Islam - What's your view on it?

[Dotini]

It isn’t new. During the Cold War “communism” was the enemy. Which resulted in the Vietnam war. “Islam” wasn’t an enemy back then.

It's true communism rolled over and died as a viable enemy some 30 years ago. However, "Islam" per se did not become the new enemy #1, but radical Islamic terrorists did, and seemingly still are.

Some say it is essential that we have a bogeyman, an evil enemy at our throats in order to justify massive military and intelligence budgets, the national security and surveillance state, limitations on freedom of information, etc.

Islamic terrorism, Islamist terrorism or radical Islamic terrorism are terrorist acts against civilians committed by violent Islamists who claim a religious motivation.[1][2]

The largest numbers of incidents and fatalities caused by Islamic terrorism have occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistanand Syria.[3] In 2015 four Islamic extremist groups were responsible for 74% of all deaths from Islamic terrorism: ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, according to the Global Terrorism Index 2016.[4] Since approximately 2000, these incidents have occurred on a global scale, affecting not only Muslim-majority states in Africa and Asia, but also Russia, Australia, Canada, Israel, India, the United States and countries within the European Union. Such attacks have targeted Muslims and non-Muslims.[5] In a number of the worst-affected Muslim-majority regions, these terrorists have been met by armed, independent resistance groups,[6]state actors and their proxies, and elsewhere by condemnation coming from prominent Islamic figures.[7][8][9]

Justifications given for attacks on civilians by Islamic extremist groups come from extreme interpretations of the Quran and Hadith,[10][11] and sharia law. These include retribution by armed jihad for the perceived injustices of unbelievers against Muslims (especially by Al-Qaeda);[12] the belief that the killing of many self-proclaimed Muslims is required because they have violated Islamic law and are actually unbelievers (kafir); the need to restore and purify Islam by establishing sharia law, especially by restoring the Caliphate as a pan-Islamic state (especially ISIS);[13] the glory and heavenly rewards of martyrdom;[11] the supremacy of Islam over all other religions.[Note 1]

Use of the phrase "Islamic terrorism" is disputed. In Western political speech it has variously been called "counter-productive", "highly politicized, intellectually contestable" and "damaging to community relations".[16] Others have condemned the refusal to use the term as an act of "self-deception", "full-blown censorship" and "intellectual dishonesty".[17][18][19][20]

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

 

[ryzno]

*changes topic title FOr tHe LulZ*

May I ask why you are so worried about what he does in his thread, you gotta complain in another thread?
I know I'm late to the game but it was clearly pointed out there is nothing wrong with the title of the thread.
So I ask, why is everyone butthurt now about it, when he changed it over a week ago???

 

[baldgye]

May I ask why you are so worried about what he does in his thread, you gotta complain in another thread?
I know I'm late to the game but it was clearly pointed out there is nothing wrong with the title of the thread.
So I ask, why is everyone butthurt now about it, when he changed it over a week ago???

>person claims another user is changing the topic
>shows example of said persons hypocrisy
>WHY IS EVERYONE SO BUTTHURT

WiLl ThE mYsTErY eVeR bE sOlvEd?

 

[ryzno]

WiLl ThE mYsTErY eVeR bE sOlvEd?

wHo NoSe...

 

[Imari]

Some say it is essential that we have a bogeyman, an evil enemy at our throats in order to justify massive military and intelligence budgets, the national security and surveillance state, limitations on freedom of information, etc.

I don't know about essential, but it seems pretty obvious that it's very useful to certain players in order to maintain control and gain themselves wealth and power.

You could think about Islam (or really any religion) in a similar way, if you wished. It's an external "threat" (the threat that God will torture you forever if you don't do as you're told) that can be abused by those already in power to extend their reach.

Take away religion as a bogeyman, and it would seem that you get militaristic threats becoming the primary choice. If you take away military threats somehow, no doubt that just shifts it to something else. People are a problem, and it seems to me that they'll use whatever tools their culture makes available to achieve whatever ridiculous grab for power they think is a bright idea.

 

[Dobermann92]

I don't see any problem with people believing whatever they choose to believe. If that leads them to problematic actions, deal with those.

You seem like the militant atheist type, who I view as just another form of the door-knocking Mormon stereotype, or perhaps the hysterical anti-homosexuality type. You're so caught up in the righteousness of your own beliefs that you don't stop to consider that maybe it's none of your business to tell other people what to think. Policing behaviour is one thing and is necessary for a well-ordered and considerate society, but personally I draw the line at telling other people what to think. And that includes religion.

If people want out of religion, there are more than enough resources out there for them to do so. Arguably, you don't need any resources at all other than some simple common sense to talk yourself out of any of the major religions. If they don't want out and are happy where they are, why do you want to change that?

Personally, I see religious people doing the exact same things all humans do; adapting to their environments and responding as best they can to try and make life better for themselves. You don't remove the problems by removing Islam, you remove the problems by removing the systemic problems that lead to groups of people that reasonably rationally think that things like war and oppression are ways to make the world better. Because if war and oppression is better, how bad is what they're dealing with beforehand?



Okay? It wasn't specifically directed at me, so I felt no particular pressure to answer that specific point. You'll notice that I don't respond to everything that you post.

TenEightyOne and TexRex didn't bring anything new to the table, but you did, so I have to respond to that. You could say I'm a militant atheist, although I use no force or any authority to spread my views. I do not knock on others door, religious people can avoid my posts whenever they want, they have the freedom to ignore me and that is fine. I'm not an anti-homosexual, I don't know where did you assume that, I'm all for LGBT+ rights, I have no problem with those people, I never said anything against them, the mere suggestion is outrageous, but you are free to say that. First of all do you even know the meaning of atheism? I can openly say that I don't believe in god. I can also say what are the problems with any religion and other people can correct them according to their personal beliefs, of which I can then also criticise. I don't tell them what to think, I can advise them how to think, how to look at the world objectively.

"If people want out of religion, there are more than enough resources out there for them to do so." This is outright false. In most muslim countries you cannot be a christian or even an atheist without the threat of death penalty, even in more secularized countries you get ostracized if you leave your religion. The second part could also happen with christian people, which I'm also fully against, no religion should been able to do that. If they have all of the information presented to them and they still want to be muslim then it's their choice, but in most of the countries they cannot access to the most basic information out there. I don't want people forced to became atheists, I want them to be well educated on the topic to choose their fate themselves.

Some of the religious people are nice indeed, they cherry pick or ignore some of their tenents because those are against common sense (which is a moral thing, not a religious one). But they still don't have the information to freely choose between ideas, which causes problems in the long run. "Removing" Islam isn't my position, fighting against general superstition is, forcing any other religion on them would be pointless, but they ought to have all of the information available to freely choose their fate.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Some of the religious people are nice indeed, they cherry pick or ignore some of their tenents because those are against common sense (which is a moral thing, not a religious one). But they still don't have the information to freely choose between ideas, which causes problems in the long run.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that many different sects of the "same" religions cherry pick their own tenents on the basis of "common sense". Christianity is a very very obvious one - some adherents remain convinced by transfiguration while others see it as purely symbolic. Many people have died for their particular beliefs in the nature of the holy mass.

Some of those who make that choice are incredibly intelligent, learned people. One of the cleverestest peoples I've ever met is the vicar of my local church - she's used her intelligence to reach an entirely different conclusion about the nature of god from me. Short summary: low intelligence isn't necessarily a factor.

 

[Dobermann92]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that many different sects of the "same" religions cherry pick their own tenents on the basis of "common sense". Christianity is a very very obvious one - some adherents remain convinced by transfiguration while others see it as purely symbolic. Many people have died for their particular beliefs in the nature of the holy mass.

Some of those who make that choice are incredibly intelligent, learned people. One of the cleverestest peoples I've ever met is the vicar of my local church - she's used her intelligence to reach an entirely different conclusion about the nature of god from me. Short summary: low intelligence isn't necessarily a factor.

I'm not ignoring that and I did never mention intelligence once in my response. Some of the christian sects are also very dangerous, there is no argument there either (like Jehovah Witnesses and their refusal of blood transfusion). If people after getting more than enough information choose to be religious then be it, I'm pretty sure they won't be the onces oppressing other people either. People in Europe and even in some parts of the US have the freedom to choose their religion or the absense of that, this right should be available for everyone.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm not ignoring that and I did never mention intelligence once in my response.

I read the implication in

...they still don't have the information to freely choose between ideas, which causes problems in the long run.

People in Europe and even in some parts of the US have the freedom to choose their religion or the absense of that, this right should be available for everyone.

And that definitely isn't true. There are parts of Europe and the USA where the laws are created along the lines of religious belief, the citizens have no choice in whether or not to adhere to those religious choices as they're part of de facto legislation in their lives.

 

[UKMikey]

There are parts of Europe and the USA where the laws are created along the lines of religious belief, the citizens have no choice in whether or not to adhere to those religious choices as they're part of de facto legislation in their lives.

The Irish abortion laws up until recently spring to mind. Of course as Christians that doesn't count, because when did Irish people ever try to blow us up for religious reasons?

 

[Dobermann92]

And that definitely isn't true. There are parts of Europe and the USA where the laws are created along the lines of religious belief, the citizens have no choice in whether or not to adhere to those religious choices as they're part of de facto legislation in their lives.

Show me one law in Europe which condemns people of other beliefs in any way. Discrimination is forbidden inside the EU & EFTA countries and any violation of the law could be punished by prosecution in the European Court of Human Rights.

The Irish abortion laws up until recently spring to mind. Of course as Christians that doesn't count, because when did Irish people ever try to blow us up for religious reasons?

Are you suggesting that Irish people are terrorists? Isn't that going too far?



Apparently mocking an extremist religious sect is against the law in Palestine:

https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east...onths-in-prison-over-mock-beheading-1.8327184

 

[UKMikey]

Are you suggesting that Irish people are terrorists? Isn't that going too far?

Saying that terrorists can be Irish people too isn't the same as saying Irish people are terrorists. That'd be like saying because some Muslims blew people up then Muslims should be treated like they're terrorists. Terrorists should be treated as terrorists.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Show me one law in Europe which condemns people of other beliefs in any way. Discrimination is forbidden inside the EU & EFTA countries and any violation of the law could be punished by prosecution in the European Court of Human Rights.

That's a very naive view when you look at the history of abortion law across the UK. Some countries allowed it, some didn't - and that was on religious grounds. Did it go to the ECHR? No.

 

[Imari]

TenEightyOne and TexRex didn't bring anything new to the table, but you did, so I have to respond to that. You could say I'm a militant atheist, although I use no force or any authority to spread my views. I do not knock on others door, religious people can avoid my posts whenever they want, they have the freedom to ignore me and that is fine. I'm not an anti-homosexual, I don't know where did you assume that, I'm all for LGBT+ rights, I have no problem with those people, I never said anything against them, the mere suggestion is outrageous, but you are free to say that.

Maybe go back and read again. I didn't say you were a Mormon or an anti-homosexual, I said you were like them. Those particular types of people have an agenda and they'll go to great lengths to make sure that other people know it. They won't use violence (mostly), and they will say that they're communicating their message through criticism and education, but they have no regard at all for allowing other people to simply be.

Sound familiar?

First of all do you even know the meaning of atheism? I can openly say that I don't believe in god. I can also say what are the problems with any religion and other people can correct them according to their personal beliefs, of which I can then also criticise. I don't tell them what to think, I can advise them how to think, how to look at the world objectively.

Well, when you say things like this:

You did not answer to my proposition that we should fight every religion because it promotes superstition whether it is true or not. No matter how peaceful it is (for example jainism is the most peaceful religion I can think of) people should know that they believe false things and should not do actions which are not objectively true (and this should be done by criticism and education, not by force). No religion should avoid criticism because there are peaceful people practising it and it can hurt their feelings.

You can see how it might come across as quite aggressive. Hence why I assume that you're advocating actively going out and creating interactions with these people instead of passively waiting for them to stumble across your posts on a gaming discussion forum.

"If people want out of religion, there are more than enough resources out there for them to do so." This is outright false. In most muslim countries you cannot be a christian or even an atheist without the threat of death penalty, even in more secularized countries you get ostracized if you leave your religion.

That's just not true. You'll get the death penalty for blasphemy, but a Christian or an atheist need not blaspheme against Islam. I mean, you'd clearly have trouble avoiding getting the death penalty within the first week, but you're an outlier.

Let's do the basic Wiki walkthrough, shall we?

Iran - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Iran
By 2011 census, 99.4% Muslim, 0.15% Christian.
"The small evangelical Protestant Christian minority in Iran has been subject to Islamic "government suspicion and hostility" according to Human Rights Watch at least in part because of its "readiness to accept and even seek out Muslim converts" as well as for its Western origins."
So basically don't try to convert Muslims to Christianity and you're fine? Do you remember what I was saying before about militant atheists?

Pakistan - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Pakistan
From Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, 96.3% Muslim, 1.6% Christian.
The funny thing about the blasphemy laws in Pakistan is that while they include the death penalty for defiling the name of Muhammad or other Prophets, they actually include lesser penalties for blaspheming any religion. Which kind of suggests that even non-Muslims have some, albeit lesser, protections for their religion.

Iraq - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Iraq
No official numbers since 2003, because of course not. But estimated 95% Muslims, and 1-2 million Christians in a country of about 38 million (~3%).

Syria - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Syria
Syrian Opinion Centre, 70.7% Muslim, 16.1% Christian.

So there's a few examples of very Islamic countries with non-trivial Christian populations. If they were constantly under real threat of the death penalty I have doubts that there would be populations of hundreds of thousands or millions of Christians in these countries, and you'd definitely be hearing about the executions of Christians under the death penalty every week.

You can go through all the countries with Islam as their state religion if you like, I'm not here to hold your hand.

Saudi Arabia is the exception; they forbid any expression of non-Muslim religion and will actively hunt out even privately practising Christians. But one country (even a big and powerful one) does not make "most". Saudi Arabia is scary as 🤬, I will never go there and it worries me that they're a fairly strong western ally. The way they treat religion is horrific, but it's by no means indicative of normal behaviour within Islam.

The second part could also happen with christian people, which I'm also fully against, no religion should been able to do that.

Ostracism is what happens when you leave a community. If you're an addict and you quit, you're probably not going to hang around all your old druggie friends. It sucks, but if you want to change your life then sometimes there are sacrifices that need to be made. No choice is without consequences.

I'm reminded of how some people think that free speech not only means that they should be able to say what they like, but that they should be free from the consequences of saying it. You may be free to change your religion (or abandon it altogether), but you should not expect that to have no impact at all on your life. Hell, my parents are fairly dedicated spiritualists, reiki, homeopathy, all that stuff. It was not without consequence when it became clear that I thought it was all bollocks (I went on to train as a scientist, so yeah, not really on board with the woo woo). It continues to have consequences to this day, but so be it.

If they have all of the information presented to them and they still want to be muslim then it's their choice, but in most of the countries they cannot access to the most basic information out there.

As I said, common sense is all that's strictly required. That's the most basic information. If people cannot access common sense... then what? You might as well be trying to convince potatoes if there's no rational thought going on.

I don't want people forced to became atheists, I want them to be well educated on the topic to choose their fate themselves.

Right. And if they choose to continue to be Muslims (or Christians, or whatever), you're fine with that?

What would it take to convince you that someone has adequately considered their religion and are just fine with it the way that it is?
Why would someone have to convince you of this in the first place?

Some of the religious people are nice indeed, they cherry pick or ignore some of their tenents because those are against common sense (which is a moral thing, not a religious one). But they still don't have the information to freely choose between ideas, which causes problems in the long run.

I disagree. They have a brain. If someone is already cherry picking which parts of the religion to follow, then they're doing exactly what you want. They're critically evaluating their religion. That they choose to follow parts of it and not others is clearly not the outcome that you desire, but it's a valid choice for them to make. There are more options than "become a Wahhabist" and "become an atheist".

"Removing" Islam isn't my position, fighting against general superstition is, forcing any other religion on them would be pointless, but they ought to have all of the information available to freely choose their fate.

If someone politely asks you not to provide them and only them with that information, what is your response? Should someone be educated against their wishes?

 

[SestoScudo]

Except Islam taxed christians and jews for their religious beliefs and safety. But you can cherry pick good and bad verses from the Quran all day long (and from the Bible too, just like any "holy" book), it doesn't change the fact that what the polls show and what the general muslim populus thinks about in a muslim country or even in Western Europe. You did not answer to my proposition that we should fight every religion because it promotes superstition whether it is true or not. No matter how peaceful it is (for example jainism is the most peaceful religion I can think of) people should know that they believe false things and should not do actions which are not objectively true (and this should be done by criticism and education, not by force). No religion should avoid criticism because there are peaceful people practising it and it can hurt their feelings.

Taxes are so bad am I right???

Thats why Muslim populations in europe like spain and sicily have all been extinguished by Christians while Christians in the Middle East are still in many Majority Muslim countries.

Islamic rule was no utopia. Christians told the Muslims either convert or leave. Muslim conditions was pay tax fight us or leave the lands.

Anatolia still had a sizable christian population by the 1900s. The Turks did not expel them because they were christian but due to racial and ethnic reasons.

When Greece became independant they expelled many Muslims even Muslim Greeks because to them we built a new nation only for greeks.

Turks had the same mentality the Ottomans are dead now we have the Turkish republic built by Turks only for Turks.

Religion was just a factor but the cause of this Muslim vs Christian so called conflict was ethnic reasons.

 

[Dobermann92]

Maybe go back and read again. I didn't say you were a Mormon or an anti-homosexual, I said you were like them. Those particular types of people have an agenda and they'll go to great lengths to make sure that other people know it. They won't use violence (mostly), and they will say that they're communicating their message through criticism and education, but they have no regard at all for allowing other people to simply be.

Sound familiar?



Well, when you say things like this:



You can see how it might come across as quite aggressive. Hence why I assume that you're advocating actively going out and creating interactions with these people instead of passively waiting for them to stumble across your posts on a gaming discussion forum.



That's just not true. You'll get the death penalty for blasphemy, but a Christian or an atheist need not blaspheme against Islam. I mean, you'd clearly have trouble avoiding getting the death penalty within the first week, but you're an outlier.

Let's do the basic Wiki walkthrough, shall we?

Iran - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Iran
By 2011 census, 99.4% Muslim, 0.15% Christian.
"The small evangelical Protestant Christian minority in Iran has been subject to Islamic "government suspicion and hostility" according to Human Rights Watch at least in part because of its "readiness to accept and even seek out Muslim converts" as well as for its Western origins."
So basically don't try to convert Muslims to Christianity and you're fine? Do you remember what I was saying before about militant atheists?

Pakistan - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Pakistan
From Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, 96.3% Muslim, 1.6% Christian.
The funny thing about the blasphemy laws in Pakistan is that while they include the death penalty for defiling the name of Muhammad or other Prophets, they actually include lesser penalties for blaspheming any religion. Which kind of suggests that even non-Muslims have some, albeit lesser, protections for their religion.

Iraq - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Iraq
No official numbers since 2003, because of course not. But estimated 95% Muslims, and 1-2 million Christians in a country of about 38 million (~3%).

Syria - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Syria
Syrian Opinion Centre, 70.7% Muslim, 16.1% Christian.

So there's a few examples of very Islamic countries with non-trivial Christian populations. If they were constantly under real threat of the death penalty I have doubts that there would be populations of hundreds of thousands or millions of Christians in these countries, and you'd definitely be hearing about the executions of Christians under the death penalty every week.

You can go through all the countries with Islam as their state religion if you like, I'm not here to hold your hand.

Saudi Arabia is the exception; they forbid any expression of non-Muslim religion and will actively hunt out even privately practising Christians. But one country (even a big and powerful one) does not make "most". Saudi Arabia is scary as 🤬, I will never go there and it worries me that they're a fairly strong western ally. The way they treat religion is horrific, but it's by no means indicative of normal behaviour within Islam.



Ostracism is what happens when you leave a community. If you're an addict and you quit, you're probably not going to hang around all your old druggie friends. It sucks, but if you want to change your life then sometimes there are sacrifices that need to be made. No choice is without consequences.

I'm reminded of how some people think that free speech not only means that they should be able to say what they like, but that they should be free from the consequences of saying it. You may be free to change your religion (or abandon it altogether), but you should not expect that to have no impact at all on your life. Hell, my parents are fairly dedicated spiritualists, reiki, homeopathy, all that stuff. It was not without consequence when it became clear that I thought it was all bollocks (I went on to train as a scientist, so yeah, not really on board with the woo woo). It continues to have consequences to this day, but so be it.



As I said, common sense is all that's strictly required. That's the most basic information. If people cannot access common sense... then what? You might as well be trying to convince potatoes if there's no rational thought going on.



Right. And if they choose to continue to be Muslims (or Christians, or whatever), you're fine with that?

What would it take to convince you that someone has adequately considered their religion and are just fine with it the way that it is?
Why would someone have to convince you of this in the first place?



I disagree. They have a brain. If someone is already cherry picking which parts of the religion to follow, then they're doing exactly what you want. They're critically evaluating their religion. That they choose to follow parts of it and not others is clearly not the outcome that you desire, but it's a valid choice for them to make. There are more options than "become a Wahhabist" and "become an atheist".



If someone politely asks you not to provide them and only them with that information, what is your response? Should someone be educated against their wishes?

Painting militant atheism as an extremist position is funny. Nobody is forcing others in the militant atheist movement to "convert" to atheism, but to have access all of the information and means to have an educated choice. If powerful people don't allow information to spread, if you cannot criticise a powerful ideology then there is freedom fighting for.

There is FGM, execution of LGBT+ people, jailing of atheists and people of other religions, but that is fine because they have their tradition and beliefs, they will change over time, right? You can say those people aren't believers of islam or they misinterpret it, but they can interpret as they like because every religion does that and there is no one true interpretation. It's like saying you aren't an atheist, because I feel that you believe in God in your heart. Millions of humans suffer under theocratic dictatorships which control information (although even there some people risk their lives to organize and protest), but you just "don't try to convert Muslims" and be silent. If you dare to speak against Islam then suffer from the consequences, how kind of you to say that.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Painting militant atheism as an extremist position is funny.

In that case...are you quite sure you understand all those words?

 

[Imari]

Painting militant atheism as an extremist position is funny.

Yeah, it's funny, but you're the one who chose to define "extremist" as containing the entire spectrum from "friendly but annoying" (Mormons) to "may actually be Satan" (terrorists).

Nobody is forcing others in the militant atheist movement to "convert" to atheism, but to have access all of the information and means to have an educated choice.

I see. So clearly you think that there is information that would change people's minds if it was available to them, but that is not simple enough that anyone could arrive at it through common sense and a little critical thinking.

Would you like to give us an example of this sort of information?

If powerful people don't allow information to spread, if you cannot criticise a powerful ideology then there is freedom fighting for.

Certainly, and that's admirable.

There is FGM, execution of LGBT+ people, jailing of atheists and people of other religions, but that is fine because they have their tradition and beliefs, they will change over time, right?

Settle down there, those goal posts are wobbling all over the place.

FGM is not an Islamic thing. There is one school of Islamic law that considers it obligatory, but that's not based on the Quran and the other three major schools disagree. Male genital mutilation is a Jewish thing, and I think that's pretty messed up and it annoys me that what is basically child abuse gets handwaved in the name of religious ceremony, but I object to that because it's child abuse and not because it's Jewish.

Execution of LGBTs isn't Islamic either, it's Abrahamic. All the Abrahamic faiths share the same disregard. And again, that's messed up, but that's because these people have committed a "crime" that harmed no-one.

Illegitimate arrests are a problem, but that's a problem everywhere. I'm generalising to illegitimate arrests because atheists and non-Muslims being arrested for actual crimes isn't a problem, and I assume you agree.

You can say those people aren't believers of islam or they misinterpret it, but they can interpret as they like because every religion does that and there is no one true interpretation.

Nope, I don't say that. Believers in Islam can do terrible things. As we've seen, there's also thousands of ways each religion can be interpreted and some of them are horrific.

But just because someone commits horrific acts in the name of Islam, doesn't mean that I think that Islam is responsible. Just as I don't think that because Jeffery Dahmer was an atheist, all atheists are cannibalistic rapist serial killers.

It's like saying you aren't an atheist, because I feel that you believe in God in your heart.

I'm not making the argument that these people aren't Muslims. That's something that you seem to be trying to put in my mouth.

Millions of humans suffer under theocratic dictatorships which control information (although even there some people risk their lives to organize and protest), but you just "don't try to convert Muslims" and be silent. If you dare to speak against Islam then suffer from the consequences, how kind of you to say that.

It's unfortunate, but this is how the real world works. You have to choose whether you're willing to accept the consequences of your actions. The government sets the laws and you can either break them or change them. I have my own opinions on whether said laws are just, but my opinions don't change reality.

As far as I can tell, all governments are varying levels of awful. If you think that aggressively converting people away from Islam will be helpful, then go for it, but your actions will not be without consequence from people who think that it will be harmful. And while you might disagree, they might not be wrong. Is a civil war better than living in an oppressive yet stable theocracy? I think that's at best debatable, particularly if you're one of the people who is going to have to live (or die) in the civil unrest and violence for an unknown period of time.

Look at the Arab Spring, which is probably the best modern large scale example of the sort of protest and civil disobedience you seem to be advocating. It's had positive results in a couple of places, and pretty catastrophic results in others. While I'm sure it feels good in a student demonstrator stick-it-to-the-man type way, it's not actually worked that well in terms of promoting long term improvements for the people involved.

Again, this is not unique to Islam or theocracies. See the US and Communism for an example of oppression in a "democratic" and "secular" nation, both of which are in quotes because it's also up for debate exactly how democratic and secular the US is. This is why I oppose this anti-Islam bent that you're putting on the faults of the theocracies, because I see those faults as inherent to those types of power structures regardless of where they claim to derive their mandate from. Governments do horrible and oppressive things, and removing religion doesn't seem to have changed that in the examples that we have (see: waterboarding, indefinite detention, Japanese internment camps, drone strikes, regime change/nation building, Uighur re-education facilities, all of North Korea, etc.).

I'm saying that the problems that you're identifying with Islam and theocracies are actually problems with governments and power, everywhere. And this is just my personal opinion, but I think that the worst way to generate lasting change (if that's your goal) is to be loud and make yourself an obvious target. It's admirable to want to change a society for the better, it's foolish to want to die just to prove your point. Far harder to live and work diligently to build the change you want to see.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm saying that the problems that you're identifying with Islam and theocracies are actually problems with governments and power, everywhere. And this is just my personal opinion, but I think that the worst way to generate lasting change (if that's your goal) is to be loud and make yourself an obvious target. It's admirable to want to change a society for the better, it's foolish to want to die just to prove your point. Far harder to live and work diligently to build the change you want to see.

In fact it isnt just a problem with governments, but in all societies. I think history should be tought better in schools. It is appalling how little many people now of world history and how often societies make the same mistakes over and over again. Replace islam with any other demonised ethnicitty/society/ minority etc.: jews, communists, chinese, native americans, christianity, atheists etc.

All this rhetoric against muslims used now, has probably been used against any random religion at some point in history.

 

[HenrySwanson]

So arbritary... why don't we get sERiouS and narrow it down to the last 15 seconds?

Well I mean if you wanted to get scientific you would compare a month of violence in the name of Islam against a month of violence in the name of other religions, if that makes you feel better....

 

[PocketZeven]

Well I mean if you wanted to get scientific you would compare a month of violence in the name of Islam against a month of violence in the name of other religions, if that makes you feel better....

Any month between 1939-1945.
or
Any month in 1096 in the rhineland Germany.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Any month between 1939-1945.
or
Any month in 1096 in the rhineland Germany.

 

[baldgye]

Any month between 1939-1945.
or
Any month in 1096 in the rhineland Germany.

Or how about in the 3rd or 4th century? Why limit ourselves?

 

[PocketZeven]

Or how about in the 3rd or 4th century? Why limit ourselves?

I guess @HenrySwanson wants to cherrypick muslim extremist violence as if other religious violence rarely happens.

 

[Imari]

Well I mean if you wanted to get scientific you would compare a month of violence in the name of Islam against a month of violence in the name of other religions, if that makes you feel better....

I guess the thing is that simply because of how religions tend to be segregated geographically, and some geographical areas will be undergoing more conflict than others at any given time, naturally you're going to see disproportionate violence "related" to one religion if you take statistics over a short enough period.

That doesn't mean that it's a causative relationship. And if you're using small sample sizes, they become basically non-predictive for the purpose of establishing the likelihood of future violence from that religion.

This is the problem of having a conclusion and working backwards from that to choose the data that you wish to use to justify it. If you include all available data and an understanding of the wider circumstances around the numbers (ie. actually follow the scientific method), it becomes much harder to point directly at any religion as a whole and accuse it of extremist violence. Things like geopolitics and contested resources just have too large an effect.

 

[baldgye]

Things like geopolitics and contested resources just have too large an effect.

iS MoTheR nAtUre aN eXtrEmIsT?!

 

[SestoScudo]

A lot of people dont realise why the Middle East is no longer tolerating diversity due to many Muslim countries evolving into nation states from diverse empires and kingdoms.

Ever since independance from european colonialism a lot of Muslim countries especially in the Middle East tried to build a nation based on one ethnic group, one language and one culture.

For a country like Turkey, Turkish nationalism was empahised while Arab countries either followed pan arabism, baathisn or socialism with arab characteristics.

For many non Turk or Non Arab ethnic groups you either had to participate in this nation building or be left behind.

Tribalism also had to be dropped for many Arab countries this was a no no because you know tribalism was a daily life and a part of arab culture but also for many non arab ethnic groups like the kurds, druze and the maronites.

You are who you are due to your tribe. Saudi Arabia is already undertaking a new form of Saudi Nationalism to replace the many tribes but the experiment is failing. These tribes have stood for centuries hence why its not going to be easy to replace it with cultural or ethnic nationalism.

Islamic World is a term of contradictions because all Muslim countries are not the same they are all different from language to culture along with ethnic groups.

Turks, Arabs, Berbers, Kurds, Malaysian, Indonesians, Somalis, Bosniaks, Tatars, Kazakhs, Turkmens many other ethnic groups are different just because they are Muslim does not mean they are all the same.

 

[mustafur]

A lot of people dont realise why the Middle East is no longer tolerating diversity due to many Muslim countries evolving into nation states from diverse empires and kingdoms.

Ever since independance from european colonialism a lot of Muslim countries especially in the Middle East tried to build a nation based on one ethnic group, one language and one culture.

For a country like Turkey, Turkish nationalism was empahised while Arab countries either followed pan arabism, baathisn or socialism with arab characteristics.

For many non Turk or Non Arab ethnic groups you either had to participate in this nation building or be left behind.

Tribalism also had to be dropped for many Arab countries this was a no no because you know tribalism was a daily life and a part of arab culture but also for many non arab ethnic groups like the kurds, druze and the maronites.

You are who you are due to your tribe. Saudi Arabia is already undertaking a new form of Saudi Nationalism to replace the many tribes but the experiment is failing. These tribes have stood for centuries hence why its not going to be easy to replace it with cultural or ethnic nationalism.

Islamic World is a term of contradictions because all Muslim countries are not the same they are all different from language to culture along with ethnic groups.

Turks, Arabs, Berbers, Kurds, Malaysian, Indonesians, Somalis, Bosniaks, Tatars, Kazakhs, Turkmens many other ethnic groups are different just because they are Muslim does not mean they are all the same.

They might have independence from European colonizers but the countries themselves are defined by it, whether it be the propped up Saudi Monarchy by the british to the lines of the countries borders, that ignored the ethnic and Cultural differences(The British Empire was good at that).

It might never recover for some of these areas untill the lines are redrawn.

 

[baldgye]

A lot of people dont realise why the Middle East is no longer tolerating diversity due to many Muslim countries evolving into nation states from diverse empires and kingdoms.

Ever since independance from european colonialism a lot of Muslim countries especially in the Middle East tried to build a nation based on one ethnic group, one language and one culture.

For a country like Turkey, Turkish nationalism was empahised while Arab countries either followed pan arabism, baathisn or socialism with arab characteristics.

For many non Turk or Non Arab ethnic groups you either had to participate in this nation building or be left behind.

Tribalism also had to be dropped for many Arab countries this was a no no because you know tribalism was a daily life and a part of arab culture but also for many non arab ethnic groups like the kurds, druze and the maronites.

You are who you are due to your tribe. Saudi Arabia is already undertaking a new form of Saudi Nationalism to replace the many tribes but the experiment is failing. These tribes have stood for centuries hence why its not going to be easy to replace it with cultural or ethnic nationalism.

Islamic World is a term of contradictions because all Muslim countries are not the same they are all different from language to culture along with ethnic groups.

Turks, Arabs, Berbers, Kurds, Malaysian, Indonesians, Somalis, Bosniaks, Tatars, Kazakhs, Turkmens many other ethnic groups are different just because they are Muslim does not mean they are all the same.

Not only that but, these extremist regimes are then funded by the infinite money they can print thanks to all the oil.

 

[SestoScudo]

They might have independence from European colonizers but the countries themselves are defined by it, whether it be the propped up Saudi Monarchy by the british to the lines of the countries borders, that ignored the ethnic and Cultural differences(The British Empire was good at that).

It might never recover for some of these areas untill the lines are redrawn.

Thats true as they got colonised but the concept of nationalism and nation building ideas came from Europe.

Long before european colonisation the ideas were already spreading into the Middle East when the Ottomans were ruling.

To stem the tide of various ethnic groups or tribes seeking independance the Ottomans tried to emphasis Ottomanism that regardless of tribes or ethnic groups or religion we are all Ottomans.

That failed because the Turks were themselves were embracing Turkish nationalism along with pan Turkism and Turanism.

When the Young Turks took power in 1908 the power of the Young Turks have all been split with liberals and secularists vs the extreme right epoused by the Committee Union of Progress basically the party which Enver, Talaat and Jemal were part.

CUP of the Ottoman Empire was actually not extreme they only began to embrace pan Turkism and Turanism after 1913.

CUP was more liberal and embraced the ideology of Ottomanism

What we see in the Middle East is this evolution from empires to nations. Lets be honest empires, kingdoms or even a caliphate all been passed its use by date hence why so many Muslim countries are republics or nations. Only 10 majority Muslim countries are monarchies while the majority are republics.

Saudi Arabia is a different story all together. Quite a complex one too as Saudi Arabia had to fight other tribes or states to become what it is today.