- 44,184
- Blackburn
- Furinkazen_54
Islam - What's your view on it?
- Thread starter SalmanBH
- 5,688 comments
- 237,576 views
- 8,840
- Ottawa
- Automotive_Buff
- 3,082
- Allen, Texas
- crispychicken49
- crispychicken49
If Islam is the religion of peace, I want them to prove it. Consistently we have muslims standing by without a peep while atrocities are committed by people in the name of the religion they follow. I can expect extremism in backwards countries that exist in Africa and the Middle East. I don't expect it in the West, where the extremists only exist because of the rights the west provides. Anyone supporting extremism should be deported or have their citizenship revoked, we don't want you here, and neither do the muslims who preach peace.
- 8,840
- Ottawa
- Automotive_Buff
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,184
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Are you seriously unaware of how many and how often Muslim's condemn acts of extremism?
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/189630#.VK26s_msWSo
http://www.lecfcm.fr/?p=3908
http://www.wsj.com/articles/muslim-...n-anti-islamic-sentiment-in-europe-1420654885
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/muslims-respond-charlie-hebdo_n_6429710.html
http://www.ibtimes.com/moderate-muslims-use-jesuischarlie-condemn-charlie-hebdo-attack-paris-1775986
Guess how many seconds that took to find, not that it was needed, given that its also been widely reported during the day on TV and Radio in Europe (and this is just for today, Mainstream Islam has long been vocal about extreme Islam).
Just because you are unaware and unwilling to look for it, doesn't mean its not happening; so please don't present your willing ignorance as fact.
Last edited:
- 3,082
- Allen, Texas
- crispychicken49
- crispychicken49
No religion can call itself peaceful and treat women the way it does.
- 8,840
- Ottawa
- Automotive_Buff
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,184
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
So you hold the same view about Christianity and Judaism I take it (or are you another who takes the views of some and applies them to all)?
I note that you did a similar thing in regard to condemnation of violence and have not responded to your inaccuracy in regard to that, just moved onto more generalization.
- 3,082
- Allen, Texas
- crispychicken49
- crispychicken49
This article sums it up nicely.
Judging by what I've seen of my muslim friend's lives, forcing them to wear a hijab, forcing them not to date, punishing them for going against these things. Look at how Sharia Law treats muslim women. Let's not forget this bit. Of course ignoring the thrown in xenophobia and random speculation that Fox News brings to the table.
@Scaff Judaism and Christianity are misogynist. I never claimed they weren't. Both religions call for women to be subservient to men. However you don't see any of the above from any western, modern Christian or Jew. There's a reason why so many Muslims flock to the West.
- 2,726
- England
- ECGadget
- Eh???
Okay, so I am just going to post in here because I think it is time I did so, especially in light of what has just happened in France. My thoughts are with the families and friends of those who were murdered, regardless of motive.
First thing is first: Islam IS a religion of peace. Allow me to give a few examples before moving on to the likes of IS and any other "islamic" terrorist groups. All these examples refer to the Prophet or his companions, which means that they should be the basis for actions in Islam and for any Muslim.
Example One is of respect:
The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was once sitting in the company of his companions. Whilst he was talking he saw a funeral procession approach. He stopped, and stood up quietly as it passed. When the companions saw a tear fall they asked him why. The Prophet replied, "Was he not a human being? Does he not deserve the same respect?"
Respect. Something that should be engrained in every Muslim.
Example Two is of tolerance, respect and conduct:
When the prophet went to the city now known as Madinah there were three major religions there other than the Muslims. They were the Jews, The Christians and the Fire Worshippers. From what we assume today about Islam, we would have thought that the Prophet would have gone in and told them all to become muslim or leave, right? But that was not what happened. Instead the Prophet invited all the people over to first sleep in his company, so that he could talk to people and get to know the community. Thereafter he wrote three treaties, one for each of the religions. Nowhere on those treaties did it say "you must become muslim". As a matter of fact, the first thing on each treaty was, "I will protect you, your families and your property". As well as this the prophet gathered all the Muslims and said to them that they must never harm anyone of those people under the treaty. Never to damage their property or steal from them. If they did, they would never smell the fragrance of paradise. That is how high in regard these people were held. On top of that, the Prophet met with the Monks, Rabbis and Priests and told them categorically that whilst he does not believe what they believe, he recognises them as the religious leaders and will respect them in that capacity.
Tolerance and good conduct at it's best.
Example Three: dislike of fighting.
There was an incident in which the Muslims were called to arms. When they reached the battlefield there was nobody to fight. They waited but nobody showed up. During this waiting some of the fighters began to get restless, ready to fight. Did the Prophet urge them to prepare more? No. Instead he chided them and asked them why they were eager to spill the blood of another human. If the enemy failed to show, then nobody would need to be killed.
Fighting? No needed unless necessary.
Example four: ettiqutte of war.
What were the rules that the Prophet said?
You will only fight the armed men.
You will not harm a woman, or a child, or an elderly person.
You will not fight in anger.
Amongst many others.
Even when fighting there we rules. Religious buildings were not to be harmed either.
Ettiquette.
Example five: mercy.
When the Prophet returned to the city of Makkah, did he come in weapons aloft? No. He walked in and retook the city without bloodshed. And he showed mercy on those who mocked him, spat on him, tried at assassinate him etc. Why? Because that was what Islam was. Peace.
Example 6: Sharing and Tolerance
A group of Christians were travelling and they came to Madinah. It was the time for their prayers yet they had nowhere to pray. The Prophet opened up one of the most sacred mosques in Islam and told the Christians that they could pray in peace in the mosque.
Sharing.
Example 7: Compassion
There was a woman who hated the Prophet, and every day she would throw her rubbish at him from a window. This happened a long time but one day this stopped. The Prophet enquired what happened to this lady and found out the she had fallen ill. Did he rejoice? No. Instead he went to visit her and wish her well.
Example 8: stoned.
The prophet heard of some people in a place called Taif. He thought he would go see who they were and if they would like to hear about Islam. These people stoned him until he was bleeding and he had to flee for his life. The angel Gabriel came to the Prophet and told him that if he so wished, he would drop an entire mountain over the town and kill everyone. What did the prophet say? Yes? Of course not. He said no. What does this show us? Even if we have the power to crush an enemy, it should not be used.
So what has happened? Have these stories all just disappeared from all Muslims? Have they forgotten what it means to be a Muslim? I do not see mosques opening thier doors when a church closes. But I do hear of churches doing that for Muslims. What is IS? They claim to be trying to implement shariah law on the world. Yet all they do is kill and terrorise. Everything they do is against the very nature of Islam. And then we have the media. Why is it when Israel attack Palestine it is barely shown. But when it is the other way around (which is just as wrong in many ways) it is all over the news? Some centuries ago, the Cherokee, Apache, Commanche, Iroquis etc were labelled as the bad people. Then it was the Black community who were substandard and treated like slaves. The media never defended them even though they were in the right. It took good men like Nelson Mandela their whole life. And slowly the world realised that Black people were not bad at all. We were the bad guys. We had Hitler, a rare time when the majority agreed that he was a bad man. There was a time when all Germans were called Nazis. Why? Why is everyone painted with the same brush. We had the IRA. Were all prodestants bad? No. Then why were they hated? We have the IDF. Are all jews bad? No, of course not. We have IS. Are all Muslims bad? No. They are not.
IRA, KKK, IDF, IS, Nazis etc etc. They all have one thing in common: they all take things to an extreme where it is religiously, morally and outright wrong. And in the minds of those who oppose them, they twist us into thinking that everyone from that area or religion is wrong. Worse: the media never helps.
Let's be humans guys, let's really follow the messages of the prophets we follow, or for those who are athiests, let's follow the moral centre within us all. Islam is peaceful. Christianity is peaceful. Judaism is peaceful. Athiesm is peaceful. Humans... Now we are the evil ones. Let's not be anymore.
First thing is first: Islam IS a religion of peace. Allow me to give a few examples before moving on to the likes of IS and any other "islamic" terrorist groups. All these examples refer to the Prophet or his companions, which means that they should be the basis for actions in Islam and for any Muslim.
Example One is of respect:
The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was once sitting in the company of his companions. Whilst he was talking he saw a funeral procession approach. He stopped, and stood up quietly as it passed. When the companions saw a tear fall they asked him why. The Prophet replied, "Was he not a human being? Does he not deserve the same respect?"
Respect. Something that should be engrained in every Muslim.
Example Two is of tolerance, respect and conduct:
When the prophet went to the city now known as Madinah there were three major religions there other than the Muslims. They were the Jews, The Christians and the Fire Worshippers. From what we assume today about Islam, we would have thought that the Prophet would have gone in and told them all to become muslim or leave, right? But that was not what happened. Instead the Prophet invited all the people over to first sleep in his company, so that he could talk to people and get to know the community. Thereafter he wrote three treaties, one for each of the religions. Nowhere on those treaties did it say "you must become muslim". As a matter of fact, the first thing on each treaty was, "I will protect you, your families and your property". As well as this the prophet gathered all the Muslims and said to them that they must never harm anyone of those people under the treaty. Never to damage their property or steal from them. If they did, they would never smell the fragrance of paradise. That is how high in regard these people were held. On top of that, the Prophet met with the Monks, Rabbis and Priests and told them categorically that whilst he does not believe what they believe, he recognises them as the religious leaders and will respect them in that capacity.
Tolerance and good conduct at it's best.
Example Three: dislike of fighting.
There was an incident in which the Muslims were called to arms. When they reached the battlefield there was nobody to fight. They waited but nobody showed up. During this waiting some of the fighters began to get restless, ready to fight. Did the Prophet urge them to prepare more? No. Instead he chided them and asked them why they were eager to spill the blood of another human. If the enemy failed to show, then nobody would need to be killed.
Fighting? No needed unless necessary.
Example four: ettiqutte of war.
What were the rules that the Prophet said?
You will only fight the armed men.
You will not harm a woman, or a child, or an elderly person.
You will not fight in anger.
Amongst many others.
Even when fighting there we rules. Religious buildings were not to be harmed either.
Ettiquette.
Example five: mercy.
When the Prophet returned to the city of Makkah, did he come in weapons aloft? No. He walked in and retook the city without bloodshed. And he showed mercy on those who mocked him, spat on him, tried at assassinate him etc. Why? Because that was what Islam was. Peace.
Example 6: Sharing and Tolerance
A group of Christians were travelling and they came to Madinah. It was the time for their prayers yet they had nowhere to pray. The Prophet opened up one of the most sacred mosques in Islam and told the Christians that they could pray in peace in the mosque.
Sharing.
Example 7: Compassion
There was a woman who hated the Prophet, and every day she would throw her rubbish at him from a window. This happened a long time but one day this stopped. The Prophet enquired what happened to this lady and found out the she had fallen ill. Did he rejoice? No. Instead he went to visit her and wish her well.
Example 8: stoned.
The prophet heard of some people in a place called Taif. He thought he would go see who they were and if they would like to hear about Islam. These people stoned him until he was bleeding and he had to flee for his life. The angel Gabriel came to the Prophet and told him that if he so wished, he would drop an entire mountain over the town and kill everyone. What did the prophet say? Yes? Of course not. He said no. What does this show us? Even if we have the power to crush an enemy, it should not be used.
So what has happened? Have these stories all just disappeared from all Muslims? Have they forgotten what it means to be a Muslim? I do not see mosques opening thier doors when a church closes. But I do hear of churches doing that for Muslims. What is IS? They claim to be trying to implement shariah law on the world. Yet all they do is kill and terrorise. Everything they do is against the very nature of Islam. And then we have the media. Why is it when Israel attack Palestine it is barely shown. But when it is the other way around (which is just as wrong in many ways) it is all over the news? Some centuries ago, the Cherokee, Apache, Commanche, Iroquis etc were labelled as the bad people. Then it was the Black community who were substandard and treated like slaves. The media never defended them even though they were in the right. It took good men like Nelson Mandela their whole life. And slowly the world realised that Black people were not bad at all. We were the bad guys. We had Hitler, a rare time when the majority agreed that he was a bad man. There was a time when all Germans were called Nazis. Why? Why is everyone painted with the same brush. We had the IRA. Were all prodestants bad? No. Then why were they hated? We have the IDF. Are all jews bad? No, of course not. We have IS. Are all Muslims bad? No. They are not.
IRA, KKK, IDF, IS, Nazis etc etc. They all have one thing in common: they all take things to an extreme where it is religiously, morally and outright wrong. And in the minds of those who oppose them, they twist us into thinking that everyone from that area or religion is wrong. Worse: the media never helps.
Let's be humans guys, let's really follow the messages of the prophets we follow, or for those who are athiests, let's follow the moral centre within us all. Islam is peaceful. Christianity is peaceful. Judaism is peaceful. Athiesm is peaceful. Humans... Now we are the evil ones. Let's not be anymore.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,184
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Really. So no contemporary Christian has ever placed the right of a women below that of a fertalised egg to the point that they would carry out bombing campaigns, assault and murder? All using justification based on religious text?
No contemporary Jews have taken to repeatedly delaying flights because they will not sit next to women on a plane (because women and men can't mix - says so in a book), with these same Jews insisting that women act and dress in specific ways because the same book says so.
No contemporary Christian group has forced underage girls to be sex slaves?
(and I can keep going for a long time in regard to any Religion you care to mention).
Once again you are treating your ignorance of events as if they were fact, you are able to differentiate between mainstream and fundamental behavior in two out of the three Abrehamic faiths, why are you not able to do it for the third (and they all use the same core 'rules' under different names).
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
By "entire countries", I take it that you mean Afghanistan and Pakistan?
If so, you would be aware that the version of Islam that the likes of the Taliban practice is actually a mix of Islam and archaic tribal practices - and many of the elements that you are so vehemently protesting against come from the latter.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,184
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
No I'm doing neither, your the one doing that (well for one out of the three), I'm not the one making generalisations about an entire faith based upon the actions of a part of it, you are.
I used these examples from other Abrehamic faiths simply to point out what you are doing, now if you want to drag whole countries into it, well lets take the violence against the LGBT community from Christian countries shall we (go for any Sub-Saharan Christian country or Russia). What about limiting women's rights, well we could use Ireland for that, which has let women die rather than carry out abortions and forced women into slave labour because they were unmarried mothers. Or for evidence of limiting women's equality, remind me again what is the highest position that a women can hold in the Jewish faith and Christian church? Not on par with men is it.
Are you aware that a good number of regions of Afghanistan are populated by Muslims who do not hold women at a lower status? That were fighting the Taliban (which I would say is a fairly strong form of condemnation) long before the west wandered in? The Pashtun are one such group, a Pashtun village was the one that rescued Marcus Lutrell and protected him from the Taliban and risk to themselves.
You can find moderates and extremist quite easily in all faiths, that you are incapable of differentiating for one particular faith, and also refuse to even try and find evidence on that, shows nothing but your own desire for conformation bias. Do you not for example think that Christian and Jewish women exist who think that their faiths are also inherently misogynistic, who object to the way they are forced to dress and act? If you do then why are you once again giving those faiths a pass? Do you not also think that its possible that observant women in all faiths follow these rules about dress and behavior willingly as they feel its 'god's will'? I think you will do, now on that last one I don't understand it at all (no more than men dressing and acting in a certain way based on bronze age rules), but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop someone doing it, if it is of their own free will.
Last edited:
- 44,184
- Blackburn
- Furinkazen_54
Better said than I could ever put 👍
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
I love when people talk about "muslim countries", as if Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Indonesia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey are the same thing.
- 23,800
- Philippines
This is the definition of irony.
-
On the side, I have Muslim friends. Muslim friends with Christian wives and girlfriends. And they're not very different from you or I. Islam is not a monolithic religious bloc.
And while some observances and sects are deeply misogynistic, it's worth noting that it took a long time for Western religion and culture to move away from polygamy, and that women were only granted the Constitutional right to vote within the last century.
Worth noting that there are people still alive today who weren't able to vote in the USA in the past due to their race.
And that equality for homosexuals is still far from a foregone conclusion there, as well.
-
You're looking at very insular, hidebound societies that have yet to undergo the cultural revolution of the west and equating it with an entire religion. While misogyny is inherent in all patriarchal religions, the problem is in the culture rather than the religion. And as the culture progresses, these traditions change. Witness the growing awareness of women's rights in the region, women dressing as they wish. Women driving... it's only a matter of time before they're granted full equality...
And this is happening while all parties involved remain Muslim.
Fancy that.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I don't. It's ignorant. And it tends to go hand-in-hand with nonsense like this:
To my mind, the first problem we face is the disparity between the political right and left. Any solution is going to require bipartisan support, but the political right seem intent on turning this into an us-versus-them issue.
The way I see it, the political right make the assumption that the political left want the polar opposite of what they do. If the political right want to protect the people from the dangers posed by religious fundamentalism, then clearly the political left want to throw open the borders.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The political right want to protect the people from the dangers posed by religious fundamentalism. The political left want to protect the people from the dangers posed by religious fundamentalism. The difference is not in what we want, but in how we want to go about doing that. The political right want to identify fundamentalists, detain them and put them in prison. And that's effective up to a point, but as someone who leans to the left, I think a better way forward would be to identify people who are at risk of radicalisation, then work to figure out why that is happening, and find a solution to prevent them from becoming radicalised at all.
But no, sometimes it seems that all the right see is that the left don't share their exact position, and immediately characterise them as the enemy. In the end, we get stupid statements like Dotini's saying that the left is responsible for the current state of affairs and that the only solution is to deport all of the Muslims from Europe - all the while wonderfully oblivious to the way doing that will only trigger anger from the Muslim community and in turn leading to radicalisation.
- 2,734
- Italy
- Yellohead
- Clydeyellow
It appears that one of the cops killed in the attack was a Muslim, too. Makes you think, huh?
I say that won't cut it - we need to round them up, load them in trains, send them to Poland and gas them all. Heil Hynkel!
Learn your Latin locutions before using them. In extremis meains "in point of death" (in Christian canon law - not the case) or "at the last possible moment". It has nothing to do with the word extremism, that indicates an ideology that is too far from the mainstream or violates common social and moral laws.
I'd also argue that those Muslims fleeing the horrible conflict that is ravaging Syria and Iraq aren't "by definition in extremis" - they didn't flee the Levant running, after all. For most of them it was a suffered choice rather than a fight-or-flight response.
And of course, you choose the former - why doesn't that surprise me in the slightest? WAHWAAAH THE GODDAMN SOCIALISTS HAVE FAILED WE NEED HITLER 2.0 TO EVICT ALL MUSLIMS OUT OF EUROPE BECAUSE MUH FREEDUUMS WAAAHWAHH.
I say that won't cut it - we need to round them up, load them in trains, send them to Poland and gas them all. Heil Hynkel!
Learn your Latin locutions before using them. In extremis meains "in point of death" (in Christian canon law - not the case) or "at the last possible moment". It has nothing to do with the word extremism, that indicates an ideology that is too far from the mainstream or violates common social and moral laws.
I'd also argue that those Muslims fleeing the horrible conflict that is ravaging Syria and Iraq aren't "by definition in extremis" - they didn't flee the Levant running, after all. For most of them it was a suffered choice rather than a fight-or-flight response.
And of course, you choose the former - why doesn't that surprise me in the slightest? WAHWAAAH THE GODDAMN SOCIALISTS HAVE FAILED WE NEED HITLER 2.0 TO EVICT ALL MUSLIMS OUT OF EUROPE BECAUSE MUH FREEDUUMS WAAAHWAHH.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 23,800
- Philippines
Well, millions who live under Sharia Law, but it's very hard to find out how many of those truly prefer it.
Extremists, possibly in the hundreds of thousands, at most.
That said, the Klu Klux Clan used to number in the millions, too.
-
Oh, and cue debate about gun control laws... because they obviously helped.
- 3,871
- Chad
- kennylmao
Those words remind me:
He's using the word "radical" as fear mongering here. I think instead of "radical", he could've said "people with unsettling backwards beliefs". Like you said, the radical bunch who would chop heads is probably only 1%, maybe less, but the bunch who agrees with it is deeply disturbing.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,184
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
99% of 1.6 billion people would still remain an even greater number of people, as such using the actions of the 1% to judge the whole remains illogical regardless of the numbers involved.
After all (and to the point I made in this regard initially) even if Christian extremism is a half of that, that's still "a looooootttt of people" as well, yet the same judgement is not made (despite the actions of the Army of God, both sides in the troubles, US Catholic support of the IRA in the troubles, UK Protestant support of the Loyalists in the troubles, the LRA, Orthodox influence in Russian politics, the Catholic influence on women's right the world over, evangelic US groups influence on LGBT right restrictions and rise in persecution in SS Africa, etc.).
Its also worth noting that the you are far more likely to be a victim of the Muslim 1% if you are part of the Muslim 99% than if you are a Christian, Jewish, Atheist, etc. Making the judgement and claims that Crispy made even more illogical.
As such I don't see it as missing the point (action must be taken against the 1% I totally agree), but putting it into context (regardless of the issues that can and do exists within the 99% - they are still not the 1%).
- 3,871
- Chad
- kennylmao
@Omnis I know, and the numbers of whom support but aren't necessarily willing to act out on such unsettling ideas is even greater.
Or if you have any other possible solution, please share.
That sounds like pacifying a child. They're adults. But if you insist, maybe your Western governments can start by not meddling in people's countries, followed by forbidding the criticism and parody of religion in your own. 👍
Or if you have any other possible solution, please share.
It's not very hard, there's a Pew poll on this.
Last edited:
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 38,876
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
Who said anything about the 99%? You brought them up. I'm just saying that 16 million people can't be downplayed as not a big deal in the greater shadow of the non violent, progressive muslim population. 16 million people is like an enemy state of the entire population of the Netherlands, if every single dutch person was a radical militant/combatant.
Young men under occupation. Be it oppressive or repressive (secular) regimes, or especially a foreign invading force.
History shows that the only way the Tamil Tigers' suicide terrorism campaign was effectively stopped was to bomb the ever-living crap out of them. No other approach worked.
Today's challenge is that you can't apply the same treatment to 16 million people.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 38,876
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
I know that's a snarky comment, but it actually is a completely different case than Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, we created the suicide terrorism after crushing all other conventional resistance through our occupation. Forces in Afghanistan were still able to organize enough to conduct guerilla warfare or ambush patrols.
The tigers were holed up on an island, and the geography was such that they could be contained. "Radical Jihad" unfortunately is diffuse among the muslim population rather than set between borders. It's a different kind of conflict.
The tigers were holed up on an island, and the geography was such that they could be contained. "Radical Jihad" unfortunately is diffuse among the muslim population rather than set between borders. It's a different kind of conflict.
