Islam - What's your view on it?

  • Thread starter SalmanBH
  • 5,688 comments
  • 237,627 views
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.
Actually Crispy brought them up, by lumping the 99% with the 1%.

I've also not downplayed them at all, however lumping them all together (as he did) doesn't resolve the problem, quite the opposite.


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.
And such an approach utterly failed to stop terrorist actions in the troubles, no one size fits all approach works. However what should have been learnt from the troubles was that punishing the whole for the actions of a part simply causes the part to grow and strengthen. While the British and Irish governments did just that it cause terrorist support to grow (both in NI and abroad), when they stopped and engaged with the the majority it worked to force the minority to look for other solutions.


Today's challenge is that you can't apply the same treatment to 16 million people.
Indeed.


Must never happen, its doesn't resolve the issue and just further re-enforces the view that religions should have special status that allows them to act above everything else.

Not only will this not resolve the problem, but it will actually make it worse.
 
Last edited:
I was twelve hours ago when we knew considerably less than we do now. But by all means, bring up an outdated and irrelevant post to discredit me.

This is a false statement.
How would you know? You're not a part of the political left.

Furthermore, you just proved my point about the political right immediately characterising the left as an extreme fringe. You won't even consider any ideas other than your own.
 
Must never happen, its doesn't resolve the issue and just further re-enforces the view that religions should have special status that allows them to act above everything else.

Not only will this not resolve the problem, but it will actually make it worse.
Then now what? There exist a group of people who do not believe in free speech living inside a country that is based on it.

Edit: Sorry I thought you were prisonermonkeys.
 
Okay. Prove it. If you know what they are doing and you know that it is so bad, then please, enlighten us all.
Prove it? Don't make me laugh, the last 6 years of World facts are proving it.

Oh, and here we go again, fresh news from Paris.
 
Last edited:
Prove it? Don't make me laugh, the last 6 years of World facts are proving it.
Again, more nonsense from the political right. Sweeping generalisations, a refusal to support arguable assertions with actual evidence, and the far-reaching belief that you are correct no matter what happens.
 
Again, more nonsense from the political right. Sweeping generalisations, a refusal to support arguable assertions with actual evidence, and the far-reaching belief that you are correct no matter what happens.
More nonsense?

Shooting south of Paris, two agents affected

Shots of gunfire this morning between Montrouge and Malakoff, south of Paris.He reports France Info, stating that several shots were fired shortly after seven.Two policemen, including a woman, were injured.One person was arrested.The woman was in serious condition and is currently in intensive care.Rescuers are on site.

To open fire would have been a man of African origin.The suspect, who was arrested, was wearing a black uniform and a flak jacket and opened fire with a Kalashnikov.According BFMTV, the suspect would have been born in 1962 and was already known to the police for "nine antecedents."

Missing at the time, news about possible links with the bloody events of yesterday in the French capital, but the interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, has abandoned an emergency meeting at the Elysee and has already arrived on site.Everything would have started from a car accident, because of which some municipal police officers were called to the scene.While the police proceeded to the controls of the ritual, a white Clio stopped a short distance, a man with a shaved head and apparent North African origin - according to witnesses - extracted from the vehicle a machine gun and opened fire on the men and the woman in uniform.According to reports, the attacker - who was protected by a bullet-proof vest - was given then fled in the direction of the banlieue.Another person involved, it turns out, it would have been stopped.The policewoman was seriously wounded, the video images transmitted by all the tv show rescuers while they make a heart massage on the road.The colleague who was wounded in the side would be in a less serious.
http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/noti...due-agenti-colpiti-085953.shtml?uuid=ABikAYaC
 
More nonsense?
How is that the political left's fault? Especially since the Parisian police cannot link the shooting to the events of yesterday. It's believed that that was a road rage incident - that two motorists collided and one opened fire when the police arrived.

This is why you don't shout TERRORISM! before you know it's terrorism.
 
Last edited:
Again, more nonsense from the political right. Sweeping generalisations, a refusal to support arguable assertions with actual evidence, and the far-reaching belief that you are correct no matter what happens.
Are you discounting the possibility for political left to take those stances?
 
The political left supports redistribution of earned wealth by taxation and public owned services, the political right supports the retaining of earned wealth and privately owned services. I've no idea what that has to do with protecting people from religious fundamentalism - unless you're conflating fascism with right and liberalism with left, which would completely ignore the fascist left (communism) and the liberal right (libertarianism).

In any case, liberalism doesn't seek to protect people from religious fundamentalism either. Liberalism promotes the right of people to think and do as they please without causing harm to others, while fascism promotes state control of actions and manipulation of thought through regulation, law and punishment. Arguably, fascism would do a better job of protecting people from religious fundamentalism, by adopting a state religion, barring entry to the country by religious fundamentalists and severely punishing those who believe in other religions (or no religions). Oddly, exactly this sort of thing is practiced in some Middle Eastern countries with unusually low rates of sectarian and religious violence, which include the death sentence for people who leave the state religion...
 
I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that if someone makes a statement like "the political left is to blame for everything that is wrong with the world", then that someone back up what they are saying.
Yes, it is a reasonable request.

Well, it is the political left that has been governing in most of Europe and the state of a country is the politicians' responsibility so I think his statement holds at least some water. He just needs to do some backing up with facts.

Anyway, I'll stop here.
 
How is that the political left's fault? Especially since the Parisian police cannot link the shooting to the events of yesterday. It's believed that that was a road rage incident - that two motorists collided and one opened fire when the police arrived.

This is why you don't shout TERRORISM! before you know it's terrorism.
What do you need for open your eyes an european version of 9/11?
 
The political left supports redistribution of earned wealth by taxation and public owned services, the political right supports the retaining of earned wealth and privately owned services. I've no idea what that has to do with protecting people from religious fundamentalism
That's the classical definition of the left and the right. However, I have noticed that the left and the right tend to have differing opinions on every political issue, including immigration and border security.

What do you need for open your eyes an european version of 9/11?
I'd like proof that it would be the fault of the political left (as opposed to, say, the people who actually carried out such an attack). And while you are at it, I would like proof that the policies put forward by the political right would prevent such an attack. And I would like more than just "world facts from the past six years".
 
That's the classical definition of the left and the right. However, I have noticed that the left and the right tend to have differing opinions on every political issue, including immigration and border security.
Ah, so you are doing the rest of that sentence that you truncated in the quote...
Famine
- unless you're conflating fascism with right and liberalism with left, which would completely ignore the fascist left (communism) and the liberal right (libertarianism).
The existence of communism and libertarianism alone should show you that you shouldn't conflate leftist financial ideology with liberal social policy.

It's worth noting that nationalist parties are almost always authoritarian while those formed on the basis of independent rule from larger bodies tend to be left wing too, while the majority of all the major political parties - including UK Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and UKIP, US Democrat and Republican and Australia's Liberal, National and Labor parties - are largely right wing authoritarian. Of those minor parties that are left wing, all are authoritarian also, with just about the only exception being variations of the Green parties across the world - usually occupying a liberal/left position.

Fact is that neither "the political left" nor "the political right" seek to "protect people from religious fundamentalism". It's just financial policy. Neither do authoritarian or liberal political ideologies - but if you really want to stop religious fundamentalists from killing people, you need a left wing, police state governed by plutocracy (or a dictator) that keeps the majority of people poor and uneducated, mandates a state religion and exercises capital punishment for apostasy. And even when that happens, there's still sectarian violence on very rare occasions.
 
...if you really want to stop religious fundamentalists from killing people, you need a left wing, police state governed by plutocracy (or a dictator) that keeps the majority of people poor and uneducated, mandates a state religion and exercises capital punishment for apostasy.
Yes, but perhaps a Continental blasphemy law would suffice?
 
???? Who decides what is Blasphemas?

In Famine's example it would be the united left wing governments of Europe. But the laws themselves would have to be Draconian enough to satisfy a large and growing Muslim population to the point that violence ended.
 
That's the classical definition of the left and the right. However, I have noticed that the left and the right tend to have differing opinions on every political issue, including immigration and border security.

I think that a lot of it has to do with the fact that left and right are almost always in opposition of each other. There's a good side and bad side of most (all?) political decisions and the opposition is likely to draw attention to the bad side, even if they themselves would have made the same decision if they had been in the government.
 
In Famine's example it would be the united left wing governments of Europe. But the laws themselves would have to be Draconian enough to satisfy a large and growing Muslim population to the point that violence ended.
Oh, I think all other religions may need banning too! There is only one God called Allah apparently. Any other religions would be blasphemes in itself.

A rather confusing law to uphold but a good idea.
 
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.


Going to continue this post here; 0100 was not the best time to be writing but I felt I had to. So, next thing I wish to clear up is culture and religion. It is very true that culture becomes entangled in religion very often. But that does not make the culture part of the religion, or vice versa.
A very specific point I wish to make is to do with women, their rights and their status in Islam. I know that many of us probably see Islam dipicting women as a lower species, designed only to please man and that is it. But Islam does NOT teach that at all. As a matter of fact, when the Prophet got married for the first time he married a lady who went by the name of Khadijah. Was she a simple (not belittling any of these people) housewife? Was she a women who sat at home all day? No. She was in fact a businesswomen, and ran one of the most successful businesses throughout the arabian empire. That is pretty in contrary to what we see right? Women cooped up in houses, forced to not work? Which is religion and which is cultural? From that example it is pretty obvious, right?

Now let's fast forward almost 1500 years to this day and age. Are women forced to wear modest clothing in Islam? No. But they are encouraged to do so. Are they forced to wear a hijab (a headscarf) or else cover their whole face? No. But again, they are just encouraged. If ANYONE forces this upon a woman, then they are in error because Islam is not a religion of force. The question then arises, how did all this come about? Well allow me to explain that too.

Islam is a very complex religion, just as any others. It is full of examples that to you and I would seemingly contradict each other. There is the Quraan (the holy book, akin to the Bible and Tablets in a sense). Then there is the Hadith (a collection of narrations about things the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did and said). A guide for muslims to try and follow. To you and I, it is easy to read these and say, "Well, this is obviously what it means." And this is what people like IS try to build upon. This is what people who wish to knock Islam build upon. Because after all, if it is clearly said then what arguement is there, right? Wrong.
If I were to show a random person an engineering diagram for a 1980s F1 car today, he would associate it with a car. That much is certain. Then if I were to not say anything further, this person would believe that this car is the ultimate F1 car and is the best you can get. However, if I were to then further explain the aerodynamics, mechanics, electronics etc of the car then the person would realise that it is not in fact the best design but there is now a context to why that design is used or was used. Now the person is a lot more knowledgable about this car and understands what it really means.
Similarly, in Islam there are people like this. The rest of the muslims and the world is like the random person. The higher ranking scholar is like the engineer who studied the diagrams for years. They could spend four or five months, if not more on a single page of the Quraan or a single saying in the Hadith, disecting it bit by bit until it was fully understood. Then they will tell us what it really means. It says in the Quraan itself that "This book can lead you to good, but it can also lead you to bad". The warning is clearly there, but nobody ever talks about that do they? The simple fact is that we are ALL victims of our own ignorance because we do not bother to seek the truth about anything if it does not suit us. I am guilty of it, you all reading are guilty of it at some point. All we like to do is knock things we do not like by highlighting discrepencies that may or may not be related to the subject matter. We are sitting here droning on about IS and how muslims treat women and how they want to kill everyone else etc etc. But have any of us just took a step back, away from the media and wondered how much of it is truely religion and how much of it is down to the downright bad nature of us as humans? I quoted a number of examples in the early hours of the morning. If I could have half the tolerance or kindness or patience of Muhammad as mentioned in those stories then I would class myself as a good man. I have nothing against a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Atheist, Agnostic etc. I take issue with people who twist religion into their own selfish reasons for violence and destruction. I take issue with people who take things without looking at context and then use that as a reason to hate. I take issue with people who do not learn the full story before making their conclusions.
What next? Oh yes, the worldwide condemnation of what happened recently in France. I was browsing twitter earlier and I noticed that a trending topic was "Muslims". So I decided to take a quick peek and see what the world was saying about them. I saw churches in Australia defending Islam. That is Christianity. I saw French citizens apologising for the way mosques are now being targetted. Humanity. But I also saw people full of hate for Muslims. This hate is the same hate that caused two world wars, segregation between coloured and white, racism around the world and the general predicament the world is in right now. If I have learnt anything from studying Islam and anything from being a proud British citizen, it is that fighting fire with fire only gives you more fire. The only way to fight fire is with water. You don't like what someone does? You talk to them about it, understand why they do it and then make a judgement. You do not go in guns blaxing because you do not agree with it. That is not what Islam teaches, nor is it what humanity consists of.

Let's end the fighting by starting here, now. The pen (or keyboard) is truely mightier than the sword (or gun). Why don't we work towards a common goal of peace without blaming religion. Blame the people responsible. And before you proportion blame, always look beyond what you see. There is more going on in the world than any of us knw, and it is about time we used our minds and found out, instead of exhuasting ourselves on mindless debates that could rage on until the end of time itself.
 
I'd like proof that it would be the fault of the political left (as opposed to, say, the people who actually carried out such an attack). And while you are at it, I would like proof that the policies put forward by the political right would prevent such an attack. And I would like more than just "world facts from the past six years".
What are you talking about seriously? 12 people have been killed for this. 12 people have been killed for a couple of cartoons. If this is not Terrorism then I don't know how to call it.

Charliehebdo.jpg


Like it or not Marie Le Pen wouldn't allow this crap. She is actually speaking about a Capital punishment referendum and I hope nowdays french people realize that the World we are born, the World we live in didn't come for free. Our grandparents fought and died for us. We take everything for granted but peace is not granted at all.
 
If this is not Terrorism then I don't know how to call it.

Refer back to Famine's post, and then answer again how religious fundamentalism has anything to do with the political left.

diffuse among the muslim population.

What I wonder is how well integrated they are. In this case, for example, the attack was carried out by two people, and possibly planned by three. I think the problem with modern extremism is the reach of the internet allows the seeds to be sown extraordinarily far and wide, creating tiny, unconnected cells of extremists. (And this is assuming these attackers were actually attached to a cell, and simply didn't go Columbine on the paper.

It's not very hard, there's a Pew poll on this.

Interestingly, the poll also says they support religious freedom and democracy, and a vast majority (except in Afghanistan and Palestine) think that suicide bombing is wrong.

Religious freedom is not compatible with the institutionalization of Sharia law... and, indeed, there are different opinions amongst Muslims as to how strict Sharia Law should be.

Depressingly, they're 50:50 on Evolution... so America, you've got a slim lead (30:70) there. :lol:
 
Back