Islam Hasn't Changed: We Have

[Tellenbach]

Any religion or ideology that does not respect individual rights should be mocked and ridiculed. I see Islam and Nazism in the same light; both are practiced by people who think their way is superior and will use force and murder to achieve their ends. The fact is that muslims are a million times more violent that the Amish, the Quakers, the Mormons, the Wiccans, and Scientologists. The fact that the vast majority of muslims aren't violent fanatics really doesn't change this fact one bit. If your faith produces so many rapists and murderers (compared to other faiths), then it's probably time to find a new faith. Stop excusing stupid behavior.

 

[Lark]

Hmm, this was an interesting review to read thanks!

Yeah, I also agree that it's difficult for people convinced that only their faith is "true" to find common ground. To understand others, I feel it's necessary to keep an open mind. I myself may struggle to keep an open mind when it comes to discussions like this, but it helps to remind myself every day.

Guys, I know its going to come as a shock but its possible to be open minded while knowing that there remains such a thing as truth, I'm pretty open minded about driving for instance, I know its possible to drive in all sorts of different ways but I know equally that there's a single correct way of driving on the road which is shared by other road users, you see?

See what you are engaging in there is already an oppressive means of "othering", by describing and labelling and making attributions about parties, the "other" in this sense, which are less than flattering, ie "close minded", "unable to find common ground".

I hate to be critical because people are inclined to see it as hostility, a bannable offense now, or interpret it as a personal attack or personal challenge of some kind. Really its just a response to something I see too much of and which is a disappointing reminder of how little people have thought about these things, ie how much distance I feel between myself and the average person choosing to discuss anything.

 

[Lark]

Any religion or ideology that does not respect individual rights should be mocked and ridiculed. I see Islam and Nazism in the same light; both are practiced by people who think their way is superior and will use force and murder to achieve their ends. The fact is that muslims are a million times more violent that the Amish, the Quakers, the Mormons, the Wiccans, and Scientologists. The fact that the vast majority of muslims aren't violent fanatics really doesn't change this fact one bit. If your faith produces so many rapists and murderers (compared to other faiths), then it's probably time to find a new faith. Stop excusing stupid behavior.

I know plenty of people who express the same views about Roman Catholicism and pride themselves on being examples of the most tolerant and open minded beings around.

Faith isnt like commodities at the store, games publishers or petrol at the pump, you hear something shady reported and you decide to shop elsewhere or buy a different brand.

I hate the extent to which market values and consumerism have infiltrated everything any how ignorant everyone seems to be of it happening.

 

[á´…eparted]

Any religion or ideology that does not respect individual rights should be mocked and ridiculed.

While I completely agree with this. In practice, it doesn't always work. Usually, it just angers the other party which is usually unproductive.

I see Islam and Nazism in the same light; both are practiced by people who think their way is superior and will use force and murder to achieve their ends. The fact is that muslims are a million times more violent that the Amish, the Quakers, the Mormons, the Wiccans, and Scientologists. The fact that the vast majority of muslims aren't violent fanatics really doesn't change this fact one bit

This is too much of a leap. It's really unfair to compare the two to each other. If just for the fact that one is a religion and the other is a political view. Nazism was significant more organized, and the amount of individuals in the party shared the extremism involved, compared to those of Islam that have no problem. You end up lumping a significant number of fair minded individuals in with a group that is morally reprehensible, and it's actually very offensive.

If your faith produces so many rapists and murderers (compared to other faiths), then it's probably time to find a new faith. Stop excusing stupid behavior.

While logical, this almost never works in practice, and to the person involved, it's simply not how religion works. One can't simply say "well, because a number of people in my faith are disgusting harmful people to the world, my faith therefore must be wrong and I must change my faith". Uprooting faith is not easy, almost always undesirable, and when it does happen it happens almost always by incident, not by choice. In fact, it's far far more common that when one person changes their faith they're fighting against themselves changing, but are unable to stop. Faith isn't something you simply buy sell and return.

 

[Tellenbach]

It's really unfair to compare the two to each other.

Let's see. Both want to kill Jews and both want to kill gay people. Both want to conquer territory by force.

Muslim leader in Britain wants gays executed

According to Abdul Qadeer Baksh, an English muslim leader, all gays should be executed. In fact, according to Baksh, "every moderate Muslim holds this view as well."

I think you'd be shocked at the number of "moderate" or fair minded muslims who share this view.

While logical, this almost never works in practice, and to the person involved, it's simply not how religion works.

I'm not that naive. I don't expect muslims to recognize the faults of their faith and change religions. I do think it's wise to restrict immigration from muslim countries because Islam is incompatible with societies that respect individual rights such as ours.

 

[á´…eparted]

Let's see. Both want to kill Jews and both want to kill gay people. Both want to conquer territory by force.

Muslim leader in Britain wants gays executed

I think you'd be shocked at the number of "moderate" or fair minded muslims who share this view.

I'm not that naive. I don't expect muslims to recognize the faults of their faith and change religions. I do think it's wise to restrict immigration from muslim countries because Islam is incompatible with societies that respect individual rights such as ours.

The different is want and did. Wants and desires do not always come to actuality, and I see it as a near impossibility to come to pass at the scale that Nazism did the past. I will repeat: You end up lumping a significant number of fair minded individuals in with a group that is morally reprehensible, and it's actually very offensive. What you quoted is a single person making a single statement. It hardly backs it up. Further, those are just thoughts. I don't want this to sound like I am justifying it, I'm not. As I said before I actually wish Islam would be deleted from the world and human consciousness. That's just a thought of mine though, and I recognize that it's completely unfair.

 

[Tellenbach]

I will repeat: You end up lumping a significant number of fair minded individuals in with a group that is morally reprehensible, and it's actually very offensive.

I already stated that the vast majority of muslims aren't violent fanatics, but it's still a fact that this religion disproportionately produces terrorists, rapists, and murderers. I'm sure the vast majority of Nazis weren't genocidal maniacs either, but this is still not an ideology that we should invite into our lands. Here's some perspective on actual numbers of muslims who believe in certain things:

World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)
62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)

al-Jazeera (2006): 49.9% of Muslims polled support Osama bin Laden
54% of Muslim Nigerians Support Osama bin Laden
Gallup: 38.6% of Muslims believe 9/11 attacks were justified (7% "fully", 6.5% "mostly", 23.1% "partially")

Muslim Opinion Polls

 

[á´…eparted]

I already stated that the vast majority of muslims aren't violent fanatics, but it's still a fact that this religion disproportionately produces terrorists, rapists, and murderers. I'm sure the vast majority of Nazis weren't genocidal maniacs either, but this is still not an ideology that we should invite into our lands. Here's some perspective on actual numbers of muslims who believe in certain things:

World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)
62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)

al-Jazeera (2006): 49.9% of Muslims polled support Osama bin Laden
54% of Muslim Nigerians Support Osama bin Laden
Gallup: 38.6% of Muslims believe 9/11 attacks were justified (7% "fully", 6.5% "mostly", 23.1% "partially")

Muslim Opinion Polls

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see it fit or fair to compare the two.

 

[Mal12345]

Maybe a politically correct socialist society is that way and maybe its something indomitable like China, what do you think?

The fascist vibe is so 1940s.

China hasn't lost its values regarding obedience to the collective will, it has developed them into a political system.

 

[Lark]

China hasn't lost its values regarding obedience to the collective will, it has developed them into a political system.

I dont like those sorts of values to be honest, if mankind ever was a herd animal its surely not its destiny.

 

[Coriolis]

How is that now? I believe that my faith is the one true faith, otherwise I wouldnt believe or practice it, although I'm highly tolerant of others views or choices, whether its got to do with religion as I understand it or anything else.

This is not true respect for the beliefs of others. It is simply respecting their right to be wrong. After all, if your faith is the only true faith, theirs must be untrue, right?

There's a lot in this single post which I would ask you to re-examine, although I'm not sure whether or not you would bother to do so.

The RCC, Christendom as it was prior to the reformation, was far from monolithic, there were diverse, disparite and warring or competiting factions before the reformation as there were afterwards. People always were able to dissent and begin different movements, the franciscans and groups like them are very good examples of how that happened.

The role of heresy and heresy hunting have been greatly exaggerated by years and years of anti-clerical propagandists and agitation, each seeking to air brush their own crimes out of the history books by exaggerating those of their opponents.

In reality the investigation of heresy was more akin to public enquiries which are still held today, yes the sentences handed down by clerical authorities were reflective of the superstition and standards of the time, which remains the case, if you look at some of the sentencing by secular authorities as late as the thirties and forties it is unlikely to seem that progressive. Consider McCarthyism.

In fact a lot of the practices commonly attributed to the church alone, such as torture, persecution and burnings or lynchings, were often popular or private measures, often practiced by barons, fuedal lords, monarchs, they acted often without fear or favour but the clerical authorities got the blame from history and posterity. In fact often the church's attempts to control practices such as these or curtail their just employment were the cause for the enmity which led those same national and regional powers and principalities to align themselves with rising protestantism.

The cimes of Calvin's Geneva were greater than the inquisition, deliberately so, as Calvin and his reformers felt the need to shock and awe their opposition, that's been repeated throughout history by secular revolutionaries and usurpers such as with the Paris Commune, the Smersh, NKVD, GRD etc. So it really is hard to draw a clear line and suggest that the inhumane and violent is the preserve of the religious, in particular those predating the reformation.

Do not assume that my disagreement with you is based in ignorance. I have studied these matters probably more than most people on this forum. This (Calvinist actions) is part of what I meant by conflict. It is all a matter of degree. Even the most monolithic structure will have some dissent within. It is how that is handled that reflects the organization's attitude toward dissent. The fact is that we didn't have a significant split in the Catholic church established around the 3rd century until the schism with the Eastern Orthodox church in the 11th century. Then we had to wait until the reformation. Before that, all dissent had somehow to be reconciled to the one church establishment. Since then, groups that want to do things differently can simply go their own way, and believe and practice as they will. Of course human nature being what it is, it isn't always that simple. As recently as the late 20th century, Roman Catholic writers were censored or silenced within the church for expressing ideas contrary to official doctrine. Fortunately they now have the choice to leave the church and write independently, or through association with another faith group.

Islam has a pretty different structure in terms of authority and clerical and lay believer divisions, that's true, although that can be source of extremism and oppressive spontaneity in a manner that the alternative can not be. The sorts of mobilisation and mobilising capacities are mirrored in later secular atrocities too, such as the books about the actions of anti-semitic murder gangs in the second world war period, much of which was not ever directed or sanctioned by the Nazi party, if you'd like a book reference one I can think of is Hitler's Willing Executioners.

What is the alternative? Are you saying that absent the kind of divisions between clerics and laity that we see in islam, one cannot have extremism? I hope I am misunderstanding, because that would make no sense. The main division within Islam is between Sunni and Shiite, with further divisions within each of these. This dates from who was seen as the rightful heir of the authority of the prophet Muhammad. It is a bit like Catholics vs. Protestants, but in a part of the world that has taken far longer to shed violence as a means of settling disputes, both national and personal.

In the Handmaiden's Tale, if I remember rightly because I didnt like the book as much as I liked the film adaptation actually, there were numerous guerilla movements holding out against and fighting the regime which were Christian factions too, I think, as you say Methodists and Baptists, I read the pseudo-religious character of the regime in Handmaiden's Tale to be more about choosing a vehicle for patriarchal and establishment military figures. The whole thing seemed more masonic and like military fraternities as I know them.

Exactly. This is usually what happens, and is obvious in many contemporary Islamic societies. This in fact is how Islam as a faith can be a "religion of peace" while its most obvious implementations are anything but.

Any religion or ideology that does not respect individual rights should be mocked and ridiculed. I see Islam and Nazism in the same light; both are practiced by people who think their way is superior and will use force and murder to achieve their ends. The fact is that muslims are a million times more violent that the Amish, the Quakers, the Mormons, the Wiccans, and Scientologists. The fact that the vast majority of muslims aren't violent fanatics really doesn't change this fact one bit. If your faith produces so many rapists and murderers (compared to other faiths), then it's probably time to find a new faith. Stop excusing stupid behavior.

I wouldn't lump all these faiths into the same group. Sure, none of them have carried out bombings or mass shootings, but all deal very differently with the notion of individual choice in matters of faith and lifestyle. Mormons often restrict people's knowledge of alternatives as they are growing up, so they don't realize there are options outside Mormonism. Same for Scientology, though they don't have nearly the same track record. Both have been associated with individual coercion and violence in their more extreme forms. At least some Amish groups, on the other hand, encourage their youth to explore the outside world before committing to a life within the Amish community. The Wiccan groups I have associated with have required potential initiates actively to explore alternative faiths. And the Quakers have a long history of tolerance, pacifism, and active compassion.

 

[Mole]

We are changing in Australia in regard to Catholicism.

The congregation in Catholic Churches on Sunday now largely consists of old people and ethnic migrants.

And both the old people and the ethnic migrants value the Church for its authoritarian values.

The old people grew up with authoritarian values and they do not wish to learn new values of empathy and creativity. They feel at home in an authoritarian Church.

Ethnic migrants value the authoritarian values of the Church because they validate and justify the authoritarian values of their families.

Also ethnic migrants see the authoritarian Church as the home of authoritarian social values and believe the Church will help them rise in society.

And both old people and ethnic migrants have deep psychological defences against empathy and creativity.

 

[Tellenbach]

Both have been associated with individual coercion and violence in their more extreme forms.

I was referring to coercion of non-members and disrespecting the individual rights of non-members.

The Wiccan groups I have associated with ...

What? There is an interesting and funny story here, isn't there. Blessed be.

 

[Qre:us]

Violence in the name of religion is really nothing new, nor something particular to Islam. Hell, even if there were no religions in the world, to fulfill geopolitical agendas, people would turn towards a shared ideology to recruit "soldiers" to their cause.

Religion is an easy vehicle for recruitment.

Islam is the world's youngest major religion with the most followers (younger still, Sikhism, but its membership can't rival Islam's in terms of numbers ). It is going through its own identity crisis, as if a teenager, which other older religions, have already gone through, as history has shown, until they've reached "adulthood" (and even then, they act up from time to time). So, we see the rebellious teenager, full of bravado, fighting to assert itself and its identity into the world. And how? By aiming to be the very anti-thesis of the authoritarian adult it despises for telling it what to do, how to live (the Western ideals), which inevitably means it becomes authoritarian itself.

The West is always looking for a good enemy, because, really, how can you be a hero if you don't have a despicable enemy to topple? How else can you validate your own self-importance? Hell, look at the history of Hollywood movies, and you'll see the enemies shifting. First it was the Soviets, now it's muslim terrorists. Next will be the Jains.

So, it's almost the perfect setup.

 

[Firebird 8118]

Violence in the name of religion is really nothing new, nor something particular to Islam. Hell, even if there were no religions in the world, to fulfill geopolitical agendas, people would turn towards a shared ideology to recruit "soldiers" to their cause.

Religion is an easy vehicle for recruitment.

Islam is the world's youngest major religion with the most followers (younger still, Sikhism, but its membership can't rival Islam's in terms of numbers ). It is going through its own identity crisis, as if a teenager, which other older religions, have already gone through, as history has shown, until they've reached "adulthood" (and even then, they act up from time to time). So, we see the rebellious teenager, full of bravado, fighting to assert itself and its identity into the world. And how? By aiming to be the very anti-thesis of the authoritarian adult it despises for telling it what to do, how to live (the Western ideals), which inevitably means it becomes authoritarian itself.

The West is always looking for a good enemy, because, really, how can you be a hero if you don't have a despicable enemy to topple? How else can you validate your own self-importance? Hell, look at the history of Hollywood movies, and you'll see the enemies shifting. First it was the Soviets, now it's muslim terrorists. Next will be the Jains.

So, it's almost the perfect setup.

I thought Jains are usually peace-loving to the point where they'd walk barefoot to avoid killing ants? (Unless I'm wrong, of course.) But anyhow, I see the point you're trying to make here.

 

[Mole]

The West is always looking for a good enemy, because, really, how can you be a hero if you don't have a despicable enemy to topple? How else can you validate your own self-importance? Hell, look at the history of Hollywood movies, and you'll see the enemies shifting. First it was the Soviets, now it's muslim terrorists. Next will be the Jains.

So, it's almost the perfect setup.

This is the Left wing fantasy that they confuse with reality.

In fact the liberal democratic West has defeated not on but two totalitarian ideologies at great expense to itself in blood and treasure, namely National Socialism and Communism.

And to entrench the defeat of totalitarian National Socialism we wrote, signed and ratified The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And today we are called upon to defeat another totalitarian ideology, namely Islamism.

Our common humanity depends on the West.

 

[Qre:us]

I thought Jains are usually peace-loving to the point where they'd walk barefoot to avoid killing ants? (Unless I'm wrong, of course.) But anyhow, I see the point you're trying to make here.

It was sarcasm, hence, the mention of Jains.

Also, to note that while I discuss violence in the name of religion, it is the only religion, that, in its long history, have never incited violence in its name. Thus far.....

 

[Riva]

I have long been saying - half jokingly, hald seriously - that I hope this takes place in front of my doorstep. The Christian reformation started in Germany. Reform Judaism started in Germany. So I have high hopes for our mostly religiously moderate Turkish immigrant communities

St.Martin Luther.

Omgosh I should totally circulate a pic of him on FB/online.

Tehe!

Violence in the name of religion is really nothing new, nor something particular to Islam. Hell, even if there were no religions in the world, to fulfill geopolitical agendas, people would turn towards a shared ideology to recruit "soldiers" to their cause.

Religion is an easy vehicle for recruitment.

Islam is the world's youngest major religion with the most followers (younger still, Sikhism, but its membership can't rival Islam's in terms of numbers ). It is going through its own identity crisis, as if a teenager, which other older religions, have already gone through, as history has shown, until they've reached "adulthood" (and even then, they act up from time to time). So, we see the rebellious teenager, full of bravado, fighting to assert itself and its identity into the world. And how? By aiming to be the very anti-thesis of the authoritarian adult it despises for telling it what to do, how to live (the Western ideals), which inevitably means it becomes authoritarian itself.

The West is always looking for a good enemy, because, really, how can you be a hero if you don't have a despicable enemy to topple? How else can you validate your own self-importance? Hell, look at the history of Hollywood movies, and you'll see the enemies shifting. First it was the Soviets, now it's muslim terrorists. Next will be the Jains.

So, it's almost the perfect setup.

I agree with the highlighted. However, my English completely abandoned me at the part I've highlighted in italic. Could you explain?

Ps - Do you think the best plan is to wait until they grow up or spank them?

PPS - Jain in Mecca would be an awesome movie wouldn't you say.

Maybe but you need to be careful about how to fight these kinds of movements.

What you resist, persists and political islam sorely needs resistance, opposition and an other to constitute a threat or oppressor in order to exist.

For as long as the mobilised masses can believe that their poverty and oppression is a result of foreign devilry or something like it the longer the very conditions which keep them down will persist because they are not paying attention to the proper things to change to improve their lot.

I agree with this post. However, I disagree with the highlighted part. It probably was meant about our negative perceptions, thoughts and emotions, not real life issues. Imagine an invading army. Don't think the quote applies there.

Mani would agree with me.

 

[Qre:us]

This is the Left wing fantasy that they confuse with reality.

In fact the liberal democratic West has defeated not on but two totalitarian ideologies at great expense to itself in blood and treasure, namely National Socialism and Communism.

And to entrench the defeat of totalitarian National Socialism we wrote, signed and ratified The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And today we are called upon to defeat another totalitarian ideology, namely Islamism.

Our common humanity depends on the West.

I am not surprised to see your response, once again, glorifying the Occident. After all, it was through British imperialism and colonialism, that your convict ancestors elevated their status in life. I can see why you would vehemently defend it so. Rags to riches. Indebted to the master.

We deferred to the Sahib long enough. That's where you and I differ.

I am not going to argue this, when better arguments have already been made, so I'll quote one, who has tackled such myopic (and predictable) views such as yours.

Edward Said: " "It is therefore correct that every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was consequently a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric."

Pound for pound? Exaggeration for exaggeration.

- <3 from the Orient

I agree with the highlighted. However, my English completely abandoned me at the part I've highlighted in italic. Could you explain?

Sorry, all of that, once quoted, is in italics. Can you specify what you need clarification on?

Ps - Do you think the best plan is to wait until they grow up or spank them?

I think we are so preoccupied with how to punish them, that the authoritarian parent (West) fails to see its own failings and ways, which contributed to the conflict. Or, at least, choosing to ignore it. Change what you can control. Your own actions.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think Islamism is just another form of fascism, but I would separate that from Muslims or from Islam, which has existed in different variations and interpretations throughout history.

I have no patience for people who say that the cartoon "provoked" the attack, though. That's victim blaming, folks. It makes me think that people might actually have a point about PC being out of control and enabling or apologizing for violent, destructive ideology. I don't care how offensive the cartoon was, the appropriate response is not mass murder.

I happen to think freedom of thought/expression is extremely important, and is not really negotiable. Freedom of religion/irreligion is not negotiable. Nor do I believe in sacred subjects that should not be joked about.