The Social Taboo of Criticizing Radical Islam

page: 20
25
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


Grover, where does the ulama stand on world-wide extremist activities? Do you have any links where I can go to read their philsophy on this. I want to better understand. Basically I'd like to read any/all transcripts where terrorism is being denounced and not merely being explained away.

I'd like to see an Imam or somebody of Islamic faith telling it like it is...and like they mean it....ie: against acts of terrorism against each other Believers of Islam) as well as against infidels.

Personally, I'm incredibly discouraged to see, what I view, as a disengagement among the Imams, or any prime-time muslim cleric/leader, in addressing the whole issue of disaffected/violent muslims.

Perhaps it is being reported by not distributed widely enough.


edit: actually any of our muslim posters can feel free to answer this if they want


[edit on 29-2-2008 by deenamarie53]




posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by deenamarie53
 


Here you go.

www.muhajabah.com...

It's a long list of links.



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Very Kewl of you to supply the links, Beach


I will avail myself to the info and have a better grip on what the muslim PTB are saying---- comparing whats being addressed as problems vis what muslims can do/are doing to resolve terrorist activities.

I would be seriously gratified to see muslim clerics proactive in their leadership against atrocities towards others of any religious belief.



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I dont consider these extremists Islam.Look at all those lives they have killled for martyrdom.Islam doesn't allow killings,let alone mass killings.They are just misled bunches.and dangerous.making the world more complicated than it already is



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Tickre32
 


If that's the case then maybe the good natured Muslims should stand up, speak out and denounce these cowardly acts, but they never do!



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Originally posted by Beachcoma

First of all let me say that due to my lack of technical expertise, (especially as I've just got in from the pub!), I will have to respond to one poster at a time, sorry.



....and as much as the Muslims in your country are to blame,


I don't see it as solely being "The Muslims" to blame, Non-Muslims have more than there share of the responsibility.
The difference is, a large proportion of Non-Muslims recognise that and are very public in their condemnation.



I've tried various approaches to make you understand that society is dynamic, fluid and organic. It's not just bits and pieces that are independent of one another. Each element interacts with the other and affects the actions and influences the mindset of one another. It's all about communication, by your words and actions.


I fully understand that and agree with you.
Contrary to popular belief, Britain is a very fluid society with constant movement, integration etc within all stata's of society.
It is far easier for "new money" to become part of the "elite" here than in the vast majority of European countries.
We have adopted, adapted and integrated the best of numerous societies and cultures throughout our long history.
We are very good at it.
But those cultures and societies have had to have had a willingness to be part of Britain and British society.
Unfortunately far too many Muslims come to Britain for "a better life", raise their standard of living, then proceed to tell us what is so wrong with British society.
They also choose to cling onto the vast majority of cultural and religious beliefs which preclude them from integrating into British society thus furthering their isolation and alienation.



In a way, my failure to communicate to you my points is like a microcosm of the problem you see.


You are communicating perfectly ok and I fully understand everything you are trying to say.
I just don't agree with some of it.
Doesn't make either of us bad people.
Doesn't make either of us stupid.
Just a difference of opinion.

I think essentially we both want the same end objective, we just disagree with how to get there.

In fear of repeating myself, the Middle East could learn a lot from the example and the process which Ireland has gone through.
At times we have to put the past behind us and take a leap of faith (?? from an agnostic??) and make a step change to move forward.


[edit on 29-2-2008 by Freeborn]



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tarichar
 


Tarich my friend,

I live in the North East of England and we have been shat on and used by every single government of this country for generations.

It is still not an excuse for not standing up against what is wrong.
It is still not an excuse to turning a blind eye to the actions of murderers.

The North East has more socially deprived areas than anywhere in the country.
We still don't harbor terrorists.

Edit to add.

As you must know, there is a very large anti-war movement here in the UK who are very vocal in their opposition.
There is a lot of recognition, even in a lot of supporters of our presence in ME, of the historical role we have played in the events and affairs of the ME.
I don't see a reciprocal recognition from Muslim communities, as you have recognised yourself.


[edit on 29-2-2008 by Freeborn]



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Originally posted by grover



This poster doesn't know what he's talking about.


Yes I do know what I'm talking about.
I just have a different opinion to you.

My opinion isn't just based on textbooks and religious dogma.
I converse and interact on a daily basis with Muslims.
Therefore, as well as having read The Koran, my opinion is based on real life situations.
Is yours?

As for The Islamic Brotherhood.
Talk to some budding terrorist from Dudley, Skipton or Bradford and they wuldn't have a scooby what you were talking about.




By the way Shirra law is supposed to apply only to the faithful, NOT to non-Muslims.


Is that why if I commit a crime in Saudi Arabia I get punished by their (Sharia) Law?

Why is it that some people persist in believing that any criticism of interpretatons of Islam is an attack on Muslims as a whole?
Grover you are much better than this.



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
this seems to happen all the time on ATS, a thread is started and it changes subject and goes off on random tangents.

first of all, I have lived with the Islamic disapora. I have studied the religon in and out. I am a credible source, Please take it from me ISLAM IS 100% EVIL. Every muslim, and I MEAN EVERY MUSLIM has been corrupted because of mohammed's teachings. HE WAS THE SCUM OF THE EARTH DURING HIS TIME. He married his sons 9 yr old daughter, he would rape children for questioning islam. IS THIS A RELIGON OF PEACE. If you say yes then I will ask you. Does allah love all his creation? If you say yes again then why do muslims refrain from pork, greeting Jews, hate americans. Do you see Christians beheading muslims. NO BECAUSE IT IS TRULY A RELIGON OF PEACE! Islam showes ignorance every where in the qur'an. I will not stand for hypocracy. IF ISLAM WILL NOT STAND FOR CRITICISM AGAINSED mohammed, THEN WHAT GIVES THEM THE POWER TO KILL "INFIDELS". No religon has ever in the history of time showed so much nieveness and ignorance. I DARE ANYONE TO PROVE ME WRONG. AMERICA WILL PAY A DEAR PRICE FOR OPENING JAM'ALS AND ISLAMIC CENTERS AROUND THE NATION. I am a loyal taxpayer and will not support terrorism in my own nation!



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ilu-Tak-Lak
He married his sons 9 yr old daughter, he would rape children for questioning islam.

I'm sorry, but if you were a "credible source" you would know that no, he didn't marry is son's 9 year old daughter. In fact, he didn't have any sons that survived into adulthood. As for raping children who question Islam
....well, I've never heard anything so absurd in my life.



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


www.muslimhope.com...
i see you have never read the qur'an? Also you appeal to me as being middle eastern? Am I correct?

Salam Alikam, ismi qondara

[edit on 1-3-2008 by Ilu-Tak-Lak]

[edit on 1-3-2008 by Ilu-Tak-Lak]



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Ilu-Tak-Lak
 

I've read the Quran, but I see nothing in it with regards to Aishah, so I'm not sure how it is relevant. I don't understand what you mean about being middle eastern. I'm not middle eastern. Are you saying that you are middle eastern? I do not speak arabic as my first language, so as far as I understand, you said the muslim (and perhaps even original Christian?) greeting of "Peace be with you", and then asked my name (ismi means name, right)?

What I pointed out to in my previous post, was that if Muhammad didn't have a son, how could he marry his son's nine year old daughter? If you say he did, then you can hardly be a credible source. You also said that he raped children for questioning Islam, which is another untruth, which puts further doubt on your credibility. You say that you lived with the Islamic disapora[sic] but then that EVERY MUSLIM has been corrupted, so I am somewhat worried about how you interacted with these people on a day to day basis.

That link was interesting, but even when I ignored the bias and focus on the 'facts' presented, it didn't pull through. It made it's arguments based on such things as "this many X people said yes, and this many fewer people said no; so then yes is correct", without paying any attention to the credibility of the narrators, and the fact that of the X number of people who said yes, most were part of a chain of narration that had a person who's credibility was known to be weak.



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


My understanding of things is that Mo married his friends daughter when she was 6 years old.
Mo kindly recognised that she was too young to have sex with her so he satisfied himself by "thighing" her until he deemed her old enough to consumate the marriaage when she was 9 years old.

Now, I could well be wrong there, but there are a lot of people, including Muslims who believe this.

I think it is also fair to point out that this was not neccesarily an uncommon thing in Arabic society at the time and so we are in the unfortunate business of judging the actions of yesterday by the morals of today.
Not good for reasoned arguement in my book, however, unfortunately I too am a product of my times and pedophilia is pedophilia and as such totally unaceptable, no matter how much spin anyone tries to wrap it up in.

[edit on 1-3-2008 by Freeborn]



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
Mo kindly recognised that she was too young to have sex with her so he satisfied himself by "thighing" her until he deemed her old enough...

You know, I've heard this a lot, but I've never seen the reference from where it came. Not calling you a liar or anything (please don't take it that way), but if you happen to know where it is from, could you please tell me?



Originally posted by Freeborn
I think it is also fair to point out that this was not neccesarily an uncommon thing in Arabic society at the time and so we are in the unfortunate business of judging the actions of yesterday by the morals of today.
Not good for reasoned arguement in my book, however, unfortunately I too am a product of my times and pedophilia is pedophilia and as such totally unaceptable, no matter how much spin anyone tries to wrap it up in.

The age of consent or even marriageable age in today's world greatly varies wherever you go (and I'm not just talking about muslim vs. the rest of the world). As far as I can see, it's a fairly arbitrary age limit- some places would call it 'pedophilia' if a 20 year old was going out with a 18 year old. As far as my personal opinion goes, as long as both persons have reached maturity, there isn't really any problem.

The problem here is that there is some text saying that Muhammad married a 6 year old and consumated a 9 year old, and there is other text saying that he didn't. To purposely take one point of view (even in the face of evidence of lack of credibility of the sources) and ignore the rest, just to have a "point" with which to malign someone (who you wish to malign perhaps because of insecurities in your own beliefs?) is a trifle silly.



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Honestly, I don't see any trifling going on here.

Just some good, hard discussion of the facts.



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by deenamarie53
 


Which facts? The fact that Muhammad is a PEDOPHILE SATANIC BABY-EATER TERRORIST EPILEPTIC SUPER-VILLAIN JESUS-HATER?


Or the possibility that there may be a Social Taboo of Criticising Radical Islam (which hasn't been shown to be a fact yet)?


Sorry again for the off-topic, and sorry if the tone is perceived to be somewhat biting



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Originally posted by babloyi



You know, I've heard this a lot, but I've never seen the reference from where it came. Not calling you a liar or anything (please don't take it that way), but if you happen to know where it is from, could you please tell me?


babloyi, I have a very thick skin and it is quite hard to offend me.
I enjoy debate and discussion, especially heated but respectful and considered.
Unfortunately not everyone is the same, some people are a tadge sensitive, some just bigoted and self-opinionated.

I have read this in various places, and interpretations of The Koran.
(Remember, The Koran is written in Arabic, any English versions have been translated and as such can, and often are, translated to deliberately portray the individual bias of the translator etc).

I am getting ready to go out now, (where else but the pub!
), so I will do some research when I have some free time, but I assure you I have read it several times.



The age of consent or even marriageable age in today's world greatly varies wherever you go (and I'm not just talking about muslim vs. the rest of the world).


Yes I agree, it varies from country to country, culture to culture etc.
In Europe it tends to vary between 14 - 16 years old.
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Interestingly, I could find no page for the Middle East countries?
I suppose that may be due to the outright ban on sex outside of marriage so the legal minimum age for marriage maybe the best guidance.

None of the countries noted have an age of consent below teenage, so, 9 years old??



[edit on 1-3-2008 by Freeborn]



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


I never one time threatened you. I'll explain my comment so you, a six year old(with a mullet) can understand!! Speaking out against
islam could get one hurt especially by radical fundementalist muslims in
a country where islam is the predominate religion or way of life.

Here in America, people (including you) enjoy something called freedom of speech.
Do you understand NOW! You can stop taking things out of context.I do not hate anyone or any religion. That would be you. Remember,you
are the one full of antipathy.

Pearls before swine refers to matthew7:6.

You said the LRA kills in the name of Christ. All you did was look up on wikipedia and regurgitate back what it said. That is like saying David Koresh was a Christian and Waco was all about Heaven.

So are you finally admitting defeat. You have no idea what the Lord's
Resistance Army is all about do you? It's OK. recognizing you are wrong
is the first step.

No one is above prayer.

And what is with the ridiculous picture?



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   
This book review appeared in The Sunday Times yesterday and may provide a bit of basic understanding of the Lords Resistance Army and it's leader Joseph Kony.

entertainment.timesonline.co.uk...



[edit on 3-3-2008 by Freeborn]



posted on Mar, 3 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by asmeone
 


1) One really needs to look no further than the comments in this thread. But if you wish, then look at the stories taking place in the Middle East. If you want to take out the defense of "they're only lashing out at the American occupation," then look at the countries where we haven't stuck out nose. If you want to look at the West, then look at how politically incorrect it is to dare say something bad about it. Again, either through aggression or passivity, the critics are either killed or shunned due to social stigma and made out to be bigots.

2) Your history lesson of the crusades, inquisition, and witch trials: Nothing to do with the topic. It's not about the committing of atrocities. It is about people's right to freely and vocally criticize something without fear of social or physical repercussion. It is almost humorous how many people are pointing the fingers at other groups and their atrocities. The point is, we can rip those people to shreds while receiving a round of applause but if we say the exact same things in terms of criticizing Islam it's bigotry.

How is it that no one is understanding this? It's not about the atrocities. We can all agree such things are heinous regardless of who is committing them. It's about the stigma and outrage that follows the critics of Islam.


Wow this is like Nazi Germany all over again.





new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join