Islam

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Well it was only a matter of time before this thread got made. 

 

http://www.city-journal.org/html/doublespeak-islam-14441.html

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7861/british-muslims-survey

 

I'm of the firm belief that most religions are created to explain the unexplained and give "hope" when it's needed.

 

However, in addition to being an ever receding crutch, religion tends to be a polarizing factor as seen by the numerous conflicts between and withing religions. When so much faith is invested into a fairly abstract figure like "god" it becomes increasingly difficult to entirely accept deviations from your view on the matter.

 

So why is this thread called Islam and not Region? Well, unlike most other major religions, Islam has remained rooted in the early BC era and has required concessions made to it in order to keep this standard up. 

 

For an example, right up till 2015, Muslims alone in India had the ability to engage in polygamy while other religions have aided by less misogynistic standards.

 

If some of Islam's more regressive ideals were contained there would be little problem, but with the Rise of Daesh and cells turning up in progressive states, this isolation is under doubt.  

 

Lets look at the progressive haven of the UK

 

 

23 percent believe Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations;

52 percent believe homosexuality should be illegal;

31 percent believe polygamy should be legal;

39 percent believe women should always obey their husbands;

35 percent believe Jews have too much power in the UK.

 

Is there really no problem?

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

It's honestly a double sided sword.

 

If Muslims feel like they're being discriminated against and such, it will give terrorists more fuel than they already have.

 

As for this, I'm wondering if younger Muslims have more open views. I don't know. I'm not even sure what to make of this, to be honest.

[cardgameking]

The only thing I disagree with in the above post is the bit about being stuck in BC. In the Middle Ages, there was the Islamic Golden Age which was actually pretty awesome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age). It was similar to the Renaissance in Italy except better in a lot of ways, bar one The lack of a Reformation, like in Europe. The problem, as I see it, is that Islam is in need of reform but social media warriors, how ridiculously entrenched it has become and other things mean it is very unlikely to happen.

The statistics are kinda scary.

[Snatch Steal]

......

 

52 percent believe homosexuality should be illegal;

 

......

 

 

39 percent believe women should always obey their husbands;

 

 

......

 

I don't know if you pulled out the right ones.

 

 

Only 74 percent completely condemn “suicide bombing to fight injustice”;

Only 66 percent completely condemn stoning those who commit adultery;

Only 34 percent would contact police if they believed someone close to them was involved with jihadism;

 

so according to the survey, in Britain, 26% of Muslims do not completely condemn Suicide Bombings, 1/3 of them do not completely condemn stoning people who have an affair, and 2/3 do not feel inclined to clean up after themselves.

 

I can't speak for Muslims in America, but this is a little shocking, enough so to make me question whether it's real or not.

 

Even worse is that I recently ate at a Mosque, and it was pretty enlightening, so now I'm torn.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It was nice until you looked at the multiple genosides they commited to get to the "golden age"

[cardgameking]

To be fair, it isn't like any civilisation in the world can claim to have become great, for whatever period of time, without being horrible to other religious/ethnic groups. If we keep focusing on "These guys killed a bunch of other dudes years ago, we should burn down their art" or "They committed genocide on my ancestors several centuries back, let us use that as an excuse to condemn their descendents!" the arguments just look petty. Europeans abused the colonies. Americans abused the blacks. Islam isn't clean, but it is far from the dirtiest when it comes to achieving greatness.

[Enguin Enguin Enguin Enguin]

To be fair, it isn't like any civilisation in the world can claim to have become great, for whatever period of time, without being horrible to other religious/ethnic groups. If we keep focusing on "These guys killed a bunch of other dudes years ago, we should burn down their art" or "They committed genocide on my ancestors several centuries back, let us use that as an excuse to condemn their descendents!" the arguments just look petty. Europeans abused the colonies. Americans abused the blacks. Islam isn't clean, but it is far from the dirtiest when it comes to achieving greatness.

That wasn't by any means the focus, just mentioned in response to what you referenced. The difference between what you've brought up and Islamic extremism is that the colonies and slavery are, at this point, history, whereas ISIS and the like are a present and ongoing thing.

[Delibirb]

I mean ideally we all start "worshipping," or more appropriately idolizing, ASI, as they will more or less be gods in an age of information. In which case what we now call religions would descend into myth as the Egyptian and Greek/Roman pantheons did. Though one might worry that humanity, being foolish and overzealous, would end up creating crusades in the name of their gods against the others, but I think that's unlikely to happen as they would actually have contact with their idols, as opposed to the Catholics who did not. If the ASIs even did want to eliminate each other, which I also find unlikely, they'd probably just do it themselves by trying to delete each other or lock each other behind super-advanced firewalls in the internet itself.

 

But, we shouldn't try to push people towards converting to ASI transhumanism until we actually have an ASI, as that would cause its own share of problems, assuming it even got off the ground.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's STILL dirty is the problem

 

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future" hmm I guess there's a couple ways to interpret that

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Makes me wonder where you were when potential presidential candidates were going on about "Christian values".

I wonder where you were when I said I would supper a Ebola ridden rabid dog over Ted Cruz

[vla1ne]

the issue is that the base scripture is not compatible with the western world. same goes for most of christianity prior to the reform of it. islam needs mass reform if it's going to remain in the western world. 

 

 

[spoiler=this sums up many of the problems]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD8GSyLaxrI

 

 

 

[~~~~]

31 percent believe polygamy should be legal;

What's wrong with polygamy?

 

OT: All religions are false. Let's get rid of them all.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

What's wrong with polygamy?

 

OT: All religions are false. Let's get rid of them all.

As an deist, I'm fine with that. The difference is, like vla1ne noted other religions have changed. Hinduism got rid of the caste system and some of its more misogynist policies. Christianity has been moving to be more accepting. Etc.

 

Islam is stuck in 1000 AD

 

@Polygamy - Nothing. (Except maybe Custody and Tax Laws) I think even incest should be legal. Just pointing out how different from the average American the Islamic faith is

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/07/22/hunt-underway-for-one-or-more-shooters-on-the-run-lead-ripley-live.cnn

 

Munich police:Shooting suspects have Islamist background

 

2 Shooters are alive, possibly all three

[Snatch Steal]

On the topic of Polygamy, I almost wonder if people only frown upon it because they're societally inclined or jealous.

 

I may be off, but I believe the religious context for monogamy is because men would collect harems of women and that wasn't too cool with the prophets and such.

[Delibirb]

On the topic of Polygamy, I almost wonder if people only frown upon it because they're societally inclined or jealous.

 

I may be off, but I believe the religious context for monogamy is because men would collect harems of women and that wasn't too cool with the prophets and such.

I myself don't have a moral problem with consensual polygamy. Islam kinda is a bad example because they either buy wives or they are more or less traded among families for power. But in a less misogynistic environment, I don't think there would be any non-religious moral reason one might have against fully consensual polygamy.

 

However, polygamy can have some issues in modern society, namely with the financial nightmare of having such a large number of dependencies and insurance paperwork, the real estate problem of large families living in homes that cannot realistically house them, and the inevitable issue of potentially increased spousal abuse cases. All of these things are already difficult to comprehend or manage as it is, it could only get worse.

 

If, in addition to the legalizing of polygamy, systems could be put in place to better handle these problems, I have no qualms with it. But without such systems, I think it is too dangerous to institute.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-capture-idUSKCN10G0PT

[vla1ne]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-capture-idUSKCN10G0PT

that... doesn't make sense to me. over 1900 people vs 190? how in the world did they allow themselves to go down without a struggle? i know, the fighters hag guns and the like, but if even 900 of those people fought back, the fighters would have to at the very least reconsider their attack plan. i don't see how they could allow themselves to be taken out so easily. then again, different upbringings, so i guess different outlook.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/world/asia/quetta-pakistan-blast-hospital.html

 

[vla1ne]

Well on the bright side, it wasn't gun violence

holy hell. why bomb the hospital? of all the places they could bomb, they choose the one that actually attempts to help people? well, not that surprisong that they'd still be bombing places though. they are a terrorist organization.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Well on the bright side, it wasn't gun violence

holy hell. why bomb the hospital? of all the places they could bomb, they choose the one that actually attempts to help people? well, not that surprisong that they'd still be bombing places though. they are a terrorist organization.

Hey, atleast terrorism has no religion

 

[Aerion Brightflame]

And Islam is not Islamism. 

 

It is specifically Islamic Fundamentalism/militancy, and whilst that is a subset of Islam, just as you find violent subsets in any religion, it is still not Islam. 

 

So you are right to say that Terrorism has no religion - It follows ideologies, but very rarely a religion as a whole. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Hey, atleast terrorism has no religion

 

It's be nice if the words were legible.

 

Anyway this is an extremely biased chart. And doesn't have anything backing it up. Not to mention that there's more than just terrorist attacks that other religions have done to harm/kill/damage people/things/places and so on. It's just a pointless and random "fact" that may not even be entirely true. Not to mention it doesn't even explain what they're counting as a terrorist attack.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's be nice if the words were legible.

 

Anyway this is an extremely biased chart. And doesn't have anything backing it up. Not to mention that there's more than just terrorist attacks that other religions have done to harm/kill/damage people/things/places and so on. It's just a pointless and random "fact" that may not even be entirely true. Not to mention it doesn't even explain what they're counting as a terrorist attack.

There is source under it for a reason. Didn't think you guys wanted me to put the full list of 300+ attacks on here

 

But it's all there for anyone who doubts it's validity or is otherwise interested

 

Just remember, Terrorism has no religion

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

There is source under it for a reason. Didn't think you guys wanted me to put the full list of 300+ attacks on here

 

But it's all there for anyone who doubts it's validity or is otherwise interested

 

Just remember, Terrorism has no religion

You're missing my point.

What are they counting for terrorist attacks?

And why point out religious based terrorist attacks and not any other religious based crimes? And what percentage of that religion is actually doing these acts?

It's still a biased chart with little to no explanation to push your agenda, and it's an attempt to say "See told you, it's totally this, this is the issue, definitely."

The fact that you keep putting things like "Just remember, Terrorism has no religion" and other snide/sarcastic/inflammatory comments into your "debate" posts is kind of defeating the purpose of this section.

I feel you're taking opposing views too personally.