Islam - What's your view on it?

[Johnnypenso]

Youre not acknowledge other countries than Israel? He said all countries in the region including Israel.

I still disagree about his statement, though.

I see a big difference in the survival of Israel vs. the rest of the Middle East if aid is cut off. You don't?

 

[A2K78]

The quality and nature of the relationship between the "West" and the Middle East definitely has to improve, but pulling out completely and leaving others to deal with a mess that you're party to creating is bad form.

The only ties to the Middle East the west should maintain are those that are economic e.g. trade. Beyond that these entangled alliances have not done the west any good other than making them the impression of imperialism.

Cutting all aid to Israel would be like condemning 10 million people to death. Is that really what you would do?

Israel like many other countries could do well without the charity of the American taxpayer. That said, it time to cut off all the aid both military and economic. Its not just limited to Israel either, but every country on the planet receiving foreign aid.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Israel like many other countries could do well without the charity of the American taxpayer. That said, it time to cut off all the aid both military and economic. Its not just limited to Israel either, but every country on the planet receiving foreign aid.

On what do you base this assumption that every country on the planet would be better off without foreign aid? You don't think the very existence of Israel would be in jeopardy if America withdrew it's military aid?

 

[BobK]

Cutting all aid to Israel would be like condemning 10 million people to death. Is that really what you would do?

Israel like many other countries could do well without the charity of the American taxpayer. That said, it time to cut off all the aid both military and economic. Its not just limited to Israel either, but every country on the planet receiving foreign aid.

So you're saying that Israel would "do well" to have ten million of its citizens condemned to death?

 

[FoRiZon]

So you're saying that Israel would "do well" to have ten million of its citizens condemned to death?

No countries are, not just Israel. Because you know, they consists on people.

This becoming more Off topic tbh.

 

[RC45]

Rather that face the wrath of the keyboard warriors that will try destroy someone over an un-posted link or supposedly unsubstantiated post, I will rather that share my experience with radical islam, just post up this video:

 

[Johnnypenso]

No countries are, not just Israel. Because you know, they consists on people.

This becoming more Off topic tbh.

I believe you are missing the point. If you stop sending money, military aid etc. to Saudi Arabia or Jordan or Lebanon, they'll have a little less money and a little less military equipment although it's almost certain they'd be forced to turn to Russia for help eventually. If you stop sending money and more importantly, military aid to Israel, they will face a greatly increased risk of annihilation. Is there anyone that thinks that they wouldn't be gone already without a constant stream of U.S. military aid?

 

[Keef]

What if we find out that all this talk of peace and love is actually bullcrap and Islam really is a religion of evil? What do we do then?

 

[RC45]

What if we find out that all this talk of peace and love is actually bullcrap and Islam really is a religion of evil? What do we do then?

The PC crowd will want us to have capitulated by then.

 

[Imari]

What if we find out that all this talk of peace and love is actually bullcrap and Islam really is a religion of evil? What do we do then?

So when we find out that Muslims are actually just humans like everyone else?

Nothing, I suppose.

 

[Joel]

So when we find out that Muslims are actually just humans like everyone else?

Nothing, I suppose.

After all, we could never infringe on anyone's freedom of religion! It says so in the Constitution!

 

[novcze]

Come to think of it, I read an article on Vice about this weird movement called MGTOWs. I wouldn't be surprised if Anders Breivik would have been one of them.

What's wrong with MGTOW or somehow similar Herbivore men in Japan? And what have Breivik in common?

 

[novcze]

I learn so much about Islam from this thread. I studied it, but not truly with any depth when I was choosing what religion was right for me. Not that I was against it, just that I knew what I wanted to choose in my heart already. Thanks everybody for teaching me something new nearly everyday!

Did someone force you to choose one religion or how on earth did you arrive at conclusion that you need one.

 

[Johnnypenso]

What's wrong with MGTOW or somehow similar Herbivore men in Japan? And what have Breivik in common?

Just did a search on MGTOW and had a quick look at their website. Have to investigate further later but it looks interesting.

 

[FoRiZon]

Did someone force you to choose one religion or how on earth did you arrive at conclusion that you need one.

Learning and choosing at his own will is not the same as forcing.

 

[novcze]

So when we find out that Muslims are actually just humans like everyone else?

Nothing, I suppose.

Are you sure? I still don't know why I should deal with religious motivated terrorism that comes hand in hand with islam expansion in Europe ... yeah yeah I know, give it few more (hundred) years so they can sort themselves up, but I feel sorry for those murdered in the process.

 

[DK]

What's wrong with MGTOW or somehow similar Herbivore men in Japan? And what have Breivik in common?

In short: they're nutjobs. There was a programme on BBC last night (Reggie Yates: Extreme UK) where the presenter wanted to talk to some of them for the show. No-one from this movement showed up, and instead there was just a few minutes of Yates reading some comments on a video he posted to YouTube (bad idea, I know) asking for a MGTOW to reply, and most of the comments were filled with either "dog whistle" or overt racism.

 

[Ken]

Did someone force you to choose one religion or how on earth did you arrive at conclusion that you need one.

In my opinion, everybody needs something to believe in. What that happens to be is up to the individual.

 

[Touring Mars]

So when we find out that Muslims are actually just humans like everyone else?

Nothing, I suppose.

Unfortunately, one cannot pigeonhole over a billion people into a neat description that fits all. The video that RC45 posted earlier is actually worth watching, and it does put some of the problems with Islam into sharp relief. We must be careful not to read too much into statistics that support this or that point of view, but it is increasingly hard to ignore the vast number of Muslims who, while not violent jihadists or likely to pose a physical threat to anyone directly, do support what we (in the 'West') would consider extreme views, or who either sympathize with, actively support or fail to condone acts of violence and human rights abuses, or who are not willing to recognize the right of others to hold different views.

There is also a big difference depending on which country you're talking about. Ironically, it is secular values adopted in countries like ours, such as the recognition of human rights, religious and personal freedoms, democracy etc. that best provides for the peaceful practice of Islam, as evinced by the fact that the vast majority of UK (and Australian) Muslims could rightly be described as peaceful, non-fundamentalist etc... but this cannot be said for a lot of other countries, and there are hundreds of millions of Muslims across the globe who hold extremist views and reject wholesale the secular values that allow peaceful Islam to flourish. This is a huge and multi-faceted problem that cannot be addressed by only focusing on the promotion (and protection) of peaceful Muslims, but also requires that religious fundamentalism and extremist views are challenged as well.

 

[novcze]

In short: they're nutjobs. There was a programme on BBC last night (Reggie Yates: Extreme UK) where the presenter wanted to talk to some of them for the show. No-one from this movement showed up, and instead there was just a few minutes of Yates reading some comments on a video he posted to YouTube (bad idea, I know) asking for a MGTOW to reply, and most of the comments were filled with either "dog whistle" or overt racism.

MGTOW: BBC documentary, I think not (btw. video is from Jul.2015)

sorry for off-topic

 

[DK]

MGTOW: BBC documentary, I think not (btw. video is from Jul.2015)

sorry for off-topic

The Vice article I was thinking of is here (it's Vice, so language warning applies). I feel sorry for the poor saps who've joined up. It's kind of easy to think of these guys as "far-right" when they're so horrified by women's rights, and then they respond to Yates's invitation with racist crap.

 

[Imari]

After all, we could never infringe on anyone's freedom of religion! It says so in the Constitution!

It's a good job that I'm not American, nor do I think that the US Constitution is some sort of infallible guide for perfect human behaviour.

I can think of plenty of religions that should be infringed upon with a vengeance. However, Islam as a whole seems like far too broad a category for me to even think about persecuting the entire group.

Are you sure? I still don't know why I should deal with religious motivated terrorism that comes hand in hand with islam expansion in Europe ... yeah yeah I know, give it few more (hundred) years so they can sort themselves up, but I feel sorry for those murdered in the process.

You shouldn't deal with any terrorism in Europe, religiously related or not.

How about we go after the terrorists, instead of the people who happen to go to the same church/mosque/bingo hall as the terrorists?

Unfortunately, one cannot pigeonhole over a billion people into a neat description that fits all.

That's entirely my point. Thank you.

The only thing you can say about a billion people is that they're all people.

The video that RC45 posted earlier is actually worth watching, and it does put some of the problems with Islam into sharp relief. We must be careful not to read too much into statistics that support this or that point of view, but it is increasingly hard to ignore the vast number of Muslims who, while not violent jihadists or likely to pose a physical threat to anyone directly, do support what we (in the 'West') would consider extreme views, or who either sympathize with, actively support or fail to condone acts of violence and human rights abuses, or who are not willing to recognize the right of others to hold different views.

I'd like to see some backing for this "vast number of Muslims".

The extremists are Wahhabis and Salafis, which make up a tiny proportion of Islam in general. Wiki says ~50 million people, out of a worldwide population of ~1.6 billion. Not all of those are militants. For example, actual numbers for members of ISIS are between 50,000 and 250,000, depending on whether you believe independent estimates or ISIS's own claims.

These are not massive numbers, either in absolute terms or as a proportion of Islam.

There is also a big difference depending on which country you're talking about. Ironically, it is secular values adopted in countries like ours, such as the recognition of human rights, religious and personal freedoms, democracy etc. that best provides for the peaceful practice of Islam, as evinced by the fact that the vast majority of UK (and Australian) Muslims could rightly be described as peaceful, non-fundamentalist etc... but this cannot be said for a lot of other countries, and there are hundreds of millions of Muslims across the globe who hold extremist views and reject wholesale the secular values that allow peaceful Islam to flourish.

I want to debate this, but I'm not sure that it's even a valid point. Show me your hundreds of millions of extremists, then we can talk.

This is a huge and multi-faceted problem that cannot be addressed by only focusing on the promotion (and protection) of peaceful Muslims, but also requires that religious fundamentalism and extremist views are challenged as well.

Of course, and that's done by challenging fundamentalism and extremism directly. One does not attack get rid of a diseased branch by cutting down the entire tree, that's merely justifying the extremists fears.

I find the idea that the solution is to go after Islam disturbing. The solution is to go after the Islamist groups who are committing crimes, which is what we're already doing. Because they're committing crimes. There's no need for further persecution of a group of people whose only crime was to be of the same religion as a bunch of criminals.

 

[Joel]

It's a good job that I'm not American, nor do I think that the US Constitution is some sort of infallible guide for perfect human behaviour.

Yeah I agree. I just was curious what @Keef believes "we" could do, given his libertarian views and beliefs about the constitution.

 

[Keef]

It's a good job that I'm not American, nor do I think that the US Constitution is some sort of infallible guide for perfect human behaviour.

The constitution doesn't have anything to do with human behavior. Basically, it is a document outlining how the government works and what it can and can't do. It outlines specifically what the government can do, and it also outlines what it can't do via the tenth amendment, which says that if the rest of the document hasn't said that the government can do it or hasn't said that everybody who isn't the government can't do it then the government can't do it but everybody who isn't the government can. The first ten amendments are clarifications of rights already assumed to exist regardless of the document, but to which the government cannot make laws pertaining to except in ways explicitly allowed. For example, the right to bear arms/self defense/defense from tyranny already exists logically, but the government specifically cannot make any law limiting that natural right. Likewise, freedom of religion exists logically, but the government cannot make any law limiting that natural right.

It's a set of limits based on reason. The US Constitution is by far the most rational political document humanity has ever written.

Yeah I agree. I just was curious what @Keef believes "we" could do, given his libertarian views and beliefs about the constitution.

If it turned out that Islam truly is a religion of evil, a cult which seeks nothing but to destroy those who do not subscribe to it, then that seems to justify war against the Islamic nation to me. Freedom of religion is a thing under the umbrella of the natural human rights of life, liberty and property, until it interferes with those very rights which would be the case if Islam turned out to be a religion of evil. At that point, it transitions from a religion which can be freely practiced to a nation which must be defended against.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's a set of limits based on reason. The US Constitution is by far the most rational political document humanity has ever written.

While I broadly agree with your post I have to take issue with that bit... surely you can go back into the Constitution's genesis and consider the 1689 Bill of Rights, or the Petition of Rights before that, or even the Magna Carta?

 

[Imari]

If it turned out that Islam truly is a religion of evil, a cult which seeks nothing but to destroy those who do not subscribe to it, then that seems to justify war against the Islamic nation to me.

I see. Where is this Islamic nation? Who is it's government? Who do they rule?

Freedom of religion is a thing under the umbrella of the natural human rights of life, liberty and property, until it interferes with those very rights which would be the case if Islam turned out to be a religion of evil. At that point, it transitions from a religion which can be freely practiced to a nation which must be defended against.

So a religion becomes a nation when you deem it useful to attack it? That seems like some clever redefinition simply so that you can continue to hold up the "freedom of religion" flag. All religions are free, except those we disagree with which are not religions because we say that they're nations.

How about we be very clear about this. What is a religion? What is a nation? And what is the difference (or differences) between them?

It seems very important to know these things in order to understand whether you would declare war on Islam or not.

 

[Keef]

While I broadly agree with your post I have to take issue with that bit... surely you can go back into the Constitution's genesis and consider the 1689 Bill of Rights, or the Petition of Rights before that, or even the Magna Carta?

Everything we'd come up with previously was considered inspiration for our constitution. All the successes and faults. The US Constitution is next in line in terms of the fairest documents ever written by humanity.

I see. Where is this Islamic nation? Who is it's government? Who do they rule?

The meaning of the word "nation" doesn't have anything to do with borders or governments. I didn't say "country" or "state".

 

[Imari]

The meaning of the word "nation" doesn't have anything to do with borders or governments. I didn't say "country" or "state".

Fair enough, I did assume that you were using it as some sort of synonym for state.

So what do you mean when you say "nation"? I asked the question, and it's still relevant if you've identified that I'm misinterpreting what you're saying.

 

[LeMansAid]

If it turned out that Islam truly is a religion of evil, a cult which seeks nothing but to destroy those who do not subscribe to it, then that seems to justify war against the Islamic nation to me. Freedom of religion is a thing under the umbrella of the natural human rights of life, liberty and property, until it interferes with those very rights which would be the case if Islam turned out to be a religion of evil. At that point, it transitions from a religion which can be freely practiced to a nation which must be defended against.

It appears that you are simply looking for a way to circumvent a focus on individual responsibility and culpability without it conflicting with your libertarian views. An attempt at an exploit of some sort of pharasaical loophole to be able to condemn a person based on ethos rather than actions.

Periodically in the guns thread someone will do the "How about we just make murder illegal?....... Oh wait". How is this situation not similarly already covered by the right to life and laws pertaining to it? Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

What if we find out that all this talk of peace and love is actually bullcrap and Islam really is a religion of evil? What do we do then?

Just as we don't have to smoke cigarettes, we wouldn't have to partake of Islam. Is it not essentially buyer beware?

 

[Keef]

It appears that you are simply looking for a way to circumvent a focus on individual responsibility and culpability without it conflicting with your libertarian views. An attempt at an exploit of some sort of pharasaical loophole to be able to condemn a person based on ethos rather than actions.

Periodically in the guns thread someone will do the "How about we just make murder illegal?....... Oh wait". How is this situation not similarly already covered by the right to life and laws pertaining to it? Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

ISIS is an organization that wants to establish an actual political state based on their ideologies. More broadly, Islamic fundamentalists want to make Islam and sharia law standards in the nations they already live in. You guys don't seem to be wrapping your heads around the hypothetical that Islam could be evil, or the idea of a nation.

Maybe for clarity we should just give ISIS an actual country. Then there will be no confusion as to who we're at war with.

Is it not essentially buyer beware?

Not for people who are born into it it's not.