Islam - What's your view on it?

[TenEightyOne]

Unless you're one of those who think it's white man's fault that jihadists and islamic extremists exist... Which I suppose you aren't.

I don't think anybody would claim it as the root of all jihadism, but you have to take account of movements like Boko Haram and look at the history of the Western nations in Africa and the Middle East over the last few hundred years.

 

[mustafur]

British and French line drawing, the real killer.

 

[zzz_pt]

I don't think anybody would claim it as the root of all jihadism, but you have to take account of movements like Boko Haram and look at the history of the Western nations in Africa and the Middle East over the last few hundred years.

Why do you think there's zero countries in South America (where Western Nations had a great impact for centuries) killing apostates, calling for the extreminations of jews, demanding cartoonists and writers to be killed, blowing up churches or treating women like cattle and shoving them in bags?

Could it be that the religions people have in different places where war and occupation happened against and by western nations, have an influence?

I don't see India, who's arguably the country that lost the most with the British occupation, doing half the things we're talking about. And it's not because they don't have the power or the numbers. But they're mostly Hindus, who don't have a abrahamic religion (and therefore a culture) implying conquering, proselytizing and earthly punishments of other people.

I'm Portuguese. We were one of if not the largest slave trader to South America. Nothing ever came in return as a vengence, as far as I know from my knowledge of Portuguese History. Our ex colonies in Africa were given independence right after 1974 when we took down the dictatorship and we never had people from Angola, Cape Verde, Mozambique, etc coming to Portugal to blow us up or calling for the killing of portuguese people. Some portuguese people had to come back to portugal empty handed, but that was expected in during the first few years of independence. But shortly after that, we got to a situation where we have a good relationship with those countries. Lots of portuguese people live and work there and lots of people from those countries come to Portugal to work, live, sutdy and on holidays. We treat each other as brothers (even politically). Same with Brazil.

I mean, western countries did a great number of bad things in the Middle East and Africa (as the Ottoman and other empires did too). But that alone is not a justification for the religious extremism.

As Sam Harris once said - and I'm paraphrasing - it's not religious fundamentalism that's the problem. It's the fundamentals of a particular religion. Jains fundamentalist would never fight back, unless in self defense, if that.

 

[Scaff]

According to the 2017 UNICEF report, State of the World’s Children, Bangladesh is the 4th country in the world with the highest rates of child marriage before age 18, with 59 %. 22% before 15 (it would be 2nd or 1st in total absolute numbers instead of percentage points).

Bangladesh is above the US because of 2 things:

1- the US is not as great (socially speaking) as everyone things it is, despite having one of the greatest if not the greatest foundational documents and Constitution (not a fan of the 2nd ammendment but that's another story).

2- In the study, Bangladesh gets above the USA because it ranks 5th in the world for "Political Empowerment" while the USA ranks 98th. This is interesting because it's the only variable (from the 4 they analyse) in the study that could be simply linked to women not wanting to run for office or not getting the votes to win a position, as it happens in democracies. It's not the same as dying earlier than men, not finishing school as often as men, not being paid as much as men, etc. If you'd take the first 3 variables, which are, imo, more important than the 4th, Bangladesh would be way bellow 100th, since it ranks 133rd (Economic Participation and Opportunity), 116th (Educational Attainment) and 117th (Health and Survival). That's one of the things that happen when you have roughly 250.000 girls getting married before the age of 15 every year.

So that would the exact points I've spent the day stating and you describing as "poor"!

Odd that when it doesn't support your point you suddenly want to start using critical analysis.

The other cases you brought up, are not examples of the best societies we have, so Brazil or Malta are kinda of irrelevant.

So that would the exact points I've spent the day stating and you describing as "poor"!

Odd that when it doesn't support your point you suddenly want to start using critical analysis.

I never claimed ALL majority muslim countries or all muslims have some kind of problem.

You do however seem to be holding them to a different standard.

I've said this many times now and strawmen keep popping up.

Not a strawman in sight.

I never claimed it is. I've been saying since the beginning that I believe most muslims around the world are decent people. Where they are is kind of secondary. My point is about specific countries and specific groups that hold extremist religious views.

I don't disagree, but you are showing a quite clear bias in terms of applying that standard equally.

Or, because there are peaceful people who believe in Allah, somehow I have to close an eye to what some of them (with a lot of power and money btw) do in the name of their religion?

Nope, but apply the same standard equally and don't dismiss data simply because you don't agree with it.

By having a religion that implies, or demands depending on the interpretation (this problem again) conquering, expanding and total dominion over everyone. It happend in Europe as well with Christianity. I'm not sure I get your question.

It didn't just happen in Europe.

Unless you're one of those who think it's white man's fault that jihadists and islamic extremists exist... Which I suppose you aren't.

Now who's throwing up a strawman!

Please actually answer the question I asked, not one of your own creation.

Why do you think there's zero countries in South America (where Western Nations had a great impact for centuries) killing apostates, calling for the extreminations of jews, demanding cartoonists and writers to be killed, blowing up churches or treating women like cattle and shoving them in bags?

Are you not aware of what the effect of religion has had on the indigenous population of pretty much the entirety of South and Central America? Do you actually believe those populations now have equality? You also seem to have forgotten that a rather large South American country ranks low on your source!

As for treatment of the LGBT community.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/26/americas/lgbt-rights-in-the-americas/index.html

Could it be that the religions people have in different placed where war and occupation happened against and by western nations, have an influence?

Would that be more than one factor at work again, I thought that was 'poor'?

I don't see India, who's arguably the country that lost the most with the British occupation, doing half the things we're talking about. And it's not because they don't have the power or the numbers. But they're mostly Hindus, who don't have a religion (and therefore a culture) like those of abrahamic religions have - conquering, proselytizing, earthly punishments, etc.

My wife is half-Indian, I know the history and contemporary situation in India very well, and quite frankly your talking bollocks.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/27/india-abuse-women-human-rights-rape-girls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India

I'm Portuguese. We were one of if not the largest slave trader to South America. Nothing ever came in return as a vengence, as far as I know from my knowledge of Portuguese History. Our ex colonies in Africa were given independence right after 1974 when we took down the dictatorship and we never had people from Angola, Cape Verde, Mozambique, etc coming to Portugal to blow us up or calling for the killing of portuguese people. Some portuguese people had to come back to portugal empty handed, but that was expected in during the first few years of independence. But shortly after that, we got to a situation where we have a good relationship with those countries. Lots of portuguese people live and work there and lots of people from those countries come to Portugal to work, live, sutdy and on holidays. We treat each other as brothers (even politically). Same with Brazil.

Yep, cos those countries didn't have any sort of internal problems after independence.

I mean, western countries did a great number of bad things in the Middle East and Africa (as the Ottoman and other empires did too). But that alone is not a justification for the religious extremism.

Its not about justification, its about creating power vacuums, sowing the seeds that allow extremists to take power.

As Sam Harris once said - and I'm paraphrasing - it's not religious fundamentalism that's the problem. It's the fundamentals of a particular religion. Jains fundamentalist would never fight back, unless in self defense, if that.

And your back to the double standard (both your own and Sam Harris').

British and French line drawing, the real killer.

Partition -15 million displaced and 1 million dead (and of that the majority were Muslim).

Vietnam - three wars and over a million dead in just one of them.

History would be a good thing to understand before dismissing the deaths of so many people so lightly.

 

[zzz_pt]

So that would the exact points I've spent the day stating and you describing as "poor"!

In order to dismiss Islam, the religion, as being the most apparent element in common between all the bottom countries in the list, you pointed to:

1) secularism
Two of the countries on the list are secular (Lebanon and Chad). And some were secular at some point in the recent past. Turkey is (still!) secular and is ranked 130th.

2) Former colonial influence
Most of the countries on the list had former colonial influence. The ones that tend to be more at the bottom are those that hold a more conservative view of Islam.

3) socio-economic issues
That affects a great number of countries in the world and they're not as low in the rankings. Also, is Saudi Arabia poor? Qatar, Kwait , Bahrain and the UAE are also in 127th, 126th, 132th and 121th respectivly. Are they poor? No. They're all in the top 15 by GDP per capita.

The poorest countries on the planet, where tthey don't even have roads, let alone skyscrapers and yachts are better ranked than these, somehow. I know this is only one study, but it's not the first time this is talked about.

4) Wealth gaps (I'll interpret it as wealth inequality)
Here’s the list of the countries with the highest wealth inequality, according to this source.

1. U.S.A. — 80.56
2. Sweden — 79.90
3. U.K. — 75.72
4. Indonesia — 73.61
5. Austria — 73.59
6. Germany — 73.34
7. Colombia — 73.18
8. Chile — 73.17
9. Brazil — 72.86
10. Mexico — 70.00

Not a single country from the bottom of the list.
Couldn't find another source at hand with a list like this but I guess it wouldn't change that much.

5) conflict
Lots of different countries, in Africa for example, are going through or have had conflicts recently and are not so at the bottom. Yemen is the last on the rankings because of the war (that should have never been supported by western nations in the first place, but that's the hipocrisy we have with the Saudis).

I guess all of them were kinda poor arguments to justify the variance among all the countries at the bottom of the list and some of those points I had already mentioned before, like the socio-economic factor and secularism.

All those 5 points you raised apply to lots of different countries around the world. Yet, something has to be different for those that appear at the bottom constantly showing down there in different studies that look at human rights, inequality, religious freedom, freedom of the press, etc.

Odd that when it doesn't support your point you suddenly want to start using critical analysis.

I didn't have the study, so I couldn't look into the details. Having done so, nothing really changes that much. If anything, I could read better the list and check how the numbers were justified, which is good.

So that would the exact points I've spent the day stating and you describing as "poor"!

Odd that when it doesn't support your point you suddenly want to start using critical analysis.

see above

You do however seem to be holding them to a different standard.

How so? And compared to who?

Not a strawman in sight.

When you made the point about "most muslims are not even in the middle east", you were implying 1) I was criticizing all muslims and 2) I didn't know that fact.

I don't disagree, but you are showing a quite clear bias in terms of applying that standard equally.

Again, what standard. Where in the world, have you seen recently 1) people calling for and actually putting into practice the death of cartoonists, film makers and writers 2) the compulsary veil or burka for women and girls 3) emprisonment and killing of blasphemers, apostates, gays (or raped women) 4) constant calling for the extremination of jewish people 5) terrorist attacks with bombs, machine guns, knives, trucks in the middle of Europe, not only by jihadists born in the middle east but also in Europe itself 6) a single religion be given protection from criticizm in the European Court of Human Rights 7) people being called racist and xenophobes for criticizing Islam...You get the idea.

Nope, but apply the same standard equally and don't dismiss data simply because you don't agree with it.

Again, what standard are you talking about? What data have you brought that doesn't agree with me?

It didn't just happen in Europe.

No, but since we're European, I thought it was the closest to use. The Roman Catholic Church was pretty monstruous when it was in power in Europe. I'd be applying the same standards if it was still the same, and so wide spread. There are places where Christianity is a problem and I've agknowledged that fact. And I've also said, if you want to talk about those problems, you can open the thread "Christianity - what's your opinion view on it". I doubt the problems and scale of those problems will be so urgent and wide spread as those associated with Islam though. You can prove me wrong ofc.

Now who's throwing up a strawman!

Not really, because I said I don't believe you are.

Please actually answer the question I asked, not one of your own creation.

See above.

Are you not aware of what the effect of religion has had on the indigenous population of pretty much the entirety of South and Central America?

The USA, UK and France were involved in wars or "pseudo" conflicts and political interference in some countries of Latin America until reletively recently (19th and 20th centuries).

I wasn't talking about the 15th and 16th centuries because a great part of those indigenous people was wiped out by the sword and diseases and it was so long ago that we have no way of knowing exaclty what they could have thought and said back then.

Do you actually believe those populations now have equality?

Of course not.

You also seem to have forgotten that a rather large South American country ranks low on your source!

As for treatment of the LGBT community.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/26/americas/lgbt-rights-in-the-americas/index.html

Yes, I know. Not as low as the others, some of which are way more wealthy by comparison. Most South American countries are crazy catholics. If you want to talk about that, as I've said, you can open a thread for it.

I think the the treatment of women and the LGBT issue in South America is something to be worried about. Compared to some of the draconian laws and practices in some places in the Middle East and Africa, though, I think they're not as urgent, rationally speaking.

I can speak for Brazil, because I follow more or less what happens there. Activism as been very important for LGBT people and women and girls. They can go out to the street and speak their minds. They can organize themselves and there are politicians who support those groups and have been trying to pass laws and changes in the law to improve the quality of live of those groups.

The same is not happening in the countries I've been talking about, where journalists are killed or go to jail if they dare to criticize the religion of the state. Atheists, gays and women can not organize and fight for their rights under the law as in south america. They risk their lifes if they try to do it and speak their minds. These are very, very, very different realities.

Would that be more than one factor at work again, I thought that was 'poor'?

hmmm...?

My wife is half-Indian, I know the history and contemporary situation in India very well, and quite frankly your talking bollocks.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/27/india-abuse-women-human-rights-rape-girls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India

I didn't say India is a problem-free country. I've actually mentioned India before regarding the marriage of young girls: it's the 10th worst country by %, number 1 by absolute numbers. If they manage to fix this major problem for girls and women, they can make a huge change.

My point was: Is India or are Fundamentalist Hindus calling for the death of British people or organizing terrorist attacks in the UK and against british citizens around the world because Britain occupied India? Is the state killing or puting in prison apostates, blasphemers and gays? Is it still boolocks? Or is this happening and I don't know about it? The only link I could make that's remotely associated with this idea is if we considered the formation of Pakistan as somehow, India getting a way of revenge against the british. But it makes no sense.

I'm aware of groups of people raping women on buses, killing proeminent atheists, attacking christians, muslims, hindus, etc but I'm not sure about the state doing it. AFIK, that's all illegal. Which is quite different from Sharia, which is the Islamic, religious law used by some islamic states to justify some of those same appaling things.

I mean, it looks similar, but it's not. India, I'm sure, has many many problems I'm not even aware of. I remember watching a documentary where shamans in some remote village in the middle of nowhere hate human brains of death people. That's pretty ridiculous right there.

Yep, cos those countries didn't have any sort of internal problems after independence.

They had. But they're nowhere compared to what happens in the countries I've been talking about. The biggest problems in the portuguese ex-colonies is corruption. They have money growing on trees, metaphorically speaking, but only the ones in power get to have it, leaving the people with the bare minimum. My father tried to build a company in Angola around 10 years ago and it was ridiculous how much he had to pay to the state guards (not the legal fees, but money "on the side" if you know what I mean) at the seaport to get the containers out of there. Otherwise the product would get stuck for months there. And once my father paid for it, he would go on to his house, though streets like these. And holes on the dirt roads where your car would fall into if you were distracted for a moment.

But this is mainly the consequence of the family "Dos Santos". The daugher of the ex-president, who was in power for 38 years, is one of the wealthiest women on the planet and the Africa's richest woman with 3.5 billion dollars.

You could see the same patterns in other ex-colonies. But you don't see the same issues you see in, let's say, Saudi Arabia, Kwait or Pakistan, associated with a religion.

Its not about justification, its about creating power vacuums, sowing the seeds that allow extremists to take power.

If the religion and tibalism is what the people who stay have as most precious, that's what they will try to push for. If those people who see themselves without oposition and in power, happen to have a particular hideous religious view of the world, that will lead to what you're refering to.

And your back to the double standard (both your own and Sam Harris').

How is this a double standard? Are you saying fundamentalist Jains would behave the same as islamic fundamentalists?

I get the impression you (and other people on this thread) completely disregard religious ideas as having power or justifying people's behavior. Somehow, different people would all behave and react the same way to the problems they face in the world, regarless of their religion. That's demonstrably false. It only takes a few trips to some countries or cities in Europe or meeting people with different religious beliefs.

The most peaceful person I know, a Brazilian, was raised as a Jain. He's also a big metal head. I have never seen him angry, annoyed, cursing or talking bad at someone else. My family is evangelical baptist and they do pretty much what you'd expect from an evangelical christian (in Europe) - they vote conservative right, they go to church a lot and read the bible everyday or so, they don't curse, don't consume some media, have some stupid beliefs about the world and so on. I'm an atheist and eat pork (jewish and muslim people don't), beef (hindus don't), don't go to church and have no problems reading books and listening to people I don't agree with. I never met an hindu or a muslim to the point we got to be friends. The ones I've met and talked to were very kind people. One of my favorite places to go to eat in Hamburg was a kebab place from a turkish family of 5. All of them were very nice and always had a smile on their face, something I wouldn't find in most other restaurants.


Sorry for the wall of text.

 

[Imari]

There's a grey area within which societies have been trying this things out and, it seems, putting a minimum age at 18 has produced the best results for everyone.

Really? What evidence suggests to you that 18 produces the best results for everyone?

What I've been trying to say is that, looking at the world and the societies we can examine, 18 is definitely better than 14, 15, 16 or worse no minimum age at all.

Definitely better, you say? That's quite a strong statement of fact.

18 seems to be the best we got.

There it is again. You keep saying that 18 is, if not perfect, observably superior in the majority of cases. Show me the observations that you used to come to this conclusion. I am skeptical. I do not say that you're necessarily wrong, but I'm definitely going to hold my judgement in abeyance until I see some actual factual support for this "18 works best for marriage" idea.

But at the moment there's no reason to do that, as there are no problems we can find directly connected to the fact that people can get married (or vote, or drive, etc) when they get to 18.

Really? None at all? There are absolutely no problems with setting the age of majority at 18?

I'm not discussing the legal issue specifically here. I'm more concerned with how Islam, specifically, can allow interpretations that make this specific point of marriage a nightmare for so many girls and women. And the link between the religious texts and the practices / culture.

I know.

But you seem pretty solidly entrenched in this idea that any marriage that happens before the age of 18 is wrong. I'm hoping that by asking you to actually explicitly state some of the assumptions that have led you to this conclusion, you'll see how totally reasonable and well meaning people could easily come to one that is different simply by virtue of the fact that the environment and culture that they live in is quite distinct from yours.

 

[TenEightyOne]

But you seem pretty solidly entrenched in this idea that any marriage that happens before the age of 18 is wrong.

I'm interested to know what "marriage" means in the context we're discussing it, particularly for @zzz_pt?. Monogamy? Legalised sexual activity? Other social contracts? As it is we're obviously talking about the performance of a religious ceremony, I just wondered what else it means nowadays?

 

[zzz_pt]

Really? What evidence suggests to you that 18 produces the best results for everyone?

Definitely better, you say? That's quite a strong statement of fact.

There it is again. You keep saying that 18 is, if not perfect, observably superior in the majority of cases. Show me the observations that you used to come to this conclusion. I am skeptical. I do not say that you're necessarily wrong, but I'm definitely going to hold my judgement in abeyance until I see some actual factual support for this "18 works best for marriage" idea.

I probably didn't make it clear enough (I'm not a native english speaker so I lack some eloquence when trying to navigate complex issues, especially when we're communicating in written form) but when I say "everyone", I'm using the word in the broader sense, not in the individualistic one. I should say, better for "everyone as a whole", probably.

I've already mentioned the fact that different people mature at different stages and rates during their lifes, so you have your Napoleans and Joans of Arc, that at age 16 are accomplished individuals and can live through very complex issues, most teenagers and adults couldn't. You have your Van Neumans that at age 8 can speak in acient greek and publish their first scientific paper in Maths at age 17 or 18. But those are exceptional individuals. Most people are not like them. And when trying to or striving to build the perfect city, we have to make laws that help everyone, as a whole, get closer to it.

The age of adulthood (to get married, drive, vote, buy alchool, gamble, etc) is one of those cases where we have to set the bar somewhere. Different cultures and countries (and states within those countries) have tried different numbers, from 10 all the way to 21 (I don't know if anyone tried an age above 21) and the needle sets, for the most part, at age 18, for different reasons. Some countries, including the UK, USA, Japan and others, have started with 20 or 21 and lowered it to 18. The opposite has never happen AFAIK (from 18 to 20 or 21). This doesn't mean it won't happen in the future, but I never said 18 is the absolute better number forever. I think as we evolve, things tend to need adjustments.

I just don't see the reason why anyone should somehow support the countries and cultures that don't have a legal minimum age for marriage or a very low one (12 or 14) because the idea of "18 years old" being an arbitrary number, all things considered. As I've said, I agree it's somewhat arbitrary, but not 100%. It's not random. It has reasons behind it (sociatal norms, mental and biological development facts, etc). Hence my example of the gradient between 1 and 100.

We're not machines, replicas of a mold, so we'll be slighly different from one another. That means it's not possible to set perfect laws that work for every individual exactly the same way all the time. We need best approximations.

Really? None at all? There are absolutely no problems with setting the age of majority at 18?

Well, I can think of some. If the age of majority was set to 20, there would be less peole driving cars, meaning less accidents, less traffic, slightly less street noise, less emissions, and so on and so forth...

But I'm not aware of a problem like the one we see where minimum legal age for getting married is as low as 12 or none at all. And the countries that have those low numbers usually have a lower age for girls than for boys, which raises different questions in itself. Having no mininum age or having it so low, allows for what we see when we look at the studies made around gender inequality, death rates for young girls and women (which among other things are a direct consequence of getting pregnant at a very young age, legally, having abortions, lesions and diseases associated with having sex and pregnancies during teenage years), lack of education (because they have to take care of children) or being abused by someone who has all the power in the houshold.

Hichens used to say that the emancipation of women and giving them control over their reproductive cicle is the best solution for poverty and that is directly in conflict with the issues we're talking about here.

I know.

But you seem pretty solidly entrenched in this idea that any marriage that happens before the age of 18 is wrong.

Not any marriage. I'm not talking in absolutes here. Never had. I can imagine a 16 and a 17yo (say, a Napolean and a Joan of Arc) to marry, with a very good understanding of what that means for them and their future children, if they indend to have any, and all that jazz. But I don't believe for a second that's what we would see. If we'd lower the bar to 16 or 15, you'd start to see what you see in the countries filled with problems associated with young girls getting married to old men. Because we never, or very very rarely see young boys married to older women. It just doesn't happen. It helps that their minimum legal age is a couple of years above girl's too, as I've mentioned above.

I think 18, as arbitrary as it may look, it's a better bet than 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 or 17 (or none), given what we know about human development and how we, as individuals, navigate though our lives / societies in the 21st century.

I'm hoping that by asking you to actually explicitly state some of the assumptions that have led you to this conclusion, you'll see how totally reasonable and well meaning people could easily come to one that is different simply by virtue of the fact that the environment and culture that they live in is quite distinct from yours.

Do you think, because their culture is different, our (or my) judgement of the problems is misled? If they think marrying to a 14 or 16 year old girld, often by force, by the way, is OK; if their countries have higher rates of gender violence and inequality (by our own standards, sure); and if they seem to be perfectly OK with those cultural differences, should I be thinking I'm wrong?

I'm interested to know what "marriage" means in the context we're discussing it, particularly for @zzz_pt?. Monogamy? Legalised sexual activity? Other social contracts?

Marriage means the legal contract between 2 individuals. I think 18 years old is the best option we've tried, which happens to be the same boundary for adulthood in most countries with higher quality of life in general, less gender inequality, less gendered violence, higher rates of academic accomplished for both genders, etc.

As it is we're obviously talking about the performance of a religious ceremony, I just wondered what else it means nowadays?

How so? I wasn't talking about primarly a religious ceremony. Eventhough the reason some of the countries I've been talking in this thread, use religion as the justification for child marriage and the lack of a minimum age being set or raised from low teens. When religion is at the base of the law, it's hard to even separate both things.

 

[SestoScudo]

Why do you think there's zero countries in South America (where Western Nations had a great impact for centuries) killing apostates, calling for the extreminations of jews, demanding cartoonists and writers to be killed, blowing up churches or treating women like cattle and shoving them in bags?

Could it be that the religions people have in different places where war and occupation happened against and by western nations, have an influence?

I don't see India, who's arguably the country that lost the most with the British occupation, doing half the things we're talking about. And it's not because they don't have the power or the numbers. But they're mostly Hindus, who don't have a abrahamic religion (and therefore a culture) implying conquering, proselytizing and earthly punishments of other people.

I'm Portuguese. We were one of if not the largest slave trader to South America. Nothing ever came in return as a vengence, as far as I know from my knowledge of Portuguese History. Our ex colonies in Africa were given independence right after 1974 when we took down the dictatorship and we never had people from Angola, Cape Verde, Mozambique, etc coming to Portugal to blow us up or calling for the killing of portuguese people. Some portuguese people had to come back to portugal empty handed, but that was expected in during the first few years of independence. But shortly after that, we got to a situation where we have a good relationship with those countries. Lots of portuguese people live and work there and lots of people from those countries come to Portugal to work, live, sutdy and on holidays. We treat each other as brothers (even politically). Same with Brazil.

I mean, western countries did a great number of bad things in the Middle East and Africa (as the Ottoman and other empires did too). But that alone is not a justification for the religious extremism.

As Sam Harris once said - and I'm paraphrasing - it's not religious fundamentalism that's the problem. It's the fundamentals of a particular religion. Jains fundamentalist would never fight back, unless in self defense, if that.

Honestly think all Muslim women wear the niqab or the burqa.

By the way both of them are different. Niqab allows the eyes to be shown while the burqa covered from head to toe mainly found in Afghanistan and parts of Central Asia which are close to Afghanistan but nowadays its barely worn apart from Afghanis. Look up the different coverings of hijab it ranges from hijab, abaya, burqa, chador, paranja, purdah many more all have their own ways of covering.

Trashbags LOL thats pretty disrespectful.

Google the Jangot basically the burqa worn in Korea before the modernisation of the country by Japan. Muslim women are not the only ones to wear "trashbags"

 

[zzz_pt]

Honestly think all Muslim women wear the niqab or the burqa.

By the way both of them are different. Niqab allows the eyes to be shown while the burqa covered from head to toe mainly found in Afghanistan and parts of Central Asia which are close to Afghanistan but nowadays its barely worn apart from Afghanis. Look up the different coverings of hijab it ranges from hijab, abaya, burqa, chador, paranja, purdah many more all have their own ways of covering.

Trashbags LOL thats pretty disrespectful.

Google the Jangot basically the burqa worn in Korea before the modernisation of the country by Japan. Muslim women are not the only ones to wear "trashbags"

I know the difference between a niqab, a burka and a hijab. And I didn't say every muslim women wear them... it gets boring after a while. When I mention these topics I'm talking about specific people / regions / ****ries where these practices have been imposed under threat of punishment or because women are viewed as the ones to blame if men look at them and want to rape or assault them.

When I mentioned the women from Iran challenging the law in public by throwing away their veils, that's important because it's illegal.
Do you think the compulsory wearing of a burka or niqab (or a hijab) is disrespectful too? Or is it OK?

If Koreans used the Jangot with the same justification millions of women and girls are forced to use burkas, hijabs or niqabs today, I'd be criticizing it. But who uses it today? I'm talking about the present, not the past. If I google this, I get 2 black and white pictures from the end of the 19th century, some of drawings and a coupe fashion models. That's a good thing. Search niqab, burka or hijab and you'll see videos, pictures, news, etc from today. You'll see women being emprisoned by taking it off in public.

The day, in 1979, 100,000 Iranian women protested the headscarf.
Last year: Iranian woman 'sentenced to 20 years in prison' for removing headscarf in protest

Don't insult my intelligence, please.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Marriage means the legal contract between 2 individuals.

Ah, so not having sex. In that case there's nothing wrong with the old European tradition of marrying babies to one another for political gain.

 

[zzz_pt]

Ah, so not having sex. In that case there's nothing wrong with the old European tradition of marrying babies to one another for political gain.

How do you make sure people won't have sex... Wait, let me fix that.

How do you make sure, young girls won't get raped if they get married at young age to an adult man? Will you trust the man to wait for his legal bride to have developed her body and mind until she can make a decision about it?

Good luck.

What are you talking about marrying babies? Is that happening today?

 

[Scaff]

In order to dismiss Islam, the religion, as being the most apparent element in common between all the bottom countries in the list, you pointed to:

1) secularism
Two of the countries on the list are secular (Lebanon and Chad). And some were secular at some point in the recent past. Turkey is (still!) secular and is ranked 130th.

2) Former colonial influence
Most of the countries on the list had former colonial influence. The ones that tend to be more at the bottom are those that hold a more conservative view of Islam.

3) socio-economic issues
That affects a great number of countries in the world and they're not as low in the rankings. Also, is Saudi Arabia poor? Qatar, Kwait , Bahrain and the UAE are also in 127th, 126th, 132th and 121th respectivly. Are they poor? No. They're all in the top 15 by GDP per capita.

The poorest countries on the planet, where tthey don't even have roads, let alone skyscrapers and yachts are better ranked than these, somehow. I know this is only one study, but it's not the first time this is talked about.

4) Wealth gaps (I'll interpret it as wealth inequality)
Here’s the list of the countries with the highest wealth inequality, according to this source.

1. U.S.A. — 80.56
2. Sweden — 79.90
3. U.K. — 75.72
4. Indonesia — 73.61
5. Austria — 73.59
6. Germany — 73.34
7. Colombia — 73.18
8. Chile — 73.17
9. Brazil — 72.86
10. Mexico — 70.00

Not a single country from the bottom of the list.
Couldn't find another source at hand with a list like this but I guess it wouldn't change that much.

5) conflict
Lots of different countries, in Africa for example, are going through or have had conflicts recently and are not so at the bottom. Yemen is the last on the rankings because of the war (that should have never been supported by western nations in the first place, but that's the hipocrisy we have with the Saudis).

I guess all of them were kinda poor arguments to justify the variance among all the countries at the bottom of the list and some of those points I had already mentioned before, like the socio-economic factor and secularism.

All those 5 points you raised apply to lots of different countries around the world. Yet, something has to be different for those that appear at the bottom constantly showing down there in different studies that look at human rights, inequality, religious freedom, freedom of the press, etc.

I honestly don't understand how you can't see the double standard you are applying (or that the originator applied). So the US is allowed to have 'other' factors affecting its score, but the bottom ones are not? The bottom ones can only be in the state they are because 'Islam/Islamists'?

No other factor could have contributed heavily towards this at all?

Which is odd because you then go on and acknowledge the part placed by the war in Yeman!

I didn't have the study, so I couldn't look into the details. Having done so, nothing really changes that much. If anything, I could read better the list and check how the numbers were justified, which is good.

So you based your conclusions without the full data and now seem to be doubling down when presented with it?

I did the opposite, when I saw the post the first thing I did was look for the full, original data set.

How so? And compared to who?

See above (and the US and Bangladesh)

When you made the point about "most muslims are not even in the middle east", you were implying 1) I was criticizing all muslims and 2) I didn't know that fact.

1) No, once again I was referring to the originator of the claim, who interestingly didn't specify if they were referring to Islamist's or Islam in general. Which does raise the question of why they did so.
2) I have no ability to read minds

Again, what standard. Where in the world, have you seen recently 1) people calling for and actually putting into practice the death of cartoonists, film makers and writers 2) the compulsary veil or burka for women and girls 3) emprisonment and killing of blasphemers, apostates, gays (or raped women) 4) constant calling for the extremination of jewish people 5) terrorist attacks with bombs, machine guns, knives, trucks in the middle of Europe, not only by jihadists born in the middle east but also in Europe itself 6) a single religion be given protection from criticizm in the European Court of Human Rights 7) people being called racist and xenophobes for criticizing Islam...You get the idea.

Quite why you keep attempting to apply this only to Europe and European victims is quite bizzare, well unless you are deliberatly trying to narrow the goal-posts. Do victims of other locations count less? Given that the largest victim pool for Islamists and Jhihadis are Muslims themselves, its a rather odd thing to do.

To give one example (from one group) would be the abduction of over 20,000 children, the displacement of over 1.9 million people and the deaths of tens of thousands at the hands of the LRA. A radical Christian (shall we say Chirstianist - and please don;t try and play the 'no true Scotsman' argument) terrorist group dedicated to forced conversion, death to unbelievers, rape (regardless of age) of unbelievers, terrorist attacks, bombings, etc. in an 85% Christian country

How about a more recent one, the 97% Christian DRC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-46896159

No, but since we're European, I thought it was the closest to use. The Roman Catholic Church was pretty monstruous when it was in power in Europe. I'd be applying the same standards if it was still the same, and so wide spread. There are places where Christianity is a problem and I've agknowledged that fact. And I've also said, if you want to talk about those problems, you can open the thread "Christianity - what's your opinion view on it". I doubt the problems and scale of those problems will be so urgent and wide spread as those associated with Islam though. You can prove me wrong ofc.

No thanks, I will continue to use other examples as a counterpoint, the question you should ask yourself is why do you want to ignore comparisons?

See above.

See what above, you haven't answered my question at all?

The USA, UK and France were involved in wars or "pseudo" conflicts and political interference in some countries of Latin America until reletively recently (19th and 20th centuries).

I wasn't talking about the 15th and 16th centuries because a great part of those indigenous people was wiped out by the sword and diseases and it was so long ago that we have no way of knowing exaclty what they could have thought and said back then.

I'm not talking about the 15th and 16th Centiry either, are you under the impression that the indigenous populations of South America (feel free to add in Central and North America and Australia as well) have parity?

Yes, I know. Not as low as the others, some of which are way more wealthy by comparison. Most South American countries are crazy catholics. If you want to talk about that, as I've said, you can open a thread for it.

I think the the treatment of women and the LGBT issue in South America is something to be worried about. Compared to some of the draconian laws and practices in some places in the Middle East and Africa, though, I think they're not as urgent, rationally speaking.

I can speak for Brazil, because I follow more or less what happens there. Activism as been very important for LGBT people and women and girls. They can go out to the street and speak their minds. They can organize themselves and there are politicians who support those groups and have been trying to pass laws and changes in the law to improve the quality of live of those groups.

The same is not happening in the countries I've been talking about, where journalists are killed or go to jail if they dare to criticize the religion of the state. Atheists, gays and women can not organize and fight for their rights under the law as in south america. They risk their lifes if they try to do it and speak their minds. These are very, very, very different realities.

Ah so because they are not exact parallels then they are not valid, got you!

I didn't say India is a problem-free country. I've actually mentioned India before regarding the marriage of young girls: it's the 10th worst country by %, number 1 by absolute numbers. If they manage to fix this major problem for girls and women, they can make a huge change.

My point was: Is India or are Fundamentalist Hindus calling for the death of British people or organizing terrorist attacks in the UK and against british citizens around the world because Britain occupied India? Is the state killing or puting in prison apostates, blasphemers and gays? Is it still boolocks? Or is this happening and I don't know about it? The only link I could make that's remotely associated with this idea is if we considered the formation of Pakistan as somehow, India getting a way of revenge against the british. But it makes no sense.

I'm aware of groups of people raping women on buses, killing proeminent atheists, attacking christians, muslims, hindus, etc but I'm not sure about the state doing it. AFIK, that's all illegal. Which is quite different from Sharia, which is the Islamic, religious law used by some islamic states to justify some of those same appaling things.

Once again why are you limiting the impact to Europeans?

I mean, it looks similar, but it's not. India, I'm sure, has many many problems I'm not even aware of. I remember watching a documentary where shamans in some remote village in the middle of nowhere hate human brains of death people. That's pretty ridiculous right there.

Its very similar.

They had. But they're nowhere compared to what happens in the countries I've been talking about. The biggest problems in the portuguese ex-colonies is corruption. They have money growing on trees, metaphorically speaking, but only the ones in power get to have it, leaving the people with the bare minimum. My father tried to build a company in Angola around 10 years ago and it was ridiculous how much he had to pay to the state guards (not the legal fees, but money "on the side" if you know what I mean) at the seaport to get the containers out of there. Otherwise the product would get stuck for months there. And once my father paid for it, he would go on to his house, though streets like these. And holes on the dirt roads where your car would fall into if you were distracted for a moment.

But this is mainly the consequence of the family "Dos Santos". The daugher of the ex-president, who was in power for 38 years, is one of the wealthiest women on the planet and the Africa's richest woman with 3.5 billion dollars.

You could see the same patterns in other ex-colonies. But you don't see the same issues you see in, let's say, Saudi Arabia, Kwait or Pakistan, associated with a religion.

But not in Bangladesh (according to your own sources data) - well until you apply a different standard to it in comparison to the country directly below it.

How is this a double standard? Are you saying fundamentalist Jains would behave the same as islamic fundamentalists?

I get the impression you (and other people on this thread) completely disregard religious ideas as having power or justifying people's behavior. Somehow, different people would all behave and react the same way to the problems they face in the world, regarless of their religion. That's demonstrably false. It only takes a few trips to some countries or cities in Europe or meeting people with different religious beliefs.

The most peaceful person I know, a Brazilian, was raised as a Jain. He's also a big metal head. I have never seen him angry, annoyed, cursing or talking bad at someone else. My family is evangelical baptist and they do pretty much what you'd expect from an evangelical christian (in Europe) - they vote conservative right, they go to church a lot and read the bible everyday or so, they don't curse, don't consume some media, have some stupid beliefs about the world and so on. I'm an atheist and eat pork (jewish and muslim people don't), beef (hindus don't), don't go to church and have no problems reading books and listening to people I don't agree with. I never met an hindu or a muslim to the point we got to be friends. The ones I've met and talked to were very kind people. One of my favorite places to go to eat in Hamburg was a kebab place from a turkish family of 5. All of them were very nice and always had a smile on their face, something I wouldn't find in most other restaurants.

Ah you think cherry picking a single religion allow you to absolve other religions of extremism! Its a brave, but ultimately flawed argument to take.

 

[zzz_pt]

I honestly don't understand how you can't see the double standard you are applying (or that the originator applied). So the US is allowed to have 'other' factors affecting its score, but the bottom ones are not? The bottom ones can only be in the state they are because 'Islam/Islamists'?

No other factor could have contributed heavily towards this at all?

Which is odd because you then go on and acknowledge the part placed by the war in Yeman!

I didn't claim there aren't other factors. What I've said is that, all the factors you mentioned are not universal to all those countries, while a very conservative (and in some cases extremist) view of the religion is. If you know of another common factor, you can post about it and explain why it makes sense.

So you based your conclusions without the full data and now seem to be doubling down when presented with it?
I did the opposite, when I saw the post the first thing I did was look for the full, original data set.

First, I did try to get the report but couldn't find it. The reason why I took "conclusions" based on a picture is due to the fact that, unfortunately this is not the first report with similar data. Was this a surprise to you? Is this breaking news, seriously? That these countries rank the lowest in questions related to civil and political rights, human rights, women and girls issues and gender inequality? Or have you ever seen a news article or a report related to these issues where these countries appear with good or average results? If so, please share that.

See above (and the US and Bangladesh)

What's more important? Having a female president or prime minister for 30 years in a row and abismal literacy and health inequality results for the millions of women and girls in the population, or the other way around?

I mean, the more you look at the study the more unexpected things you can find. Rwanda aparently is the 6th best place for gender equality, despite the fact of being ruled with an iron fist and human rights being regularly violated.

1) No, once again I was referring to the originator of the claim, who interestingly didn't specify if they were referring to Islamist's or Islam in general. Which does raise the question of why they did so.
2) I have no ability to read minds

1) He criticizes all religions but focuses on Islam (the religion) and Extremists / Islamists who act on their beliefs against innocent people. As I've posted before, he has no problem with anyone from any religion who is peaceful, as the majority of muslims.
2) Fair enough. Maybe you assume too much then.

Quite why you keep attempting to apply this only to Europe and European victims is quite bizzare, well unless you are deliberatly trying to narrow the goal-posts. Do victims of other locations count less? Given that the largest victim pool for Islamists and Jhihadis are Muslims themselves, its a rather odd thing to do.

Hmmm...

29/December:

I believe most Muslims are peaceful people. The problem is not the peaceful people though. Is the people who want Sharia, who want Jews to be wiped out, who think women should be treated as cattle, who think critics of Islam and Mohammed should be killed, etc. Those are the problem and most of their victims are peaceful Muslims.

30/December:

My claim is they (muslim radicals / jihadists / extremists) demonstrate the worse type of irrational religiosity at the moment with the largest number of victims.

(it's implied that the victims are mostly muslim, since this occours largely in muslim majority countries)

30/December:

I also said in the post just before that one that I believe most muslims are peaceful and most victims of extremists are those peaceful muslims. Including in those 13 countries.

But I'm sure, as it has happened several times in this thread, you'll gloss over this and keep going.

To give one example (from one group) would be the abduction of over 20,000 children, the displacement of over 1.9 million people and the deaths of tens of thousands at the hands of the LRA. A radical Christian (shall we say Chirstianist - and please don;t try and play the 'no true Scotsman' argument) terrorist group dedicated to forced conversion, death to unbelievers, rape (regardless of age) of unbelievers, terrorist attacks, bombings, etc. in an 85% Christian country

A few more quotes:

31/December:

Christianity has just as many problems as Islam. I just think the impact they have is not the same.

I agree. There's christian based lunacy as well in some parts of the world and it's a problem.

Why would I "try to play the no true Scotsman argument"? Have you seen me using fallacious arguments? Yeah, the LRA and what they did for over a decade is horrendous. Did anyone say, when Kony was everywhere in the news: "hey, but look over there, there are bad people doing bad things up there too!". Probably. Does it make sense? Not really.

This notion that, if there's a problem and someone points to that problem, they're complicit with other problems that exist because they're not talking about all the problems in the world at the same time, even if they're not equally severe, doesn't lead to anywhere. Sure, there are problems in the world. Let's go home.

I won't be addressing christian based terrorism in a thread about Islam. On one hand, because I'm talking about how extremists views of Islam are legitimized by some scolars and political authorities's interpretations of the religious texts in some countries (I'm not only talking about ISIS or the Taliban), which then makes it harder for the people who live in those countries, under that pressure, to get rid of it and improve their quality of life (no parties, no freedoms, no gays, no criticizm of the state and religion, etc, etc, etc). On the other hand, because I'm not aware of religious based lunacy by other states commited at the same scale as in the most conservative islamic ones (the ones in purple here).

Anything even compared to the banning of internet domains, books, cartoons and movies with criticism of Islam, demanding the death of people (from cartoonists to ambassadors) in other countries for criticizing Islam, emprisonment and killing of gays, atheists, apostates and journalists, compulsory veils/niqabs/burkas for girls and women, different standards for women and men in public and private life, wife-beating being allowed, promotion of material condoning and celebrating the holocaust or holocaust denial by the state (and educational system), denial of Science, support of Sharia, none of very low minimum age for marriage, etc?

Uganda, sure, they have stupid anti-lgbt laws because they have a large population of fundamentalist christians. Anything else? Russia? Yeah, they have some ridiculous anti-lgbt laws based on their orthodox christian lunacy too. We're talking about religious based lunacy here. I'm just saying this before we start bringing China and North Korea to the mix.

No thanks, I will continue to use other examples as a counterpoint, the question you should ask yourself is why do you want to ignore comparisons?

I'm not "ignoring" anything. I've addressed those examples. This is how I see it:

Me: There's a tornado and these are the problems that have been seen and reported.
You (and and few other people): But look, there's also a whirlwind over there. Why aren't you talking about it.
Me: It seems to me that the tornado is worse and more dangerous.
You: That's a double standard. Why are you ignoring the whirlwind?
Me: Because whirlwinds are not as crazy and don't affect as many people.
You or someone else: *posts another whirlwind*
Me: sigh

See what above, you haven't answered my question at all?

Yes I did. You skipped it and replied to the sentence bellow it:

You: "Remind me again how the world ended up with religious extremists in the likes of Saudi, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan?"

Me: "By having a religion that implies, or demands depending on the interpretation (this problem again) conquering, expanding and total dominion over everyone."

If you have a religion like that, you'll end up with religious extremists in the likes of Saudi, Iran, Iraq and Afeghanistan. You're only focusing on these 4 because those are the countries involved in wars with western states recently.

But there are others, with the same laws and beliefs, impacting many millions of people, especially girls and women, of course: Pakistan, Qatar, UAE, Kwait, Egypt, Lybia, Algeria, Somalia, Sudan, Mauritania, Nigeria, Malasya and Indonesia, and others.

All these have Sharia as the law of the land (Nigeria, Malasya and Indonesia only in parts of the country). All of them can stone an adulterer to death or lashing someone who doesn't dress like the law demands. All of them condemn gays, atheists and apostates to death or emprisonment. All of them can cut your hand for a robbery, if they so desire. All of them riot if criticism of Islam is made public. Some of them have or have had periods of blocking internet to content they deem anti-islam. Some of them have banned books about religion, politics or other subjects not allowed by Sharia. You'll find recent examples from all of this on google.

I'm not talking about the 15th and 16th Centiry either, are you under the impression that the indigenous populations of South America (feel free to add in Central and North America and Australia as well) have parity?

I don't even know what's the purpose of that question, to be honest. What does parity (in numbers I suppose) have to do with religious motivated lunacy. Are you saying that, because they were fewer in number, they couldn't possibly retaliate, today, say, in the middle of Paris or London or Sidney (since you brought up Australia)?

Ah so because they are not exact parallels then they are not valid, got you!

Hmmm... If you have a patient with pneumonia and one with a constipation, who will you focus on first? They may be a consequence of the same thing, and may lead to the same death, but they're not the same.

Once again why are you limiting the impact to Europeans?

"This notion that, if there's a problem and someone points to that problem, they're somewhat complicit with other problems that exist because they're not talking about all the problems in the world at the same time, even if they're not equally severe."

And see above for the several times I've stated peaceful muslims are the primary victims of this lunacy.

Its very similar.

How? It's not the state, based of an extremist view of a religion, forcing millions of citizens to obey. That shaman dude I saw, was living in a very small village and he wasn't forcing other people to do the same. It looked like what we would be doing some thousands of years ago. I looked it up and they're called the Aghori. They're a small population (70.000) with stupid, backwards beliefs and behaviours. From what I've read and watched though, they don't impose it on anyone else, don't practice violence and don't have a system of law to judge non Aghori people. Which means, they're one of the craziest religious groups on the planet but they keep it private, don't proselytize. Most Hindus don't really like them.

But not in Bangladesh (according to your own sources data) - well until you apply a different standard to it in comparison to the country directly below it.

The reason Bangladesh was so high up on this study is because it has female leaders since the 80's. I don't believe having a man or a woman as president mens the country gets better or worse. It's the politics those men and women implement. And when you look at the politics and the progress, you see that Bangladesh is not above the US in anything, even if the US is pretty low compared to pretty much every other western country, in basic social matters like health and education.

Ah you think cherry picking a single religion allow you to absolve other religions of extremism! Its a brave, but ultimately flawed argument to take.

"Absolving" is a brave word to use too. I'm not absolving or dismissing anything. I've addressed it multiple times. What do you wan't me to do? Say some of these lies:

All religions are equal.
All religions allow violence in the exact same numbers today.
All religions fuel violence for the exact same reasons.
All religions have the same impact in governments around the world.
All religions are equally bad at every single point of the past and present.
All religions give motives to ban, kill, arrest people for imaginary crimes or criticism.
All religions preach peace and peace only.
None gives any reason for any believer to be violent.

Well, you won't lead me to say that because all of that is false. Just put Jainism and any abrahamic side by side and compare them on any of these points.

You didn't address the point I made btw. Are fundamentalist jains (or even normal jains) violent in any way? If not, why?

 

[Scaff]

I didn't claim there aren't other factors.

I didn't say you didn't.

You did however claim, without evidence, that its the single biggest factor. Which goes back to my main point, that correlation doesn't equal causality.

What I've said is that, all the factors you mentioned are not universal to all those countries,

Great, good job I never claimed they were.

I simply listed some of the other factors that could be a part of the cause.

"A wide range of factors (including a lack of secular state, former colonial influence, socio-economic issues, wealth gaps, recent and/or current conflict, and so on), all of which make narrowing it down to one single factor both inaccurate and smacking massively of a need to create a self fore-filling bias."

while a very conservative (and in some cases extremist) view of the religion is. If you know of another common factor, you can post about it and explain why it makes sense.

Why would I do that given I've never claimed that a single common factor could be found to explain this?

First, I did try to get the report but couldn't find it. The reason why I took "conclusions" based on a picture is due to the fact that, unfortunately this is not the first report with similar data. Was this a surprise to you? Is this breaking news, seriously? That these countries rank the lowest in questions related to civil and political rights, human rights, women and girls issues and gender inequality? Or have you ever seen a news article or a report related to these issues where these countries appear with good or average results? If so, please share that.

The report took less than five minutes to find (a lot longer to read in its entirety), I also found a number of different reports, from different years and sources that do rank countries differently.

The main alternate would be the UNDP one, which while still having Yeman at the bottom, has a differing list for the bottom ten (the forth column is the GII index rating).



Now the list here is quite different in what your source claimed to be the main linking factor. Odd what different data view and interpretations can do, so no its not quite as cut and dried as claimed.

What's more important? Having a female president or prime minister for 30 years in a row and abismal literacy and health inequality results for the millions of women and girls in the population, or the other way around?

I mean, the more you look at the study the more unexpected things you can find. Rwanda aparently is the 6th best place for gender equality, despite the fact of being ruled with an iron fist and human rights being regularly violated.

This is exactly what double standards is. You are putting your own confirmation bias on results you don't like, either accept all the results as they are or you undermine your own argument about the bottom ten on the WEC index. You don't get to have it both ways.

1) He criticizes all religions but focuses on Islam (the religion) and Extremists / Islamists who act on their beliefs against innocent people. As I've posted before, he has no problem with anyone from any religion who is peaceful, as the majority of muslims.

I'm going to be blunt and say I don't believe him at all.

2) Fair enough. Maybe you assume too much then.

Why would I "try to play the no true Scotsman argument"? Have you seen me using fallacious arguments? Yeah, the LRA and what they did for over a decade is horrendous. Did anyone say, when Kony was everywhere in the news: "hey, but look over there, there are bad people doing bad things up there too!". Probably. Does it make sense? Not really.

This notion that, if there's a problem and someone points to that problem, they're complicit with other problems that exist because they're not talking about all the problems in the world at the same time, even if they're not equally severe, doesn't lead to anywhere. Sure, there are problems in the world. Let's go home.

I won't be addressing christian based terrorism in a thread about Islam. On one hand, because I'm talking about how extremists views of Islam are legitimized by some scolars and political authorities's interpretations of the religious texts in some countries (I'm not only talking about ISIS or the Taliban), which then makes it harder for the people who live in those countries, under that pressure, to get rid of it and improve their quality of life (no parties, no freedoms, no gays, no criticizm of the state and religion, etc, etc, etc). On the other hand, because I'm not aware of religious based lunacy by other states commited at the same scale as in the most conservative islamic ones (the ones in purple here).

Anything even compared to the banning of internet domains, books, cartoons and movies with criticism of Islam, demanding the death of people (from cartoonists to ambassadors) in other countries for criticizing Islam, emprisonment and killing of gays, atheists, apostates and journalists, compulsory veils/niqabs/burkas for girls and women, different standards for women and men in public and private life, wife-beating being allowed, promotion of material condoning and celebrating the holocaust or holocaust denial by the state (and educational system), denial of Science, support of Sharia, none of very low minimum age for marriage, etc?

Uganda, sure, they have stupid anti-lgbt laws because they have a large population of fundamentalist christians. Anything else? Russia? Yeah, they have some ridiculous anti-lgbt laws based on their orthodox christian lunacy too. We're talking about religious based lunacy here. I'm just saying this before we start bringing China and North Korea to the mix.

You quoted an index that contained countries of all religions and secular ones, as such discussing the factors of other religions (and none in the case of say China) is not only perfectly valid, but a door you opened.

Yes I did. You skipped it and replied to the sentence bellow it:

You: "Remind me again how the world ended up with religious extremists in the likes of Saudi, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan?"

Me: "By having a religion that implies, or demands depending on the interpretation (this problem again) conquering, expanding and total dominion over everyone."

If you have a religion like that, you'll end up with religious extremists in the likes of Saudi, Iran, Iraq and Afeghanistan. You're only focusing on these 4 because those are the countries involved in wars with western states recently.

Then you quite frankly have no idea of the history of these countries.

Plenty of country have had or do have religious extremists, yet they don;t always end up as being the governing factor.

So lets try again and with a single example. Iran. In 1951 Iran, in open and free democratic elections brought to power a secular leader and government that was wildly popular. By 1979 you had a radical Islamist uprising that turned the country into a theocracy. What occured to bring about that change?

But there are others, with the same laws and beliefs, impacting many millions of people, especially girls and women, of course: Pakistan, Qatar, UAE, Kwait, Egypt, Lybia, Algeria, Somalia, Sudan, Mauritania, Nigeria, Malasya and Indonesia, and others.

And others that don't, and other secular nations that do and don't and other religious states that do and don't.

All these have Sharia as the law of the land (Nigeria, Malasya and Indonesia only in parts of the country). All of them can stone an adulterer to death or lashing someone who doesn't dress like the law demands. All of them condemn gays, atheists and apostates to death or emprisonment. All of them can cut your hand for a robbery, if they so desire. All of them riot if criticism of Islam is made public. Some of them have or have had periods of blocking internet to content they deem anti-islam. Some of them have banned books about religion, politics or other subjects not allowed by Sharia. You'll find recent examples from all of this on google.

Define Sharia.

I don't even know what's the purpose of that question, to be honest. What does parity (in numbers I suppose) have to do with religious motivated lunacy. Are you saying that, because they were fewer in number, they couldn't possibly retaliate, today, say, in the middle of Paris or London or Sidney (since you brought up Australia)?



Hmmm... If you have a patient with pneumonia and one with a constipation, who will you focus on first? They may be a consequence of the same thing, and may lead to the same death, but they're not the same.



"This notion that, if there's a problem and someone points to that problem, they're somewhat complicit with other problems that exist because they're not talking about all the problems in the world at the same time, even if they're not equally severe."

Addressed above, its a door you opened.

And see above for the several times I've stated peaceful muslims are the primary victims of this lunacy.

Then why the constant referral to attacks in Europe?

How? It's not the state, based of an extremist view of a religion, forcing millions of citizens to obey. That shaman dude I saw, was living in a very small village and he wasn't forcing other people to do the same. It looked like what we would be doing some thousands of years ago. I looked it up and they're called the Aghori. They're a small population (70.000) with stupid, backwards beliefs and behaviours. From what I've read and watched though, they don't impose it on anyone else, don't practice violence and don't have a system of law to judge non Aghori people. Which means, they're one of the craziest religious groups on the planet but they keep it private, don't proselytize. Most Hindus don't really like them.

The current Indian PM is a religious (Hindu) Nationalist, so yes it is the state.

And if you think the issue in India are limited to one small belief system, then quite frankly you need to go away and take a lot better look at the situation.

The reason Bangladesh was so high up on this study is because it has female leaders since the 80's. I don't believe having a man or a woman as president mens the country gets better or worse. It's the politics those men and women implement. And when you look at the politics and the progress, you see that Bangladesh is not above the US in anything, even if the US is pretty low compared to pretty much every other western country, in basic social matters like health and education.

Again. This is exactly what double standards is. You are putting your own confirmation bias on results you don't like, either accept all the results as they are or you undermine your own argument about the bottom ten on the WEC index. You don't get to have it both ways.

"Absolving" is a brave word to use too. I'm not absolving or dismissing anything. I've addressed it multiple times. What do you wan't me to do? Say some of these lies:

All religions are equal.
All religions allow violence in the exact same numbers today.
All religions fuel violence for the exact same reasons.
All religions have the same impact in governments around the world.
All religions are equally bad at every single point of the past and present.
All religions give motives to ban, kill, arrest people for imaginary crimes or criticism.
All religions preach peace and peace only.
None gives any reason for any believer to be violent.

Its not.

Well, you won't lead me to say that because all of that is false. Just put Jainism and any abrahamic side by side and compare them on any of these points.

You didn't address the point I made btw. Are fundamentalist jains (or even normal jains) violent in any way? If not, why?

I'm not going to answer a cherry-picked absurdity.

Open it up to all religions (and secular) and we can discuss, but I have no intention of indulging this argument to the absurd.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Enes Kanter LOL

If he thinks he will die like Kashoggi his a fool.

Turkish spies are not amatuers like the Saudis.

However, he has no Turkish passport and so will struggle to leave Turkey if the police free him, no?

 

[SestoScudo]

However, he has no Turkish passport and so will struggle to leave Turkey if the police free him, no?

Well technically he is in exile due to him being part Fetullah Gulens network.

A lot of people have left or exiled themselves from Turkey due to this.

Fetullah Gulen and Erdogan were best buddies with each for years until they turned against each other.

On topic I wish a lot of Muslim countries were like Oman. Oman is not Sunni or Shia they follow a different sect called Ibadi. Ever since then they never bothered to fight with this stupid secratarianism crap.

I wish Iran and Saudi Arabia settle their differences because their proxy war has ripped the Middle East apart due to their sectratarian politics.

 

[Strittan]

My view on Islam is that it’s a religion as good as any other. In other words, I’m not a fan.

 

[UKMikey]

Islam as an ideology is the target, which she see as harmful to society. It is more like muslims who are following a moderate view of Islam isn't real muslims in her opinion. She is sorta right, because if a believer in islam fully follow their religion according to the Quran then they must use jihad to propagate the religion which includes taxing or killing the non-believers. Me, as an atheist would be stoned to death alongside LGBT+ people. Most of the muslims aren't following these very barbaric rules, which means they aren't true to the book. I don't agree with her in this, but I think islam still needs a serious reform, because without that we cannot stop radicalisation.
People fought wars several hundred years ago for religious reasons, but we noticed that we could be better if we cooperate with our neighbours, and so we developed the universal human rights. These rights should be accepted by the muslim countries.
In the end, I would agree with her on the notion that a world without any religion would be the best for humanity (which she hints in the interview) but if I had to choose a religious community to live in it would be modern christianity (who accept old Earth, evolution and so on).
I've watched several videos of her and read several articles about her and she isn't a terrorist or anything like that, she is more likely scared about her life thanks to the fatwa on her and the murder of her best friend and because she knows how some of the most radical islamic believers (who isn't always terrorists or jihadists, just regular people) think and act in their non-secular states.

I'm not sure modern Christianity would be okay with those LGBT+ people even if they wouldn't be stoned as they would be by fundamentalists. Modern Christianity has brought us the situation in Ireland where women had to travel to the UK to terminate unwanted pregnancies until very recently. Its abortion ban was about as effective as a ban on religion itself as people will continue to do both regardless of any externally imposed legislation.

I don't doubt that Ali's experience at the hands of barbaric fundies shaped her views but I don't think those views are anywhere near the mainstream inside or outside of Islam if the excerpts I've quoted are any indication. Islam needs reform, not all out war and I think radicals should be treated as criminals, not the vanguard of an alien invasion. That's what we do with honour killers in the United Kingdom after all. The perpetrators aren't even following the Qu'ran in doing so as I understand things.

 

[CopperySinger]

imo, Islam along with all other religions are based on political purposes. In the beginning, ancient Egyptians worshiped sun gods and to call on them to calm and bring unity in the communities; this brought people together for a common cause. Christianity, the younger religion born right before the renaissance period was actually cherry-picked from Islam. Yes, many of the the Christian gospels during 1200ad told the life of Jesus Christ but was identical to the life events of Islamic Muhammad in 600ad from the Koran; strange as if these two were the same person and no wonder why there is soo much friction between these two religions. However, I believe the most accurate events of Jesus Christ can only be interpreted through the old Hebrew Testament that was actually written in a native hebrew language during the times of Christ, the times when Jesus was foretold to be an Israelite, original Jew/moor decent (from ancient black people), and not being changed to fit a western narrative like this new christianity we see from the King James Bible. But these are facts, and religion is based on faith not facts. All religion should be respected because it serves a purpose to provide faith based guidance among ethnic groups. Asians (Buddhism) India (Hindu) middle Eastern (Islam) Western (Christianity) Native American (Way of Knowing); all these religions have a place of belonging but religion alone dose not make a person good or bad.

 

[SestoScudo]

Islamic terrorism wont be lasting forever by the way these kind of groups have appeared ever since the death of the Prophet.

Look up on the Khawarij. Everytime these kind of people appeared they would be crushed under a Islamic Army.

A lot of the terrorist groups of today have their origins in the 20 century who mixed Islam with khawarij beliefs along with the mix of political activism and aspirations.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Christianity, the younger religion born right before the renaissance period was actually cherry-picked from Islam.

I'm afraid that that's utterly utterly incorrect. We have many attributable, datable sources for the story of big jeebus long before the Renaissance. Would you call the Lindisfarne Gospels post-Renaissance, for example?

If you were to say that Abrahamism is the personification of a sun religion and that judaism, christism and muhamedism are effectively different branches of the same personification then you'd be on to something. What's more the literary and archaeo evidence of ancient texts and sites would support you.

 

[CopperySinger]

I'm afraid that that's utterly utterly incorrect. We have many attributable, datable sources for the story of big jeebus long before the Renaissance. Would you call the Lindisfarne Gospels post-Renaissance, for example?

If you were to say that Abrahamism is the personification of a sun religion and that judaism, christism and muhamedism are effectively different branches of the same personification then you'd be on to something. What's more the literary and archaeo evidence of ancient texts and sites would support you.

Im not on to how these religions are based on the same personification and not trying to 'be on to something' there, sorry.
Maybe sources such as wiki (give or take around 20 years old) would state such things you mention. but my info is sourced through credible scholarly articles such as the books of humanities.
The misconception is Christianity born in early times around 300 ad. Before the 1200s, there were gospels about who was known as 'Jesus' but those stories were based on what was 'heard' and kept being changed through progressional history of politics. much of what was 'heard' might been taken from the koran, depicting a life of Jesus, which was actually similar to some life events of Muhammad. It wasn't until around the 1200s when Christianity became defined as an established religion. The western culture really did not know the exact life of 'Jesus' or maybe the exact writings of his name. The story of his life was told throughout generations of hearsay, altered just as the names Jesus and Jeebus. All this however maybe irrelevant to you but the point I'm trying to make is about the clash of these two religions (Christianity and Islam). Misinformed Muslims and Christians tend to hate each other or turn to violence as tension grows.

 

[Scaff]

Im not on to how these religions are based on the same personification and not trying to 'be on to something' there, sorry.
Maybe sources such as wiki (give or take around 20 years old) would state such things you mention. but my info is sourced through credible scholarly articles such as the books of humanities.
The misconception is Christianity born in early times around 300 ad. Before the 1200s, there were gospels about who was known as 'Jesus' but those stories were based on what was 'heard' and kept being changed through progressional history of politics. much of what was 'heard' might been taken from the koran, depicting a life of Jesus, which was actually similar to some life events of Muhammad. It wasn't until around the 1200s when Christianity became defined as an established religion. The western culture really did not know the exact life of 'Jesus' or maybe the exact writings of his name. The story of his life was told throughout generations of hearsay, altered just as the names Jesus and Jeebus.

Islam started around 600ce.

The oldest Bible in the world is the Codex Sinaitucus, which dates from 330 to 360ce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

Now its perfectly true to say that both the Bible and Christianity has changed since then, but the CS references Jesus repeated some 300 years before Mo was born.

 

[Dotini]

If you were to say that Abrahamism is the personification of a sun religion and that judaism, christism and muhamedism are effectively different branches of the same personification then you'd be on to something. What's more the literary and archaeo evidence of ancient texts and sites would support you.

By the same token, could we say that feminism - anti-patriarchy - is the personification of a moon religion?

 

[Dobermann92]

I'm not sure modern Christianity would be okay with those LGBT+ people even if they wouldn't be stoned as they would be by fundamentalists. Modern Christianity has brought us the situation in Ireland where women had to travel to the UK to terminate unwanted pregnancies until very recently. Its abortion ban was about as effective as a ban on religion itself as people will continue to do both regardless of any externally imposed legislation.

I don't doubt that Ali's experience at the hands of barbaric fundies shaped her views but I don't think those views are anywhere near the mainstream inside or outside of Islam if the excerpts I've quoted are any indication. Islam needs reform, not all out war and I think radicals should be treated as criminals, not the vanguard of an alien invasion. That's what we do with honour killers in the United Kingdom after all. The perpetrators aren't even following the Qu'ran in doing so as I understand things.

Modern Christians (or at least the bunch) wouldn't kill somebody for their beliefs or sexual orientation. Only the most insane fundies would do it. Yes, they would treat LGBT+ people as secondary citizens, and maybe some of them would support jailing, but not killing. This makes a very big difference. I'm 100% agree with you that banning wouldn't solve problems, it can be effective for a short period, but only education can teach what is the reason behind it and why do we think that behaviour is acceptable or harmful for society.

That is the point, her views isn't the mainstream in islam, because most of the believers don't accept the universal human rights or women rights or secularization. Some of them who live in the West maybe do, but most of them don't. They are following the Qur'an, because it has rules for women to obey their father and their husband and if they disobey them then they will be punished. (I have to search for the correct verse, which takes time, so I'll edit this post later with it). Or if she can't prove that she was raped (with 4 men as a witness) then she will be punished by death. If you leave the faith then you can be killed for apostasy. Even if islam doesn't directly propagates honour killings, it allows it.

By the way there is a great wikipedia article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

"According to a study by Phyllis Chesler, in the 1989-2009 analysis of 172 honor killing incidents worldwide involving 230 victims, 91% of the perpetrators were Muslims. In North America, most killers (84%) were Muslim. In Europe, Muslims constituted an even larger majority (96%) while a Sikhs constituted a smaller percentage."

Of course there are people who want to make as it isn't an islam issue, rather than an ethnic, cultural one, but they are wrong. The Qur'an demotes women as property, dehumanizing them, no wonder why muslim people are the most likely who commit these horrible acts.

 

[PocketZeven]

Modern Christians (or at least the bunch) wouldn't kill somebody for their beliefs or sexual orientation.

They are following the Qu'ran, because it has rules for women to obey their father and their husband and if they disobey them then they will be punished. (I have to search for the correct verse, which takes time, so I'll edit this post later with it). Or if she can't prove that she was raped (with 4 men as a witness) then she will be punished by death.

By the way there is a great wikipedia article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

Your arguments sounded so familiar so I looked it up. Funny how many christians point out these verses from the Qu'ran, but fail to study their own bible and these are only a few:

Exodus 21:17
"Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."

Leviticus 20:9
“‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head."

Leviticus 21:9
"If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire."

Deuteronomy 17:12
"Anyone who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God is to be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel."

Deuternomy 22:20
"If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you."

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Leviticus 20:10
"If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death."


Thank god then for "modern" christianity! Islam is not any worse or better then Christianity. In my opinion religion is backwards thinking in every way. It has a lot of good traits, but ultimately used too much as an excuse to justify bad behaviour.

 

[Dobermann92]

Your arguments sounded so familiar so I looked it up. Funny how many christians point out these verses from the Qu'ran, but fail to study their own bible and these are only a few:

Exodus 21:17
"Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."

Leviticus 20:9
“‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head."

Leviticus 21:9
"If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire."

Deuteronomy 17:12
"Anyone who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God is to be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel."

Deuternomy 22:20
"If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you."

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Leviticus 20:10
"If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death."


Thank god then for "modern" christianity! Islam is not any worse or better then Christianity. In my opinion religion is backwards thinking in every way. It has a lot of good traits, but ultimately used too much as an excuse to justify bad behaviour.

UKMikey and I came from the political correctness topic, so you should check that for antecedents. I said that if I had to choose a religion then I would live in modern christianity. I'm an atheist, I don't like religions at all, I know that the Bible also has bad verses, but modern christianity reformed itself so most of the people don't follow them at all. The point was that I'm more concerned if somebody is a believer of islam than a believer in christianity, because most of the fundamentalists in christianity wouldn't kill me for my beliefs unlike islamic fundies.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Im not on to how these religions are based on the same personification

They all worship the same God, spoken to as if "he" is a person. Christianity idolises through the most famous Jew (Jesus Christ) while Islam idolises through God's prophet (Mohammed).

Maybe sources such as wiki (give or take around 20 years old) would state such things you mention

I'm pleased to hear it! Still, as I was saying to some students only today Wiki is valuable as a source list, don't quote the pages themselves unless you've verified the sources.

my info is sourced through credible scholarly articles such as the books of humanities.

In that case... source required. They sound like an interesting read.

The misconception is Christianity born in early times around 300 ad.

Christianity was born in 1AD (although many people prefer ACE nowadays), that's due to the birth of Christ. The first written evidence of his existence (and veneration) dates to around 30 years after his death. The Annals of Tacitus are a particularly good read, you can find translations on Archive.org. So yes, 300ACE is a misconception, but not in the direction you think.

Before the 1200s, there were gospels about who was known as 'Jesus' but those stories were based on what was 'heard' and kept being changed through progressional history of politics.

As @Scaff said the religion(s) evolved in that time - those who refuse to evolve are often seen as fundamentalists nowadays. If you want to study the history of how the Roman Empire amalgamated gods you'll see the precedent for the Holy Roman Empire's amalgamation of many traditions and "religious" beliefs. It's an interesting area of study and one that I feel will enlighten you.

much of what was 'heard' might been taken from the koran, depicting a life of Jesus, which was actually similar to some life events of Muhammad

See all the above.

It wasn't until around the 1200s when Christianity became defined as an established religion.

I'm afraid that whoever told you that was talking rubbish. Look up the Venerable Bede or the Synod of Whitby. They're documented people and events. Ask yourself why there are churches in Britain dating back to Anglo-Saxon times.

The western culture really did not know the exact life of 'Jesus' or maybe the exact writings of his name.

They most certainly did. Liturgical administration might have been the domain of the ordained but the rood was for all. I'm excited to see the source you have that backs up your claim.

The story of his life was told throughout generations of hearsay, altered just as the names Jesus and Jeebus.

Generation of oral tradition with significant outbreaks of writing-down. Going back a loooong time.

the point I'm trying to make is about the clash of these two religions (Christianity and Islam). Misinformed Muslims and Christians tend to hate each other or turn to violence as tension grows.

I agree with your sentiment but I'm not sure your theory brings much closure to that argument.

By the same token, could we say that feminism - anti-patriarchy - is the personification of a moon religion?

We could say what we liked It doesn't follow that feminism is the personification of a moon religion unless you find such a case to study.

 

[PocketZeven]

UKMikey and I came from the political correctness topic, so you should check that for antecedents. I said that if I had to choose a religion then I would live in modern christianity. I'm an atheist, I don't like religions at all, I know that the Bible also has bad verses, but modern christianity reformed itself so most of the people don't follow them at all. The point was that I'm more concerned if somebody is a believer of islam than a believer in christianity, because most of the fundamentalists in christianity wouldn't kill me for my beliefs unlike islamic fundies.

One can argue there is modern Islam. The bible hasnt changed much over the past centuries, however the interpertation had changed. Which leaves room for Islam to perhaps "evolve" to what christianity is today. The most important thing is for middle eastern countries to develop and that is what is why the people there still hold on to olde (more literal) interpertation of the Qu'ran.