Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Obama's Comments Regarding Islam, and ISIL

YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 6:04:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Disclaimer: I'm not going to post a link to the video in this post, or anything like that... it's everywhere now. If I can find one that I think is well edited, I'll post that... but WaPo hasn't posted anything I deem acceptable, and I'm not interested in furthering the media's (dumb) response to it.

A lot of people have been really outraged about Obama's refusing to recognize the fact that members of ISIL call themselves practitioners of Islam. In saying that ISIL was not "Islamic," Obama was dividing between what counts as a legitimate exercise of the Islamic religion, and (by implication) a bunch of terrorist 'posers'. The further implication is that Obama is engaging in a very subtle theological debate with these people. They claim to be something. Obama is challenging the very foundation of their ideology.

The reason that's a stronger "middle finger" to ISIL is because it undercuts the legitimacy of everything they do, by ripping the so-called theological basis out from underneath them, and it also draws an explicitly clear divide between "Muslims" and "pseudo-Muslims" on the basis of confirmation with behavior that the West deems socially acceptable. That's an incredibly imperious thing to do, and I like it, because to the extent that I'm aware, no president has ever -in the way that Obama just did- defined the scope of what counts for the legitimate practice of a religion.

I really wish people would just take a moment and think about things before they react to them, because this is something that both conservatives, liberals, and the totality of the Western world should be in agreement with Obama on. We get the power to define what is or is not an acceptable exercise of religion; killing innocent people, especially children, brutalizing entire regions for no purpose other than because there is no one there to stop them, etc. is not acceptable and -most importantly- it is the right and the responsibility of the West to keep other people who would act in ways that are inconsistent with our values in check... or at least to condemn them.

Bush never did that. He called people who called themselves Muslims that used their faith to justify inhumanity "Islamofascists." That 'was' sort of a sufficient description... but it doesn't go as far as what Obama said. Obama claimed new international power today; the president of the United States, international arbiter of theological legitimacy. What Bush said bought into the premise that terrorists were "Islamic." But, at the risk of being redundant, Obama set a standard for what counts for "legitimate Islam." That standard is "conformity to Western values."

Or, more or less... in colloquial terms... "y'all motherfuckers are a bunch of wannabe poser bitches." That is the point he was making, and it's a powerful one.

At least on a pragmatic level, conservatives seriously ought to get behind Obama too. The reason is because white Republican dudes (and Tim Scott/Marco Rubio) have to accept that cultural pluralism in the West -and specifically in the United States- is something that isn't going away. Brown people are here to stay, and, insofar as that is the case, it makes really substantial electoral sense to try to get them (1) to vote for you, or (2) at least not to vote against you because they think you're a racist or a bigot.

On a more... shall we say... visceral level.... Republicans should be getting behind Obama because of the power he just claimed. It's important to think about this in terms of a dialogue between The West and -as I mentioned above- the "wannabe poser bitches." The WPB's have some shootings against innocent people because they're shallow, worthless, weak and cowardly. Obama is basically saying how shallow, worthless, weak and cowardly they are... in rap battle terms, Obama basically just dropped the mic after an epic throw down. The other thing is that Obama implicitly put every Muslim in the Western world on notice as well.

The power of what is left unsaid....
Tsar of DDO
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,683
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2015 9:28:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 7:57:45 PM, YYW wrote:
I would have thought this post would have inspired more controversy.... guess not.

If you want to spark controversy post this (or anything related to Islam) in the religious forum, that's sure to spark a flamewar.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 12:55:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 7:57:45 PM, YYW wrote:
I would have thought this post would have inspired more controversy.... guess not.

YYW, I don't see why we should be praising the distinction Obama is making, maybe you could help explain that to me.

To me, it seems like extremist Islam isn't the only violent form of Islam. Extremists like IS behead people for nonviolent crimes and deny women basic human rights. Mainstream Islamic nations, like Saudi Arabia, sort of do the same thing, right? Whether it's the extremists systematically raping women, or the moderates quietly subjugating them, why should we determine what is in the name of Islam, and what isn't, when it's all absolutely inhumane and wrong?

I guess I see the point you're making, that we should attack IS on a theological level, but I fail to see why we should divide Islam into the super-violent and the sometimes-violent, when they both deserve to be ridiculed and rejected in the same category.

FWIW, I'm not a conservative, I respect Barack Obama, and I don't hate Muslims.
phiLockeraptor
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 12:11:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 12:55:15 PM, Praesentya wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:57:45 PM, YYW wrote:
I would have thought this post would have inspired more controversy.... guess not.

YYW, I don't see why we should be praising the distinction Obama is making, maybe you could help explain that to me.

To me, it seems like extremist Islam isn't the only violent form of Islam. Extremists like IS behead people for nonviolent crimes and deny women basic human rights. Mainstream Islamic nations, like Saudi Arabia, sort of do the same thing, right? Whether it's the extremists systematically raping women, or the moderates quietly subjugating them, why should we determine what is in the name of Islam, and what isn't, when it's all absolutely inhumane and wrong?

I guess I see the point you're making, that we should attack IS on a theological level, but I fail to see why we should divide Islam into the super-violent and the sometimes-violent, when they both deserve to be ridiculed and rejected in the same category.

FWIW, I'm not a conservative, I respect Barack Obama, and I don't hate Muslims.

I think what he's saying is that Obama just gave the U.S - and the West, by extension, a little more power, by establishing the groundwork for Western morality to be the standard by which all religions must reach to be legitimate. It was a smart move.
"Philosophy is a great conversation that never ends"

Writing for this website ----> www.dailyfreethinker.com
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 10:30:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's a stupid strategy.

Isis followers and most of the middle east Muslims really don't care what Obama says about their religion.

He is hardly a Thomas Aquinas berating the Catholic Church for not being "true" followers of Christ.

The Koran is what it is, and the followers have their focus on that, not Obama drivel.
CJKAllstar
Posts: 408
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 10:48:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As nice and utopian as this sounds if we aim to beat them or aim to have the upper hand, we have to understand our enemy, and that starts with the fact that they are very Islamic.

They're barbaric, but you can't say they are un-Islamic. They are extremely salafist and their imposition of Sharia law is extremely fastidious. Everything they enforce is rooted in Islamic eschatology and the days before, where an Islamic empire will rise.

Hell, the reason they want a battle with America is because it is prophesied that there will be battles against Islam, and they particularly want a fight at Dabiq, near Aleppo because that will be where victory takes place. They will not compromise nor take up a seat on the UN because it is giving another body authority.

But what it also means is that they're existence relies on the land they own because this is a caliphate and they function as so. Strategy therefore should be based on this, but this can only start if we don't accept who they are, deny the extent to which they are extreme, warped Islamists.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." - George Orwell
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 11:07:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 10:48:42 AM, CJKAllstar wrote:
As nice and utopian as this sounds if we aim to beat them or aim to have the upper hand, we have to understand our enemy, and that starts with the fact that they are very Islamic.

Sun Tzu would be proud.
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:06:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 11:05:53 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I doubt many Muslims would claim ISIS does not devoutly follow the Koran.

Regardless what outsiders say.

I would guess a majority would say they do not devoutly follow. That is part of the problem in defining this problem, we dont really know how many Muslims support such defilement of Islam, thus you and I have to guess at it.
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:16:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I hear what you are saying YWW. I think it reflects the fact that conservatives are using ISIL as a marketing tool. It scares me to hear conservative after conservative claim the only way to defeat ISIL is to put US boots on the ground.

They seemingly forget that since ISIL is not made up of a bunch of six year olds fresh to the cause that it is indeed a legacy of Al Quadia in Iracq that was never fully defeated the first time around.

They also forget that El Shabab was taken care of by its neighboors when it threatened expanding beyond Somalia.

It is like these war mongers are looking to sacrifice more of our men and women so they can have a nice movie to watch a decade later. Let Saudi Arabia sacrifice their own people when iSIL starts knocking on their door.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 10:16:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:06:57 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 2/22/2015 11:05:53 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I doubt many Muslims would claim ISIS does not devoutly follow the Koran.

Regardless what outsiders say.

I would guess a majority would say they do not devoutly follow.

That's about as plausible as having a majority of Protestants declaring Roman Catholicism less than devout, regardless of the amount of atrocities committed by that sect of Christianity.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 11:28:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 11:05:53 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
I doubt many Muslims would claim ISIS does not devoutly follow the Koran.

Regardless what outsiders say.

Um, yes they would. The ones that count, anyway. ISIS are Salafists who have been denounced by Salafist scholars. Salafists in general are denounced by many Ashari scholars. Ashari theology is the huge majority.

The problem with this perception is the fact that Westerners are ignorant of Islam in general. It's not a town hall religion; in order to have a legitimate opinion on the Quran, one must be a scholar with extensive (read: decades) training under someone who can trace their chain of teacher-student relationships directly back to Muhammad. Westerners expect lay Muslims to be up in arms and denouncing Salafists, but that's just not how its done. During the days of the Caliphates, it was illegal to preach or convert common people to any religion, or to a competing sect of Islam. All inter-faith and sectarian contact was at the scholarly level. In fact, its the partial breakdown of this institution of religious scholarship which has allowed Salafism to spread so rapidly; if the old system of Ulema had been firmly intact this school of thought would have died under intense scholarly scrutiny ages ago without having to opportunity to seek converts amongst the uneducated.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 11:56:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 12:55:15 PM, Praesentya wrote:
At 2/19/2015 7:57:45 PM, YYW wrote:
I would have thought this post would have inspired more controversy.... guess not.

YYW, I don't see why we should be praising the distinction Obama is making, maybe you could help explain that to me.

To me, it seems like extremist Islam isn't the only violent form of Islam. Extremists like IS behead people for nonviolent crimes and deny women basic human rights. Mainstream Islamic nations, like Saudi Arabia, sort of do the same thing, right?

Saudi Arabia and ISIS are both run by Salafists/Wahhabists. If you want an example of mainstream Islam, don't look to the ruling clerics of Saudi Arabia.

Whether it's the extremists systematically raping women, or the moderates quietly subjugating them, why should we determine what is in the name of Islam, and what isn't, when it's all absolutely inhumane and wrong?

How many Muslim women have you carried on a conversation with?

I guess I see the point you're making, that we should attack IS on a theological level, but I fail to see why we should divide Islam into the super-violent and the sometimes-violent, when they both deserve to be ridiculed and rejected in the same category.

Why?

FWIW, I'm not a conservative, I respect Barack Obama, and I don't hate Muslims.

You don't hate them, but you believe that their beliefs should be ridiculed and rejected? That smacks of the 'hate the sin, love the sinner' that gay people get from conservative Christians.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 2:31:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 11:56:34 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Saudi Arabia and ISIS are both run by Salafists/Wahhabists. If you want an example of mainstream Islam, don't look to the ruling clerics of Saudi Arabia.

Could you direct me to a more mainstream subset of Islam then? I don't profess to be extensively literate in the minorities of Islam, but some quick research indicated that Saudi Arabia is fairly moderate, even liberal.

How many Muslim women have you carried on a conversation with?

I don't see how this is relevant. Could you elaborate?

Why?

Islam is either latently violent or blatantly violent, depending on who is practicing it. I do not believe this religion is congruent with my interpretation of humanity, therefore I think we should reject it, universally.

You don't hate them, but you believe that their beliefs should be ridiculed and rejected? That smacks of the 'hate the sin, love the sinner' that gay people get from conservative Christians.

Correct. I do not hate Muslims personally. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who live their lives in a fairly similar manner to the way I live mine; however I do not believe Islam is something that should be taken seriously. I don't understand the second part, could you rephrase?

You seem to have commented quite a bit on how Westerners don't understand Islam, could you point out what we're missing?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 4:16:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 6:16:59 PM, slo1 wrote:
I hear what you are saying YWW. I think it reflects the fact that conservatives are using ISIL as a marketing tool. It scares me to hear conservative after conservative claim the only way to defeat ISIL is to put US boots on the ground.

They seemingly forget that since ISIL is not made up of a bunch of six year olds fresh to the cause that it is indeed a legacy of Al Quadia in Iracq that was never fully defeated the first time around.

They also forget that El Shabab was taken care of by its neighboors when it threatened expanding beyond Somalia.

It is like these war mongers are looking to sacrifice more of our men and women so they can have a nice movie to watch a decade later. Let Saudi Arabia sacrifice their own people when iSIL starts knocking on their door.

I would correct the underlined slightly and state that ISIL is using American conservative ideology as a marketing tool for their own recruitment.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 4:24:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 6:04:11 PM, YYW wrote:

The other thing is that Obama implicitly put every Muslim in the Western world on notice as well.

I agree with most of the rest of your post, but this comment I found to be exceptionally disturbing. How are "Muslims in the Western world on notice"?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 4:27:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 6:04:11 PM, YYW wrote:

I really wish people would just take a moment and think about things before they react to them, because this is something that both conservatives, liberals, and the totality of the Western world should be in agreement with Obama on. We get the power to define what is or is not an acceptable exercise of religion; killing innocent people, especially children, brutalizing entire regions for no purpose other than because there is no one there to stop them, etc. is not acceptable and -most importantly- it is the right and the responsibility of the West to keep other people who would act in ways that are inconsistent with our values in check... or at least to condemn them.

How is this not a declaration of holy war?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 4:42:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 6:04:11 PM, YYW wrote:
We get the power to define what is or is not an acceptable exercise of religion...

I just want to be clear that I strongly disagree with this notion. Rather, I think that Obama did the right thing by divorcing religion from his political decisions...not that he is defining aspects of "acceptable" Islam for Muslims, which is heretical and quite possibly the worst thing any POTUS could possibly do to incite a wave of anti-West fanaticism in Muslim countries.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 6:53:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 2:31:48 AM, Praesentya wrote:
At 2/22/2015 11:56:34 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Saudi Arabia and ISIS are both run by Salafists/Wahhabists. If you want an example of mainstream Islam, don't look to the ruling clerics of Saudi Arabia.

Could you direct me to a more mainstream subset of Islam then? I don't profess to be extensively literate in the minorities of Islam, but some quick research indicated that Saudi Arabia is fairly moderate, even liberal.

Saudi Arabia is easily the most extreme in turns of ideology (aside from the Taliban, which is also Salafist), outstripping Iran by miles. But the most mainstream 'form' of Islamic theology is Ashari. This is an example of a mainstream scholar pointing out why Salafism, the school followed by Saudi Arabia and ISIS, is a perversion of traditional Islamic teaching:

"The book is divided into concise sections tracing the origins of the Wahhabi/Salafi movement and the teachings that this movement promotes in isolation of the doctrine of the majority of Muslims. After a brief historical overview of the bloody origins of Wahhabism and the "Salafi" creed, the author turns to investigate the foundations of the shari`a which have been targeted by the Wahhabi/Salafi movement for revision, namely:

the Wahhabi/Salafi tampering of the doctrine of the pious Salaf concerning Allah"s essence and attributes, and his freedom from body, size, or direction;

their rejection of ijma` (scholarly consensus) and qiyas (analogy);

their rejection of the sources and methodological foundations of ijtihad (deriving qualified judgment) and taqlid (following qualified judgment).

The author then narrows down on the Wahhabi/Salafi practice of takfir, which is their declaring Muslims unbelievers, according to criteria not followed by the pious Salaf but devised by modern-day "Salafis." The author shows that the "Salafis" went out of bounds in condemning the Umma (Muslim Community) on the question of taqlid, declaring unbelievers all those who practice taqlid, that is, the majority of Muslims. Finally, the author turns to the linchpin of "Salafi" philosophy: leaving the ijma` of the true Salaf in declaring unbelievers all Muslims who use the Prophet Muhammad"s intercession, Peace be upon him, as a wasila or means of blessing."
http://sunnah.org...

What this basically means is the the Salafis have rejected the traditional Muslim focus on a scholarly foundation of religion, and the Muslim tradition of not declaring other Muslims unbelievers, which was crucial to preserving peace in the Middle East. Historically, sectarian wars amongst Muslims have been very rare compared to Europe because of this practice; disputes were settled in a scholarly fashion.

If you want to ask a specific question, YassineB can probably answer it here:
http://www.debate.org...

How many Muslim women have you carried on a conversation with?

I don't see how this is relevant. Could you elaborate?

Because you claim that they are oppressed by moderate Islam. Most people who do this tend to not know any Muslim women, instead relying on Western media coverage which is myopic in its depiction.

Why?

Islam is either latently violent or blatantly violent, depending on who is practicing it. I do not believe this religion is congruent with my interpretation of humanity, therefore I think we should reject it, universally.

Can you give examples of mainstream Islam being latently or blatantly violent so that I may address them?

You don't hate them, but you believe that their beliefs should be ridiculed and rejected? That smacks of the 'hate the sin, love the sinner' that gay people get from conservative Christians.

Correct. I do not hate Muslims personally. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who live their lives in a fairly similar manner to the way I live mine; however I do not believe Islam is something that should be taken seriously. I don't understand the second part, could you rephrase?

Because claiming that dismissing someones beliefs, which for Muslims are a pretty integral part of their character, involves no ill will towards the person doesn't really make sense. You are dismissing part of that person; just as religious people are dismissing part of the homosexuals identity when they say that they 'hate the sin', regardless of whether they also claim to 'love the sinner'.

You seem to have commented quite a bit on how Westerners don't understand Islam, could you point out what we're missing?

In reality? Just about everything. The West sees Islam as analogous to Christianity, when it is everything but. Islam doesn't believe that shari`a law should apply to non-Muslims, which is something that very few people understand. Under the Caliphates, Christians, Buddhists, Zoroastrians and Jews were governed by their own laws and not subjected to Islamic jurisprudence unless they requested to be. The fact that almost all religious debate and inter-sectarian contact happens at the scholarly level in traditional Islam. That punishments for apostasy are based on harm caused and are more akin to treason or rebellion charges then anything else, and actually served to protect minorities from conversion and allowed them to maintain their religious communities for centuries. That Muslims are, historically, not anti-Semitic; that Muslims restored Jews to Jerusalem after the Romans and Byzantines had cast them out, defended them during the Crusades, and that Egypt and Al-Andalus contained some of the most vibrant Jewish communities in history. That the fourth highest authority on hadith, through which a huge amount of Muslim scholars trace their chain of authority, was a woman (Aisha). That the same women lead troops in battle after the death of Muhammad. That the first university in the world was founded by a Muslim woman. That female ulema, or scholars, were common in historical Islam. That Islam gave a woman the right to divorce her husband if he could not provide for her.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 1:46:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 4:42:19 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/19/2015 6:04:11 PM, YYW wrote:
We get the power to define what is or is not an acceptable exercise of religion...

I just want to be clear that I strongly disagree with this notion. Rather, I think that Obama did the right thing by divorcing religion from his political decisions...not that he is defining aspects of "acceptable" Islam for Muslims, which is heretical and quite possibly the worst thing any POTUS could possibly do to incite a wave of anti-West fanaticism in Muslim countries.

Exactly. Obama doesn't have any clout at all to declare ISIS a debunked faction of Islam, or insinuate they have no adherence to the Koran (Quoran?)

He should do as all responsible leaders of the law do. Condemn behaviors. Why exist in a nation of laws if you are not even willing to do that? Oh, of course that is politically incorrect, because Muslims assume if you condemn the behavior, then you condemn the religion as well. So be it.

Obama should not preach as if he were the western Muhammad incarnate.
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 8:23:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 6:53:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
In reality? Just about everything. The West sees Islam as analogous to Christianity, when it is everything but. Islam doesn't believe that shari`a law should apply to non-Muslims, which is something that very few people understand. Under the Caliphates, Christians, Buddhists, Zoroastrians and Jews were governed by their own laws and not subjected to Islamic jurisprudence unless they requested to be. The fact that almost all religious debate and inter-sectarian contact happens at the scholarly level in traditional Islam. That punishments for apostasy are based on harm caused and are more akin to treason or rebellion charges then anything else, and actually served to protect minorities from conversion and allowed them to maintain their religious communities for centuries. That Muslims are, historically, not anti-Semitic; that Muslims restored Jews to Jerusalem after the Romans and Byzantines had cast them out, defended them during the Crusades, and that Egypt and Al-Andalus contained some of the most vibrant Jewish communities in history. That the fourth highest authority on hadith, through which a huge amount of Muslim scholars trace their chain of authority, was a woman (Aisha). That the same women lead troops in battle after the death of Muhammad. That the first university in the world was founded by a Muslim woman. That female ulema, or scholars, were common in historical Islam. That Islam gave a woman the right to divorce her husband if he could not provide for her.

This is a compiled list of statistics - all of which are referenced - which supports my opinion that Islam, universally, is violent.

http://wikiislam.net...

For example...

"Egyptian women are sexually harassed 7 times every 200 meters and well over two-thirds are harassed on a daily basis."

"1 out of 3 British Muslims aged 16 to 24 believe that Muslim apostates should be executed."

"Compared to Mein Kampf, the non-abrogated Medinan verses of the Qur'an contain more than 2x the amount of anti-Jewish text."

"There are 13 countries in the world where the state can execute you for being atheist. Every single one is officially Islamic."

These are a handful of examples, but there are dozens in the aforementioned link, want to start with these? The list I provided uses links, so if you refute one using another statistic, please provide a credible link.

The difference between me dismissing Islam, and Christians dismissing homosexuality, is that Islam is basically entirely fabricated. No one has ever seen Allah, no one can prove the Quran actually speaks any truth. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is real. I am dismissing a delusion, while Christians are dismissing a genetic reality.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2015 8:53:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 8:23:03 PM, Praesentya wrote:
At 2/23/2015 6:53:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
In reality? Just about everything. The West sees Islam as analogous to Christianity, when it is everything but. Islam doesn't believe that shari`a law should apply to non-Muslims, which is something that very few people understand. Under the Caliphates, Christians, Buddhists, Zoroastrians and Jews were governed by their own laws and not subjected to Islamic jurisprudence unless they requested to be. The fact that almost all religious debate and inter-sectarian contact happens at the scholarly level in traditional Islam. That punishments for apostasy are based on harm caused and are more akin to treason or rebellion charges then anything else, and actually served to protect minorities from conversion and allowed them to maintain their religious communities for centuries. That Muslims are, historically, not anti-Semitic; that Muslims restored Jews to Jerusalem after the Romans and Byzantines had cast them out, defended them during the Crusades, and that Egypt and Al-Andalus contained some of the most vibrant Jewish communities in history. That the fourth highest authority on hadith, through which a huge amount of Muslim scholars trace their chain of authority, was a woman (Aisha). That the same women lead troops in battle after the death of Muhammad. That the first university in the world was founded by a Muslim woman. That female ulema, or scholars, were common in historical Islam. That Islam gave a woman the right to divorce her husband if he could not provide for her.

This is a compiled list of statistics - all of which are referenced - which supports my opinion that Islam, universally, is violent.

http://wikiislam.net...

Well... that's an extremely biased source, almost to the point of being farcical. I wouldn't put much stock in what it has to say,

For example...

"Egyptian women are sexually harassed 7 times every 200 meters and well over two-thirds are harassed on a daily basis."

Not even violent, and not necessarily due to Islam. In fact, Islam prohibits this sort of disrespect. Men can be @ssholes, color me surprised.

"1 out of 3 British Muslims aged 16 to 24 believe that Muslim apostates should be executed."

Public opinion from uneducated teenagers? Is that really a good way to determine what a religion teaches?

"Compared to Mein Kampf, the non-abrogated Medinan verses of the Qur'an contain more than 2x the amount of anti-Jewish text."

This one is just ridiculous. The Qur'an and Hadith are filled with stories about Muhammad's life. This includes wars fought, some of which involved Jewish tribes betraying his followers to his enemies, after which he declared war on them for reason of treason. In these verses, Muhammad commands his followers to 'fight the Jews', clearly referring to a specific tribe at a specific time for a specific reason. Then, sites like this cut it out of context and says 'look, Muhammad says to kill the Jews!'. Obviously, this isn't that case, as if it were:

- Umar, a contemporary of Muhammad, would not have restored the Jews to Jerusalem when he conquered it from Byzantium.

- Jewish communities would not have lived and thrived for thousands of years in Muslim lands, actually fleeing pogroms in Europe in order to live unmolested in places like al-Andalus and Egypt.

- The Mishneh Torah would not have been compiled by Maimonides, a Jewish scholar who lived in the Islamic Caliphate. Not only was he respected by Jews, but was highly esteemed by Islamic scholars as well, and held them in esteem, including the famous Averroes and Avicenna.

- Saladin would not have defended the Jews being massacred and expunged from their homes by the Crusaders.

In fact, had Islam wanted to it could have easily wiped Judaism off of the face of the earth, as Jews already faced intense persecution in Europe. Instead, they offered them shelter (as well as minority Christian sects).

"There are 13 countries in the world where the state can execute you for being atheist. Every single one is officially Islamic."

If you want to talk about why Islam is in such a dire state, we can do so. But this wasn't always a case. Abul 'Ala Al-Ma'arri was a blind atheist skeptic poet who lived and wrote around the year 1,000 in a thoroughly Islamic Middle East. Here is an example of his writing:

"Do not suppose the statements of the prophets to be true; they are all fabrications. Men lived comfortably till they came and spoiled life. The sacred books are only such a set of idle tales as any age could have and indeed did actually produce."

He wasn't punished at all; in fact, he was respected as a poet and died in his bed at the age of 85. Recently, Salafists (al-Qaeda) have beheaded an ancient statue of him in Syria. The violence which has infected one sect of Islam is not representative of the teachings of the religion as understood for 1,500 years.

These are a handful of examples, but there are dozens in the aforementioned link, want to start with these? The list I provided uses links, so if you refute one using another statistic, please provide a credible link.

I'm not going to run through a crackpot site (that is what you linked to) and provide a lengthy rebuttal of every point contained therein. That's like a creationist linking to one of their websites and saying that if I can't debunk every one of those points, then they win and evolution fails. If you want to understand this subject, you need to respond to my points and realize that you are attacking a straw man which has been assiduously maintained for centuries in the West: that of Islam as a brutal, odious barbarian lurking at the edge of the horizon, eying Europe hungrily. This is a caricature; you deserve to see things accurately, and the millions of people who follow the religion deserve to be perceived accurately. If that is to happen, you need to look at the evidence. If Islam is misogynist, why is Aisha so esteemed? Why were females trained to be scholars? If they are anti-Semitic, why were Jews fleeing INTO Muslim territories for sanctuary? Why did Muslims defend Jews, and engage in religious dialogue with them? If all atheists are killed, why did Abul 'Ala Al-Ma'arri die at the ripe old age of 85 ranting about the beauty of a chicken, after spending his life criticizing all faiths?

The difference between me dismissing Islam, and Christians dismissing homosexuality, is that Islam is basically entirely fabricated. No one has ever seen Allah, no one can prove the Quran actually speaks any truth. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is real. I am dismissing a delusion, while Christians are dismissing a genetic reality.

The belief is real, so that point is irrelevant. You are still attacking not just an idea, but a mental framework which someone has adopted as the guide to every aspect of his or her life. To say that you can attack such a foundational part of a person's character without attacking them personally is not justified.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 6:56:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 7:38:08 PM, YYW wrote:
Obama didn't divorce religion from his discussion...

Obama said, exactly:

"Now let"s make two things clear: ISIL is not "Islamic." No religion condones the killing of innocents. And the vast majority of ISIL"s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda"s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria"s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor by the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way."
http://www.whitehouse.gov...

It's clear from his statement that there are two things ISIL is not: 1) a religious organization, and 2) a nation-state. By divorcing ISIL from the religion of Islam, it gives our government, one that holds as one of its foundational principles the separation between church and state, a free hand to prosecute them as terrorists, not religiously fanatic terrorists...just terrorists.

I agree with you that the speech was a master stroke and a subtle but significant sea change in how we deal with this problem, but exactly what message he sent is something apparently we do not agree upon.

As it is, what about your other statements? Why should western Muslims be "on notice"? And why do you think Obama should be enforcing a USFG interpretation of exactly what constitutes "acceptable" Islam? Both of these statements are exceptionally disturbing if they're ever taken as a serious position by our government.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2015 12:15:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So killing ISIS now would have no effect (no legitimate effect) on anybody who even thinks they are affiliated with ISIS in some way or another. If that's the case, nuke 'em. Nuke 'em to hell. They'll be wiped from the earth and the worst reaction would be a shrug of the shoulders!

xD
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 7:00:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/19/2015 6:04:11 PM, YYW wrote:
Disclaimer: I'm not going to post a link to the video in this post, or anything like that... it's everywhere now. If I can find one that I think is well edited, I'll post that... but WaPo hasn't posted anything I deem acceptable, and I'm not interested in furthering the media's (dumb) response to it.

A lot of people have been really outraged about Obama's refusing to recognize the fact that members of ISIL call themselves practitioners of Islam. In saying that ISIL was not "Islamic," Obama was dividing between what counts as a legitimate exercise of the Islamic religion, and (by implication) a bunch of terrorist 'posers'. The further implication is that Obama is engaging in a very subtle theological debate with these people. They claim to be something. Obama is challenging the very foundation of their ideology.

The reason that's a stronger "middle finger" to ISIL is because it undercuts the legitimacy of everything they do, by ripping the so-called theological basis out from underneath them, and it also draws an explicitly clear divide between "Muslims" and "pseudo-Muslims" on the basis of confirmation with behavior that the West deems socially acceptable. That's an incredibly imperious thing to do, and I like it, because to the extent that I'm aware, no president has ever -in the way that Obama just did- defined the scope of what counts for the legitimate practice of a religion.

I really wish people would just take a moment and think about things before they react to them, because this is something that both conservatives, liberals, and the totality of the Western world should be in agreement with Obama on. We get the power to define what is or is not an acceptable exercise of religion; killing innocent people, especially children, brutalizing entire regions for no purpose other than because there is no one there to stop them, etc. is not acceptable and -most importantly- it is the right and the responsibility of the West to keep other people who would act in ways that are inconsistent with our values in check... or at least to condemn them.

Bush never did that. He called people who called themselves Muslims that used their faith to justify inhumanity "Islamofascists." That 'was' sort of a sufficient description... but it doesn't go as far as what Obama said. Obama claimed new international power today; the president of the United States, international arbiter of theological legitimacy. What Bush said bought into the premise that terrorists were "Islamic." But, at the risk of being redundant, Obama set a standard for what counts for "legitimate Islam." That standard is "conformity to Western values."

Or, more or less... in colloquial terms... "y'all motherfuckers are a bunch of wannabe poser bitches." That is the point he was making, and it's a powerful one.

At least on a pragmatic level, conservatives seriously ought to get behind Obama too. The reason is because white Republican dudes (and Tim Scott/Marco Rubio) have to accept that cultural pluralism in the West -and specifically in the United States- is something that isn't going away. Brown people are here to stay, and, insofar as that is the case, it makes really substantial electoral sense to try to get them (1) to vote for you, or (2) at least not to vote against you because they think you're a racist or a bigot.

Are you seriously suggesting Tim Scott and Marco Rubio oppose multiculturalism? Might I remind you that the region they come from, the South, is the most racially diverse in the entire country?

On a more... shall we say... visceral level.... Republicans should be getting behind Obama because of the power he just claimed. It's important to think about this in terms of a dialogue between The West and -as I mentioned above- the "wannabe poser bitches." The WPB's have some shootings against innocent people because they're shallow, worthless, weak and cowardly. Obama is basically saying how shallow, worthless, weak and cowardly they are... in rap battle terms, Obama basically just dropped the mic after an epic throw down. The other thing is that Obama implicitly put every Muslim in the Western world on notice as well.

The power of what is left unsaid....
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 7:18:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/23/2015 6:53:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
In reality? Just about everything. The West sees Islam as analogous to Christianity, when it is everything but. Islam doesn't believe that shari`a law should apply to non-Muslims, which is something that very few people understand. Under the Caliphates, Christians, Buddhists, Zoroastrians and Jews were governed by their own laws and not subjected to Islamic jurisprudence unless they requested to be.

Yeah, it's called 'dhimmihood'. They had to pay tribute to Muslim leaders, admit Muslims were superior, were forbidden from building new places of worship or even repairing ones they had already built, were forbidden from wearing or showing religious symbols, and could not inherit anything from Muslim family members. Moreover, they were sometimes forbidden to ride camels or were required to identify their religion on their house.

If you think that's awesome, go move to IS. For the low low price of losing your freedom, you too can be a dhimmi!

The fact that almost all religious debate and inter-sectarian contact happens at the scholarly level in traditional Islam. That punishments for apostasy are based on harm caused and are more akin to treason or rebellion charges then anything else, and actually served to protect minorities from conversion and allowed them to maintain their religious communities for centuries.

And the Inquisition did the same by mainly targeting closeted Muslims who could possibly pose risk to Spain... but I doubt you'd defend that.

That Muslims are, historically, not anti-Semitic; that Muslims restored Jews to Jerusalem after the Romans and Byzantines had cast them out, defended them during the Crusades, and that Egypt and Al-Andalus contained some of the most vibrant Jewish communities in history.

But today? Many Muslims - especially Palestinians - utterly despise the Jews.

That the fourth highest authority on hadith, through which a huge amount of Muslim scholars trace their chain of authority, was a woman (Aisha). That the same women lead troops in battle after the death of Muhammad. That the first university in the world was founded by a Muslim woman. That female ulema, or scholars, were common in historical Islam. That Islam gave a woman the right to divorce her husband if he could not provide for her.

Nobody is contesting that women can be treated well in Islam. The problem is the 10% or so of radical Muslims oppose that, along with the vast majority of middle eastern countries through police (aside from Jordan, whose Queen and Princesses wear western garb and no hijabs. Jordan is cool.).
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 8:01:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 7:00:14 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/19/2015 6:04:11 PM, YYW wrote:
Disclaimer: I'm not going to post a link to the video in this post, or anything like that... it's everywhere now. If I can find one that I think is well edited, I'll post that... but WaPo hasn't posted anything I deem acceptable, and I'm not interested in furthering the media's (dumb) response to it.

A lot of people have been really outraged about Obama's refusing to recognize the fact that members of ISIL call themselves practitioners of Islam. In saying that ISIL was not "Islamic," Obama was dividing between what counts as a legitimate exercise of the Islamic religion, and (by implication) a bunch of terrorist 'posers'. The further implication is that Obama is engaging in a very subtle theological debate with these people. They claim to be something. Obama is challenging the very foundation of their ideology.

The reason that's a stronger "middle finger" to ISIL is because it undercuts the legitimacy of everything they do, by ripping the so-called theological basis out from underneath them, and it also draws an explicitly clear divide between "Muslims" and "pseudo-Muslims" on the basis of confirmation with behavior that the West deems socially acceptable. That's an incredibly imperious thing to do, and I like it, because to the extent that I'm aware, no president has ever -in the way that Obama just did- defined the scope of what counts for the legitimate practice of a religion.

I really wish people would just take a moment and think about things before they react to them, because this is something that both conservatives, liberals, and the totality of the Western world should be in agreement with Obama on. We get the power to define what is or is not an acceptable exercise of religion; killing innocent people, especially children, brutalizing entire regions for no purpose other than because there is no one there to stop them, etc. is not acceptable and -most importantly- it is the right and the responsibility of the West to keep other people who would act in ways that are inconsistent with our values in check... or at least to condemn them.

Bush never did that. He called people who called themselves Muslims that used their faith to justify inhumanity "Islamofascists." That 'was' sort of a sufficient description... but it doesn't go as far as what Obama said. Obama claimed new international power today; the president of the United States, international arbiter of theological legitimacy. What Bush said bought into the premise that terrorists were "Islamic." But, at the risk of being redundant, Obama set a standard for what counts for "legitimate Islam." That standard is "conformity to Western values."

Or, more or less... in colloquial terms... "y'all motherfuckers are a bunch of wannabe poser bitches." That is the point he was making, and it's a powerful one.

At least on a pragmatic level, conservatives seriously ought to get behind Obama too. The reason is because white Republican dudes (and Tim Scott/Marco Rubio) have to accept that cultural pluralism in the West -and specifically in the United States- is something that isn't going away. Brown people are here to stay, and, insofar as that is the case, it makes really substantial electoral sense to try to get them (1) to vote for you, or (2) at least not to vote against you because they think you're a racist or a bigot.

Are you seriously suggesting Tim Scott and Marco Rubio oppose multiculturalism? Might I remind you that the region they come from, the South, is the most racially diverse in the entire country?

Living in a racially diverse area does not mean that you support multiculturalism. There is compelling evidence that racial diversity amplifies social racial tensions in some areas.

On a more... shall we say... visceral level.... Republicans should be getting behind Obama because of the power he just claimed. It's important to think about this in terms of a dialogue between The West and -as I mentioned above- the "wannabe poser bitches." The WPB's have some shootings against innocent people because they're shallow, worthless, weak and cowardly. Obama is basically saying how shallow, worthless, weak and cowardly they are... in rap battle terms, Obama basically just dropped the mic after an epic throw down. The other thing is that Obama implicitly put every Muslim in the Western world on notice as well.

The power of what is left unsaid....
Tsar of DDO
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 9:39:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 8:01:49 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/25/2015 7:00:14 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/19/2015 6:04:11 PM, YYW wrote:
Disclaimer: I'm not going to post a link to the video in this post, or anything like that... it's everywhere now. If I can find one that I think is well edited, I'll post that... but WaPo hasn't posted anything I deem acceptable, and I'm not interested in furthering the media's (dumb) response to it.

A lot of people have been really outraged about Obama's refusing to recognize the fact that members of ISIL call themselves practitioners of Islam. In saying that ISIL was not "Islamic," Obama was dividing between what counts as a legitimate exercise of the Islamic religion, and (by implication) a bunch of terrorist 'posers'. The further implication is that Obama is engaging in a very subtle theological debate with these people. They claim to be something. Obama is challenging the very foundation of their ideology.

The reason that's a stronger "middle finger" to ISIL is because it undercuts the legitimacy of everything they do, by ripping the so-called theological basis out from underneath them, and it also draws an explicitly clear divide between "Muslims" and "pseudo-Muslims" on the basis of confirmation with behavior that the West deems socially acceptable. That's an incredibly imperious thing to do, and I like it, because to the extent that I'm aware, no president has ever -in the way that Obama just did- defined the scope of what counts for the legitimate practice of a religion.

I really wish people would just take a moment and think about things before they react to them, because this is something that both conservatives, liberals, and the totality of the Western world should be in agreement with Obama on. We get the power to define what is or is not an acceptable exercise of religion; killing innocent people, especially children, brutalizing entire regions for no purpose other than because there is no one there to stop them, etc. is not acceptable and -most importantly- it is the right and the responsibility of the West to keep other people who would act in ways that are inconsistent with our values in check... or at least to condemn them.

Bush never did that. He called people who called themselves Muslims that used their faith to justify inhumanity "Islamofascists." That 'was' sort of a sufficient description... but it doesn't go as far as what Obama said. Obama claimed new international power today; the president of the United States, international arbiter of theological legitimacy. What Bush said bought into the premise that terrorists were "Islamic." But, at the risk of being redundant, Obama set a standard for what counts for "legitimate Islam." That standard is "conformity to Western values."

Or, more or less... in colloquial terms... "y'all motherfuckers are a bunch of wannabe poser bitches." That is the point he was making, and it's a powerful one.

At least on a pragmatic level, conservatives seriously ought to get behind Obama too. The reason is because white Republican dudes (and Tim Scott/Marco Rubio) have to accept that cultural pluralism in the West -and specifically in the United States- is something that isn't going away. Brown people are here to stay, and, insofar as that is the case, it makes really substantial electoral sense to try to get them (1) to vote for you, or (2) at least not to vote against you because they think you're a racist or a bigot.

Are you seriously suggesting Tim Scott and Marco Rubio oppose multiculturalism? Might I remind you that the region they come from, the South, is the most racially diverse in the entire country?

Living in a racially diverse area does not mean that you support multiculturalism. There is compelling evidence that racial diversity amplifies social racial tensions in some areas.

So are you saying you believe Tim Scott, who is black, and Marco Rubio, who is Hispanic, don't support multiculturalism? What culture do they support? White culture?

On a more... shall we say... visceral level.... Republicans should be getting behind Obama because of the power he just claimed. It's important to think about this in terms of a dialogue between The West and -as I mentioned above- the "wannabe poser bitches." The WPB's have some shootings against innocent people because they're shallow, worthless, weak and cowardly. Obama is basically saying how shallow, worthless, weak and cowardly they are... in rap battle terms, Obama basically just dropped the mic after an epic throw down. The other thing is that Obama implicitly put every Muslim in the Western world on notice as well.

The power of what is left unsaid....