Transcript in PDF

Before the debate: 41% FOR 25% AGAINST 34% UNDECIDED After the debate: 36% FOR 55% AGAINST 9% UNDECIDED

Views: 5979

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I think it's a false narrative Islam have never meant peace.

It means submission to the will of Allah.

Indeed! Islam is and has always been a WAR for global domination and extermination (genocide) of all other people.  Islam uses religion, lies, propaganda, and every other sneaky tactic to spread their war. They call people names like "islamophobic" for speaking the truth about their war.  They allow other only two options, fight them and win, or die.  Islam has forever been the same.  1400 years of history and its still ongoing.

Name calling hate is the reply.   As usual. 

I agree with you, Greybeard and I don't see it's followers changing or try to act like civilized people! We must start to stand up and fight or die and do nothing! I have noticed that some of their tactics are divide and conquer and that shouldn't happen if we want to survive! 

I agree with you, Greybeard and I don't see it's followers changing or try to act like civilized people! We must start to stand up and fight or die and do nothing! I have noticed that some of their tactics are divide and conquer and that shouldn't happen if we want to survive! 

In the early days of Islam they were way more scientific than the dark ages of Europe and way more civilized. 

I am assuming you don't live in India or anything, so when you say "fight or die", do you honestly believe there will ever be a full scale Islamic invasion of a first world nation? That's very paranoid thinking and I apologize if you bought into the right propaganda. Especially considering that Christian domestic terrorists are just likely if not a greater threat to America.

>I think it's a false narrative Islam have never meant peace.

Never said it was like that. After all, they gave us scientific method and advance maths. Prior to what happened later, under the Moors in Spain, all three big religions lived in peace until the monarchy took over again and decided to purge Spain of non-Christians. When it started out, no, it was not that bad. What it has become is bad though, is my point.

>What was your original comment?  Provide a link, please?

I was neutral, it was years ago. I do not feel like going back that far.

>India and Hinduism:  Not always so peaceful, either.

Never claimed it was. However, Hinduism is such a broad term and has no core. (It's actually more comparable to the term "pagan" because it is so broad.)  A good chunk of Hinduism as "ahimsa", or non-violence. You won't see a typical extreme Jain blow themselves up, either. Some of them won't even eat the roots of plants.

"Legitimate Criticism:  There are also people who complain when their "legitimate criticism" of Black folks is called "racist."  Kind of makes me wonder whether the qualifier of "legitimate" is supposed to give some groups of people a free pass when generalizing about other groups of people."

This is not a good comparison. Islam is a religion, religion has ideas, philosophy, and so forth. A muslim can be of any race. Race is specifically supposed to be biological. (But is usually based on skin color.) Criticizing a religion is not inherently racist or whatever. Legit criticism comes from examining the ideas within the religion, it's texts, and so forth. That's not "Islamophobia" to do so. A bad idea is still a bad idea.

"Mohammad:  A product of his times (4th-5th century).  Not exactly a lot of enlightenment going on in a lot of places in the world, back then.  Heck, even today, you find Mormons who think so highly of Brigham Young (19th century) that they don't want to hear about the Mountain Meadows massacre."

Being a product of one's time does not make it less immoral. Especially if one is supposed to find this person as worthy of emulation. It's not applicable to the modern world. 

"Pakistan: a theocratic nation.  All theocracies are cause for concern in the modern world, and it is indeed true that the majority of theocracies today comprise Islamic nations.  Mixing politics with religion is like mixing ammonia with bleach – you create a dangerously toxic atmosphere."

We agree.

>The Quran:  "If you read the Quran, it's real easy to see where these bad ideas started from."  Yes, from the Bible.

I don't think you're on my FB so I guess this Islam crap sounds left-field. If you were, you will see me post a lot of criticism of Abrahamic, hell, religion in general. I don't think anyone denies the violence of the OT, more specifically. (The NT is generally more sexless and non-violent.)

Judaism and Christianity however, went through reformation. Both are considerably, less violent than they used to be. (Though I never heard of Jews being quite as violent as the other two.) They're still wrought with problems/bad ideas and thus subject to criticism. However, Islam itself is a problem when you have preachers who espouse ideas of violence. (One recently fled India to Saudi Arabia, under Indian law he was going to incite violence or had.)

Yes, part of the reason the Middle East is messed up is the West's constant involvement. (Thanks, Britain.) But the Islamic factor makes it difficult for people to progress. It's really seen in Iran before and after the revolution, for example.

"I wasn't comparing religion to race.  I was making a point about how some people use qualifying terms such as "legitimate" to justify their generalizations about just about everything.  What exactly constitutes "legitimate" criticism?  You say that it "comes from examining the ideas within the religion, its texts, and so forth."  I say that criticism is just criticism – the so-called "legitimacy" of it is often subjective and biased.  Having read books on a subject doesn't make your criticism especially "legitimate"; it only means that your criticism is based on what you've read and how you've interpreted what you've read.  Or, on what you've been told by others."

Because I truly believe there are people who criticize everything and anything Islamic and deserve the moniker of "Islamophobe". (Mostly as you pointed out, the alt-right is a good example.) It's when people such as Sam Harris are giving some criticism based on the religion, and someone attempts to shut them down using it is when I have a problem. (Legit here, being from a more philosophical standpoint of attacking ideas rather than people.) When they are applying the same standards of criticism they use for Christianity. The left seems divided on this, when anything negative is deemed as irrelevant because people are afraid of Islam when they are not criticizing it out of fear or fear of diversity. I hope I am making myself clearer here.

"

Xoc, I would have thought that you'd be the last person to insist on judging ancient peoples by modern standards of morality.  I'm talking about you having referred to Mohammad as a "pedo."  There was nothing unusual about child marriage back in that time.  Even the Bible, a book revered in Western civilization, contains verses in which the warriors of God are given permission to use captive, pre-pubescent females for their own pleasure.  If you want to judge Mohammad by modern standards, he actually compares favorably to others of his time in that he at least married Aisha, giving her the elevated and respected status in his society of not only being his legal wife, but also a woman worthy of formal education and the responsibility of continuing his work after his death.   "

I understand child and arrange marriages still do exist in the world today and that is was probably a thing in the ancient past. This is not a point of contention here, many people are products of their time. However, there have been people seeking justification for it and modern child marriages on this premise. I don't think Mohammad should be a figure of emulation in my personal opinion, but I also think the same as other figures such as David and God of the OT. Their morals are outdated and need re-examination.


Islam has gone through changes of its own, as well – but sadly not for the better.  Islamism is a merging of the Islam religion and fascism, which appeals to a younger generation of Muslims in the same way that the alt-right movement in this country appeals to a younger generation of Christians.  (Maajid Nawaz explains the difference between Islam and Islamism in the video I posted in this topic earlier today.  I'd be interested in reading your comments on that, if you've a mind to view it.)

Yes, this is the biggest problem. I mentioned previously that Islam really didn't start out that bad. But now it's too the point of destroying ancient artifacts for not being Islamic and being intolerant in general.


I used to believe that the West was to blame for much of this, too.  The old: "We brought it on ourselves" argument.  But lately I'm more of the opinion that such fascist movements are cyclical, and influenced more by the zeitgeist of the era.

I think it's a mix. Moghul empire certainly existed prior to much European involvement and even before America existed, so did Wahhabism.

Basically, I am answering the OP that I do not think Islam is a religion of peace now. It used to be, more so, however.

When was this? Mohammed himself participated in the genocidal beheadings of hundreds of Jews. The Koran clearly advocates endless war against infidels. The Islamic social system has always been expansionist, totalitarian, misogynist and intolerant. The period of intellectual flourishing which occurred in Baghdad, Spain, Sicily, etc., was brief, and was the result of knowledge which came from Hindus, Romans, Greeks, Persians, etc., all in the possession of Moslems because they'd conquered those people! The nature of Islam is to suppress culture and of course freedom, and so open intellectualism was DOOMED in the Islamic world, from the start. And sure enough, it was stifled, and has not recovered even after many centuries. Christianity once it was the official Roman cult was also used as a means of social control to viciously stifle intellectualism. But somehow Christendom overcame this tendency, resulting in Renaissance, Enlightenment, etc. Islam was never a religion of peace. Nor was Christianity when it was the official imperial cult.

The interpretation is handled in the first few pages.  It was never meant to be a literal death, literal killing or literal genocide.   Early Islam was an esoteric practice. 


While issues of politics and violence are discussed within its pages, this was merely a guide for making your own choices.  Especially if you want to be happy and live a prosperous life.

That said, the apprehension by militant groups has given rise for reasons to discern it from Orthodox Islam.  This is why 'Radical Islam' is being used in politics.

The billions of non-violent Muslims that just live their lives, should be proof enough.  Even those living under a country with Sharia Law.

Yes, I think with religious fundamentalism though, some religions are more intolerant than others. (Christianity as you have proposed, is definitely more intolerant than some others.) There is definitely violent Buddhists in the world, for example, but Buddhism itself practices ahimsa at it's core and it specified in texts. Similarly, there are other religions that espouse or don't espouse violence and I don't mind critically examining that.

Yeah, Mother Theresa was terrible and so was Ghandi, come to find out. They just have really good PR. India is at guilt with this too, Ghandi spouted some of them most racist and hateful rhetoric, but India does not want you to see THAT.

 

Anyway, I've really missed you on this forum, Xoc – and I say that with no irony intended, whatsoever.  You've always been an interesting individual, and discussions with you are stimulating.  I'm glad you're back.

Thanks. I missed being in a place where I can debate and discuss controversial topics without fear of being banned. (I am on one pagan forum that bans all that, it's nice for a little while, but my heart can only take so much.)

I started a pagany blog thingy, and I have put up some controversial topics on there but it's new. So, there is not a lot of people. 

I am glad to see some old people like yourself too, because you always also bring in good intellectual discussions. I don't know of any pagan forum like that. Either they're too judgmental or too fluffy.

I don't think that one set of opinions should be guiding this discussion. There are some 'old people' that play know-it-all and know jack shit.

RSS

© 2019 PaganSpace.net       Powered by

Badges | Privacy Policy  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service