Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Islam or Islamophobia?

vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 12:08:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.samharris.org...

This is a remarkable document. Read it closely, and you will pass through the looking glass. The organizers of this conference believe (with good reason) that "extremist" views are not rare among Muslims, even in the West. And they consider the media"s denial of this fact to be a symptom of" Islamophobia. The serpent of obscurantism has finally begun to devour its own tail. Apparently, it is a sign of racism to imagine that only a tiny minority of Muslims could actually condone the subjugation of women and the murder of apostates. How dare you call us "extremists" when we represent so many? We are not extreme. This is Islam. They have a point. And it is time for secular liberals and (truly) moderate Muslims to stop denying it.

Islamic apologists, your thoughts?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 1:37:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/8/2013 12:08:52 AM, vbaculum wrote:

This is a remarkable document. Read it closely, and you will pass through the looking glass. The organizers of this conference believe (with good reason) that "extremist" views are not rare among Muslims, even in the West. And they consider the media"s denial of this fact to be a symptom of" Islamophobia. The serpent of obscurantism has finally begun to devour its own tail. Apparently, it is a sign of racism to imagine that only a tiny minority of Muslims could actually condone the subjugation of women and the murder of apostates. How dare you call us "extremists" when we represent so many? We are not extreme. This is Islam. They have a point. And it is time for secular liberals and (truly) moderate Muslims to stop denying it.

Islamic apologists, your thoughts?

Wow! Just another reason that shows how religion truly can destroy rational thought. These people need some serious help.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 5:48:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would say that the views of most muslims are quite extreme. But many muslims also struggle with their own views. I used to.
Most muslims may agree with many of the extreme instructions of the quran and the ahadith (there is some statistical evidence for this, alhtough highly unreliable), but many would never act upon them.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 6:19:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Extreme" is subjective, and varies from group to group.

Most countries in the world consider the US to be extreme. We bomb people, overthrow governments, support radical/terrorist regimes, and torture people. By Sam Harris's logic, we are all extreme radicals, since we fund these atrocities (taxes), and don't actively protest against it.

By the same token many Americans think some Muslim views are radical, since they tend to favor stoning and female discrimination.

Its not Islamaphobic to point out the latter, but it IS Islamaphobic to do so while not acknowledging the former.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 7:21:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/8/2013 6:19:38 PM, HPWKA wrote:
"Extreme" is subjective, and varies from group to group.

Most countries in the world consider the US to be extreme. We bomb people, overthrow governments, support radical/terrorist regimes, and torture people. By Sam Harris's logic, we are all extreme radicals, since we fund these atrocities (taxes), and don't actively protest against it.

By the same token many Americans think some Muslim views are radical, since they tend to favor stoning and female discrimination.

Its not Islamaphobic to point out the latter, but it IS Islamaphobic to do so while not acknowledging the former.

beautifully said. couldn't agree more.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 3:56:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
While I understand a lot of the sentiments about moderate versus extremist presented on the forum. I have to wonder if the posters have watched the embedded video. This is moderate Islam saying they agree with extremist Islam. So to try characterise them as two separate groups is difficult.

What Islam really requires is a rewriting or new sect to form and get rid of the old theological garbage. Pretty much like many Christian groups have done when they split from the earlier churches.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 7:10:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 3:56:18 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
While I understand a lot of the sentiments about moderate versus extremist presented on the forum. I have to wonder if the posters have watched the embedded video. This is moderate Islam saying they agree with extremist Islam. So to try characterise them as two separate groups is difficult.

What Islam really requires is a rewriting or new sect to form and get rid of the old theological garbage. Pretty much like many Christian groups have done when they split from the earlier churches.

The speakers in this video in no way represent moderate Islam and neither does this particular crowd. Look them up please. This is a crowd of salamis. This would be like saying John hagee and pat robertson's crowds represent moderate Christianity.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 7:12:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I can guarantee you that a lot of the young men and women in there are just raising their hands even though they are not totally comfortable with what is being said.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 7:13:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 7:10:55 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 11/9/2013 3:56:18 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
While I understand a lot of the sentiments about moderate versus extremist presented on the forum. I have to wonder if the posters have watched the embedded video. This is moderate Islam saying they agree with extremist Islam. So to try characterise them as two separate groups is difficult.

What Islam really requires is a rewriting or new sect to form and get rid of the old theological garbage. Pretty much like many Christian groups have done when they split from the earlier churches.

The speakers in this video in no way represent moderate Islam and neither does this particular crowd. Look them up please. This is a crowd of salamis. This would be like saying John hagee and pat robertson's crowds represent moderate Christianity.
*salafists not salamis lol.... Autocorrect
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 7:32:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 7:10:55 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 11/9/2013 3:56:18 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
While I understand a lot of the sentiments about moderate versus extremist presented on the forum. I have to wonder if the posters have watched the embedded video. This is moderate Islam saying they agree with extremist Islam. So to try characterise them as two separate groups is difficult.

What Islam really requires is a rewriting or new sect to form and get rid of the old theological garbage. Pretty much like many Christian groups have done when they split from the earlier churches.

The speakers in this video in no way represent moderate Islam and neither does this particular crowd. Look them up please. This is a crowd of salamis. This would be like saying John hagee and pat robertson's crowds represent moderate Christianity.

But that is what I mean this in essence is what Sam Harris is saying. The fact is that moderate Islam is a very small group and that this group needs to stand up and say no more will we tolerate this rubbish.

BTW I did chuckle when I read the salami....I was confused until I saw the later comment.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 9:45:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 7:32:13 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/9/2013 7:10:55 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 11/9/2013 3:56:18 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
While I understand a lot of the sentiments about moderate versus extremist presented on the forum. I have to wonder if the posters have watched the embedded video. This is moderate Islam saying they agree with extremist Islam. So to try characterise them as two separate groups is difficult.

What Islam really requires is a rewriting or new sect to form and get rid of the old theological garbage. Pretty much like many Christian groups have done when they split from the earlier churches.

The speakers in this video in no way represent moderate Islam and neither does this particular crowd. Look them up please. This is a crowd of salamis. This would be like saying John hagee and pat robertson's crowds represent moderate Christianity.

But that is what I mean this in essence is what Sam Harris is saying. The fact is that moderate Islam is a very small group and that this group needs to stand up and say no more will we tolerate this rubbish.

BTW I did chuckle when I read the salami....I was confused until I saw the later comment.

I think the real solution lies in realizing that it's all just one big messed up fairy tale concocted by ancient desert dwelling nomads.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:24:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 9:45:30 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 11/9/2013 7:32:13 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/9/2013 7:10:55 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 11/9/2013 3:56:18 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
While I understand a lot of the sentiments about moderate versus extremist presented on the forum. I have to wonder if the posters have watched the embedded video. This is moderate Islam saying they agree with extremist Islam. So to try characterise them as two separate groups is difficult.

What Islam really requires is a rewriting or new sect to form and get rid of the old theological garbage. Pretty much like many Christian groups have done when they split from the earlier churches.

The speakers in this video in no way represent moderate Islam and neither does this particular crowd. Look them up please. This is a crowd of salamis. This would be like saying John hagee and pat robertson's crowds represent moderate Christianity.

But that is what I mean this in essence is what Sam Harris is saying. The fact is that moderate Islam is a very small group and that this group needs to stand up and say no more will we tolerate this rubbish.

BTW I did chuckle when I read the salami....I was confused until I saw the later comment.

I think the real solution lies in realizing that it's all just one big messed up fairy tale concocted by ancient desert dwelling nomads.

Now that I agree with 100%. I saw a great picture the other day it said "Christianity, one women's adultery lie that got completely out of control."
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 7:49:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think there is a huge misconception in your mind.

All Muslims that stick to Islam as a religion stick to all the values in the Quran and Sunna, those are the practicing Muslims, they agree with the punishments and all regulations of social life, but those things can only be applied by a Muslim government! there are rulings meant for believing women, there are rulings meant for believing men, there are rulings for the believing sick people , there are rulings for the wealthy , and for the poor, and there are rulings for the governments, the gap in your mind is that you think the government stuff should be done by individuals. stoning and adulterer or a homosexual is the government job, not the individuals job.

All believing Muslims believe in the punishments, moderate Muslims know it's a government duty, extremists may believe they have to do it individually and they are few. they believe they should kill all disbelievers!! and this is a view that isn't even in the scripture!

You can't claim to be a Muslim and say adultery is OK, or thief is ok, or murder is ok .

Just as you can't be a Jew and clam these things are OK. if you do you then disbelieved in your scripture and you no longer can be called a Muslim or Jew.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 8:41:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 7:49:02 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
I think there is a huge misconception in your mind.

All Muslims that stick to Islam as a religion stick to all the values in the Quran and Sunna, those are the practicing Muslims, they agree with the punishments and all regulations of social life, but those things can only be applied by a Muslim government! there are rulings meant for believing women, there are rulings meant for believing men, there are rulings for the believing sick people , there are rulings for the wealthy , and for the poor, and there are rulings for the governments, the gap in your mind is that you think the government stuff should be done by individuals. stoning and adulterer or a homosexual is the government job, not the individuals job.

All believing Muslims believe in the punishments, moderate Muslims know it's a government duty, extremists may believe they have to do it individually and they are few. they believe they should kill all disbelievers!! and this is a view that isn't even in the scripture!

You can't claim to be a Muslim and say adultery is OK, or thief is ok, or murder is ok .

Just as you can't be a Jew and clam these things are OK. if you do you then disbelieved in your scripture and you no longer can be called a Muslim or Jew.

Just as you cannot be a Muslim and accept that women are equal to men? This is why religion is dangerous as it accepts these stone age concepts.

There is no reason to talk about murder or theft, as most people will tell you those are wrong as it has to do with simple survival techniques.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 8:59:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Fruity thinks men marrying and having sex with girls under 10 is okay, so I wouldn't expect a lot of sense out of her in terms of moral discourse; god said it's cool so it's cool. Presumably she likes being a second-class citizen with few rights or powers because it helps sooth the guilt she feels about tacitly condoning paedophilia, rape and more general violence against women. If she were to accept that she has the same rights and powers as men, she'd have to get up and do something about such foul behaviour.

But sadly the greatest danger of religion is that people will cling more tightly to it out of fear than they will cling to their capacity for moral agency. I do not think it surprise or coincidence that the world's two most similar and established religions have shown time and again that when it comes down to a choice between protecting children from sexual abuse and protecting their own comforting fairy stories from criticism, they have both repeatedly and systematically opted for the latter at the expense of the former.

I am not sure what word would accurately describe such people, if not 'evil'.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 11:47:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 8:41:52 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/10/2013 7:49:02 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
I think there is a huge misconception in your mind.

All Muslims that stick to Islam as a religion stick to all the values in the Quran and Sunna, those are the practicing Muslims, they agree with the punishments and all regulations of social life, but those things can only be applied by a Muslim government! there are rulings meant for believing women, there are rulings meant for believing men, there are rulings for the believing sick people , there are rulings for the wealthy , and for the poor, and there are rulings for the governments, the gap in your mind is that you think the government stuff should be done by individuals. stoning and adulterer or a homosexual is the government job, not the individuals job.

All believing Muslims believe in the punishments, moderate Muslims know it's a government duty, extremists may believe they have to do it individually and they are few. they believe they should kill all disbelievers!! and this is a view that isn't even in the scripture!

You can't claim to be a Muslim and say adultery is OK, or thief is ok, or murder is ok .

Just as you can't be a Jew and clam these things are OK. if you do you then disbelieved in your scripture and you no longer can be called a Muslim or Jew.

Just as you cannot be a Muslim and accept that women are equal to men? This is why religion is dangerous as it accepts these stone age concepts.

There is no reason to talk about murder or theft, as most people will tell you those are wrong as it has to do with simple survival techniques.

In hat way you say men are not equal to women ? it depends you know, for biologically and psychologically they aren't equal, and therefore there are things that are unavoidable as a result.

And you try to make it look like unequal in reward and punishment, which is a total lie , you also try to make it as if religion makes 2 equal beings as equals, which is another lie, men and women aren't equal, they are different, and their differences have to be taken in consideration in any rational law.

Can you please give an example , in what way are women oppressed by Quran or Sunna?! cause I notice you're quick to conclusions based on ignorance.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 11:56:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 8:59:55 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Fruity thinks men marrying and having sex with girls under 10 is okay, so I wouldn't expect a lot of sense out of her in terms of moral discourse; god said it's cool so it's cool. Presumably she likes being a second-class citizen with few rights or powers because it helps sooth the guilt she feels about tacitly condoning paedophilia, rape and more general violence against women. If she were to accept that she has the same rights and powers as men, she'd have to get up and do something about such foul behaviour.

But sadly the greatest danger of religion is that people will cling more tightly to it out of fear than they will cling to their capacity for moral agency. I do not think it surprise or coincidence that the world's two most similar and established religions have shown time and again that when it comes down to a choice between protecting children from sexual abuse and protecting their own comforting fairy stories from criticism, they have both repeatedly and systematically opted for the latter at the expense of the former.

I am not sure what word would accurately describe such people, if not 'evil'.

Huh, excuse me but you and I know that' you're, as an atheist, the last kind of person to say what evil should be! if you deny it, defend it.

second you spoke of second class citizens, please provide evidence.

You also spoke about rape and paedophilia, please define and provide evidence! also why would YOU consider it evil!

And why do you keep talking about danger ?! what are you really afraid of , and why ?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 12:28:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 11:56:15 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Huh, excuse me but you and I know that' you're, as an atheist, the last kind of person to say what evil should be! if you deny it, defend it.

I'm sorry, I've never been to whatever planet it is you're from where atheists can't discuss morality. Which star does it orbit?

second you spoke of second class citizens, please provide evidence.

Do you have the same rights and responsibilities as men, under Islamic law?

You also spoke about rape and paedophilia, please define and provide evidence! also why would YOU consider it evil!

You defended it in another thread, where a young girl was dead after being f*cked to death by her elderly pervert husband. Because to make such illegal was deemed to be 'un-Islamic'. So don't pretend that there is no evidence of these things happening, because I know for a fact you've already seen it and what your thoughts on the matter were.

I'm not providing you with definitions for words that are commonly used and have well-known definitions, so please do not waste my time asking for such idiotic things. As for why I consider it evil, if you honestly want to know the answer to that then you can view the 20-page thread on the topic in this very sub-forum, in which I explain my moral position and process at great length.

And why do you keep talking about danger ?! what are you really afraid of , and why ?

I'm afraid of religion further wrecking the only planet I've got the opportunity to live on.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 1:02:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm afraid of religion further wrecking the only planet I've got the opportunity to live on.

The worst evils and destruction of the last 150 years have been primarily secular driven, not religion driven.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 1:21:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 1:02:48 PM, HPWKA wrote:
The worst evils and destruction of the last 150 years have been primarily secular driven, not religion driven.

Please substantiate this claim with some examples. Are you saying that the daily subjugation of women and 'infidels' by various religions all over the world are due to science? Do people crash planes into buildings for secular reasons? Do scientists daily mutilate their children for no reason other than 3rd party reports that they should?

As a word of warning, if the Holocaust is a planned example, please save us both time and don't bother responding. Secularism has risen so sharply in the last 150 years as a direct response to people using imaginary reasons to gas, burn, rape and dismember one another. To suggest it was the cause of the things it wass a response to is rather extraordinary, to say the least.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 3:14:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Examples of primarily secular conflicts/acts.

1.) Russia and America playing capitalist vs. communist, killing millions, displacing millions more, and causing problems that still exist today.

2.) America's constant war on Latin America. Overthrowing governments, assassinating political figures, invading countries. Death toll in the hundreds of thousands, millions more with ruined lives.

3.) Communist China/Russia/Stalin killing millions in the name of their state, declaring that no religion is permissible, and that science would be the new way forward.

4.) America propping up dictators, invading countries, and overthrowing governments in the Middle East, in order to maintain strategic control of oil resources. Many of the fundamentalist religious regimes in the Middle East are/were born from American support.

5.) Apartheid South Africa, where whites ruled over blacks. Not just the system itself, but countries like England, America, and Israel supporting Apartheid Africa almost until the end, for either economic gain (US/UK) or to destabilize their enemies (Israel).

I think we can all agree these atrocities are a 9 on the "bad scale" (1-10). Genital mutilation and a couple instances of suicide attacks rate at about a 1.3
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 3:50:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 3:14:55 PM, HPWKA wrote:
1.) Russia and America playing capitalist vs. communist, killing millions, displacing millions more, and causing problems that still exist today.

That is not in the name of secularism nor is it driven by secularism. The majority of the people involved in this are religious people and it is therefore not a 'secular evil' in the slightest.

2.) America's constant war on Latin America. Overthrowing governments, assassinating political figures, invading countries. Death toll in the hundreds of thousands, millions more with ruined lives.

See my above comments re: you naming conflicts that are in no way linked to secular thought or world views. America's government, even more than its population, has always been overtly religious.

3.) Communist China/Russia/Stalin killing millions in the name of their state, declaring that no religion is permissible, and that science would be the new way forward.

Which is something that religious leaders and nations have done throughout history and is in no way caused by, reliant on or promoted by secular thought. That some people deify themselves or something else in place of god does not mean that their behaviours are anything other than nominally secular; the social and conceptual structures are still inherently religious and those structures are criticised for the same reasons.

4.) America propping up dictators, invading countries, and overthrowing governments in the Middle East, in order to maintain strategic control of oil resources. Many of the fundamentalist religious regimes in the Middle East are/were born from American support.

And are, by your own admission, fundamentally religious. Good example!

5.) Apartheid South Africa, where whites ruled over blacks. Not just the system itself, but countries like England, America, and Israel supporting Apartheid Africa almost until the end, for either economic gain (US/UK) or to destabilize their enemies (Israel).

Something that secular groups rallied more heavily against than religious ones. To suggest that it was 'because of secularism' is either stupid or dishonest. Technically both, I suppose.

I think we can all agree these atrocities are a 9 on the "bad scale" (1-10). Genital mutilation and a couple instances of suicide attacks rate at about a 1.3

I would say that people cutting chunks of sexual organs out of babies as a matter of course, by their millions around the world, is a flat-out 10 on the scale. More significantly, you're obviously either insane or so completely uninformed/partisan that there's no point in further discussion; there have not been 'a couple instances of suicide attacks', there have been thousands in the last few years alone. Each and every one of them a part of something just as vile as the Soviet gulags, Nazi pogroms or anything else you care to think of.

You're one very sick individual.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 7:59:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We have a problem, in that we aren't defining "secularism".

For instance, I define secularism here, as something not religiously motivated (common definition). So the atrocities I mentioned don't need to have been committed "in the name" of secularism, they just need to NOT be primarily religiously motivated, which they aren't. That takes care of most of your responses.

Secondly, Apartheid South Africa was first protested against by surrounding Africa (Muslim) and South America (Catholic). The more progressive countries (Europe/America) were extremely late to the party, and even then, attempted to circumvent many sanctions on Apartheid South Africa, for monetary gain (Secular).

I see you are very emotional about child mutilation and suicide attacks, but they are nearly irrelevant in comparison to the secular crimes I laid out. We are talking about hundreds of millions of people being killed, tortured, or stripped of everything.

Child mutilation is primarily a problem in Africa/Mid-East, and for females (male circumcision is now largely harmless). Hundreds of millions of girls live with it, but its effects don't approach the above secular crimes. It increases lethal births by 1%, and many of the side-effects (bladder inflammation) are tolerated quite easily by much of the population.

Suicide attacks are so statistically insignificant they don't deserve mention. A case can even be made (and has by a famous study), that most suicide bombers are motivated by politics and nationalism (secular), not religion.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 8:08:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 11:47:24 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 11/10/2013 8:41:52 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/10/2013 7:49:02 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
I think there is a huge misconception in your mind.

All Muslims that stick to Islam as a religion stick to all the values in the Quran and Sunna, those are the practicing Muslims, they agree with the punishments and all regulations of social life, but those things can only be applied by a Muslim government! there are rulings meant for believing women, there are rulings meant for believing men, there are rulings for the believing sick people , there are rulings for the wealthy , and for the poor, and there are rulings for the governments, the gap in your mind is that you think the government stuff should be done by individuals. stoning and adulterer or a homosexual is the government job, not the individuals job.

All believing Muslims believe in the punishments, moderate Muslims know it's a government duty, extremists may believe they have to do it individually and they are few. they believe they should kill all disbelievers!! and this is a view that isn't even in the scripture!

You can't claim to be a Muslim and say adultery is OK, or thief is ok, or murder is ok .

Just as you can't be a Jew and clam these things are OK. if you do you then disbelieved in your scripture and you no longer can be called a Muslim or Jew.

Just as you cannot be a Muslim and accept that women are equal to men? This is why religion is dangerous as it accepts these stone age concepts.

There is no reason to talk about murder or theft, as most people will tell you those are wrong as it has to do with simple survival techniques.

In hat way you say men are not equal to women ? it depends you know, for biologically and psychologically they aren't equal, and therefore there are things that are unavoidable as a result.

And you try to make it look like unequal in reward and punishment, which is a total lie , you also try to make it as if religion makes 2 equal beings as equals, which is another lie, men and women aren't equal, they are different, and their differences have to be taken in consideration in any rational law.

Can you please give an example , in what way are women oppressed by Quran or Sunna?! cause I notice you're quick to conclusions based on ignorance.

The most holy time in Islam is the month of ramadan. In this month/last week men are allowed to live in the mosque and pray and be at one with Allah. Women are not allowed to spend this most holy of time in the mosque,that is discrimination. Deny what you want, this is a fact.

Or in the Koran in Surah 2.228 where it say men are a step above women. "And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them" This is discrimination again.

Surah 4:176 Men deserve more than women. "And if there be two sisters, then theirs are two-thirds of the heritage, and if they be brethren, men and women, unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females." Its discrimination again.

So this is your wonderful Islam,which discriminates against women. So please I wait to see you deny your holy book or accept that it does discriminate against women.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 8:12:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 3:14:55 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Examples of primarily secular conflicts/acts.

1.) Russia and America playing capitalist vs. communist, killing millions, displacing millions more, and causing problems that still exist today.

2.) America's constant war on Latin America. Overthrowing governments, assassinating political figures, invading countries. Death toll in the hundreds of thousands, millions more with ruined lives.

3.) Communist China/Russia/Stalin killing millions in the name of their state, declaring that no religion is permissible, and that science would be the new way forward.

4.) America propping up dictators, invading countries, and overthrowing governments in the Middle East, in order to maintain strategic control of oil resources. Many of the fundamentalist religious regimes in the Middle East are/were born from American support.

5.) Apartheid South Africa, where whites ruled over blacks. Not just the system itself, but countries like England, America, and Israel supporting Apartheid Africa almost until the end, for either economic gain (US/UK) or to destabilize their enemies (Israel).

I think we can all agree these atrocities are a 9 on the "bad scale" (1-10). Genital mutilation and a couple instances of suicide attacks rate at about a 1.3

I live in South Africa during apartheid. It was based on the bible, so you cannot attribute this to secularism. Just thought you should know that.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 8:17:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 7:59:47 PM, HPWKA wrote:
We have a problem, in that we aren't defining "secularism".

For instance, I define secularism here, as something not religiously motivated (common definition). So the atrocities I mentioned don't need to have been committed "in the name" of secularism, they just need to NOT be primarily religiously motivated, which they aren't. That takes care of most of your responses.

Secondly, Apartheid South Africa was first protested against by surrounding Africa (Muslim) and South America (Catholic). The more progressive countries (Europe/America) were extremely late to the party, and even then, attempted to circumvent many sanctions on Apartheid South Africa, for monetary gain (Secular).

I see you are very emotional about child mutilation and suicide attacks, but they are nearly irrelevant in comparison to the secular crimes I laid out. We are talking about hundreds of millions of people being killed, tortured, or stripped of everything.

Child mutilation is primarily a problem in Africa/Mid-East, and for females (male circumcision is now largely harmless). Hundreds of millions of girls live with it, but its effects don't approach the above secular crimes. It increases lethal births by 1%, and many of the side-effects (bladder inflammation) are tolerated quite easily by much of the population.

Suicide attacks are so statistically insignificant they don't deserve mention. A case can even be made (and has by a famous study), that most suicide bombers are motivated by politics and nationalism (secular), not religion.

So secularism, is capitalism, communism, feminisim, equal rights or anything else that is not religious. Of course then you can blame anything that is not directly tied to religion as secularism. But I am also sure you realise that there are millions of sub categories to secularism now that you are putting in one group which to be fair is dishonest. After all not everyone can be a capitalist and a communist and a socialist, while also been a democrat and a nationalist and a republican and a libertarian etc etc etc. See the problem with the argument yet?
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 8:26:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To your point about Apartheid being based on the bible.

1.) That's debatable.

2.) Lots of thing are "based" on the bible. Parts of our constitution are based on the bible, however, that doesn't make 2013 America a Christian country. Likewise, Apartheid Africa by the mid-late 90's wasn't Christian in any sense, either through identification or motive.

To you point about the broad definition of secular.

That's what secular is. Looking in the dictionary, the two definitions are, "things that have no religious or spiritual basis", and, "not bound by religious rule".

I don't see how my argument is "problematic" since I am using the definition of secular to show how the worst crimes in the last 150 years have been secular in nature, and not religious.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 8:56:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 8:26:03 PM, HPWKA wrote:
To your point about Apartheid being based on the bible.

1.) That's debatable.

2.) Lots of thing are "based" on the bible. Parts of our constitution are based on the bible, however, that doesn't make 2013 America a Christian country. Likewise, Apartheid Africa by the mid-late 90's wasn't Christian in any sense, either through identification or motive.

To you point about the broad definition of secular.

That's what secular is. Looking in the dictionary, the two definitions are, "things that have no religious or spiritual basis", and, "not bound by religious rule".

I don't see how my argument is "problematic" since I am using the definition of secular to show how the worst crimes in the last 150 years have been secular in nature, and not religious.

Sorry, apartheid south Africa is not debatable. I did a detailed post about this for my friends blog,please feel free to check it out. http://ramblingsofsheldon.blogspot.kr...

BTW, if we use your definition of secular, fine everything is attributed to secularism. However the person in the USA that has to sign the bills for war and operations (and same for other countries) are mostly theists. So, that means then that the ultimate decider is motivated by a deity,so actually religion is at fault and not secularism.

If this was not the case the person would not sign the bills and then there would be none of these things that you mention. Remember religion is a set of ethics, so that means these people are acting on their ethics that they learnt form their holy text.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 10:24:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
BTW, if we use your definition of secular, fine everything is attributed to secularism. However the person in the USA that has to sign the bills for war and operations (and same for other countries) are mostly theists. So, that means then that the ultimate decider is motivated by a deity,so actually religion is at fault and not secularism.

First off, those aren't "my" definitions of secular, those are standard dictionary definitions, using the meaning commonly understood by most people.

Being a theist doesn't make a persons actions religious based. In order to "blame" religion, you must prove that the MAIN reason they did something bad, was BECAUSE of their religion.

People who may be theists aren't engaging in these atrocities because of what some religious book told them, they are quite explicate. Its usually for economic power or nationalistic cause, both primarily SECUALR domains.

If this was not the case the person would not sign the bills and then there would be none of these things that you mention. Remember religion is a set of ethics, so that means these people are acting on their ethics that they learnt form their holy text.

As said above, these things would still happen. If there was no bible, the US government would still want Saudi Arabia's oil, and still want to spread Capitalism across the world by force.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 11:21:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 10:24:54 PM, HPWKA wrote:
BTW, if we use your definition of secular, fine everything is attributed to secularism. However the person in the USA that has to sign the bills for war and operations (and same for other countries) are mostly theists. So, that means then that the ultimate decider is motivated by a deity,so actually religion is at fault and not secularism.

First off, those aren't "my" definitions of secular, those are standard dictionary definitions, using the meaning commonly understood by most people.

Being a theist doesn't make a persons actions religious based. In order to "blame" religion, you must prove that the MAIN reason they did something bad, was BECAUSE of their religion.

People who may be theists aren't engaging in these atrocities because of what some religious book told them, they are quite explicate. Its usually for economic power or nationalistic cause, both primarily SECUALR domains.

If this was not the case the person would not sign the bills and then there would be none of these things that you mention. Remember religion is a set of ethics, so that means these people are acting on their ethics that they learnt form their holy text.

As said above, these things would still happen. If there was no bible, the US government would still want Saudi Arabia's oil, and still want to spread Capitalism across the world by force.

So then morality as defined by any holy book is pointless, as it does not make religious people act in a religious way. That is in essence what you are arguing here. So religion is void when we attribute everything to secularism. Congratulations you just disproved religion. :)