Islam - What's your view on it?

[Johnnypenso]

Yes.

Until you can prove that the majority of ordinary, everyday Muslims are suiting-and-booting for eternal jihad (hint, you can't because that's bollocks) then terrorist action by a small minority of muslims who take millenia-old texts literally is extreme and perverse.

By your own standards you are a terrorist - as a christianical you share a faith with some extremists who want to take millenia-old texts literally and use them to justify forcing their will on the lives (and deaths) of others. Stupid, right?

Saw this on Facebook the other day, seems germane:

View attachment 637967

100 million would be a small, perhaps tiny minority for most. Still seems like a big number to me.

 

[TenEightyOne]

100 million would be a small, perhaps tiny minority for most. Still seems like a big number to me.

@Imari's question stands here too, I think.

Really? How many of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims are gearing up for eternal jihad?

 

[Scaff]

@Imari's question stands here too, I think.

Given that on-line radicalization is one of the main routes of access (in all forms of extremism), google stated today that they get half a million search terms being used a month, globally.

Even if everyone of those were a single unique individual (and they almost certainly will not be) it would take 17 years to get to the 100 million claimed!

Given that I'm going to guess that a claim of 100 million is not based on a great deal of substance.

 

[LeMansAid]

That would be great advice for Christians as well. Somehow I don't imagine either would be in any great rush to do so.

Yes, maybe not quite as urgent, but just as necessary.

When the "true" version of a religion requires the abstraction of the religious texts, we've got a problem. Granted, "Don't take it literally" is indeed a very simple concept, but also a very stupid requirement. The texts in the books should present with levels of clarity equal to those of governmental laws. Without that, the "true Islam", "true Judaism", "true Christianity", "true Etc.", claims will remain hollow and impotent, in my view.

I don't see it happening either, but it's my standard for acceptance, none the less.

*acceptance of their existence, not their faith.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Yes.

BTW have you worked out the common link between the majority of your anti Islamic sources yet?

10's of deadly attacks since 9/11 maybe I agree with you.

100's, you might still have a point

A few 1000, hmm you're stretching

At least 30531
That's thirty thousand, five hundred and thirty one

"perversions of a great faith"?

 

[Scaff]

10's of deadly attacks since 9/11 maybe I agree with you.

100's, you might still have a point

A few 1000, hmm you're stretching

At least 30531
That's thirty thousand, five hundred and thirty one

"perversions of a great faith"?

So what percentage of followers is that that have carried out attacks from the 1.6 billion?

Oh and you missed a question.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

So what percentage of followers is that that have carried out attacks from the 1.6 billion?

Oh and you missed a question.

They don't have headinthesand-itis?

 

[Imari]

Yes, maybe not quite as urgent, but just as necessary.

When the "true" version of a religion requires the abstraction of the religious texts, we've got a problem. Granted, "Don't take it literally" is indeed a very simple concept, but also a very stupid requirement. The texts in the books should present with levels of clarity equal to those of governmental laws. Without that, the "true Islam", "true Judaism", "true Christianity", "true Etc.", claims will remain hollow and impotent, in my view.

I don't see it happening either, but it's my standard for acceptance, none the less.

*acceptance of their existence, not their faith.

To be fair, Islam has fiqh. There are a number of things that are open to interpretation, and so there are schools of jurisprudence on how to action what are generally pretty broad laws in the Quran and hadith. Islam does have a system for moderating how the texts are implemented, at least to some degree, and it does get used.

They don't have headinthesand-itis?

Ironic.

So, 30000 deadly attacks. Let's be super, super generous and say 100 Islamic terrorists were involved in the planning and execution of every one. So 3 million people out of 1.6 billion. About 0.2%. So two out of every thousand Muslims you meet might be violent terrorists, and that's with the world's most ambitious over-estimate ever.

So meeting a thousand Muslims is about as dangerous as riding 12000 miles on a motorbike, assuming also that a violent terrorist Muslim will immediately attack and kill you on sight.

Are we starting to see how ridiculous this is yet?

 

[Scaff]

They don't have headinthesand-itis?

Nope, but it's interesting to see that you do.

Tell me who funds the vast majority of the sources you cite?

What do you actually know of Robert Mercer, Aubrey and Joyce Chernick?

Are you aware that between them they are the main funds behind 90% of the sources you cite?

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Round and round we go, when will it stop - nobody knows!

 

[Dotini]

I'd like to ask about the Sufis. Are they fanatic extremists because they offer such ascetic practices as trance repetition of the name of God?

Can the Sufis be compared to the Christian Gnostics?

Edit:
Oh, we also need some discussion of the Nation of Islam and the book of Ezekiel.

 

[Imari]

Round and round we go, when will it stop - nobody knows!

I see you've stopped attempting to have a discussion and are now just trolling. Nice.

 

[Dotini]

The US has its own unique brand of Islam. It has interesting views on the end time.
Below is from wikipedia.

The Nation of Islam resembles traditional Sunni Islam with some differences. It preaches the following of the Five Pillars of the Islamic Faith, though somewhat differently. Interpretation of the Five Pillars differs among many different Islamic schools of thought, as well as different Islamic cultures.

1. Belief in one God (Allah): Muslims believe that Allah is the One and only God (known as Tawhid).
2. Prayer: Both traditional Muslims and the Nation of Islam believe that the five daily prayers (salat) are mandatory. The leader of the NOI, Elijah Muhammad, was once quoted as saying to his followers that prayer is 'necessary for spiritual advancement'.
3. Fasting in the Islamic month of Ramadan: Traditional Muslims and the Nation of Islam believe that fasting at this time is compulsory, although NOI gives the option to fast during the month of December instead. This was done to make Ramadan easier for new converts and to break the habit of celebrating Christmas.[56]
4. Compulsory Charity (zakat) Both traditional Islam and the Nation of Islam share the belief in charity. Charity can be defined as contributing money, or contributing time to do a service to the community.[57]
5. Pilgrimage (Hajj) – pilgrimage to Mecca: Both traditional Muslims and Nation of Islam believe that this is compulsory if one has the means to undertake the journey.

Other doctrines of the Nation of Islam are disputed, specifically:

• Messiah and Mahdi:
  • NOI teaches that their founder, Master W. Fard Muhammad, is the long-awaited Messiah of the Jews and the Mahdi of the Muslims.[29]
  • Traditional Muslims are still awaiting the coming of the Mahdi, and believe that the Jews' awaited Messiah is indeed Jesus (the prophet not God) who Christians believe is the Son of God.
• Status of the Islamic prophet Muhammad vs. other prophets:
  • The Nation of Islam believes that Muhammad was the last prophet of Allah, and that Elijah Muhammad was a messenger, taught by God in the person of the Mahdi, whom the NOI claim as "Master Fard Muhammad" (W. D. Fard).[58]
  • The Nation of Islam points to the Quran: "And for every nation there is a messenger. So when their messenger comes, the matter is decided between them with justice, and they are not wronged."—Quran 10:47
• Yakub: Traditional Islam does not hold to the teachings about "Yakub" that NOI proclaims.

Due to these differences, the Nation of Islam is not recognized by some mainstream Muslims.[59][60]

 

[novcze]

I stumbled upon this interview with Marine Le Pen and was surprised how close her views are to mine regarding display of religious beliefs. She is not anti-Islam (contrary to mainstream media image of her), she have very clear opinion on what is and what is not acceptable religious behaviour in multicultural society.
France is ahead in things like ban on face covering and with Le Pen as president, things could get even more progressive.



Her views on immigration are also very sober, there is hundreds of millions affected by conflict worldwide and France/Europe can't take in all, that's lunacy, priority should be end of conflict and local help.

 

[Dotini]

On the path to a new, peaceful and cooperative world, it would help if we were all a single culture and of a single religion. True?
So vigorous Islam is better placed than flaccid Christianity in achieving the goal of a single united world culture and religion. Would it be wise of us to choose that path? Alternatively, in the apocalyptic end time prophecies, at least in the Nation of Islam, there will come a Mother Plane (UFO) to externally impose the solution.

 

[Fat Tyre]

@Dotini, It would be best if we would all ditch religion altogether, imo that is.

I still prefer for there to be multiple religions and for people to choose their own than just a single one dominating mankind, some people would still claim to be better, believers than the rest and try and persecute those who they feel aren't as serious/ devout, etc.

 

[Dotini]

@Dotini, It would be best if we would all ditch religion altogether, imo that is.

I still prefer for there to be multiple religions and for people to choose their own than just a single one dominating mankind, some people would still claim to be better, believers than the rest and try and persecute those who they feel aren't as serious/ devout, etc.

With multiple religions, conflict is likely to persist until the end of mankind.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

They don't have headinthesand-itis?

As others have said: irony.

I still prefer for there to be multiple religions and for people to choose their own than just a single one dominating mankind, some people would still claim to be better, believers than the rest and try and persecute those who they feel aren't as serious/ devout, etc.

I know this is over-simplifying, but I liken it to school uniforms. The argument for them is that it stops kids from bullying others for perceived differences. It largely doesn't, it just causes them to make bigger deals out of smaller differences.

I don't really have a problem with religion on its own. Not for me, but I'm not going to force that on others — the forcing bit is what tends to be the issue when religion is involved.

 

[Fat Tyre]

With multiple religions, conflict is likely to persist until the end of mankind.

Same with just one religion as I was saying before just that some will feel like they own the shop and will try to bully the rest. Soon enough different sects would breakaway from the main religion.

Cultures are wildly different, you'll never get 7 billion people to agree on anything. I much rather everyone pick whatever deity they want, preferably practice it in private and try to respect those who have different values, views, religious beliefs, etc.

 

[Dotini]

Same with just one religion as I was saying before just that some will feel like they own the shop and will try to bully the rest. Soon enough different sects would breakaway from the main religion.

Cultures are wildly different, you'll never get 7 billion people to agree on anything. I much rather everyone pick whatever deity they want, preferably practice it in private and try to respect those who have different values, views, religious beliefs, etc.

From this, may I take it you oppose the notion of a monolithic world government?

 

[Fat Tyre]

From this, may I take it you oppose the notion of a monolithic world government?

It's sleepy time here, I'll reply in private because I think it'll be a long one and it'll just end up being quite off topic. 👍

 

[prisonermonkeys]

she have very clear opinion on what is and what is not acceptable religious behaviour in multicultural society

Yes, she does. The only acceptable behaviour is behaviour that she approves of in advance.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

I'd like to ask about the Sufis. Are they fanatic extremists because they offer such ascetic practices as trance repetition of the name of God?

Can the Sufis be compared to the Christian Gnostics?

Edit:
Oh, we also need some discussion of the Nation of Islam and the book of Ezekiel.

Interesting question - I've heard of Sufis but don't really know much about them. Who are Christian Gnostics exactly?

-----------

It seems a few days after a terrorist attack in Europe by a Muslim and the day following 31 deaths from an Islamist suicide attack in Iraq we still seem to have the blinkers fixed wide on. Your numerical analysis is impressive Imari but neglects to mention that at over 30 thousand attacks in not even 16 years this is still thousands more than every other religions' fundamentalist attacks combined
This includes, but is not exhaustive:
Christianity
Hinduism
Chinese traditional
Buddhism
primal-indigenous
African
Sikhism
Juche
Judaism

Instead of thinking maybe there's a problem with Islam, we do some circus tricks and say

"Well if Islam was violent surely there would be a greater amound of attacks"

As if over 30 thousand is a drop in the ocean for a religion. You're mathematics are reasurring when considering them at only a superficial level but doesn't reassure or change as to what Islam says about itself. Following critical analysis we may come to the uncomfortable conclusion that maybe Islam isn't a religion like any other. Maybe it is a culturo-political force masquerading as one.

When it comes to critiquing here it's usually followed with an almost Pavlovian response with some criticism of Christianity, since the blindlingly obvious fact apparent to everyone who isn't liberal - namely that all religions are not the same has to be obfuscated to the masses. Instead of confronting the fact that there is a huge culture clash at the moment people are willing to plug their fingers in their ears and insist that it is people like me who are reading the situation all wrong.

Let's ask a simple question to prove a point:

If all these people are "perverting a great religion", why is it only Islam that has this problem to such a degree.

As others have said: irony.

So my use of facts is some sort of head in the sand condition....? I have the feeling I'm rather sticking my head above the parapet with these views. Then again I may politely ask if you think people like Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie and Stephane Charbonnier also have (had in the most latter case) their heads in the sand?

 

[LeMansAid]

If all these people are "perverting a great religion", why is it only Islam that has this problem to such a degree.

As I suggested recently, the perversion thing should really be reversed. Peaceful Muslims are an abstract representation of the religion, and those Muslims should seek to memorialise what they believe, to avoid the current Christian situation where the abstracted followers are well behaved. but leave the fundamentals of the religion unchanged for potential later abuse. Other religions should strike while the iron's cold, and rid themselves of the latent menace.

"Only Islam"? I'd say mainly Islam, and simply because it's their time right now. There are many other candidates for the future. Are you asking that your religion tie up the loose ends in the mean time?

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

On the path to a new, peaceful and cooperative world, it would help if we were all a single culture and of a single religion. True?
So vigorous Islam is better placed than flaccid Christianity in achieving the goal of a single united world culture and religion. Would it be wise of us to choose that path? Alternatively, in the apocalyptic end time prophecies, at least in the Nation of Islam, there will come a Mother Plane (UFO) to externally impose the solution.

Some do say Islam is the vehicle for the NWO and One World government (if you're into that sort of thing)

 

[Dotini]

Some do say Islam is the vehicle for the NWO and One World government (if you're into that sort of thing)

It would seem to be a possibility, albeit very distant. It could also be a short-circuit to an apocalyptic scenario which might amount to the same thing. And it could also be used as a chess piece by a 3rd party to yet another analogously dire end.

 

[Scaff]

Interesting question - I've heard of Sufis but don't really know much about them. Who are Christian Gnostics exactly?

-----------

It seems a few days after a terrorist attack in Europe by a Muslim and the day following 31 deaths from an Islamist suicide attack in Iraq we still seem to have the blinkers fixed wide on. Your numerical analysis is impressive Imari but neglects to mention that at over 30 thousand attacks in not even 16 years this is still thousands more than every other religions' fundamentalist attacks combined
This includes, but is not exhaustive:
Christianity
Hinduism
Chinese traditional
Buddhism
primal-indigenous
African
Sikhism
Juche
Judaism

Instead of thinking maybe there's a problem with Islam, we do some circus tricks and say

"Well if Islam was violent surely there would be a greater amound of attacks"

As if over 30 thousand is a drop in the ocean for a religion. You're mathematics are reasurring when considering them at only a superficial level but doesn't reassure or change as to what Islam says about itself. Following critical analysis we may come to the uncomfortable conclusion that maybe Islam isn't a religion like any other. Maybe it is a culturo-political force masquerading as one.

When it comes to critiquing here it's usually followed with an almost Pavlovian response with some criticism of Christianity, since the blindlingly obvious fact apparent to everyone who isn't liberal - namely that all religions are not the same has to be obfuscated to the masses. Instead of confronting the fact that there is a huge culture clash at the moment people are willing to plug their fingers in their ears and insist that it is people like me who are reading the situation all wrong.

Let's ask a simple question to prove a point:

If all these people are "perverting a great religion", why is it only Islam that has this problem to such a degree.

By 2004 the LRA had abducted 20,000 children, displaced 1.5 million people and killed an estimated 100,000 people.

And that was 13 years ago, and they are still active, and only a single non-Islamic terror group.

Given that plenty of others exist, for all faiths, I would say that the reality doesn't back up you claim. Or is it because the LRA will never affect you so you don't give a ****?

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

By 2004 the LRA had abducted 20,000 children, displaced 1.5 million people and killed an estimated 100,000 people.

And that was 13 years ago, and they are still active, and only a single non-Islamic terror group.

Given that plenty of others exist, for all faiths, I would say that the reality doesn't back up you claim. Or is it because the LRA will never affect you so you don't give a ****?

Huh, why the personal attack and assumption?

Giving the example of one of the most notorious Christian militia is quaint, but doesn't really address the points in my post - espically considering the disparate nature of Islamic extremists.

 

[Imari]

With multiple religions, conflict is likely to persist until the end of mankind.

With mankind, conflict is likely to persist until the end of mankind.

It seems a few days after a terrorist attack in Europe by a Muslim and the day following 31 deaths from an Islamist suicide attack in Iraq we still seem to have the blinkers fixed wide on. Your numerical analysis is impressive Imari but neglects to mention that at over 30 thousand attacks in not even 16 years this is still thousands more than every other religions' fundamentalist attacks combined
This includes, but is not exhaustive:
Christianity
Hinduism
Chinese traditional
Buddhism
primal-indigenous
African
Sikhism
Juche
Judaism

Are you actually serious? Please tell me you're not serious. You missed April Fool's Day by quite a bit.

You think that there were less than thirty thousand attacks in the last 16 years by other religiously motivated groups? Nope.

As if over 30 thousand is a drop in the ocean for a religion. You're mathematics are reasurring when considering them at only a superficial level but doesn't reassure or change as to what Islam says about itself. Following critical analysis we may come to the uncomfortable conclusion that maybe Islam isn't a religion like any other. Maybe it is a culturo-political force masquerading as one.

Says the Christian. From his majority Christian country, in a world with a first world that is made up of predominantly Christian nations. Which have a long, long history of wars both with each other and with the rest of the world. And have historically done a remarkable job of oppressing and killing the natives of lands that they decided were theirs because they happened to plant a flag on it.

And you accuse me of being blinkered.

When it comes to critiquing here it's usually followed with an almost Pavlovian response with some criticism of Christianity, since the blindlingly obvious fact apparent to everyone who isn't liberal - namely that all religions are not the same has to be obfuscated to the masses.

Of course all religions aren't the same. Duh. That's a little different to the claim that Islam is a violent religion that has killed an unprecedented number of people in the last 16 years.

Instead of confronting the fact that there is a huge culture clash at the moment people are willing to plug their fingers in their ears and insist that it is people like me who are reading the situation all wrong.

Let's ask a simple question to prove a point:

If all these people are "perverting a great religion", why is it only Islam that has this problem to such a degree.

Seriously dude. Look up the history of the past few hundred years or so. You'll be amazed. Islamic fundamentalists are :censored:ing girl scouts compared to some of the stuff the world has seen.

So my use of facts is some sort of head in the sand condition....? I have the feeling I'm rather sticking my head above the parapet with these views. Then again I may politely ask if you think people like Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie and Stephane Charbonnier also have (had in the most latter case) their heads in the sand?

Have you actually read The Satanic Verses? Rushdie, like many sensible critics of Islam, recognises the difference between Islamic fundamentalists and Islamic progressives. You'll be surprised at how different to yours his views are. Even Charbonnier defended the right of Muslims to protest, and understood that it was radical Muslims that he was provoking with his cartoons.

From this NY Times article:

Mr. Charbonnier said the Charlie Hebdo caricatures previously published by the newspaper “do not target all Muslims.”

[Mr. Charbonnier] added that “being afraid of Islam is most likely stupid, absurd and many other things, but it isn’t a crime.”

“The problem is neither the Quran nor the Bible, sleep-inducing, incoherent and badly written novels,” Mr. Charbonnier wrote. The problem, he said, is the faithful who read the holy books “like instructions for assembling Ikea shelves.”

You should probably learn more about these people and their opinions instead of assuming that they are as vehemently anti-Islam as you. Add that to the list of things that you need to learn about in order to have a sensible conversation, I suppose.

Giving the example of one of the most notorious Christian militia is quaint, but doesn't really address the points in my post - espically considering the disparate nature of Islamic extremists.

It pretty squarely disproves your statement that Islamic terrorists have committed thousands more terrorist acts in the last 16 years than all other religions combined. The disparate nature of Islamic extremists has nothing to do with that, or you would have mentioned it.

But facts aren't important, right? It's the feelings that you have. The feelings that tell you that Islam is scary, that Islam is evil, that Muslims are violent thugs who repurposed your religion and rewrote it for their own ends. Pretty terrifying, right? These guys are out to take over the world, and don't care who they have to displace or kill to do so.

If facts aren't important and we're just discussing your feelings, I think we're done here. We can't and shouldn't convince you that you don't feel the way you do. You do. We can explain to you why feeling that way is unnecessary, why the information that you've been fed that scares you so much is incorrect, why actually most Muslims are kind, giving, hard working people just like most Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and humans.

But unless you're ready to be a true Christian and open your heart to your neighbour, put aside your doubts and see the true love in their hearts, you'll continue to be scared and hateful in a world that seems like it's out to get you.

Good luck.

 

[Liquid]

More silent inaction from a Nobel Peace Prize winner: Aung San Suu Kyi says that there is no ethnic cleansing campaign against Rohingya (a Muslim minority) in Myanmar.

Rohingya are not only denied citizenship of Myanmar but also denied movement within Myanmar. Their land and private property is routinely seized and that's before the accusation of genocide is thrown in; arbitrary extrajudicial killings, infanticide, rape and arson are committed by Myanmar forces within Rakhine state where Rohingya are kept.

The United Nations and the US State Department condemn these actions without really doing much about it.