Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


News From Syria
by zeca
Today at 05:06 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
Today at 03:51 PM

New Britain
Today at 03:41 PM

Ashes to beads: South Kor...
Yesterday at 09:44 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
November 30, 2024, 09:01 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 30, 2024, 08:53 AM

Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims

 (Read 134451 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 7 8 910 11 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #240 - September 18, 2009, 04:16 PM

    What kind of person spends so much time posting on a forum just to bitch about how bad it is with the same erroneous arguments that have been repeatedly refuted?


    Repeatedly refuted?  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

    You mean by the guy who prefers to talk about his masturbations while he's told about Thailand & Philippines, then asks how do I know what happens in these places is the act of Muslims?  Cheesy Cheesy

    How can such folks refute anyone, pray?

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #241 - September 18, 2009, 04:27 PM

    Repeatedly refuted by other folks as well. And I suppose question marks and smileys at the end of each sentence beat exclamation marks.

    Still wondering why you spend so much time on a forum you think is so horrible, just to bitch and moan about how horribly the same people who elected you Poster of the Month have been treating you. I'd ask your parents to take you to the doctor to switch your meds.

    fuck you
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #242 - September 18, 2009, 04:28 PM

    Well Rashna, I seem to remember somebody laying into other religions and basically saying they were all bullshit. grin12

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?action=profile;u=624;sa=showPosts;start=1856

    Of course since then you seem to have gravitated towards extremism, but these things happen.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #243 - September 18, 2009, 04:35 PM

    Well Rashna, I seem to remember somebody laying into other religions and basically saying they were all bullshit. grin12

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?action=profile;u=624;sa=showPosts;start=1856

    Of course since then you seem to have gravitated towards extremism, but these things happen.



    This is also what I said.

    Quote
    Religion isn't just about books however, and the quality of a faith  depends upon the quality of its followers. The Zoroastrians are some of India's most educated and successful citizens, with almost complete gender equality while the Muslims are quite the opposite. I also prefer my Zoroastrian festivals, acquaintances and relatives to my Muslim ones, although I don't believe in God. My dad is the more fundamentalist of my parents though, he keeps telling me that I should marry a Zoroastrian man and have loads of kids. I think he'll be somewhat disappointed if I end up not marrying a Zoroastrian, although he'll surely come around. I intend to marry whoever I like.


    So I held somewhat similar opinions to what I do now.

    As for extremism, what is that again please? Have I gone around planting bombs in mosques, shooting niqabi women, or setting madrassas on fire? Yes, I think now that Islam would do better being extinct than reformed. I have never advocated or used violence or coercion to achieve this end.

    Yes, I have shifted my stance somewhat, but then one can change their political affiliations, religious views or anything else at any point in their lives.

    People go from right wind to left wing, or vice versa, religious to atheist or vice versa all the time.

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #244 - September 18, 2009, 04:37 PM

    In your case you've gone from Islamocritical to out of proportion and shrill.

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #245 - September 18, 2009, 04:39 PM

    Its okay DH, only two sorts of people are respected on these forums. One are ex Muslims who nevertheless think that all religions are equally bullshit & pen Hossannas on "tolerant Muslims" a future "Islamic reform," & the evils of other religions-real & exaggerrated.

    Others are non ex Muslims-mostly atheists & agnosts who have left other religions, who again think that all religiom, not just Islam is bullshit & who take an almost personal interest in an Islamic reform & special care not to alienate "tolerant Muslims."

    If you don't fit into these categories, things aren't very pleasant for you.

    I am an ex Muslim agnostic, cultural Zoroastrian, I too think Islam is probably the worst religion out there-in terms of its founder, theology, current practice, ability to reform etc. I think more of an effort should be invested by ex  Muslims & never been Muslims to encourage other Muslims to come out of that faith, other faiths nowhere have these ugly factors in one.

    This attitude just doesn't gel well with the members here, you have to say all religion is bullshit, all evidence to the contrary be damned.


    I think the fact that Islam has not reformed for 1400 years and has a political system is what makes it the worst. However we don't have to look to far back into history to realise what other religions apart from Islam are people out of Islam. That's their choice - remember freedom of religion.
    Islam is a relatively young religion so I hope and think in time it will reform.

    I was just wondering Rashna you want Muslims out of Islam so have you ever tried doing that to your mother. Surely one of the persons you care about the most should be protected from this evil ideology at all costs.

    "The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #246 - September 18, 2009, 04:56 PM

    Islam is a relatively young religion so I hope and think in time it will reform.


    These are two religions younger than Islam Heyjustlooking, the Bahai faith in the 19th century & Unitarian Universalism in the 20th century.

    These are fully reformed religions, although they're far younger than Islam, & in case of the Bahai religion, was born out of Islam & emerged in the theocratic hellhole called Iran.

    None of those ugly practices & systems associated with Islam are present in either of these.

    How? If age is the factor behind Islamic non reform?

    In fact, younger religions should be better, coz they apparent come to fill a gap in the existing ideologies.

    Jesus supposedly banned stonings(maybe thats' a later addition, but as I said it doesn't matter if these figures even existed, only important thing is what they teach) which was something Jews did & something which needed to be banned, he also outlawed unilateral repudiation of wives by husbands(another thing Jews did & Muslims do in talaq)-so he did bring new stuff in.

    In case of Muhammad, not only did he not bring such pleasant developments, he didn't even retain Jesus improvements like the banning of stonings.

    Jews too had by then abandoned stonings by creative reinterpretations, Muhammad made them stone & added stonings into his faith.

    Although Judaism & Christianity didn't teach wife beating, Muhammad did (Quran 4:34 & many hadiths).

    Even the Bahai faith, which emerged from Islam in the 19th century, brought complete gender equality & gave women voting rights before any nation on earth had these stuff.

    Islam's problem isn't that its new, its problem is that it was regressive even by the Judeo Christian standards from which it emerged & that its worse than faiths much younger than it, even faiths like Bahai which emerged from it.

    I was just wondering Rashna you want Muslims out of Islam so have you ever tried doing that to your mother. Surely one of the persons you care about the most should be protected from this evil ideology at all costs.


    My mom is out of Islam in all ways but name, my grandpa is a devout Muslim, but he's old & frail so I don't like to hurt his feelings by debating something which gives him such comfort. It was a huge disappointment to him when my mom married a non Muslim man who refused to convert to Islam.

    I think that the younger generation, like  my cousin Adil, must be encouraged to leave Islam.




    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #247 - September 18, 2009, 05:00 PM

    I think more of an effort should be invested by ex  Muslims & never been Muslims to encourage other Muslims to come out of that faith


    Hi Rashna,

    I've been trying to avoid getting into all this as it a distraction from why I am here.

    But I just wanted to ask you to think about what you just said above.

    Can you see the irony?
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #248 - September 18, 2009, 05:07 PM

    Hi Rashna,

    I've been trying to avoid getting into all this as it a distraction from why I am here.

    But I just wanted to ask you to think about what you just said above.

    Can you see the irony?



    Hi Hass,


    I stand by what I said. I think that the negatives of Islam significantly outnumber any positives which can be retained even when the extremism is gone, also most attempts to reform Islam has failed, nor has it been successfully marginalized, which is yet another way of reform.

    I think encouraging significantly more people to leave Islam will at least succeed in marginalizing it, if there're quite a few & significant % of ex Muslims openly accepting their apostasy, it'd be difficult to give fatwas on everyone & keep everyone in control.Also, if every family has at least one apostate, apostates will have to be treated better, families can't go abour disowning everyone.

    If not reform, encouraging others to apostatize will help marginalize Islam.

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #249 - September 18, 2009, 05:12 PM

    I know Rashna - that's not what I'm talking about.

    Think about what you said:

    Quote from: Rashna
    "I think more of an effort should be invested by ex  Muslims & never been Muslims to encourage other Muslims to come out of that faith"


    Then think about what we are doing here - as a group and as individuals.

    How we many ex-Muslims we have here now. How successful our approach has been in exactly what you said in that quote.

    Then perhaps think about how successful your approach has been?

    I know you are young, Rashna - but you are not stupid, so I ask you to apply a little wisdom.

    I will not say more on this.

  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #250 - September 18, 2009, 05:16 PM

    As for extremism, what is that again please? Have I gone around planting bombs in mosques, shooting niqabi women, or setting madrassas on fire? Yes, I think now that Islam would do better being extinct than reformed. I have never advocated or used violence or coercion to achieve this end.


    Maybe you should start-- would be more productive than spending all your time here bitching about how unfair we all are and what a bad forum this is. Roll Eyes

    Just because you aren't violent doesn't mean your ideas aren't extremist.

    Quote
    Yes, I have shifted my stance somewhat, but then one can change their political affiliations, religious views or anything else at any point in their lives.

    People go from right wind to left wing, or vice versa, religious to atheist or vice versa all the time.


    Yes, and extreme, rapid shifts in ideology/world view are common amongst young people, but once one gets into their mid 20s or so, shift in thought tends to be more evolutionary than radical-- those who are still shifting their ideology, religion or politics radically into their late 20s or later tend to be emotionally and mentally unstable, I have found. Younger people can get away with it, because you're pretty much expected to be emotionally and mentally unstable at that age.

    Just a reminder that as smart and knowledgeable of a kid you are, and as much as you demand to be treated like an adult, you are still a kid who acts accordingly. I know it upsets you to hear that, but it needed to be said. Of course, being your age you will, I have little doubt, angrily or flippantly reject this opinion, as I did to similar statements by older folks when I was your age.

    fuck you
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #251 - September 18, 2009, 05:19 PM

    What kind of person spends so much time posting on a forum just to bitch about how bad it is with the same erroneous arguments that have been repeatedly refuted?





    A very lonely, bored person who craves attention.

    Ha Ha.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #252 - September 18, 2009, 05:20 PM

    Being much older didn't exactly help you to know more about Thailand & Philippines or retain new info, did it?  grin12

    Hassan changed his faith in his 40's I think, CS Lewis  also became a Christian around that age.

    There's no age limit to change, nor are all older folks who change their views senile.

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #253 - September 18, 2009, 05:29 PM

    Being much older didn't exactly help you to know more about Thailand & Philippines or retain new info, did it?  grin12


    Let me help you out here, since you keep bringing it up and can't seem to figure out what my lack of response should be telling you-- although I find your constant mentioning of this to be mildly annoying, I am not about to be baited into getting angry with you about it. You should try such amateurish trolling methods on other teenagers-- it won't work with me. This is the last I'll say on the subject as I will content myself with knowing that if you continue to bring it up it will make you look like an idiot, not me.

    Quote
    Hassan changed his faith in his 40's I think, CS Lewis  also became a Christian around that age.

    There's no age limit to change, nor are all older folks who change their views senile.


    For one thing I said that people who radically switch ideologies later in life "tend to be" emotionally and mentally unstable, but I did not say they all are.

    Secondly, I get the sense from reading Hassan's story and watching his videos that his apostasy was the result of a lengthy evolution in thought rather than a relatively rapid shift in worldview.

    Finally, people do tend to get religious when older as they become more aware of and concerned with their own mortality, so someone becoming a Christian late in life hardly refutes my statements.

    fuck you
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #254 - September 18, 2009, 11:54 PM

    These are two religions younger than Islam Heyjustlooking, the Bahai faith in the 19th century & Unitarian Universalism in the 20th century.

    These are fully reformed religions, although they're far younger than Islam, & in case of the Bahai religion, was born out of Islam & emerged in the theocratic hellhole called Iran.

    None of those ugly practices & systems associated with Islam are present in either of these.

    How? If age is the factor behind Islamic non reform?

    In fact, younger religions should be better, coz they apparent come to fill a gap in the existing ideologies.

    <snip>

    Although Judaism & Christianity didn't teach wife beating, Muhammad did (Quran 4:34 & many hadiths).

    Even the Bahai faith, which emerged from Islam in the 19th century, brought complete gender equality & gave women voting rights before any nation on earth had these stuff.

    Islam's problem isn't that its new, its problem is that it was regressive even by the Judeo Christian standards from which it emerged & that its worse than faiths much younger than it, even faiths like Bahai which emerged from it.

    Snipped a bit of stuff out but I just wanted to bring something up. Although in general I have no problem with a lot of your points it would pay to remember a few things about recent European history.

    Germany is still a fairly religious country by European standards even though the government per se is secular. This was even more true in the past. In other words, Germany is thoroughly steeped in a long held tradition of "Judaeo-Christian ethics". This did not stop Germany producing the Nazis, nor did it stop the Nazis gaining the support and/or cooperation and/or acquiescence of a very large number of ostensibly ordinary Germans. This is something to ponder, Rashna.

    Real life is complex. Stating that Christianity is good and will lead to good results in Christian countries while Islam is bad and will lead to bad results in Islamic countries is over-simplistic. There are and always will be other factors involved. The age of a religion is not relevant even if you think it should be. Religion doesn't work like that because it requires suspension of disbelief and subjection to received dogma, and once you go down that road you may well end up believing any old thing.

    You seem to be under a misapprehension. You seem to think that people here object to you criticising Islam. That is not the case. What people object to is the simplistic, monomaniacal attitude that you adopt when you criticise Islam. What they are trying to do is to get you to consider factors other than those which suit your immediate agenda in the hope that you will adopt a more balanced outlook. I realise it does not seem that way to you, but I think your judgement in that matter is skewed.  


    Oh and regarding your accusations about people here relying on the tu quoque fallacy, it might pay to check the details. Pointing out flaws in belief systems other than Islam is not tu quoque as such.

    For example: if I were talking to a Christian and tried to use the condoning of slavery in the Bible as a justification for stopping them criticising the condoning of slavery in Islam  then yes, that would be tu quoque.

    On the other hand, if a Christian goes on about the condoning of slavery in Islam and I point out that the bible also condones slavery, but I am doing this to demonstrate their hypocrisy and not to justify slavery in Islam, then this is not tu quoque.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

    This is related to my points about general arguments against the basics of theism. They are very effective arguments if used properly and can be used to discredit Islam, but they cannot honestly be used to discredit Islam without also having a similar effect on any theistic belief system. This is what pisses Christians off about this site: we don't refuse to use those arguments just because they may upset Christians. That is their problem, not ours.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #255 - September 19, 2009, 12:12 AM

    Interesting point. I do not really consider Islam 'regressive' by the Judaeo-Christian standards. There are good points to Islam too just not that many.
    However the idea that we must urgently take Muslims out of Islam is not really ideal - this could lead to further alienation of Muslims. I think the reform of Islam will come with time.
    Political Islam is the main problem here - once religion starts mixing with politics - recipe for disaster.

    "The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #256 - September 19, 2009, 12:29 AM

    I think that in practice we cannot realistically expect Islam to just vanish when it suits us. It will be around for a long time so reform is our best hope for the foreseeable future. It may not be a perfect solution but that isn't relevant. Informed criticism is vital because it will, if done in a reasonable manner, tend to encourage reform IMO. It will also encourage apostasy, but given the human species' attraction to religions I don't think we can expect mass apostasy anytime soon.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #257 - September 19, 2009, 01:20 AM

    lol ye religion has a way with fucking wit your brain. I do know though there are still a lot of Muslims who probably are as people put it here 'closet' apostates. My cousin being one even though he does not knw much about Islam he does not give a shit. He rejects it purely based on the fact you have to pray and that you can't have a good time.

    "The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #258 - September 19, 2009, 01:38 AM

    Rofl. Well in that case I'd say he is not particularly likely to turn into an extremist, except perhaps an extremist party animal. grin12

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #259 - September 19, 2009, 03:27 AM

    Interesting point. I do not really consider Islam 'regressive' by the Judaeo-Christian standards. There are good points to Islam too just not that many.
    However the idea that we must urgently take Muslims out of Islam is not really ideal - this could lead to further alienation of Muslims. I think the reform of Islam will come with time.
    Political Islam is the main problem here - once religion starts mixing with politics - recipe for disaster.


    Well, there's nothing much Muhammad brought in which was progressive & absent, he simply claimed that he was starting a new religion, correcting corrupted Scriptures etc. Since he made such grandoise claims, he ought to have backed them up with really good stuff.

    This mythical "reform" hasn't often happened-there are progressive regimes, they're toppled soon, & in many cases, there's further regression.

    Look at even Indonesia, Malaysia etc-these were very tolerant Islamic nations, or rather very ignorant Islamic nations, being so far off from the mid east, most had little first hand knowledge & of course couldn't read Arabic. Now Malaysia has no freedom of religion to apostatize, lashes for drinking etc, even Indonesia's Aceh, the first province to be Islamized, is approving laws for stonings.

    There wasn't any "reform" with spread & increasing knowledge of Islam, simply further regression.

    Political Islam really isn't all the problem, Muslims as minorities anywhere also tend to be drawn to extremism, religiously inspired terrorism, honor killings, violence on apostaates, running off to Afghanistan=any other nation to take part in "jihad" etc as well-without any political power whatsoever. So do quite a few converts to Islam.

    World renowned historian Will Durant"...the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown..."
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #260 - September 19, 2009, 09:21 AM

    Quote from: Heyjustlooking
    I think the fact that Islam has not reformed for 1400 years and has a political system is what makes it the worst.


    Precisely. Islam is INHERENTLY political and, as I argued in my initial post, drawing a distinction between "Political Islam" and a so-called "non-political" variety is erroneous and merely serves to muddy the waters regarding what we are dealing with when it comes to this movement.

    Quote
    Islam is a relatively young religion so I hope and think in time it will reform.


    What do you mean by "reform" exactly? The Islamic world has had numerous "reformation" movements down the centuries. Like their European protestant counterparts these Islamic "reformists" believed in going "back to scripture" - sweeping away centuries of accreted "innovations". That these Islamic "reformation" movements were invariably violent jihadists who ruthlessly  imposed sharia wherever they got the upper hand should tell you something about the prospects of an Islamic "reformation" depoliticizing the religion.

    The mosque: the most epic display of collective douchbaggery, arrogance and delusion
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #261 - September 19, 2009, 09:26 AM

    Umm, yeah. Irshad Manji is a violent jihadist. Right.  Cheesy

    Oh and the Ahmadiyyat sect resulted from a reform movement. They're not violent either.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #262 - September 19, 2009, 09:29 AM

    lol ACCORDING to geert wilders.


    Would you like me to provide corroborating evidence of Wilders' above-quoted statement?


    Quote
    I firmly object to the UN passing a draft resolution against defamation of religion since we should all have the right to expression and criticise anything. However just because it was sponsored by the OIC does not mean it gives Islam exclusive rights from criticism - it implies all religion.


    So the intention of the OIC is not just to prevent non-Muslims from saying things that Muslims might regard as "defamatory". They also believe that Muslims should also be prevented from preaching verses from the Koran that "kafirs" might find defamatory. Is that what you are seriously claiming?

    The mosque: the most epic display of collective douchbaggery, arrogance and delusion
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #263 - September 19, 2009, 09:47 AM

    Umm, yeah. Irshad Manji is a violent jihadist. Right.  Cheesy


    Irshad Manji believes "extremist" ideas are "mainstream" in the Muslim population. You agree with her then?

    Quote
    Oh and the Ahmadiyyat sect resulted from a reform movement.


    Are you serious?

    The mosque: the most epic display of collective douchbaggery, arrogance and delusion
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #264 - September 19, 2009, 09:58 AM

    Quite serious. They are obviously reformed in some ways when compared to some other strands of Islam. The strong emphasis on non-violence and love for all is, I am sure you would agree, not exactly a pillar of traditional Islam. It seems likely that these characteristics would have come about precisely because some people, and of course one bloke in particular, felt that other interpretations could not be "right". Why else would they come about? Obviously the Ahmadiyyat has not been a major influence on Islam as a whole but that does not mean they aren't "reformed".

    Re Manji: would depend exactly what she's referring to. Get me the quote in context. I'm not answering any loaded questions based on your paraphrasing. My point was that Manji, whatever you think of her, is a reformer and is certainly not a violent jihadist. You claimed that all Islamic reformers were violent jihadists. I call bullshit on that one.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #265 - September 19, 2009, 09:59 AM

    Are you serious?


    By definition every branch, sect or group started as a reform movement that regarded itself as correcting, rectifying and reforming practises they considered deviating from 'true Islam' as they see it.
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #266 - September 19, 2009, 10:03 AM

    Coming first to an earlier comment by osmanthus.

    This did not stop Germany producing the Nazis, nor did it stop the Nazis gaining the support and/or cooperation and/or acquiescence of a very large number of ostensibly ordinary Germans. ...


    However, nobody would seek to make a fallacious distinction between a "political" and a "non-political" Nazism as you insist on making with respect to Islam. Nor would you expect us to take seriously the idea of a "vast majority of moderate Nazis" who rejected the Party's core ideology of race hatred and military aggression. Yet you expect us to accept a fallacious distinction between a "political" and "non-political" Islam and unquestioningly accept the existence of  a "vast majority of Muslims" who allegedly reject Islam's core ideology of religious hatred, sharia and jihad.

    The mosque: the most epic display of collective douchbaggery, arrogance and delusion
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #267 - September 19, 2009, 10:21 AM

    Quite serious. They are obviously reformed in some ways when compared to some other strands of Islam. The strong emphasis on non-violence and love for all is, I am sure you would agree, not exactly a pillar of traditional Islam.


    Agreed. It is not a pillar of ISLAM per se.

    Quote
    It seems likely that these characteristics would have come about precisely because some people, and of course one bloke in particular, felt that other interpretations could not be "right". Why else would they come about?


    There have been many people in the "Islamic world" throughout its history who I am sure genuinely rejected Islam's inherent violence, intolerance, legalism and barren ritualism and sought a way out of it. However, to blatantly reject Islam would have put them in grave danger of being murdered - either by Islamic State authorities, by  unknown assassins or even members of their own families. So they sought, by tendetious reasoning, to present their unIslamic, Koranically unjustified heretical ideas as being firmly rooted in Islam's basic texts. The founder of the Ahmadiyya followed this strategy. His claim to be a "prophet" of course technically marks him out as a apostate from Islam. Naturally, most Muslims reject him for the heretic-apostate that he was.

    The mosque: the most epic display of collective douchbaggery, arrogance and delusion
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #268 - September 19, 2009, 01:32 PM

    I am not talking about what Muslims believe that is what the bill implies. Defamation of religion means all religion, the OIC are obviously protecting their own interests.

    "The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves."
  • Re: Clarifying the Council's position: Against Political Islam not Muslims
     Reply #269 - September 19, 2009, 01:53 PM

    Quote
    However, nobody would seek to make a fallacious distinction between a "political" and a "non-political" Nazism as you insist on making with respect to Islam.


    That's because Nazism was a political movement whereas Islam is a religion.

    Quote
    Nor would you expect us to take seriously the idea of a "vast majority of moderate Nazis" who rejected the Party's core ideology of race hatred and military aggression.


    If the Nazis had survived and generations had been indoctrinated into their ideology before they were old enough to know any better, any fair minded person would draw a distinction between those people and the Hitlers, Mengeles, etc.

    Quote
    Yet you expect us to accept a fallacious distinction between a "political" and "non-political" Islam and unquestioningly accept the existence of  a "vast majority of Muslims" who allegedly reject Islam's core ideology of religious hatred, sharia and jihad.


    It would be more in tune with reality if you did.  Reality tends to be nuanced, it doesn't lend itself to simplistic equations like a 1400 yr old religion = a 20th century political movement.






    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Previous page 1 ... 7 8 910 11 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »