesn't come into it. All that's required to show that to be untrue is a single example, however many more example do exist.

Yes but I never claimed that Christians aren't killing anyone. However I cannot recall the last victim who was killed by Christians in the name of their religion, whilst we get confronted by victims who were assasinated in the name of Islam on a daily base.

 

[Scaff]

Yes but I never claimed that Christians aren't killing anyone.

The post you quoted however was in direct response to a claim of that nature, nor does it invalidate the question I asked.

However I cannot recall the last victim who was killed by Christians in the name of their religion, whilst we get confronted by victims who were assasinated in the name of Islam on a daily base.

Then you either ignore those events or are simply focusing on one religion only.

 

[mister dog]

Then you either ignore those events or are simply focusing on one religion only.

Ok show me some mass killings committed in the name of Christianity during 2016 please.

 

[Scaff]

Ok show me some mass killings committed in the name of Christianity during 2016 please.

So now it has to be a mass killing? Odd as just a post ago it was not even a single victim you could recall.

Given your desire to move goalposts I suspect that any example will immediately be dismissed as not significant or representative.

 

[mister dog]

So now it has to be a mass killing? Odd as just a post ago it was not even a single victim you could recall.

Well you seem to imply that we can compare the extend of violence committed by Christians in the name of their religion to that committed by Muslims, so naturally I'll go for that example, seeing we've witnessed many mass killings in the name of Islam past year.

Given your desire to move goalposts I suspect that any example will immediately be dismissed as not significant or representative.

We will know once you provide some examples which demonstrates the 2 are comparable.

 

[Scaff]

Well you seem to imply that we can compare the extend of violence committed by Christians in the name of their religion to that committed by Muslims, so naturally I'll go for that example, seeing we've witnessed many mass killings in the name of Islam past year.

No I haven't. I simply asked you what level was required for it to become a issue, a question you have not answered.

We will know once you provide some examples which demonstrates the 2 are comparable.

I've never said they were comparable, as such your asking me to support a position I never claimed to have in the first place (and you would also need to define the parameters to make a comparison, a single day, year, all know history?, a specific country, globally?, etc.

What I have said is that violence is committed by the followers of every religion, both in the name of that religion and in the defense of that religion. Now if you want examples of recent (as in current) violence and murder committed on a large scale by Christians and on a religious basis then take a look at the Central African Republic or the Lord's Resistance Army, for the same in regard to Buddhists then look at the entirety of East Asia, for Judaism it can be found in the border of Israel and Palestine.

The level, scale and brutality of the violence will go in cycles, back in the 90's Christian's targeting Muslims in the former Yugoslavia was by far the most wide-spread, right now its Muslim's targeting other Muslims and Buddhists targeting Muslims. In the future it will change, as it always does.

My point is that one is only worse that the other depending on whatever narrow focus you want to put in place (and you seem to want to have a very narrow and selective focus to support your own rather clear bias). As an example you asked in a previous post when had Christianity been used to try and conquer the world, using examples of historic Muslim Crusades to support the case that this was something Islam did that Christianity didn't. Rather ironically forgetting that these two crusades (and many others) were part of a direct tit for tat between Islam and Christianity, making it a rather null and void claim(as both were doing the exact same damn thing). It also rather ignores the entire 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and early 20th century and Europe's attempts to take over the entire world for God, King/Queen and Country.

To claim that using religion as a tool/excuse to try and dominate other nations and lands is either amazingly naive or utterly ignorant of the history of Europe as a whole.

Fundamental as in believing everything that is written in the bible? Then yes:

Actually that definition doesn't support your claim that the two are always linked.

Something that affects a change or action of the fundamental nature, that an undoing or overhaul of the fundamental principals, not a slavish following of them.

If you believe in "everything that is written in the bible" then you are not going to want to radically overhaul it!

 

[mister dog]

No I haven't. I simply asked you what level was required for it to become a issue, a question you have not answered.

One person being attacked because he isn't 'a believer' is already an issue, but that isn't the point. The point is how can you state that Christian violence towards other religions is comparable to Islamic violence in a current day context, when there is almost 0 Christian violence anymore and people are being killed in the name of Islam (because they are unbelievers) on a daily base?

As an example you asked in a previous post when had Christianity been used to try and conquer the world

You'll have to quote me on that as I don't remember saying this.

Rather ironically forgetting that these two crusades (and many others) were part of a direct tit for tat between Islam and Christianity, making it a rather null and void claim(as both were doing the exact same damn thing).

Weren't the crusades a defensive war to reclaim lands which the Muslims conquered by force?

It also rather ignores the entire 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and early 20th century and Europe's attempts to take over the entire world for God, King/Queen and Country.

And that was because the bible specifically commands us to dominate the entire world?

To claim that using religion as a tool/excuse to try and dominate other nations and lands is either amazingly naive or utterly ignorant of the history of Europe as a whole.

Please read the Koran a bit. It's pretty evident that Islam is striving for that exact goal.

 

[Scaff]

One person being attacked because he isn't 'a believer' is already an issue, but that isn't the point. The point is how can you state that Christian violence towards other religions is comparable to Islamic violence in a current day context, when there is almost 0 Christian violence anymore and people are being killed in the name of Islam (because they are unbelievers) on a daily base?

Once again you are asking me to support a claim I have never made, stop doing so.

You'll have to quote me on that as I don't remember saying this.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/islam-whats-your-view-on-it.263208/page-121#post-11660003
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/islam-whats-your-view-on-it.263208/page-121#post-11660052

Weren't the crusades a defensive war to reclaim lands which the Muslims conquered by force?

That very much depends on who you ask, but please keep in mind that's the exact same argument that AQ used to justify attacks on the west (and did so in slightly less that the 400 odd years it took Europe to get around to 'defending' the area). They were a tit-for-tat series of religiously motivated wars that both sides were responsible for and used God as justification.

The area was only Christian for around 300 years prior to the first Crusade as well (under the Byzantine empire), being initially Persian (not Christian), the Roman (not Christian), then Byzantine (Christian for 300 years), then the Sasanian Empire (not Christian) and then Muslim. The Sasanian Empire split the area in two in 610 and the Arabs took control in around 650, yet the 'defense' from Europe didn't start until the first Crusade in 1095. It took longer to respond (by 150 years) that the area had ever been Christian, as such a 'defensive war' is a stretch by a rather large amount.

It also utterly fails to address every other point I raised in regard to the use of religion during entire history of Europe and its use of religion as a motivation and driving factor in its expansion and empire building. Was no religious component part of the Spanish expansion into the America's? The British monarchy is to this day still titled 'defender of the Faith', a religious title and the person every member of the UK military swears an oath to and always has. So no religious connection to be seen in that then or has ever been used as a driving force?

Are you seriously claiming that Europe has never tried to export Christianity as a faith on a global scale and persecuted those who would not convert or subjugate themselves?

You also seem to forget that two of the European states took what was the Ottoman Empire after the end of the First World War and divided it up between them, with Britain taking Saudi (and later installing a puppet rule that would be a disaster to the world), Iraq, Cyprus, Egypt and Palestine; while the French got Syria, Lebanon. I can move onto the same thing happening in North Africa as well if you like.

Now those that were part of the British Empire were ruled by the Monarchy and as such ruled by a Christian who happened to be the head of a Christian church as well. As such claims that this is not a two sided street are both blinkered and not supported by historic fact.

And that was because the bible specifically commands us to dominate the entire world?

The aim of the Bible is to convert anyone it can (to 'save' them) is in it's very DNA, the fact that its the largest religion in the world kind of supports it aim to be a global faith. The Bible also quite clearly lays out the fate that those who do not convert should expect (its worse than Sodom and Gomorrah) and that in doing so Brother will turn on Brother and Father on Son (and that's just quoting the NT - as I know people like to pretend the OT doesn't count - sorry but it does and that's quite explicit in what should happen to anyone who doesn't believe and will not convert).

All of which can be said for pretty much any religion.

Please read the Koran a bit. It's pretty evident that Islam is striving for that exact goal.

I've read it, numerous times. I've traveled and worked throughout the middle east and my family lived in Dubai, Saudi, Kuwait and Bahrain for over a decade.

 

[Parker]

I'm sorry but yes Christians do kill people for insulting God, you just don't live in a place in which it occurs. That doesn't make it non existent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Every religion has its followers who are willing to kill based on dogma.



What level of murder makes it a problem? I wasn't aware that a certain threshold needed to be reached before it could be used as an example of religiously inspired murder?

Sir, no disrespect intended but I believe you know exactly what I meant. Of course every religion has its crazies killing people because of their God but I think it is pretty common knowledge that at this point in time it happens to be the "radical Islamists" that are doing most of the killing in the name of their God. Just a few weeks (maybe a month or so, I can't recall exactly) we were discussing Donald Trump and something he tweeted. You read his tweet to mean that he would not tolerate criticism of his administration (even though those words were not written) so I'm not sure why you decided to take my post 100% literally to mean Christians never kill in the name of their God.

For what it's worth (and this isn't directed at you) I'm not a religious person and I couldn't care less about who you choose to worship. As long as you don't infringe on the rights on myself or others, you're free to do whatever the hell you want, in my opinion.

 

[mister dog]

It's a bit ironic when you say this:

Once again you are asking me to support a claim I have never made, stop doing so.

And then proceed to do the same with me . You stated I: "asked in a previous post when had Christianity been used to try and conquer the world", but there's nothing in these below links like that?

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/islam-whats-your-view-on-it.263208/page-121#post-11660003
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/islam-whats-your-view-on-it.263208/page-121#post-11660052

I did say with regards to the new testament: "nor does it state that the world has to be converted using any means possible?", which is a different context all together.

 

[LeMansAid]

Sir, no disrespect intended but I believe you know exactly what I meant.

It seems that what you meant and what you wrote are two different things. I'd suggest not shirking your responsibility on that.

Sure, go ahead, ignorant people may insult you but it is highly unlikely that anyone would actually do harm to you. Christians aren't the ones killing people for insulting their book or religion.

The topic didn't start with even one killing being the proviso. Only "harm". I don't think it would take long at all for harm to come to someone actively proclaiming The Bible to be a "bunch of fairytales" in America's deep south.

You made a silly statement. Own it, and correct yourself. Don't act like everyone else should have read less or more than was actually there.

Also, swings and roundabouts. Who knows which will be the next religion to be the catalyst for mass killings of innocent people. There is a disturbingly high number of candidates - Christianity might even go back to the "good ol' days". Our experience can blind or numb us to the realities of what has happened, and what can happen. None of us have been on the Earth very long at all, and the troubles surrounding Islam will have understandably coloured our perceptions of which is the dominant religious "problem child", but it really doesn't take all that much wisdom to see that we need to look beyond what is contemporary for us.

Having benign religious people is a better state of being, and the Christians have developed well to a large extent. Having actually benign religions is better again though, and I choose to expect that of them instead of allowing evils to lie latent.

 

[Scaff]

It's a bit ironic when you say this:



And then proceed to do the same with me . You stated I: "asked in a previous post when had Christianity been used to try and conquer the world", but there's nothing in these below links like that?

Not even close.

I never claimed that the two were comparable in terms of contemporary violence, while in the first of those two posts you provide examples of historical crusades by Muslims you claim shows an attempt to conquer the world and in the second state that Christians would not do the same.

I did say with regards to the new testament: "nor does it state that the world has to be converted using any means possible?", which is a different context all together.

So as I predicted you are now not only outright ignoring examples that you requested but quite happy to excuse actions by one party that you condemn another for.

Sir, no disrespect intended but I believe you know exactly what I meant. Of course every religion has its crazies killing people because of their God but I think it is pretty common knowledge that at this point in time it happens to be the "radical Islamists" that are doing most of the killing in the name of their God. Just a few weeks (maybe a month or so, I can't recall exactly) we were discussing Donald Trump and something he tweeted. You read his tweet to mean that he would not tolerate criticism of his administration (even though those words were not written) so I'm not sure why you decided to take my post 100% literally to mean Christians never kill in the name of their God.

For what it's worth (and this isn't directed at you) I'm not a religious person and I couldn't care less about who you choose to worship. As long as you don't infringe on the rights on myself or others, you're free to do whatever the hell you want, in my opinion.

If that's not what you intended to say then why did you word it in that manner?

I will be blunt, unlike the Trump tweet your statement was not ambiguous or vague in any way. You were quite clear and absolute in the language you used. As such you either intended it to be read as it was written or intended it to mislead.

 

[mister dog]

Not even close.

Again you stated that I said the following: "asked in a previous post when had Christianity been used to try and conquer the world".

I never asked that. That is, as you said: 'asking me to support a claim I have never made'.
I asked if the the New Testament: 'states that the world has to be converted using any means possible?'

while in the first of those two posts you provide examples of historical crusades by Muslims you claim shows an attempt to conquer the world

Yes indeed.

and in the second state that Christians would not do the same.

I did not state that!

I will be blunt, unlike the Trump tweet your statement was not ambiguous or vague in any way. You were quite clear and absolute in the language you used. As such you either intended it to be read as it was written or intended it to mislead.

You lost me there entirely. It says what it says for all to see, so yes I intented for folk to read it as it is written 'literally', and not like you are doing twisting my words around into another context.

I'm a bit flabbergasted that you don't see or want to see the clear difference here in what I wrote, and what you say I wrote.

"when has Christianity been used to try and conquer the world" ≠ "Does the new testament state that the world has to be converted using any means possible".

Anyhow we are probably boring the crap out of everyone with this so lets get back on topic shall we

 

[Scaff]

Again you stated that I said the following: "asked in a previous post when had Christianity been used to try and conquer the world".

I never asked that. That is, as you said: 'asking me to support a claim I have never made'.
I asked if the the New Testament: 'states that the world has to be converted using any means possible?'

Are you aware of what a retorical question is?

You see for someone who claims to not know the answer to the question you have asked, you have done little more than ignore the examples given and dismiss them out of hand. As such you post as someone who has already got the answer they want, regardless of how accurate it is.

You lost me there entirely. It says what it says for all to see, so yes I intented for folk to read it as it is written 'literally', and not like you are doing twisting my words around into another context.

I'm a bit flabbergasted that you don't see or want to see the clear difference here in what I wrote, and what you say I wrote.

"when has Christianity been used to try and conquer the world" ≠ "Does the new testament state that the world has to be converted using any means possible".

Given that part of my post wasn't a reply to you I have no idea what you are going on about.

Anyhow we are probably boring the crap out of everyone with this so lets get back on topic shall we

I'm sure you would be fine with that, given that a number of valid questions and inconsistencies with your claims have been raised and have not been responded to at all.

 

[FoRiZon]

Enough.

I can admit that Islamic environment as for today isnt as liberal as Christian or Jewish counterparts. I do blame, heavily blame infact, of how overtly political the particular religion has become and the ratio of conservatism are much more prevalent also. And yes i do hope more Islamic countries push towards it.

But to say that no moslems, or even imams, can take self critisism and are advocate to liberalism, equality, progressivism, etc; its just out of touch.

As for ISIS and other terror groups, they will kill all for those who disagreed with the caliphate (aka their Supreme Leader), Abu Bakar Al Baghdadi, right down even moslems. Again political.

Call me an apologist. I dont really care. Just tell me if Trump finally put that Moslem ban or something.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Be it the Battle of Tours, Battle of Varna or Battle of Vienna - there has always been an encroachment by Muslim armies into Europe and their always will be. The tactics are different today but make no mistake, the objective hasn't changed. For a people that moan about European imperialism and colonialism it seems they quickly forget their own past when it comes to Arab imperialism

Or maybe these are just the result of "defensive wars"

 

[tarnheld]

But to say that no moslems, or even imams, can take self critisism and are advocate to liberalism, equality, progressivism, etc; its just out of touch.

That's just normal for any religion, you can't ask religious leaders or authorities to stand for something that is against their nature. It's not just limited to Islam, this applies to any religious groups -- for example after the Charlie Hebdo massacre most christian organizations pushed for anti-blasphemy laws, basically saying the victims were at least partly guilty by mocking religion.

As for ISIS and other terror groups, they will kill all for those who disagreed with the caliphate (aka their Supreme Leader), Abu Bakar Al Baghdadi, right down even moslems.

AFAIK the majority of ISIS victims are moslems.

Call me an apologist. I dont really care. Just tell me if Trump finally put that Moslem ban or something.

Don't count on other states to solve the middle east or muslimic problems, IMHO it might get better if religious and political power will be completely separated, but looking back in history i guess it will take a long time and many lives.

 

[mister dog]

Given that part of my post wasn't a reply to you I have no idea what you are going on about.

I'm sorry but either you didn't bother to look back at your post, or you are deliberately lying here.
I'm done debating with someone who cannot put water in his wine when it comes down to his own discrepancies, and instead chooses to go full on attack with all sorts of odd claims.

Reminds me of the how the Democrats or the EU is behaving lately

 

[Scaff]

Be it the Battle of Tours, Battle of Varna or Battle of Vienna - there has always been an encroachment by Muslim armies into Europe and their always will be. The tactics are different today but make no mistake, the objective hasn't changed. For a people that moan about European imperialism and colonialism it seems they quickly forget their own past when it comes to Arab imperialism

Or maybe these are just the result of "defensive wars"

Go take a look at the list of countries that Great Britain (a country that is lead by just one of Christianitys defenders of the faith) has been to war with and or invaded.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/...-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html
I'm sure those are all just the result of defensive wars as well.

You can do this for just about any country, faith or ideology.

I'm sorry but either you didn't bother to look back at your post, or you are deliberately lying here.
I'm done debating with someone who cannot put water in his wine when it comes down to his own discrepancies, and instead chooses to go full on attack with all sorts of odd claims.

Reminds me of the how the Democrats or the EU is behaving lately

You quoted a reply I made to a post from Parker as if the reply was to a post you made.

It wasn't.

 

[mister dog]

You quoted a reply I made to a post from Parker as if the reply was to a post you made.

It wasn't.

Sure, you quoted me but that one sentence was actually meant for someone else.

 

[Scaff]

Sure, you quoted me but that one sentence was actually meant for someone else.

This is what you quoted from me.

Scaff
I will be blunt, unlike the Trump tweet your statement was not ambiguous or vague in any way. You were quite clear and absolute in the language you used. As such you either intended it to be read as it was written or intended it to mislead.

Go and look at my post, it doesn't quote you and it wasn't a comment directed at you.

It's a reply to Parker, who I quoted immediately before I said that.
Parker even mentions a Trump tweet in his post.

Go back and follow the quote chain, it wasn't a reply to you, and as such I have no idea why you replied to it.

Parkers original post:

My reply to him (indicated by the arrow just in case)

You quoting my reply to Parker as if it was a reply to you (its clearly not).

As such I have no idea why you quoted it or why you think it was aimed at you, but it clearly wasn't, as such the accusations you are throwing around are rather miss-placed and I strongly suggest you review them before repeating them.

 

[xyloscissor]

After reading the last few pages a few times I can say it's not going to mean much at all to walk into any southern U.S. town and denounce Jesus and so forth, while it might turn a few heads and be looked down on I doubt violence.

What I ask in all sincerity; who kills in the name of money and what sort of organizations are waging war at what ends? I find it highly unlikely that ISIS for instance is killing for any god, more likely it stems from the unrest of the region forever, if ISIS can bring stability there, hell I might even back them lol.

 

[Small_Fryz]

 

[PeterJB]

People are complaining saying it's disgusting that our TV licenses are paying for something as Islamophobic as this. I think it's disgusting that we're sending arms to Saudi Arabia that are then going to ISIS. But hey, tomato, tomato.

 

[mustafur]

How is that Islamophobic seriously, if they were soo Phobic they wouldn't be making fun of it.

Fake name, fake outrage.