Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Mob Violence in Afghanistan

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 10:46:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://www.cnn.com...

"Grieving women carried her coffin high on their shoulders in scenes many said they had never witnessed before in the Afghan capital.

"Men are traditionally pallbearers in Kabul, where days earlier a mob of male attackers beat and kicked 27-year-old Farkhunda before tossing her off a bridge, setting her body on fire and throwing it in the river...

"Farkhunda's parents said the killing was instigated by a local mullah of the Shah-e-Do Shamshera Mosque in the city's center, who had been angered by Farkhunda's accusations that he was distributing false tawiz.

"Tawiz are pieces of paper containing verses of the Quran which are sometimes worn as pendants to ward off evil and bring the wearer good luck.

"TOLOnews reported that "in order to save his job and life," the mullah reportedly began shouting accusations that Farkhunda had burned the Quran.

"Witnesses said a crowd gathered and hauled Farkhunda into the street.

""We were asking the people to stop beating her and let us ask what religion she belongs to," one witness told TOLOnews. "But the people didn't listen to us and kept beating her.""


Discuss.
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
3/23/2015 11:28:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 11:05:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Drama queens....

When did you become such a troll?
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?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 11:29:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 11:28:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/23/2015 11:05:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Drama queens....

When did you become such a troll?

Says you.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 11:33:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 11:29:40 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/23/2015 11:28:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

When did you become such a troll?

Says you.

That's not an answer to the question.
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?
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 1:07:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 10:46:30 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"Grieving women carried her coffin high on their shoulders in scenes many said they had never witnessed before in the Afghan capital.

"Men are traditionally pallbearers in Kabul, where days earlier a mob of male attackers beat and kicked 27-year-old Farkhunda before tossing her off a bridge, setting her body on fire and throwing it in the river...

"Farkhunda's parents said the killing was instigated by a local mullah of the Shah-e-Do Shamshera Mosque in the city's center, who had been angered by Farkhunda's accusations that he was distributing false tawiz.

"Tawiz are pieces of paper containing verses of the Quran which are sometimes worn as pendants to ward off evil and bring the wearer good luck.

"TOLOnews reported that "in order to save his job and life," the mullah reportedly began shouting accusations that Farkhunda had burned the Quran.

"Witnesses said a crowd gathered and hauled Farkhunda into the street.

""We were asking the people to stop beating her and let us ask what religion she belongs to," one witness told TOLOnews. "But the people didn't listen to us and kept beating her.""


Discuss.

Is this even controversial in Afghanistan? Seems like a regular occurrence.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 1:08:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 10:46:30 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"Grieving women carried her coffin high on their shoulders in scenes many said they had never witnessed before in the Afghan capital.

"Men are traditionally pallbearers in Kabul, where days earlier a mob of male attackers beat and kicked 27-year-old Farkhunda before tossing her off a bridge, setting her body on fire and throwing it in the river...

"Farkhunda's parents said the killing was instigated by a local mullah of the Shah-e-Do Shamshera Mosque in the city's center, who had been angered by Farkhunda's accusations that he was distributing false tawiz.

"Tawiz are pieces of paper containing verses of the Quran which are sometimes worn as pendants to ward off evil and bring the wearer good luck.

"TOLOnews reported that "in order to save his job and life," the mullah reportedly began shouting accusations that Farkhunda had burned the Quran.

"Witnesses said a crowd gathered and hauled Farkhunda into the street.

""We were asking the people to stop beating her and let us ask what religion she belongs to," one witness told TOLOnews. "But the people didn't listen to us and kept beating her.""


Discuss.

What is to discuss. Afghanistan and Pakistan are vile places. This culture is based upon abrahamic theism and has never come out of the dark ages. It is proof positive that theism can not bring forth objective morality. I would rather trust my spirituality to a bunch of humanist atheists than these poor excuses of humans.

I can't believe we spent so much money and American blood in Afghanistan trying to set up a legitimate gov after removing the Taliban.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 1:42:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 1:08:19 PM, slo1 wrote:
What is to discuss. Afghanistan and Pakistan are vile places. This culture is based upon abrahamic theism and has never come out of the dark ages.
What do you know about their cultures that suffices as an explanation for their alleged roots in Abrahamic theism? I patiently await an informative answer.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 6:33:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 1:42:17 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 3/24/2015 1:08:19 PM, slo1 wrote:
What is to discuss. Afghanistan and Pakistan are vile places. This culture is based upon abrahamic theism and has never come out of the dark ages.
What do you know about their cultures that suffices as an explanation for their alleged roots in Abrahamic theism? I patiently await an informative answer.

I'm not certain what you are fishing for. Do you deny that the Talamud and Jewish influence with justice and other Jewish law had an influence on Islam? I realize that Muslims have taken it to an entirely new level by freaking out by the thought of burning some pages in a sacred text, but you would be in denial if you thought Mohammad was closer in principles to the Quraysh than the Jews of the time.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 7:24:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 6:33:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
I'm not certain what you are fishing for. Do you deny that the Talamud and Jewish influence with justice and other Jewish law had an influence on Islam? I realize that Muslims have taken it to an entirely new level by freaking out by the thought of burning some pages in a sacred text, but you would be in denial if you thought Mohammad was closer in principles to the Quraysh than the Jews of the time.
Yes, I do. When one asserts that a text was influenced by another, one means it did not originate through perfectly independent thought, which was, fortunately, not the case for the Quran. At least, we do not have a sound reason for thinking it was influenced by anything, in spite of similarities with texts revealed earlier. Furthermore, even putting this was aside, we have no reason to assume that occurrences like the one this topic revolves around have strong connections to Islam. The religion is not defined by uneducated, non-scholarly individuals, who certainly are not even the majority.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 8:16:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 7:24:42 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 3/24/2015 6:33:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
I'm not certain what you are fishing for. Do you deny that the Talamud and Jewish influence with justice and other Jewish law had an influence on Islam? I realize that Muslims have taken it to an entirely new level by freaking out by the thought of burning some pages in a sacred text, but you would be in denial if you thought Mohammad was closer in principles to the Quraysh than the Jews of the time.
Yes, I do. When one asserts that a text was influenced by another, one means it did not originate through perfectly independent thought, which was, fortunately, not the case for the Quran. At least, we do not have a sound reason for thinking it was influenced by anything, in spite of similarities with texts revealed earlier. Furthermore, even putting this was aside, we have no reason to assume that occurrences like the one this topic revolves around have strong connections to Islam. The religion is not defined by uneducated, non-scholarly individuals, who certainly are not even the majority.

It has strong ties with a culture that was built around harsh descriptions of what justice is and Islam in Afghanistan has never corrected. While I realize there are probably many sensible Muslims, but when I see and hear of groups of Muslims in outrage to the point of describing or initiating physical harm against another person for the sole transgression of burning Koran pages then there is something severely wrong.

I understand the voice of moderates are probably not being heard, but there is something severely wrong. Secondly trying to decouple the culture in Afghanistan which would allow a group of people to attack a woman from the street just because an Inmam accused of her burning pages of the Koran from Islam is like trying to split fur from a cat. It just makes no sense.

There is a culture of intolerance and righteousness in Afghanistan and it plays right into Islam's hands and Sharia Law. During Taliban rule it was not uncommon to have stonings by the public.

Lastly, trying to assume that Muhammad was not influenced by Judaism and the culture that spread from Jews living near Medina and Mecca is wishful thinking. Even if Muhammad gained his knowledge and understanding only from God and had no interactions with any Jews or passive influences from the Jewish communities he was near, it is the same God as the Jewish God, thus the abramic religions.

Don't fall into the politics and deny the roots of Islam.

29:46 AYA
And do not argue/dispute with The Book's people except with which it is best , except those who were unjust/oppressive from them, and say: "We believed with what was descended on (to) us, and was descended to you, and our God, and your God (is) one, and we are to Him Moslems/submitters ."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 8:33:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 8:16:23 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/24/2015 7:24:42 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 3/24/2015 6:33:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
I'm not certain what you are fishing for. Do you deny that the Talamud and Jewish influence with justice and other Jewish law had an influence on Islam? I realize that Muslims have taken it to an entirely new level by freaking out by the thought of burning some pages in a sacred text, but you would be in denial if you thought Mohammad was closer in principles to the Quraysh than the Jews of the time.
Yes, I do. When one asserts that a text was influenced by another, one means it did not originate through perfectly independent thought, which was, fortunately, not the case for the Quran. At least, we do not have a sound reason for thinking it was influenced by anything, in spite of similarities with texts revealed earlier. Furthermore, even putting this was aside, we have no reason to assume that occurrences like the one this topic revolves around have strong connections to Islam. The religion is not defined by uneducated, non-scholarly individuals, who certainly are not even the majority.

It has strong ties with a culture that was built around harsh descriptions of what justice is and Islam in Afghanistan has never corrected. While I realize there are probably many sensible Muslims, but when I see and hear of groups of Muslims in outrage to the point of describing or initiating physical harm against another person for the sole transgression of burning Koran pages then there is something severely wrong.

I understand the voice of moderates are probably not being heard, but there is something severely wrong. Secondly trying to decouple the culture in Afghanistan which would allow a group of people to attack a woman from the street just because an Inmam accused of her burning pages of the Koran from Islam is like trying to split fur from a cat. It just makes no sense.

There is a culture of intolerance and righteousness in Afghanistan and it plays right into Islam's hands and Sharia Law. During Taliban rule it was not uncommon to have stonings by the public.

Lastly, trying to assume that Muhammad was not influenced by Judaism and the culture that spread from Jews living near Medina and Mecca is wishful thinking. Even if Muhammad gained his knowledge and understanding only from God and had no interactions with any Jews or passive influences from the Jewish communities he was near, it is the same God as the Jewish God, thus the abramic religions.

Don't fall into the politics and deny the roots of Islam.

29:46 AYA
And do not argue/dispute with The Book's people except with which it is best , except those who were unjust/oppressive from them, and say: "We believed with what was descended on (to) us, and was descended to you, and our God, and your God (is) one, and we are to Him Moslems/submitters ."

Is the problem truly Islam? After all, 95% of our nation professes to be Christian, and Christianity is filled with the same barbarism you label "Abrahamic theism". There are writers like Tolstoy who advocate a startlingly clear moral vision based upon Christian influence - it is not only a tradition of barbarism.

Is it possible for Islam to moderate or to become peaceful? If so, why do you consider the problem to be Islam, and not whatever is preventing this moderation from occurring? Hopefully you understand the assertion behind my questions...that perhaps Islam is not the problem, and something else is, and determining exactly what that "something else" is is what we should be focusing upon.

My own answer comes from the movie "A Separation"...it clearly depicts religious fundamentalism as finding strong roots in a disenfranchised and impoverished Iranian working class. Strangely enough, with wealth comes moderation. Money is the root of ALL...not just evil.
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?
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 8:46:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 8:33:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2015 8:16:23 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/24/2015 7:24:42 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 3/24/2015 6:33:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
I'm not certain what you are fishing for. Do you deny that the Talamud and Jewish influence with justice and other Jewish law had an influence on Islam? I realize that Muslims have taken it to an entirely new level by freaking out by the thought of burning some pages in a sacred text, but you would be in denial if you thought Mohammad was closer in principles to the Quraysh than the Jews of the time.
Yes, I do. When one asserts that a text was influenced by another, one means it did not originate through perfectly independent thought, which was, fortunately, not the case for the Quran. At least, we do not have a sound reason for thinking it was influenced by anything, in spite of similarities with texts revealed earlier. Furthermore, even putting this was aside, we have no reason to assume that occurrences like the one this topic revolves around have strong connections to Islam. The religion is not defined by uneducated, non-scholarly individuals, who certainly are not even the majority.

It has strong ties with a culture that was built around harsh descriptions of what justice is and Islam in Afghanistan has never corrected. While I realize there are probably many sensible Muslims, but when I see and hear of groups of Muslims in outrage to the point of describing or initiating physical harm against another person for the sole transgression of burning Koran pages then there is something severely wrong.

I understand the voice of moderates are probably not being heard, but there is something severely wrong. Secondly trying to decouple the culture in Afghanistan which would allow a group of people to attack a woman from the street just because an Inmam accused of her burning pages of the Koran from Islam is like trying to split fur from a cat. It just makes no sense.

There is a culture of intolerance and righteousness in Afghanistan and it plays right into Islam's hands and Sharia Law. During Taliban rule it was not uncommon to have stonings by the public.

Lastly, trying to assume that Muhammad was not influenced by Judaism and the culture that spread from Jews living near Medina and Mecca is wishful thinking. Even if Muhammad gained his knowledge and understanding only from God and had no interactions with any Jews or passive influences from the Jewish communities he was near, it is the same God as the Jewish God, thus the abramic religions.

Don't fall into the politics and deny the roots of Islam.

29:46 AYA
And do not argue/dispute with The Book's people except with which it is best , except those who were unjust/oppressive from them, and say: "We believed with what was descended on (to) us, and was descended to you, and our God, and your God (is) one, and we are to Him Moslems/submitters ."

Is the problem truly Islam? After all, 95% of our nation professes to be Christian, and Christianity is filled with the same barbarism you label "Abrahamic theism". There are writers like Tolstoy who advocate a startlingly clear moral vision based upon Christian influence - it is not only a tradition of barbarism.

Is it possible for Islam to moderate or to become peaceful? If so, why do you consider the problem to be Islam, and not whatever is preventing this moderation from occurring? Hopefully you understand the assertion behind my questions...that perhaps Islam is not the problem, and something else is, and determining exactly what that "something else" is is what we should be focusing upon.

My own answer comes from the movie "A Separation"...it clearly depicts religious fundamentalism as finding strong roots in a disenfranchised and impoverished Iranian working class. Strangely enough, with wealth comes moderation. Money is the root of ALL...not just evil.

I'll grant you this, a religion is never the exact problem. It is people who interpret a religion who are the problem. If it were just say 10,000 people in the world who felt that burning pages in the Koran was punishable by death then I would just say that, yes it is an anomaly and a group of people who perverted the religion.

The problem in Afghanistan is that it is not a minority. The Taliban did not rule the nation for decades because they were a small minority. The Taliban did have complete control and executed plenty of citizens who had transgressions against their interpretation of Islam. It is short sighted to try to separate Sharia Law and Islam from the people who are in charge of enacting justice in the country because it largely has been the religion which shaped the definition of justice.

I can argue all day that Islam is really a peaceful religion, but in Afghanistan, it is not a peaceful religion. The way Islam is used in the country is one filled with injustice, evil, and cruelty. It is hard to find a middle east country where that is not true.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 8:55:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 8:46:22 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2015 8:33:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2015 8:16:23 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/24/2015 7:24:42 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 3/24/2015 6:33:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
I'm not certain what you are fishing for. Do you deny that the Talamud and Jewish influence with justice and other Jewish law had an influence on Islam? I realize that Muslims have taken it to an entirely new level by freaking out by the thought of burning some pages in a sacred text, but you would be in denial if you thought Mohammad was closer in principles to the Quraysh than the Jews of the time.
Yes, I do. When one asserts that a text was influenced by another, one means it did not originate through perfectly independent thought, which was, fortunately, not the case for the Quran. At least, we do not have a sound reason for thinking it was influenced by anything, in spite of similarities with texts revealed earlier. Furthermore, even putting this was aside, we have no reason to assume that occurrences like the one this topic revolves around have strong connections to Islam. The religion is not defined by uneducated, non-scholarly individuals, who certainly are not even the majority.

It has strong ties with a culture that was built around harsh descriptions of what justice is and Islam in Afghanistan has never corrected. While I realize there are probably many sensible Muslims, but when I see and hear of groups of Muslims in outrage to the point of describing or initiating physical harm against another person for the sole transgression of burning Koran pages then there is something severely wrong.

I understand the voice of moderates are probably not being heard, but there is something severely wrong. Secondly trying to decouple the culture in Afghanistan which would allow a group of people to attack a woman from the street just because an Inmam accused of her burning pages of the Koran from Islam is like trying to split fur from a cat. It just makes no sense.

There is a culture of intolerance and righteousness in Afghanistan and it plays right into Islam's hands and Sharia Law. During Taliban rule it was not uncommon to have stonings by the public.

Lastly, trying to assume that Muhammad was not influenced by Judaism and the culture that spread from Jews living near Medina and Mecca is wishful thinking. Even if Muhammad gained his knowledge and understanding only from God and had no interactions with any Jews or passive influences from the Jewish communities he was near, it is the same God as the Jewish God, thus the abramic religions.

Don't fall into the politics and deny the roots of Islam.

29:46 AYA
And do not argue/dispute with The Book's people except with which it is best , except those who were unjust/oppressive from them, and say: "We believed with what was descended on (to) us, and was descended to you, and our God, and your God (is) one, and we are to Him Moslems/submitters ."

Is the problem truly Islam? After all, 95% of our nation professes to be Christian, and Christianity is filled with the same barbarism you label "Abrahamic theism". There are writers like Tolstoy who advocate a startlingly clear moral vision based upon Christian influence - it is not only a tradition of barbarism.

Is it possible for Islam to moderate or to become peaceful? If so, why do you consider the problem to be Islam, and not whatever is preventing this moderation from occurring? Hopefully you understand the assertion behind my questions...that perhaps Islam is not the problem, and something else is, and determining exactly what that "something else" is is what we should be focusing upon.

My own answer comes from the movie "A Separation"...it clearly depicts religious fundamentalism as finding strong roots in a disenfranchised and impoverished Iranian working class. Strangely enough, with wealth comes moderation. Money is the root of ALL...not just evil.

I'll grant you this, a religion is never the exact problem. It is people who interpret a religion who are the problem. If it were just say 10,000 people in the world who felt that burning pages in the Koran was punishable by death then I would just say that, yes it is an anomaly and a group of people who perverted the religion.

The problem in Afghanistan is that it is not a minority. The Taliban did not rule the nation for decades because they were a small minority. The Taliban did have complete control and executed plenty of citizens who had transgressions against their interpretation of Islam. It is short sighted to try to separate Sharia Law and Islam from the people who are in charge of enacting justice in the country because it largely has been the religion which shaped the definition of justice.

I can argue all day that Islam is really a peaceful religion, but in Afghanistan, it is not a peaceful religion. The way Islam is used in the country is one filled with injustice, evil, and cruelty. It is hard to find a middle east country where that is not true.

Let's work with the underlined and control for the religious impulse. So, why do these people want to inflict such pain in the name of Islam? Is it because it's their very nature? What does that mean, "their very nature"? Does it mean that they were born that way (an assertion I hope you will agree with is exceptionally racist), or did circumstances shape these people to become such brutal rulers?

If you accept that brutal circumstances shape brutal rulers, then wouldn't the issue be to "de-brutalize" these conditions? I mean, the Nazis were born out of Germany insolvency, hyperinflation, and imminent extinction, Genghis Khan was born out of an environment that would make Afghanistan look like paradise.
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?
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 9:34:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 8:55:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2015 8:46:22 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2015 8:33:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2015 8:16:23 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/24/2015 7:24:42 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 3/24/2015 6:33:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
I'm not certain what you are fishing for. Do you deny that the Talamud and Jewish influence with justice and other Jewish law had an influence on Islam? I realize that Muslims have taken it to an entirely new level by freaking out by the thought of burning some pages in a sacred text, but you would be in denial if you thought Mohammad was closer in principles to the Quraysh than the Jews of the time.
Yes, I do. When one asserts that a text was influenced by another, one means it did not originate through perfectly independent thought, which was, fortunately, not the case for the Quran. At least, we do not have a sound reason for thinking it was influenced by anything, in spite of similarities with texts revealed earlier. Furthermore, even putting this was aside, we have no reason to assume that occurrences like the one this topic revolves around have strong connections to Islam. The religion is not defined by uneducated, non-scholarly individuals, who certainly are not even the majority.

It has strong ties with a culture that was built around harsh descriptions of what justice is and Islam in Afghanistan has never corrected. While I realize there are probably many sensible Muslims, but when I see and hear of groups of Muslims in outrage to the point of describing or initiating physical harm against another person for the sole transgression of burning Koran pages then there is something severely wrong.

I understand the voice of moderates are probably not being heard, but there is something severely wrong. Secondly trying to decouple the culture in Afghanistan which would allow a group of people to attack a woman from the street just because an Inmam accused of her burning pages of the Koran from Islam is like trying to split fur from a cat. It just makes no sense.

There is a culture of intolerance and righteousness in Afghanistan and it plays right into Islam's hands and Sharia Law. During Taliban rule it was not uncommon to have stonings by the public.

Lastly, trying to assume that Muhammad was not influenced by Judaism and the culture that spread from Jews living near Medina and Mecca is wishful thinking. Even if Muhammad gained his knowledge and understanding only from God and had no interactions with any Jews or passive influences from the Jewish communities he was near, it is the same God as the Jewish God, thus the abramic religions.

Don't fall into the politics and deny the roots of Islam.

29:46 AYA
And do not argue/dispute with The Book's people except with which it is best , except those who were unjust/oppressive from them, and say: "We believed with what was descended on (to) us, and was descended to you, and our God, and your God (is) one, and we are to Him Moslems/submitters ."

Is the problem truly Islam? After all, 95% of our nation professes to be Christian, and Christianity is filled with the same barbarism you label "Abrahamic theism". There are writers like Tolstoy who advocate a startlingly clear moral vision based upon Christian influence - it is not only a tradition of barbarism.

Is it possible for Islam to moderate or to become peaceful? If so, why do you consider the problem to be Islam, and not whatever is preventing this moderation from occurring? Hopefully you understand the assertion behind my questions...that perhaps Islam is not the problem, and something else is, and determining exactly what that "something else" is is what we should be focusing upon.

My own answer comes from the movie "A Separation"...it clearly depicts religious fundamentalism as finding strong roots in a disenfranchised and impoverished Iranian working class. Strangely enough, with wealth comes moderation. Money is the root of ALL...not just evil.

I'll grant you this, a religion is never the exact problem. It is people who interpret a religion who are the problem. If it were just say 10,000 people in the world who felt that burning pages in the Koran was punishable by death then I would just say that, yes it is an anomaly and a group of people who perverted the religion.

The problem in Afghanistan is that it is not a minority. The Taliban did not rule the nation for decades because they were a small minority. The Taliban did have complete control and executed plenty of citizens who had transgressions against their interpretation of Islam. It is short sighted to try to separate Sharia Law and Islam from the people who are in charge of enacting justice in the country because it largely has been the religion which shaped the definition of justice.

I can argue all day that Islam is really a peaceful religion, but in Afghanistan, it is not a peaceful religion. The way Islam is used in the country is one filled with injustice, evil, and cruelty. It is hard to find a middle east country where that is not true.

Let's work with the underlined and control for the religious impulse. So, why do these people want to inflict such pain in the name of Islam? Is it because it's their very nature? What does that mean, "their very nature"? Does it mean that they were born that way (an assertion I hope you will agree with is exceptionally racist), or did circumstances shape these people to become such brutal rulers?

If you accept that brutal circumstances shape brutal rulers, then wouldn't the issue be to "de-brutalize" these conditions? I mean, the Nazis were born out of Germany insolvency, hyperinflation, and imminent extinction, Genghis Khan was born out of an environment that would make Afghanistan look like paradise.

That is exactly right. There is only one method that has high probability of successfully de-brutalizing any type of leadership, which are principles of individual rights. Those principles are the failure point of Islam. It requires secular governance because Islamic governance by nature does not respect individual rights and instead regulates morality as a group and individual.

That is exactly why countries such as Turkey are more moderate. Principles of individual rights are superseding fundamental Islamic principles. That is relatively new. I think just back in the 80's adultery was punishable by law there. The only majority Islam nation that does not persecute adultery that comes to mind is Turkey.

Islam and the culture that grew from it, is vile and evil and it is fundamental to its tenants.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 9:54:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 9:34:29 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2015 8:55:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2015 8:46:22 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2015 8:33:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2015 8:16:23 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/24/2015 7:24:42 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 3/24/2015 6:33:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
I'm not certain what you are fishing for. Do you deny that the Talamud and Jewish influence with justice and other Jewish law had an influence on Islam? I realize that Muslims have taken it to an entirely new level by freaking out by the thought of burning some pages in a sacred text, but you would be in denial if you thought Mohammad was closer in principles to the Quraysh than the Jews of the time.
Yes, I do. When one asserts that a text was influenced by another, one means it did not originate through perfectly independent thought, which was, fortunately, not the case for the Quran. At least, we do not have a sound reason for thinking it was influenced by anything, in spite of similarities with texts revealed earlier. Furthermore, even putting this was aside, we have no reason to assume that occurrences like the one this topic revolves around have strong connections to Islam. The religion is not defined by uneducated, non-scholarly individuals, who certainly are not even the majority.

It has strong ties with a culture that was built around harsh descriptions of what justice is and Islam in Afghanistan has never corrected. While I realize there are probably many sensible Muslims, but when I see and hear of groups of Muslims in outrage to the point of describing or initiating physical harm against another person for the sole transgression of burning Koran pages then there is something severely wrong.

I understand the voice of moderates are probably not being heard, but there is something severely wrong. Secondly trying to decouple the culture in Afghanistan which would allow a group of people to attack a woman from the street just because an Inmam accused of her burning pages of the Koran from Islam is like trying to split fur from a cat. It just makes no sense.

There is a culture of intolerance and righteousness in Afghanistan and it plays right into Islam's hands and Sharia Law. During Taliban rule it was not uncommon to have stonings by the public.

Lastly, trying to assume that Muhammad was not influenced by Judaism and the culture that spread from Jews living near Medina and Mecca is wishful thinking. Even if Muhammad gained his knowledge and understanding only from God and had no interactions with any Jews or passive influences from the Jewish communities he was near, it is the same God as the Jewish God, thus the abramic religions.

Don't fall into the politics and deny the roots of Islam.

29:46 AYA
And do not argue/dispute with The Book's people except with which it is best , except those who were unjust/oppressive from them, and say: "We believed with what was descended on (to) us, and was descended to you, and our God, and your God (is) one, and we are to Him Moslems/submitters ."

Is the problem truly Islam? After all, 95% of our nation professes to be Christian, and Christianity is filled with the same barbarism you label "Abrahamic theism". There are writers like Tolstoy who advocate a startlingly clear moral vision based upon Christian influence - it is not only a tradition of barbarism.

Is it possible for Islam to moderate or to become peaceful? If so, why do you consider the problem to be Islam, and not whatever is preventing this moderation from occurring? Hopefully you understand the assertion behind my questions...that perhaps Islam is not the problem, and something else is, and determining exactly what that "something else" is is what we should be focusing upon.

My own answer comes from the movie "A Separation"...it clearly depicts religious fundamentalism as finding strong roots in a disenfranchised and impoverished Iranian working class. Strangely enough, with wealth comes moderation. Money is the root of ALL...not just evil.

I'll grant you this, a religion is never the exact problem. It is people who interpret a religion who are the problem. If it were just say 10,000 people in the world who felt that burning pages in the Koran was punishable by death then I would just say that, yes it is an anomaly and a group of people who perverted the religion.

The problem in Afghanistan is that it is not a minority. The Taliban did not rule the nation for decades because they were a small minority. The Taliban did have complete control and executed plenty of citizens who had transgressions against their interpretation of Islam. It is short sighted to try to separate Sharia Law and Islam from the people who are in charge of enacting justice in the country because it largely has been the religion which shaped the definition of justice.

I can argue all day that Islam is really a peaceful religion, but in Afghanistan, it is not a peaceful religion. The way Islam is used in the country is one filled with injustice, evil, and cruelty. It is hard to find a middle east country where that is not true.

Let's work with the underlined and control for the religious impulse. So, why do these people want to inflict such pain in the name of Islam? Is it because it's their very nature? What does that mean, "their very nature"? Does it mean that they were born that way (an assertion I hope you will agree with is exceptionally racist), or did circumstances shape these people to become such brutal rulers?

If you accept that brutal circumstances shape brutal rulers, then wouldn't the issue be to "de-brutalize" these conditions? I mean, the Nazis were born out of Germany insolvency, hyperinflation, and imminent extinction, Genghis Khan was born out of an environment that would make Afghanistan look like paradise.

That is exactly right. There is only one method that has high probability of successfully de-brutalizing any type of leadership, which are principles of individual rights. Those principles are the failure point of Islam. It requires secular governance because Islamic governance by nature does not respect individual rights and instead regulates morality as a group and individual.

That is exactly why countries such as Turkey are more moderate. Principles of individual rights are superseding fundamental Islamic principles. That is relatively new. I think just back in the 80's adultery was punishable by law there. The only majority Islam nation that does not persecute adultery that comes to mind is Turkey.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I just want to point out that the US military still punishes adultery.
http://usmilitary.about.com...

Islam and the culture that grew from it, is vile and evil and it is fundamental to its tenants.
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?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 10:06:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/24/2015 1:08:19 PM, slo1 wrote:
What is to discuss. Afghanistan and Pakistan are vile places. This culture is based upon abrahamic theism and has never come out of the dark ages. It is proof positive that theism can not bring forth objective morality. I would rather trust my spirituality to a bunch of humanist atheists than these poor excuses of humans.

I can't believe we spent so much money and American blood in Afghanistan trying to set up a legitimate gov after removing the Taliban.

The latest fad in modern politics. Give the public a war to watch so you won't see the magicians siphoning the homeland dry.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 11:29:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 9:54:37 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2015 9:34:29 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2015 8:55:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2015 8:46:22 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2015 8:33:01 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2015 8:16:23 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/24/2015 7:24:42 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 3/24/2015 6:33:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
I'm not certain what you are fishing for. Do you deny that the Talamud and Jewish influence with justice and other Jewish law had an influence on Islam? I realize that Muslims have taken it to an entirely new level by freaking out by the thought of burning some pages in a sacred text, but you would be in denial if you thought Mohammad was closer in principles to the Quraysh than the Jews of the time.
Yes, I do. When one asserts that a text was influenced by another, one means it did not originate through perfectly independent thought, which was, fortunately, not the case for the Quran. At least, we do not have a sound reason for thinking it was influenced by anything, in spite of similarities with texts revealed earlier. Furthermore, even putting this was aside, we have no reason to assume that occurrences like the one this topic revolves around have strong connections to Islam. The religion is not defined by uneducated, non-scholarly individuals, who certainly are not even the majority.

It has strong ties with a culture that was built around harsh descriptions of what justice is and Islam in Afghanistan has never corrected. While I realize there are probably many sensible Muslims, but when I see and hear of groups of Muslims in outrage to the point of describing or initiating physical harm against another person for the sole transgression of burning Koran pages then there is something severely wrong.

I understand the voice of moderates are probably not being heard, but there is something severely wrong. Secondly trying to decouple the culture in Afghanistan which would allow a group of people to attack a woman from the street just because an Inmam accused of her burning pages of the Koran from Islam is like trying to split fur from a cat. It just makes no sense.

There is a culture of intolerance and righteousness in Afghanistan and it plays right into Islam's hands and Sharia Law. During Taliban rule it was not uncommon to have stonings by the public.

Lastly, trying to assume that Muhammad was not influenced by Judaism and the culture that spread from Jews living near Medina and Mecca is wishful thinking. Even if Muhammad gained his knowledge and understanding only from God and had no interactions with any Jews or passive influences from the Jewish communities he was near, it is the same God as the Jewish God, thus the abramic religions.

Don't fall into the politics and deny the roots of Islam.

29:46 AYA
And do not argue/dispute with The Book's people except with which it is best , except those who were unjust/oppressive from them, and say: "We believed with what was descended on (to) us, and was descended to you, and our God, and your God (is) one, and we are to Him Moslems/submitters ."

Is the problem truly Islam? After all, 95% of our nation professes to be Christian, and Christianity is filled with the same barbarism you label "Abrahamic theism". There are writers like Tolstoy who advocate a startlingly clear moral vision based upon Christian influence - it is not only a tradition of barbarism.

Is it possible for Islam to moderate or to become peaceful? If so, why do you consider the problem to be Islam, and not whatever is preventing this moderation from occurring? Hopefully you understand the assertion behind my questions...that perhaps Islam is not the problem, and something else is, and determining exactly what that "something else" is is what we should be focusing upon.

My own answer comes from the movie "A Separation"...it clearly depicts religious fundamentalism as finding strong roots in a disenfranchised and impoverished Iranian working class. Strangely enough, with wealth comes moderation. Money is the root of ALL...not just evil.

I'll grant you this, a religion is never the exact problem. It is people who interpret a religion who are the problem. If it were just say 10,000 people in the world who felt that burning pages in the Koran was punishable by death then I would just say that, yes it is an anomaly and a group of people who perverted the religion.

The problem in Afghanistan is that it is not a minority. The Taliban did not rule the nation for decades because they were a small minority. The Taliban did have complete control and executed plenty of citizens who had transgressions against their interpretation of Islam. It is short sighted to try to separate Sharia Law and Islam from the people who are in charge of enacting justice in the country because it largely has been the religion which shaped the definition of justice.

I can argue all day that Islam is really a peaceful religion, but in Afghanistan, it is not a peaceful religion. The way Islam is used in the country is one filled with injustice, evil, and cruelty. It is hard to find a middle east country where that is not true.

Let's work with the underlined and control for the religious impulse. So, why do these people want to inflict such pain in the name of Islam? Is it because it's their very nature? What does that mean, "their very nature"? Does it mean that they were born that way (an assertion I hope you will agree with is exceptionally racist), or did circumstances shape these people to become such brutal rulers?

If you accept that brutal circumstances shape brutal rulers, then wouldn't the issue be to "de-brutalize" these conditions? I mean, the Nazis were born out of Germany insolvency, hyperinflation, and imminent extinction, Genghis Khan was born out of an environment that would make Afghanistan look like paradise.

That is exactly right. There is only one method that has high probability of successfully de-brutalizing any type of leadership, which are principles of individual rights. Those principles are the failure point of Islam. It requires secular governance because Islamic governance by nature does not respect individual rights and instead regulates morality as a group and individual.

That is exactly why countries such as Turkey are more moderate. Principles of individual rights are superseding fundamental Islamic principles. That is relatively new. I think just back in the 80's adultery was punishable by law there. The only majority Islam nation that does not persecute adultery that comes to mind is Turkey.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I just want to point out that the US military still punishes adultery.
http://usmilitary.about.com...


And it should be eliminated as a practice. A commanding officer doinking a subordinate or even two colleagues in the same company doinking should be punished regardless of whether one is married or not as it is a disruption to "good order." It should also be noted the level of punishment is not anywhere in the same realm of Islamic states. I'm not certain now, but I know that during Iraq war it was a discharge where one kept standing and benefits if that was the only offense.

Islam and the culture that grew from it, is vile and evil and it is fundamental to its tenants.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 11:32:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 11:29:43 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2015 9:54:37 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2015 9:34:29 AM, slo1 wrote:

That is exactly why countries such as Turkey are more moderate. Principles of individual rights are superseding fundamental Islamic principles. That is relatively new. I think just back in the 80's adultery was punishable by law there. The only majority Islam nation that does not persecute adultery that comes to mind is Turkey.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I just want to point out that the US military still punishes adultery.
http://usmilitary.about.com...


And it should be eliminated as a practice. A commanding officer doinking a subordinate or even two colleagues in the same company doinking should be punished regardless of whether one is married or not as it is a disruption to "good order." It should also be noted the level of punishment is not anywhere in the same realm of Islamic states. I'm not certain now, but I know that during Iraq war it was a discharge where one kept standing and benefits if that was the only offense.

What consequences, if any, do you foresee from decriminalizing "inappropriate" or even just promiscuous sexual behavior?
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?
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 11:35:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 11:32:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2015 11:29:43 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2015 9:54:37 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2015 9:34:29 AM, slo1 wrote:

That is exactly why countries such as Turkey are more moderate. Principles of individual rights are superseding fundamental Islamic principles. That is relatively new. I think just back in the 80's adultery was punishable by law there. The only majority Islam nation that does not persecute adultery that comes to mind is Turkey.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I just want to point out that the US military still punishes adultery.
http://usmilitary.about.com...


And it should be eliminated as a practice. A commanding officer doinking a subordinate or even two colleagues in the same company doinking should be punished regardless of whether one is married or not as it is a disruption to "good order." It should also be noted the level of punishment is not anywhere in the same realm of Islamic states. I'm not certain now, but I know that during Iraq war it was a discharge where one kept standing and benefits if that was the only offense.

What consequences, if any, do you foresee from decriminalizing "inappropriate" or even just promiscuous sexual behavior?

I'm not advocating the decriminalizing promiscuous sexual behavior in the military. Whether one is engaging in promiscuous sexual behavior which disrupts military command and control it is irrelevant to whether one of the accused is married or not.

In both cases married and not married it is a disruption and the military has the right to persecute for that disruption.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 11:39:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 11:35:59 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2015 11:32:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2015 11:29:43 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2015 9:54:37 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2015 9:34:29 AM, slo1 wrote:

That is exactly why countries such as Turkey are more moderate. Principles of individual rights are superseding fundamental Islamic principles. That is relatively new. I think just back in the 80's adultery was punishable by law there. The only majority Islam nation that does not persecute adultery that comes to mind is Turkey.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I just want to point out that the US military still punishes adultery.
http://usmilitary.about.com...


And it should be eliminated as a practice. A commanding officer doinking a subordinate or even two colleagues in the same company doinking should be punished regardless of whether one is married or not as it is a disruption to "good order." It should also be noted the level of punishment is not anywhere in the same realm of Islamic states. I'm not certain now, but I know that during Iraq war it was a discharge where one kept standing and benefits if that was the only offense.

What consequences, if any, do you foresee from decriminalizing "inappropriate" or even just promiscuous sexual behavior?

I'm not advocating the decriminalizing promiscuous sexual behavior in the military. Whether one is engaging in promiscuous sexual behavior which disrupts military command and control it is irrelevant to whether one of the accused is married or not.

In both cases married and not married it is a disruption and the military has the right to persecute for that disruption.

Ah, I see. What about outside the military? Your argument also describes a general advocacy for some sort of laws against quasi-nepotistic behavior.

Or, what about outside the workplace? Here I'm talking about relaxation of statutes assigning fault in divorce laws.
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?
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 11:49:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 11:39:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2015 11:35:59 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2015 11:32:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2015 11:29:43 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2015 9:54:37 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/25/2015 9:34:29 AM, slo1 wrote:

That is exactly why countries such as Turkey are more moderate. Principles of individual rights are superseding fundamental Islamic principles. That is relatively new. I think just back in the 80's adultery was punishable by law there. The only majority Islam nation that does not persecute adultery that comes to mind is Turkey.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I just want to point out that the US military still punishes adultery.
http://usmilitary.about.com...


And it should be eliminated as a practice. A commanding officer doinking a subordinate or even two colleagues in the same company doinking should be punished regardless of whether one is married or not as it is a disruption to "good order." It should also be noted the level of punishment is not anywhere in the same realm of Islamic states. I'm not certain now, but I know that during Iraq war it was a discharge where one kept standing and benefits if that was the only offense.

What consequences, if any, do you foresee from decriminalizing "inappropriate" or even just promiscuous sexual behavior?

I'm not advocating the decriminalizing promiscuous sexual behavior in the military. Whether one is engaging in promiscuous sexual behavior which disrupts military command and control it is irrelevant to whether one of the accused is married or not.

In both cases married and not married it is a disruption and the military has the right to persecute for that disruption.

Ah, I see. What about outside the military? Your argument also describes a general advocacy for some sort of laws against quasi-nepotistic behavior.

Or, what about outside the workplace? Here I'm talking about relaxation of statutes assigning fault in divorce laws.

No fault was the right direction to go with divorce laws. It is no business of the government of why a party wants to dissolve a marriage. They do have an obligation of ensuring a level of equity when dissolving the legal agreement so individual rights are not blatantly disregarded or abused, such as the breadwinner taking all the money acquired during the marriage and leaving nothing for the ex-spouse. When involved with determining the fate of minors in a divorce, material matters such as adultery, drug use, and other factors may be used in figuring out what is best for the minor in terms of guardianship.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 12:13:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 9:34:29 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2015 8:55:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Let's work with the underlined and control for the religious impulse. So, why do these people want to inflict such pain in the name of Islam? Is it because it's their very nature? What does that mean, "their very nature"? Does it mean that they were born that way (an assertion I hope you will agree with is exceptionally racist), or did circumstances shape these people to become such brutal rulers?

If you accept that brutal circumstances shape brutal rulers, then wouldn't the issue be to "de-brutalize" these conditions? I mean, the Nazis were born out of Germany insolvency, hyperinflation, and imminent extinction, Genghis Khan was born out of an environment that would make Afghanistan look like paradise.

That is exactly right. There is only one method that has high probability of successfully de-brutalizing any type of leadership, which are principles of individual rights. Those principles are the failure point of Islam. It requires secular governance because Islamic governance by nature does not respect individual rights and instead regulates morality as a group and individual.

That is exactly why countries such as Turkey are more moderate. Principles of individual rights are superseding fundamental Islamic principles. That is relatively new. I think just back in the 80's adultery was punishable by law there. The only majority Islam nation that does not persecute adultery that comes to mind is Turkey.

I think that this is all a bit pointless. Societies and governments evolve to fit the societies which they rule. It's evolution of a sort, natural selection on the international stage, and I think that Islam did much more good in the Middle East than the alternative of a fractured region. Just look at the absolute destruction of the Sassanian-Roman war; Islam ended that and brought stability to the region. It united a lot of different religious minorities by violating rights in a way which made things like widespread conversion from one religion to another illegal.

I think that a big reason that the US could formulate and enshrine a protection of rights in to our Constitutions is our foundation on a new continent, the displacement of the natives, and the absence of any sort of tribal attachment to land or disparate religious minorities with centuries of blood feuds between them. We never had to deal with those problems, so the idea that the violation of the rights which we have may have been a political necessity in a different time and place falls a bit flat.

Even Europe, largely liberalized through our influence during the Cold War, still struggles with this sort of thing in some aspects (the forceful relocation of Roma, a lot of established religions, free speech encroachments, etc.) We had a 'clean slate' to build on, due to our genocide of the Native Americans. There was little to no sectarian or ethnic baggage to account for.

Islam and the culture that grew from it, is vile and evil and it is fundamental to its tenants.

That's a little out there, don't you think? I mean, A LOT of the developments in the sciences and especially in the medical world come from Islamic scholars, as well as philosophical and historical works. Jewish, Manichean, Christian, or even atheist scholars who operated within the Islamic world also contributed to the impressive corpus of works, which itself was an essential influence on the successive European milieus which lead to the Enlightenment and the conception of rights.
"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 -
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 12:29:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 12:13:25 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/25/2015 9:34:29 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2015 8:55:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Let's work with the underlined and control for the religious impulse. So, why do these people want to inflict such pain in the name of Islam? Is it because it's their very nature? What does that mean, "their very nature"? Does it mean that they were born that way (an assertion I hope you will agree with is exceptionally racist), or did circumstances shape these people to become such brutal rulers?

If you accept that brutal circumstances shape brutal rulers, then wouldn't the issue be to "de-brutalize" these conditions? I mean, the Nazis were born out of Germany insolvency, hyperinflation, and imminent extinction, Genghis Khan was born out of an environment that would make Afghanistan look like paradise.

That is exactly right. There is only one method that has high probability of successfully de-brutalizing any type of leadership, which are principles of individual rights. Those principles are the failure point of Islam. It requires secular governance because Islamic governance by nature does not respect individual rights and instead regulates morality as a group and individual.

That is exactly why countries such as Turkey are more moderate. Principles of individual rights are superseding fundamental Islamic principles. That is relatively new. I think just back in the 80's adultery was punishable by law there. The only majority Islam nation that does not persecute adultery that comes to mind is Turkey.

I think that this is all a bit pointless. Societies and governments evolve to fit the societies which they rule. It's evolution of a sort, natural selection on the international stage, and I think that Islam did much more good in the Middle East than the alternative of a fractured region. Just look at the absolute destruction of the Sassanian-Roman war; Islam ended that and brought stability to the region. It united a lot of different religious minorities by violating rights in a way which made things like widespread conversion from one religion to another illegal.

I think that a big reason that the US could formulate and enshrine a protection of rights in to our Constitutions is our foundation on a new continent, the displacement of the natives, and the absence of any sort of tribal attachment to land or disparate religious minorities with centuries of blood feuds between them. We never had to deal with those problems, so the idea that the violation of the rights which we have may have been a political necessity in a different time and place falls a bit flat.

Even Europe, largely liberalized through our influence during the Cold War, still struggles with this sort of thing in some aspects (the forceful relocation of Roma, a lot of established religions, free speech encroachments, etc.) We had a 'clean slate' to build on, due to our genocide of the Native Americans. There was little to no sectarian or ethnic baggage to account for.

Islam and the culture that grew from it, is vile and evil and it is fundamental to its tenants.

That's a little out there, don't you think? I mean, A LOT of the developments in the sciences and especially in the medical world come from Islamic scholars, as well as philosophical and historical works. Jewish, Manichean, Christian, or even atheist scholars who operated within the Islamic world also contributed to the impressive corpus of works, which itself was an essential influence on the successive European milieus which lead to the Enlightenment and the conception of rights.

You are right. I did not present an accurate full picture of society influenced from Islam. As you mention there has been good things and there continue to be good things. There are millions and millions of decent Muslims who could function in a secular society. Let me be a little more specific. As an aggregate as of today Islam and the resulting culture of morality and justice is vile and evil in many ways.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 1:11:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 12:29:01 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2015 12:13:25 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/25/2015 9:34:29 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/25/2015 8:55:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Let's work with the underlined and control for the religious impulse. So, why do these people want to inflict such pain in the name of Islam? Is it because it's their very nature? What does that mean, "their very nature"? Does it mean that they were born that way (an assertion I hope you will agree with is exceptionally racist), or did circumstances shape these people to become such brutal rulers?

If you accept that brutal circumstances shape brutal rulers, then wouldn't the issue be to "de-brutalize" these conditions? I mean, the Nazis were born out of Germany insolvency, hyperinflation, and imminent extinction, Genghis Khan was born out of an environment that would make Afghanistan look like paradise.

That is exactly right. There is only one method that has high probability of successfully de-brutalizing any type of leadership, which are principles of individual rights. Those principles are the failure point of Islam. It requires secular governance because Islamic governance by nature does not respect individual rights and instead regulates morality as a group and individual.

That is exactly why countries such as Turkey are more moderate. Principles of individual rights are superseding fundamental Islamic principles. That is relatively new. I think just back in the 80's adultery was punishable by law there. The only majority Islam nation that does not persecute adultery that comes to mind is Turkey.

I think that this is all a bit pointless. Societies and governments evolve to fit the societies which they rule. It's evolution of a sort, natural selection on the international stage, and I think that Islam did much more good in the Middle East than the alternative of a fractured region. Just look at the absolute destruction of the Sassanian-Roman war; Islam ended that and brought stability to the region. It united a lot of different religious minorities by violating rights in a way which made things like widespread conversion from one religion to another illegal.

I think that a big reason that the US could formulate and enshrine a protection of rights in to our Constitutions is our foundation on a new continent, the displacement of the natives, and the absence of any sort of tribal attachment to land or disparate religious minorities with centuries of blood feuds between them. We never had to deal with those problems, so the idea that the violation of the rights which we have may have been a political necessity in a different time and place falls a bit flat.

Even Europe, largely liberalized through our influence during the Cold War, still struggles with this sort of thing in some aspects (the forceful relocation of Roma, a lot of established religions, free speech encroachments, etc.) We had a 'clean slate' to build on, due to our genocide of the Native Americans. There was little to no sectarian or ethnic baggage to account for.

Islam and the culture that grew from it, is vile and evil and it is fundamental to its tenants.

That's a little out there, don't you think? I mean, A LOT of the developments in the sciences and especially in the medical world come from Islamic scholars, as well as philosophical and historical works. Jewish, Manichean, Christian, or even atheist scholars who operated within the Islamic world also contributed to the impressive corpus of works, which itself was an essential influence on the successive European milieus which lead to the Enlightenment and the conception of rights.

You are right. I did not present an accurate full picture of society influenced from Islam. As you mention there has been good things and there continue to be good things. There are millions and millions of decent Muslims who could function in a secular society. Let me be a little more specific. As an aggregate as of today Islam and the resulting culture of morality and justice is vile and evil in many ways.

Yeah, I disagree pretty fervently with Wahhabism and the recent, more political incarnations of Usulu Shia Islam which are causing so much harm in the Middle East. Too many of the moderate, traditional voices have been sidelined. And the Taliban is just a fanatical militia, really, a lot of their teachings coming from Azzam, who has always been more of a prominent radical political figure than a respected scholarly one. I think that these forces are thriving because of the intense political friction in the area, and I predict that they'll fade with the eventual coming of stability and a return to their more moderate traditions.
"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 -