It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Social Taboo of Criticizing Radical Islam
page: 21share:
Originally posted by Silenceisall
Wow this is like Nazi Germany all over again.
Wow that made no sense whatsoever. Unless you consider it being like Nazi Germany to not be able to speak out against those behind the violence. Then, yes, it would definitely be like Nazi Germany.
reply to post by AshleyD
I think so. Control popular opinion by fear, right? Isn't that what Radical Islam has done... in the Middle East for sure, almost there n Europe, and the USA is still in the Social Taboo phase working toward the abject fear of criticism...
we're getting there just let fox do his job.
I think so. Control popular opinion by fear, right? Isn't that what Radical Islam has done... in the Middle East for sure, almost there n Europe, and the USA is still in the Social Taboo phase working toward the abject fear of criticism...
we're getting there just let fox do his job.
Originally posted by uscrusader
Is there a Social Taboo of Criticizing Radical Islam
Yes.
In the media.
Within islam.
Outside islam.
Sounds like good ol' fear to me.
i'm going to have to say this right now, this is just another case of people ignoring all of the instances in which high profile muslims have spoken out against radical islam
...and i can't believe that this post was made AFTER a post where i mentioned threads i had started about muslims criticizing their radicals...
And until someone from inside islam speaks out against them, they are all radical AFAIC. Guilt by association, accessories to terrorism, clean their own house or someone sends for exterminators.
see?
more of the ignorance
muslims have spoken out against the crazy fundamentalists...
sadly, the media never gives it any attention.
Well, I wish I had the chance to participate in this discussion earlier. Looks like I missed most of it, but I would like to make some comments.
First to TheWalkingFox who says
"One would wonder why you guys are so easy to talk about radical Islam when you refuse to do the same about radical Christians."
and "Now the other reason, is because very few people talk about "radical Islam"
This has not been my observance at all, in fact just the opposite. Most to the people on these forums criticizing Islam are just as willing to criticize Christianity. I think this statement is nothing but complete nonsense.
In addition, you will that in the western world any crazy radical Christian cult raises its ugly head people here go out of their way to condemn it, especially if that cult engages in intimidation and threats of death to members who seek to leave the cult, as the Muslim culture openly engages in regularly.
Of course then you produced this rant.
"Dude, I know that like any red-blooded Christian American, nothing in the world brings you greater joy than the idea of causing mass murder and mayhem across an entire region for the crime of belonging to the wrong religion or having the wrong neighbors. I know you salivate over the concept of bringing the fear of god into the hearts of every man, woman, and child from Morocco to Indonesia. I know that if it doesn't leave a pile of brown-skinned bodies in its wake, you don't think it's a good idea.
But military action doesn't beat terrorism. Mass killings don't stop terrorism. Politics stop terrorism (see the IRA). Police action catches and halts terrorists."
Does violence stop radical terrorist, you betcha it does, it just takes awhile for enough people to get mad enough to do something about it, and that anger is beginning to build against the Muslim community.
Over five hundred years ago, theCatholic religion was very much like the Muslim religion of today, and so a Monk by the Name of Martin Luther, who Martin Luther was named after, began the protesting against the radical and oppressive tactics of the Catholic Church. The people of Europe rose up and fought against its religious opression, and the age of enlightenment flowered in Europe. Many time oppresive and ruthless societies have been thrown down by violence, most recently the NAZI's in Germany. Yes, violence does work in eliminating ruthless ideologies like religious oppression.
Then raze78 produces this crazy statement.
"Its all really non essential, this discussion is invalid. The way I see it, first there were the Nazi's. Even though we know Hitler tried to come to peace with Churchill, repeatedly, to prevent the second world war."
Is that before or after Hitler began killing Union leaders, intellectuals, communists, gypsies, people with disabilities, and of course jews on a wide scale? Was this before or after Hitlers tanks rolled over Eastern Europe. Talk abut not having a clue.
I really liked beachcoma's link to Muslim leaders supposedly protesting terrorism. I opened a few on the long list, and got nothing but propaganda and excuses. One site did state that it was wrong for terrorists to have killed innocent, but that has to the weakest statement imaginable in protesting Islam. It is like these guys got together and said, "well, we have to say something that we can claim is a statement against terrorism, so how can we make as minimal of a statement as possible.
Of course there are always the people who say what nice people Muslim's are, but my money says these are all Muslim men that they are talking to. Next time you get the opportunity, talk to one of their women, and then see how friendly the men can be. I have done this, and murderous looks are what you get. If you don't believe me, give it a shot. Their friendly as long as you have something that they want. Muslim men are like a guy that always comes over to your house to drink your beer, but never brings any for you. They let their sons out to hang out, and of course they hit on all the women there, in my area that means women from all cultures, white, asian, Indian, Latin, but they don't bring their women around. Occasionally you see a Muslim woman out, and she is very nervous.
You want proof of Muslim atrocities, this is what I consider to be the worst thing about the Muslim religion, and that is the way they treat their women. They are not an authentic religion, they are a cult.
www.iht.com...
As far as the radical Islam/moderate Islam or bad Muslim/good Muslim debate, it reminds me of the mother in a family where the father molests the daughter for years. The mother knows this abuse is going on, but she does nothing about, which in the western world, makes her as guilty as him. She knew for years that her husband was molesting her daughter and did nothing, therefore she is as guilty as he his, and that is how I see moderate Muslims. The go along with the cult practice of threatening their children with death should they turn away from the Muslim religion, or in areas where Muslims have become the majority, they go along with the constant harassment and intimidation of non-muslims, which makes them just as guilty as those who carry out the brutality.
What is the solution. Offer protection to those of the Muslim religion who seek to escape its grasp. Treat Islam like the cult it is, like we treat the moffia. If a daughter seeks shelter, and makes a statement to the authorities that she is afraid that her family will kill her, and she is killed by a family, arrest everyone in the family, and their cleric, and everyone in his congregation. Separate, interrogate, and give the ones who are part of this conspiracy very long sentences. I'm sure there will be enough in the group willing to testify for a protected freedom from the prison like environment of the cult.
First to TheWalkingFox who says
"One would wonder why you guys are so easy to talk about radical Islam when you refuse to do the same about radical Christians."
and "Now the other reason, is because very few people talk about "radical Islam"
This has not been my observance at all, in fact just the opposite. Most to the people on these forums criticizing Islam are just as willing to criticize Christianity. I think this statement is nothing but complete nonsense.
In addition, you will that in the western world any crazy radical Christian cult raises its ugly head people here go out of their way to condemn it, especially if that cult engages in intimidation and threats of death to members who seek to leave the cult, as the Muslim culture openly engages in regularly.
Of course then you produced this rant.
"Dude, I know that like any red-blooded Christian American, nothing in the world brings you greater joy than the idea of causing mass murder and mayhem across an entire region for the crime of belonging to the wrong religion or having the wrong neighbors. I know you salivate over the concept of bringing the fear of god into the hearts of every man, woman, and child from Morocco to Indonesia. I know that if it doesn't leave a pile of brown-skinned bodies in its wake, you don't think it's a good idea.
But military action doesn't beat terrorism. Mass killings don't stop terrorism. Politics stop terrorism (see the IRA). Police action catches and halts terrorists."
Does violence stop radical terrorist, you betcha it does, it just takes awhile for enough people to get mad enough to do something about it, and that anger is beginning to build against the Muslim community.
Over five hundred years ago, theCatholic religion was very much like the Muslim religion of today, and so a Monk by the Name of Martin Luther, who Martin Luther was named after, began the protesting against the radical and oppressive tactics of the Catholic Church. The people of Europe rose up and fought against its religious opression, and the age of enlightenment flowered in Europe. Many time oppresive and ruthless societies have been thrown down by violence, most recently the NAZI's in Germany. Yes, violence does work in eliminating ruthless ideologies like religious oppression.
Then raze78 produces this crazy statement.
"Its all really non essential, this discussion is invalid. The way I see it, first there were the Nazi's. Even though we know Hitler tried to come to peace with Churchill, repeatedly, to prevent the second world war."
Is that before or after Hitler began killing Union leaders, intellectuals, communists, gypsies, people with disabilities, and of course jews on a wide scale? Was this before or after Hitlers tanks rolled over Eastern Europe. Talk abut not having a clue.
I really liked beachcoma's link to Muslim leaders supposedly protesting terrorism. I opened a few on the long list, and got nothing but propaganda and excuses. One site did state that it was wrong for terrorists to have killed innocent, but that has to the weakest statement imaginable in protesting Islam. It is like these guys got together and said, "well, we have to say something that we can claim is a statement against terrorism, so how can we make as minimal of a statement as possible.
Of course there are always the people who say what nice people Muslim's are, but my money says these are all Muslim men that they are talking to. Next time you get the opportunity, talk to one of their women, and then see how friendly the men can be. I have done this, and murderous looks are what you get. If you don't believe me, give it a shot. Their friendly as long as you have something that they want. Muslim men are like a guy that always comes over to your house to drink your beer, but never brings any for you. They let their sons out to hang out, and of course they hit on all the women there, in my area that means women from all cultures, white, asian, Indian, Latin, but they don't bring their women around. Occasionally you see a Muslim woman out, and she is very nervous.
You want proof of Muslim atrocities, this is what I consider to be the worst thing about the Muslim religion, and that is the way they treat their women. They are not an authentic religion, they are a cult.
www.iht.com...
As far as the radical Islam/moderate Islam or bad Muslim/good Muslim debate, it reminds me of the mother in a family where the father molests the daughter for years. The mother knows this abuse is going on, but she does nothing about, which in the western world, makes her as guilty as him. She knew for years that her husband was molesting her daughter and did nothing, therefore she is as guilty as he his, and that is how I see moderate Muslims. The go along with the cult practice of threatening their children with death should they turn away from the Muslim religion, or in areas where Muslims have become the majority, they go along with the constant harassment and intimidation of non-muslims, which makes them just as guilty as those who carry out the brutality.
What is the solution. Offer protection to those of the Muslim religion who seek to escape its grasp. Treat Islam like the cult it is, like we treat the moffia. If a daughter seeks shelter, and makes a statement to the authorities that she is afraid that her family will kill her, and she is killed by a family, arrest everyone in the family, and their cleric, and everyone in his congregation. Separate, interrogate, and give the ones who are part of this conspiracy very long sentences. I'm sure there will be enough in the group willing to testify for a protected freedom from the prison like environment of the cult.
Hey Poet!
reply to post by poet1b
So you disagree with the OP's idea of a Social Taboo?
I'm not sure I'm getting you. Could you clarify? Is it your contention that violence should be applied to 'fix this situation'?
How exactly would it be applied? Dunk a bucket full of explosions on a 'suspected mosque'? Or a civilian area that is suspected to be a 'hothouse of terrorism'? Or perhaps we should start a new type of McCarthy witch-hunt: "Do you associate with members of the Islamic Faith?" "Are you a member of the Islamic Faith?!" "Are you a strong believer in Islam?!" "I'm sorry sir, but you'll have to come with us". After all, according to you, they're all guilty by association.
I think you are mistaken in your belief that it 'takes a while for people to get mad enough to do something'. One badly aimed (or even well-aimed) missile strike, and you have an ex-brother, ex-sister, ex-mother, ex-father, ex-son, swearing life-long vengeance. This is why violence wouldn't work.
What were you expecting to get? "Yeah, we are all terrorists, and we are sorry"? How is condemning terrorists 'weak'? Why are you so adamant in your belief that muslims don't want to condemn terrorism? Why would they be wanting to make 'as minimal of a statement as possible' (whatever that means)?
'One of their women'? 'Their friendly as long as you have something they want'? What interesting perspective you offer, poet. Those damned muslims, they're like another species, aren't they? You've seen one (or two), and of course, all of them are like that! They all act the same, and it's all bad!
I like the use of the word 'cult' particularly. Such a funny word. Want to be neutral or positive about someone's religion, call it a 'religion', or a 'belief' or an 'ideology'. Want to put it in a negative light, call it a 'cult'. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no difference between the meaning of 'religion' and of 'cult' aside from the fact that the first is usually much bigger than the second.
reply to post by poet1b
Originally posted by poet1b
This has not been my observance at all, in fact just the opposite. Most to the people on these forums criticizing Islam are just as willing to criticize Christianity. I think this statement is nothing but complete nonsense.
So you disagree with the OP's idea of a Social Taboo?
Originally posted by poet1b
Does violence stop radical terrorist, you betcha it does, it just takes awhile for enough people to get mad enough to do something about it, and that anger is beginning to build against the Muslim community.
.......
Many time oppresive and ruthless societies have been thrown down by violence, most recently the NAZI's in Germany. Yes, violence does work in eliminating ruthless ideologies like religious oppression.
I'm not sure I'm getting you. Could you clarify? Is it your contention that violence should be applied to 'fix this situation'?
How exactly would it be applied? Dunk a bucket full of explosions on a 'suspected mosque'? Or a civilian area that is suspected to be a 'hothouse of terrorism'? Or perhaps we should start a new type of McCarthy witch-hunt: "Do you associate with members of the Islamic Faith?" "Are you a member of the Islamic Faith?!" "Are you a strong believer in Islam?!" "I'm sorry sir, but you'll have to come with us". After all, according to you, they're all guilty by association.
I think you are mistaken in your belief that it 'takes a while for people to get mad enough to do something'. One badly aimed (or even well-aimed) missile strike, and you have an ex-brother, ex-sister, ex-mother, ex-father, ex-son, swearing life-long vengeance. This is why violence wouldn't work.
Originally posted by poet1b
I really liked beachcoma's link to Muslim leaders supposedly protesting terrorism. I opened a few on the long list, and got nothing but propaganda and excuses. One site did state that it was wrong for terrorists to have killed innocent, but that has to the weakest statement imaginable in protesting Islam. It is like these guys got together and said, "well, we have to say something that we can claim is a statement against terrorism, so how can we make as minimal of a statement as possible.
What were you expecting to get? "Yeah, we are all terrorists, and we are sorry"? How is condemning terrorists 'weak'? Why are you so adamant in your belief that muslims don't want to condemn terrorism? Why would they be wanting to make 'as minimal of a statement as possible' (whatever that means)?
Originally posted by poet1b
Of course there are always the people who say what nice people Muslim's are, but my money says these are all Muslim men that they are talking to. Next time you get the opportunity, talk to one of their women, and then see how friendly the men can be. I have done this, and murderous looks are what you get. If you don't believe me, give it a shot. Their friendly as long as you have something that they want.
'One of their women'? 'Their friendly as long as you have something they want'? What interesting perspective you offer, poet. Those damned muslims, they're like another species, aren't they? You've seen one (or two), and of course, all of them are like that! They all act the same, and it's all bad!
I like the use of the word 'cult' particularly. Such a funny word. Want to be neutral or positive about someone's religion, call it a 'religion', or a 'belief' or an 'ideology'. Want to put it in a negative light, call it a 'cult'. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no difference between the meaning of 'religion' and of 'cult' aside from the fact that the first is usually much bigger than the second.
reply to post by babloyi
In answer to your questions.
1 Do I disagree with the OP's idea of a Social Taboo?
Not at all, he is most certainly right, and I am pointing out the fallacy of the statements of those who claim he is wrong.
2 Is it my contention that violence should be applied to 'fix this situation'?
No, I am just pointing out that the claim that violence isn't effective in forcing change is false. As you read further down my post, you will see I offer two solutions other than violence. It is my opinion that if some alternative solution is not found to the current conflict between the West and the Muslim world, then violence will wind up being the final solution. Personally, I would like to see any other solution than a violent solution.
I also think that that the sooner the west begins to take action against Muslim aggressions and refusals to accept criticism, the sooner Muslims might be open to a solution that isn't violent. Sadly, I think the odds are that in the end, there will be another world war, this time between these two cultures.
3. What was I expecting to get? As in criticisms of terrorism and Muslim atrocities.
A very broad and clear statement that all terrorism is wrong. Anything short of this is direct support of terrorist activities as acts of war. Reading these statements that are supposed to condemn terrorism, it becomes clear to me that the Muslim religion is in fact waging a war against the West, while trying to pretend that they are not, and the sooner we realize this and take proper action, the better.
4. How much experience have I had with Muslims.
Considerable, many live in the same area as I. Any non-Muslim who cares to know if I am telling the truth simply needs to conduct the test I recommend. Experience is the best teacher.
The term Cult has a very particular meaning, at least to me it does, and when I call the Muslim religion a cult, this is what I mean.
"A totalitarian control over the lifestyle and time of its members - Many cults tend to dictate exactly what its followers should read, eat, how and with whom they should spend their time, and even what they should do in off hours. This totalitarian control is necessary for the leaders to indoctrinate the followers in everything they do, and is also an attempt to separate them from anything not associated with the cult. This is why cults often live together in groups."
www.essortment.com...
The way this article describes a Cult, it sounds exactly like the Muslim religion of today.
In answer to your questions.
1 Do I disagree with the OP's idea of a Social Taboo?
Not at all, he is most certainly right, and I am pointing out the fallacy of the statements of those who claim he is wrong.
2 Is it my contention that violence should be applied to 'fix this situation'?
No, I am just pointing out that the claim that violence isn't effective in forcing change is false. As you read further down my post, you will see I offer two solutions other than violence. It is my opinion that if some alternative solution is not found to the current conflict between the West and the Muslim world, then violence will wind up being the final solution. Personally, I would like to see any other solution than a violent solution.
I also think that that the sooner the west begins to take action against Muslim aggressions and refusals to accept criticism, the sooner Muslims might be open to a solution that isn't violent. Sadly, I think the odds are that in the end, there will be another world war, this time between these two cultures.
3. What was I expecting to get? As in criticisms of terrorism and Muslim atrocities.
A very broad and clear statement that all terrorism is wrong. Anything short of this is direct support of terrorist activities as acts of war. Reading these statements that are supposed to condemn terrorism, it becomes clear to me that the Muslim religion is in fact waging a war against the West, while trying to pretend that they are not, and the sooner we realize this and take proper action, the better.
4. How much experience have I had with Muslims.
Considerable, many live in the same area as I. Any non-Muslim who cares to know if I am telling the truth simply needs to conduct the test I recommend. Experience is the best teacher.
The term Cult has a very particular meaning, at least to me it does, and when I call the Muslim religion a cult, this is what I mean.
"A totalitarian control over the lifestyle and time of its members - Many cults tend to dictate exactly what its followers should read, eat, how and with whom they should spend their time, and even what they should do in off hours. This totalitarian control is necessary for the leaders to indoctrinate the followers in everything they do, and is also an attempt to separate them from anything not associated with the cult. This is why cults often live together in groups."
www.essortment.com...
The way this article describes a Cult, it sounds exactly like the Muslim religion of today.
I would like to add that there are things that I admire about Muslim culture. In particular, that they have a strong philosophy of morality that they
work very hard to pass on to their children. This is something lacking in the Western world. I think that the over all intentions of the religious
part of the culture is very honorable, and has some very good traits. There are things about Muslim culture that the West could learn from. Muslim
fathers take their roles as fathers very seriously, and that is something we have lost in the Western world. The problem is drawing the line between
teaching a moral philosophy and forcing your belief upon the young in a way that becomes cult like.
There is middle ground to be expanded upon. I think that the Zoroastrian philosophy, that I think is the origin of Middle Eastern religions, was very brilliant in their effort to recognize truth as the most critical of virtues to keep intact.
Could this be a good Above Top Secret forum?
There is middle ground to be expanded upon. I think that the Zoroastrian philosophy, that I think is the origin of Middle Eastern religions, was very brilliant in their effort to recognize truth as the most critical of virtues to keep intact.
Could this be a good Above Top Secret forum?
reply to post by poet1b
Hello again, poet!
I'm not sure which alternate solutions you offered. You mentioned Europe's break from Catholicism (I took it to be an example from you of how violence helped, although I'm not sure if that is the case) and the fall of Nazism. Then near the end of your post you mentioned something akin to an extreme form of McCarthyism....not something I'd expect to work either.
However, I suppose I agree with you. Violence can be effective in suppression. The main thing is: is it a solution we should ever aim for? If the mass murder of 1 million people (with some percentage being innocents caught in the fight) brought about 'world peace', is it acceptable? The mass murder of 100,000 people? See, when it comes to stand-offs like that, the labelling of 'terrorist' on one side and 'liberator' on the other becomes moot point.
I'm still not getting what you are looking for. I'm seeing responses to 9/11 such as:
"We assert unequivocal condemnation based on our religious values and our identity as American Muslims"
and
"We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms"
and
"Attacking innocent people is not courageous, it is stupid and will be punished on the day of judgement. ... It’s not courageous to attack innocent children, women and civilians. It is courageous to protect freedom, it is courageous to defend oneself and not to attack"
and
"As Muslims, we condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Ours is a religion of peace. We are sick and tired of extremists dictating the public face of Islam."
A recent example would be the Deobandi (the school of thought said to be the root of Al-Qaida's beliefs) condemnation of terrorism.
Personal experience is really not the best argument to propound a point. It is almost always biased, and cannot see all the data. I could say the exact opposite of what you claim.
I've been to and lived in places considered fairly 'fundementalist/radical islam' (like Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, etc.), as well as non-muslim places where muslims group together as a population (in the UK and USA) and met with, and am still friends with very devout muslims (both male and female). There was no unusual 'hitting on' of women (although I'm curious as to what you mean by 'they let their sons hit on women') and many muslim women I've met are the most confident and forthright people I know.
So who is 'wrong', me or you? You'll notice it is generally pretty foolish to paint an entire population with a single brush.
All people who adhere to a certain belief are not the same, and as far as Islam goes while they may all follow the same religion, there is nothing in it's teachings telling people to let their sons hit on non-muslim women, or to mooch off your neighbours while not reciprocating their kindness, or to 'not bring your women around'; so I'm still not sure what your point is here.
As for your definition of a cult, the majority of Islam has no leaders, so there is no 'blind following of leaders', and no 'indoctrination' going on, and everything is out-open, up-front. Besides, most religions would fit the bill for your definition of a cult. I still think 'cult' is just a silly label.
[edit on 13-3-2008 by babloyi]
Hello again, poet!
Originally posted by poet1b
No, I am just pointing out that the claim that violence isn't effective in forcing change is false. As you read further down my post, you will see I offer two solutions other than violence. It is my opinion that if some alternative solution is not found to the current conflict between the West and the Muslim world, then violence will wind up being the final solution. Personally, I would like to see any other solution than a violent solution.
I'm not sure which alternate solutions you offered. You mentioned Europe's break from Catholicism (I took it to be an example from you of how violence helped, although I'm not sure if that is the case) and the fall of Nazism. Then near the end of your post you mentioned something akin to an extreme form of McCarthyism....not something I'd expect to work either.
However, I suppose I agree with you. Violence can be effective in suppression. The main thing is: is it a solution we should ever aim for? If the mass murder of 1 million people (with some percentage being innocents caught in the fight) brought about 'world peace', is it acceptable? The mass murder of 100,000 people? See, when it comes to stand-offs like that, the labelling of 'terrorist' on one side and 'liberator' on the other becomes moot point.
Originally posted by poet1b
A very broad and clear statement that all terrorism is wrong. Anything short of this is direct support of terrorist activities as acts of war. Reading these statements that are supposed to condemn terrorism, it becomes clear to me that the Muslim religion is in fact waging a war against the West, while trying to pretend that they are not, and the sooner we realize this and take proper action, the better.
I'm still not getting what you are looking for. I'm seeing responses to 9/11 such as:
"We assert unequivocal condemnation based on our religious values and our identity as American Muslims"
and
"We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms"
and
"Attacking innocent people is not courageous, it is stupid and will be punished on the day of judgement. ... It’s not courageous to attack innocent children, women and civilians. It is courageous to protect freedom, it is courageous to defend oneself and not to attack"
and
"As Muslims, we condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Ours is a religion of peace. We are sick and tired of extremists dictating the public face of Islam."
A recent example would be the Deobandi (the school of thought said to be the root of Al-Qaida's beliefs) condemnation of terrorism.
Originally posted by poet1b
Considerable, many live in the same area as I. Any non-Muslim who cares to know if I am telling the truth simply needs to conduct the test I recommend. Experience is the best teacher.
Personal experience is really not the best argument to propound a point. It is almost always biased, and cannot see all the data. I could say the exact opposite of what you claim.
I've been to and lived in places considered fairly 'fundementalist/radical islam' (like Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, etc.), as well as non-muslim places where muslims group together as a population (in the UK and USA) and met with, and am still friends with very devout muslims (both male and female). There was no unusual 'hitting on' of women (although I'm curious as to what you mean by 'they let their sons hit on women') and many muslim women I've met are the most confident and forthright people I know.
So who is 'wrong', me or you? You'll notice it is generally pretty foolish to paint an entire population with a single brush.
All people who adhere to a certain belief are not the same, and as far as Islam goes while they may all follow the same religion, there is nothing in it's teachings telling people to let their sons hit on non-muslim women, or to mooch off your neighbours while not reciprocating their kindness, or to 'not bring your women around'; so I'm still not sure what your point is here.
As for your definition of a cult, the majority of Islam has no leaders, so there is no 'blind following of leaders', and no 'indoctrination' going on, and everything is out-open, up-front. Besides, most religions would fit the bill for your definition of a cult. I still think 'cult' is just a silly label.
[edit on 13-3-2008 by babloyi]
reply to post by babloyi
WOW, the whole purpose of you post seems only intent on making me look bad.
You state "(I took it to be an example from you of how violence helped, although I'm not sure if that is the case)"
I clearly stated that violence is something that should be used only as a last resort, and that something I would not like to see happen, not that it "helped", as if violence is a good thing. That is a very gross distortion.
Both of these statement are from my first post.
"It is my opinion that if some alternative solution is not found to the current conflict between the West and the Muslim world, then violence will wind up being the final solution. Personally, I would like to see any other solution than a violent solution."
and
"Sadly, I think the odds are that in the end, there will be another world war, this time between these two cultures.?
In the statements you quote of Muslim condemnation of terrorism, the first three statements are too vague to have any real meaning, only the last statement has any real meaning, and even then it could be twisted. No specifics are mentioned, the attack on the twin towers is not mentioned, beheadings of journalists are not mentioned, honor killings are not mentioned. Even then, you do not provide a link.
Then you say, "Personal experience is really not the best argument to propound a point. It is almost always biased, and cannot see all the data."
I completely disagree, and the entire scientific community disagrees. The scientific method based on experimentation is the foundation upon which western science is built, but maybe you don't know anything about that. Of course, it is everyone else who is biased, and not you. The idea that individuals could conduct a simple experiment and make their own decisions is not something you find credible. WOW.
Then you go on to claim that Muslim men do not hit on women who are not Muslims. What world do you live in? Oh yeah, one where everyone else's personal experience is biased. People who belong to religions and cults do have belief systems in common. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the beliefs that Muslims hold in common. Follow the links I have provided, look up honor killings. Seriously, I think you are completely aware of these things, you just want to pretend differently.
Islam has no leaders? Then who was Ayatollah Khomeini and what are Ayatollahs? What is Bin Laden?
By your distortion of things that I have written, you have done a good job of proving that AshleyD is right, that there are people, like you, who feel that criticism of Islam is taboo, and will attack those who dare to criticize Islam.
WOW, the whole purpose of you post seems only intent on making me look bad.
You state "(I took it to be an example from you of how violence helped, although I'm not sure if that is the case)"
I clearly stated that violence is something that should be used only as a last resort, and that something I would not like to see happen, not that it "helped", as if violence is a good thing. That is a very gross distortion.
Both of these statement are from my first post.
"It is my opinion that if some alternative solution is not found to the current conflict between the West and the Muslim world, then violence will wind up being the final solution. Personally, I would like to see any other solution than a violent solution."
and
"Sadly, I think the odds are that in the end, there will be another world war, this time between these two cultures.?
In the statements you quote of Muslim condemnation of terrorism, the first three statements are too vague to have any real meaning, only the last statement has any real meaning, and even then it could be twisted. No specifics are mentioned, the attack on the twin towers is not mentioned, beheadings of journalists are not mentioned, honor killings are not mentioned. Even then, you do not provide a link.
Then you say, "Personal experience is really not the best argument to propound a point. It is almost always biased, and cannot see all the data."
I completely disagree, and the entire scientific community disagrees. The scientific method based on experimentation is the foundation upon which western science is built, but maybe you don't know anything about that. Of course, it is everyone else who is biased, and not you. The idea that individuals could conduct a simple experiment and make their own decisions is not something you find credible. WOW.
Then you go on to claim that Muslim men do not hit on women who are not Muslims. What world do you live in? Oh yeah, one where everyone else's personal experience is biased. People who belong to religions and cults do have belief systems in common. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the beliefs that Muslims hold in common. Follow the links I have provided, look up honor killings. Seriously, I think you are completely aware of these things, you just want to pretend differently.
Islam has no leaders? Then who was Ayatollah Khomeini and what are Ayatollahs? What is Bin Laden?
By your distortion of things that I have written, you have done a good job of proving that AshleyD is right, that there are people, like you, who feel that criticism of Islam is taboo, and will attack those who dare to criticize Islam.
reply to post by poet1b
I apologise if it appears to you that I used my post to make you look bad. That was certainly not my intention. You said some things that I don't think are accurate, and I wished to correct them. Since this discussion is going on, and I'm participating in it, and am inviting more input, it seems somewhat unfair to put words in my mouth and say that criticism of Islam is taboo (and then imply that I am attacking you for it).
Am I distorting anything by saying that you said that that violence stops radical terrorists? Because you did. Later on in that same post, you mentioned how it helped against "the radical and oppressive tactics of the Catholic Church", which is where my parenthesis came in, with me disagreeing with you- that particular case isn't a success story of violence for 'eliminating ruthless ideologies'.
How are they too vague? I still don't get what you are looking for. Terrorism is terrorism, and it is wrong, and those statements show condemnation of it. These statements are all from links from the site that beachcoma posted. These statements were released at the time after the 9/11 attacks, as can be seen from the articles. What do you want me to provide a link to?
The scientific community is in a habit of making absurdly generalised statements about the behaviour of huge swathes of population based on their religion? My mistake, sorry, I was not aware of that. And you'll notice, when I said 'it is almost always biased', I wasn't excluding myself. When I spoke of 'Personal Experience', I wasn't talking about experimentation in general. I was talking about you using your own experiences as a hard-and-fast rule to place all +1.5 billion muslims of the world into one category of people who are either over-possessive, lewd moochers, or nervous women. And I'm amazed that you claim I was the one who had no understanding of 'western science' (whatever that may be).
Also, I never claimed that Muslim men don't hit on women who are non-muslims. If you look carefully at what I wrote, you'll notice I said "there was no unusual 'hitting on' of women"- As in, while I find the concept of 'hitting on' anyone distasteful, I have not seen muslim teenagers partake in this activity in any greater amount than anybody else does. This was in an example of my own 'experimentation' and personal experience, which directly contradicts yours.
This is why it is unscientific to see maybe (lets randomly use) 20 people who have a certain kind of behaviour who also share one characteristic (their overt acceptance of a certain religion), and then use that to claim that all +1.5 billion (or even a significant percentage of that +1.5 billion) people who share that one characteristic would behave in a similar way.
Then you mentioned honour killings. Not sure what this has to do with the topic, nor what it has to do with your tangential attacking of Islam. Islam certainly does not support honour killings, and just because (once again) a small percentage of people who share the religion may also be proponents of honour killings doesn't mean the all people of the religion are like that.
The Ayatollah's are Iranian Clerics of the Shia people. The Iranis make up about 4% of the total muslim population of the world. Again, if you check, you'll notice I said 'the majority of Islam has no leaders'. As for Bin Laden, I've never seen him considered by anyone to be a religious leader of any kind whatsoever. He never had any formal training in religion, he (and his ideology) is rejected as unislamic by most of the muslim population of the world.
Once again, let me emphasise, I have no personal animosity towards you. When someone says something I disagree with, I'm probably going to comment on that. I don't see how anyone can consider this a 'restriction' or a valid point to prove that there is a Social Taboo of Criticising Radical Islam. Criticise Bin Laden all you want. I'd probably join in with you, if I had anything new to say. So would most muslims.
[edit on 14-3-2008 by babloyi]
I apologise if it appears to you that I used my post to make you look bad. That was certainly not my intention. You said some things that I don't think are accurate, and I wished to correct them. Since this discussion is going on, and I'm participating in it, and am inviting more input, it seems somewhat unfair to put words in my mouth and say that criticism of Islam is taboo (and then imply that I am attacking you for it).
Originally posted by poet1b
You state "(I took it to be an example from you of how violence helped, although I'm not sure if that is the case)"
I clearly stated that violence is something that should be used only as a last resort, and that something I would not like to see happen, not that it "helped", as if violence is a good thing. That is a very gross distortion.
Am I distorting anything by saying that you said that that violence stops radical terrorists? Because you did. Later on in that same post, you mentioned how it helped against "the radical and oppressive tactics of the Catholic Church", which is where my parenthesis came in, with me disagreeing with you- that particular case isn't a success story of violence for 'eliminating ruthless ideologies'.
Originally posted by poet1b
In the statements you quote of Muslim condemnation of terrorism, the first three statements are too vague to have any real meaning, only the last statement has any real meaning, and even then it could be twisted. No specifics are mentioned, the attack on the twin towers is not mentioned, beheadings of journalists are not mentioned, honor killings are not mentioned. Even then, you do not provide a link.
How are they too vague? I still don't get what you are looking for. Terrorism is terrorism, and it is wrong, and those statements show condemnation of it. These statements are all from links from the site that beachcoma posted. These statements were released at the time after the 9/11 attacks, as can be seen from the articles. What do you want me to provide a link to?
Originally posted by poet1b
Then you say, "Personal experience is really not the best argument to propound a point. It is almost always biased, and cannot see all the data."
I completely disagree, and the entire scientific community disagrees. The scientific method based on experimentation is the foundation upon which western science is built, but maybe you don't know anything about that. Of course, it is everyone else who is biased, and not you. The idea that individuals could conduct a simple experiment and make their own decisions is not something you find credible. WOW.
The scientific community is in a habit of making absurdly generalised statements about the behaviour of huge swathes of population based on their religion? My mistake, sorry, I was not aware of that. And you'll notice, when I said 'it is almost always biased', I wasn't excluding myself. When I spoke of 'Personal Experience', I wasn't talking about experimentation in general. I was talking about you using your own experiences as a hard-and-fast rule to place all +1.5 billion muslims of the world into one category of people who are either over-possessive, lewd moochers, or nervous women. And I'm amazed that you claim I was the one who had no understanding of 'western science' (whatever that may be).
Also, I never claimed that Muslim men don't hit on women who are non-muslims. If you look carefully at what I wrote, you'll notice I said "there was no unusual 'hitting on' of women"- As in, while I find the concept of 'hitting on' anyone distasteful, I have not seen muslim teenagers partake in this activity in any greater amount than anybody else does. This was in an example of my own 'experimentation' and personal experience, which directly contradicts yours.
This is why it is unscientific to see maybe (lets randomly use) 20 people who have a certain kind of behaviour who also share one characteristic (their overt acceptance of a certain religion), and then use that to claim that all +1.5 billion (or even a significant percentage of that +1.5 billion) people who share that one characteristic would behave in a similar way.
Then you mentioned honour killings. Not sure what this has to do with the topic, nor what it has to do with your tangential attacking of Islam. Islam certainly does not support honour killings, and just because (once again) a small percentage of people who share the religion may also be proponents of honour killings doesn't mean the all people of the religion are like that.
The Ayatollah's are Iranian Clerics of the Shia people. The Iranis make up about 4% of the total muslim population of the world. Again, if you check, you'll notice I said 'the majority of Islam has no leaders'. As for Bin Laden, I've never seen him considered by anyone to be a religious leader of any kind whatsoever. He never had any formal training in religion, he (and his ideology) is rejected as unislamic by most of the muslim population of the world.
Once again, let me emphasise, I have no personal animosity towards you. When someone says something I disagree with, I'm probably going to comment on that. I don't see how anyone can consider this a 'restriction' or a valid point to prove that there is a Social Taboo of Criticising Radical Islam. Criticise Bin Laden all you want. I'd probably join in with you, if I had anything new to say. So would most muslims.
[edit on 14-3-2008 by babloyi]
reply to post by babloyi
Maybe you are only guilty of making huge leaps of logic, where your assumptions are not even close to the reality, and attempting to distort everything at every opportunity. Maybe you do not do this on purpose, but I think that you do.
Your twisted interpretation of my views on violence have nothing to do with my original statement. which I am not going to post again. Violence can be effective against oppressive ideologies and religions. This is a reality.
The statements you posted as proof of Islamic condemnation of terrorism have no specifics and can be interpreted in many ways, as I stated in my previous post. This is why they are not given any credence. A better effort needs to be made.
Let's use honor killings as an example. You claim that the Muslim community condemns this type of activity. Can you post a link to a site where Muslim leadership or the Muslim community in general specifically condemns Honor Killings? If you could, then that would go long way in proving your point that the Muslim community is actively trying to stop these types of activities. Currently, I do not see it. How about a link where Muslims condemn the whole practice of shunning their children should their children decide to explore other cultures and religions.
I never claimed that all 1.5 billion Muslims act as if they are part of some collective as you imply. Once again, you are making massive unrealistic leaps of logic.
In Muslim Culture, women are supposed to be escorted by a male relative. Many Muslims continue to practice this custom even while they live in other countries. Muslim men, on the other hand, are allowed to go as they choose.
Yeah, it is unusual for Muslim men to be able to go out and participate in dating of other women, while Muslim women are prevented from doing the very same thing. This is different than almost all other cultures. This is a very hypocritical practice at the very heart of the problem with Islam, their cultural tendency to treat their women like property.
I provided an example of Muslim leadership. I am not going to take the effort to specify all the other types of leaders in the Muslim world. My examples proved your point wrong. There are in fact leaders in the Muslim world. Just because one group does not accept the leadership of another does not mean that leaders do not exist in the Muslim world.
Maybe you are only guilty of making huge leaps of logic, where your assumptions are not even close to the reality, and attempting to distort everything at every opportunity. Maybe you do not do this on purpose, but I think that you do.
Your twisted interpretation of my views on violence have nothing to do with my original statement. which I am not going to post again. Violence can be effective against oppressive ideologies and religions. This is a reality.
The statements you posted as proof of Islamic condemnation of terrorism have no specifics and can be interpreted in many ways, as I stated in my previous post. This is why they are not given any credence. A better effort needs to be made.
Let's use honor killings as an example. You claim that the Muslim community condemns this type of activity. Can you post a link to a site where Muslim leadership or the Muslim community in general specifically condemns Honor Killings? If you could, then that would go long way in proving your point that the Muslim community is actively trying to stop these types of activities. Currently, I do not see it. How about a link where Muslims condemn the whole practice of shunning their children should their children decide to explore other cultures and religions.
I never claimed that all 1.5 billion Muslims act as if they are part of some collective as you imply. Once again, you are making massive unrealistic leaps of logic.
In Muslim Culture, women are supposed to be escorted by a male relative. Many Muslims continue to practice this custom even while they live in other countries. Muslim men, on the other hand, are allowed to go as they choose.
Yeah, it is unusual for Muslim men to be able to go out and participate in dating of other women, while Muslim women are prevented from doing the very same thing. This is different than almost all other cultures. This is a very hypocritical practice at the very heart of the problem with Islam, their cultural tendency to treat their women like property.
I provided an example of Muslim leadership. I am not going to take the effort to specify all the other types of leaders in the Muslim world. My examples proved your point wrong. There are in fact leaders in the Muslim world. Just because one group does not accept the leadership of another does not mean that leaders do not exist in the Muslim world.
reply to post by poet1b
Hello again poet. I don't know how I can convince you of this, but I really am not trying to distort anything you are saying. As far as I can see, what you are saying is not being distorted by me (intentionally or unintentionally). You say something, and I give my response to it. This is all I am doing.
Let us ignore for now what you said/didn't say about violence against oppressive ideologies. The reader can decide what was meant.
How exactly are the statements not specific? The page beachcoma posted mainly focuses on condemnation of the 9/11 attacks. It links to articles that came out soon after 9/11 where the people are saying "We condemn these attacks...!". How is it not specific? Do you really think that these people are so childish that while they are saying "We condemn these attacks..." in the context of the 9/11 attacks, in their heads they are actually laughing and thinking "Hahaha! It's not actually these attacks we condemn, but the attacks that happened to us yesterday!" ? Please specify in what other ways the statements can be interpreted. I'm interested in what you will say.
You are making my work way too easy. Do you REALLY think that Islam condones honour killings?
In your original post, you used the word 'muslim' most places, with no qualifiers whatsoever (not even the 'radical' that is being talked about in this thread). MUSLIM men give murderous looks. MUSLIM men never bring any for you. MUSLIM women are nervous. MUSLIM atrocities. What message did you expect to convey? Anyhow, let us limit this 'Muslim' to 'Devout Muslim' (one who follows their scriptures), and thus greatly reduce the +1.5 billion number. Your statements still do not stand.
I really have no idea what you are saying here. Muslim men should not go out for dates, and neither should women, and this is hypocritical? Aside from the fact that Islam is not a culture (considering that is spans over +1.5 billion people in regions all over the world, with unique cultures and customs of their own), how is it different in any other religions (not cultures)? How does this show a 'cultural tendency to treat women like property'? Once again, you accused me of making assumptions and jumping to conclusions, when you seem to be doing it yourself.
And no, your example didn't prove my point wrong. My point was that the majority of Islam has no leaders. You mentioned something that applies to 4% of muslims (and probably not even some of those). In fact, technically, an Ayatollah is a high ranking cleric, not a leader at all. Then you mentioned Ayatollah Khomeini- The fact that some ayatollahs decide to take up politics does not mean that an ayatollah is by definition a 'leader'.
[edit on 15-3-2008 by babloyi]
Hello again poet. I don't know how I can convince you of this, but I really am not trying to distort anything you are saying. As far as I can see, what you are saying is not being distorted by me (intentionally or unintentionally). You say something, and I give my response to it. This is all I am doing.
Let us ignore for now what you said/didn't say about violence against oppressive ideologies. The reader can decide what was meant.
How exactly are the statements not specific? The page beachcoma posted mainly focuses on condemnation of the 9/11 attacks. It links to articles that came out soon after 9/11 where the people are saying "We condemn these attacks...!". How is it not specific? Do you really think that these people are so childish that while they are saying "We condemn these attacks..." in the context of the 9/11 attacks, in their heads they are actually laughing and thinking "Hahaha! It's not actually these attacks we condemn, but the attacks that happened to us yesterday!" ? Please specify in what other ways the statements can be interpreted. I'm interested in what you will say.
Originally posted by poet1b
Let's use honor killings as an example. You claim that the Muslim community condemns this type of activity. Can you post a link to a site where Muslim leadership or the Muslim community in general specifically condemns Honor Killings?
You are making my work way too easy. Do you REALLY think that Islam condones honour killings?
Originally posted by poet1b
I never claimed that all 1.5 billion Muslims act as if they are part of some collective as you imply. Once again, you are making massive unrealistic leaps of logic.
In your original post, you used the word 'muslim' most places, with no qualifiers whatsoever (not even the 'radical' that is being talked about in this thread). MUSLIM men give murderous looks. MUSLIM men never bring any for you. MUSLIM women are nervous. MUSLIM atrocities. What message did you expect to convey? Anyhow, let us limit this 'Muslim' to 'Devout Muslim' (one who follows their scriptures), and thus greatly reduce the +1.5 billion number. Your statements still do not stand.
Originally posted by poet1b
Yeah, it is unusual for Muslim men to be able to go out and participate in dating of other women, while Muslim women are prevented from doing the very same thing. This is different than almost all other cultures. This is a very hypocritical practice at the very heart of the problem with Islam, their cultural tendency to treat their women like property.
I really have no idea what you are saying here. Muslim men should not go out for dates, and neither should women, and this is hypocritical? Aside from the fact that Islam is not a culture (considering that is spans over +1.5 billion people in regions all over the world, with unique cultures and customs of their own), how is it different in any other religions (not cultures)? How does this show a 'cultural tendency to treat women like property'? Once again, you accused me of making assumptions and jumping to conclusions, when you seem to be doing it yourself.
And no, your example didn't prove my point wrong. My point was that the majority of Islam has no leaders. You mentioned something that applies to 4% of muslims (and probably not even some of those). In fact, technically, an Ayatollah is a high ranking cleric, not a leader at all. Then you mentioned Ayatollah Khomeini- The fact that some ayatollahs decide to take up politics does not mean that an ayatollah is by definition a 'leader'.
[edit on 15-3-2008 by babloyi]
I don't have much time to reply, but in short.
Without explaining exactly what they are condemning, these Muslim leaders are saying nothing at all, kind of like Pinocchio in Shrek the Third.
You link to an article about honor killing where the guy states that they can not condone honor killings, and that is supposed to be talking out against honor killings? Do you know what the word condone means? Then the guy goes on to make excuses for honor killings.
So this guy states that he does not look on honor killings with relative tolerance. This is not speaking out against the practice, it is saying that he can live with it. You are only confirming that Muslims are not willing to speak out against horrific acts in the name of Muhammad. How could this be, when talking about such a horrendous act as a father sending his youngest son to kill his sister for adopting western culture, a muslim can not talk with frank horror and disgust against such an act.
You are not seeing the reality because you choose to ignore the elephant standing in front of you.
If you are a Muslim, and you want to prove me wrong, then speak out against this horrendous act will brutal honesty.
Without explaining exactly what they are condemning, these Muslim leaders are saying nothing at all, kind of like Pinocchio in Shrek the Third.
You link to an article about honor killing where the guy states that they can not condone honor killings, and that is supposed to be talking out against honor killings? Do you know what the word condone means? Then the guy goes on to make excuses for honor killings.
So this guy states that he does not look on honor killings with relative tolerance. This is not speaking out against the practice, it is saying that he can live with it. You are only confirming that Muslims are not willing to speak out against horrific acts in the name of Muhammad. How could this be, when talking about such a horrendous act as a father sending his youngest son to kill his sister for adopting western culture, a muslim can not talk with frank horror and disgust against such an act.
You are not seeing the reality because you choose to ignore the elephant standing in front of you.
If you are a Muslim, and you want to prove me wrong, then speak out against this horrendous act will brutal honesty.
By the way, I think that there are moderate Muslims who are truly horrified by the concept of honor killings, that are afraid to speak out with their
honest feelings about these horrific acts.
reply to post by poet1b
Yes, I know what condone means. I'm not sure, but over the past few posts it seems that you have been insinuating that I may be of relatively lower intelligence due to my religion. Please, forgive me if I am wrong, but it is something I've been picking up. While I have no knowledge of your background (except perhaps some signs of latent xenophobia) to make a comparison, let me assure you that I more than adequately equipped to conduct any discussion over here.
Just so that we are on the same page here, let me quote from answers.com:
So I am somewhat amazed that you equate that to "not look on with relative tolerance" and "it is saying that he can live with it". Lets see some other examples of 'condone' by searching it on the web: Interestingly enough, on the top of the list was "93% Of Muslims Worldwide Do Not Condone 9/11 Attacks, 0% Support religious grounds for attack". Then we have "We do not condone any form of illegal activities involving copyrighted materials" and "Banning users who defy such requests sends out a clear message that you don't condone the violation of other people's rights".
Next, I'm curious how you went from "honour killings" to "horrific acts in the name of Muhammad". I'm pretty sure he didn't call on Muhammad just before murdering anybody, and besides, I don't think many things are done today in the name of Muhammad, considering he died some 1400 years ago. I did not pick this chain of connection from anywhere. Where did you get it from? Please clarify.
Also, what reality am I not seeing? I did not deny the existence of honour killings. I am still not getting what you are looking for. What 'brutal honesty'? Honour killing is wrong and immoral and unislamic, as can be attested by millions of websites/organisations/people/leaders as well as by myself. How much more honest can one get?
PS: I dislike the term 'moderate muslim', because as far as I can see, it is meaningless. A muslim would either be following Islam, or just be a muslim by name.
If you used the term as a way of saying "A muslim who is not following islam to the fullest degree", then it would still not be right, because a muslim following islam to the fullest degree would condemn such acts, and not be doing them. In this case, it would be the 'moderate follower' who would be doing honour killings.
If you use the term as a way of saying "a muslim who is also a moderate [something else]", then that is confusing, as well as being slightly dishonest, like as if I called someone a "Christian Murder" in an attempt to connect some act of their's to their named religion.
Islamically it also makes no sense, considering that Muslims are called 'people of the middle way' or 'the justly balanced ummah' in the Quran, so by definition they are moderate, making 'moderate muslim' a tautology.
[edit on 19-3-2008 by babloyi]
Originally posted by poet1b
You link to an article about honor killing where the guy states that they can not condone honor killings, and that is supposed to be talking out against honor killings? Do you know what the word condone means? Then the guy goes on to make excuses for honor killings.
So this guy states that he does not look on honor killings with relative tolerance. This is not speaking out against the practice, it is saying that he can live with it. You are only confirming that Muslims are not willing to speak out against horrific acts in the name of Muhammad. How could this be, when talking about such a horrendous act as a father sending his youngest son to kill his sister for adopting western culture, a muslim can not talk with frank horror and disgust against such an act.
Yes, I know what condone means. I'm not sure, but over the past few posts it seems that you have been insinuating that I may be of relatively lower intelligence due to my religion. Please, forgive me if I am wrong, but it is something I've been picking up. While I have no knowledge of your background (except perhaps some signs of latent xenophobia) to make a comparison, let me assure you that I more than adequately equipped to conduct any discussion over here.
Just so that we are on the same page here, let me quote from answers.com:
Condone:
To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.
To grant forgiveness to or for
To overlook or dismiss an offense.
So I am somewhat amazed that you equate that to "not look on with relative tolerance" and "it is saying that he can live with it". Lets see some other examples of 'condone' by searching it on the web: Interestingly enough, on the top of the list was "93% Of Muslims Worldwide Do Not Condone 9/11 Attacks, 0% Support religious grounds for attack". Then we have "We do not condone any form of illegal activities involving copyrighted materials" and "Banning users who defy such requests sends out a clear message that you don't condone the violation of other people's rights".
Next, I'm curious how you went from "honour killings" to "horrific acts in the name of Muhammad". I'm pretty sure he didn't call on Muhammad just before murdering anybody, and besides, I don't think many things are done today in the name of Muhammad, considering he died some 1400 years ago. I did not pick this chain of connection from anywhere. Where did you get it from? Please clarify.
Also, what reality am I not seeing? I did not deny the existence of honour killings. I am still not getting what you are looking for. What 'brutal honesty'? Honour killing is wrong and immoral and unislamic, as can be attested by millions of websites/organisations/people/leaders as well as by myself. How much more honest can one get?
PS: I dislike the term 'moderate muslim', because as far as I can see, it is meaningless. A muslim would either be following Islam, or just be a muslim by name.
If you used the term as a way of saying "A muslim who is not following islam to the fullest degree", then it would still not be right, because a muslim following islam to the fullest degree would condemn such acts, and not be doing them. In this case, it would be the 'moderate follower' who would be doing honour killings.
If you use the term as a way of saying "a muslim who is also a moderate [something else]", then that is confusing, as well as being slightly dishonest, like as if I called someone a "Christian Murder" in an attempt to connect some act of their's to their named religion.
Islamically it also makes no sense, considering that Muslims are called 'people of the middle way' or 'the justly balanced ummah' in the Quran, so by definition they are moderate, making 'moderate muslim' a tautology.
[edit on 19-3-2008 by babloyi]
reply to post by babloyi
No, I do not think you are lacking in intelligence, I think you are a fairly clever deceiver. It is you honesty that I have been questioning from the beginning.
How can you claim that a Muslim stating that he can not condone honor killings, or in the very words you posted as a definition of condone, he can not overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure, as a reasonable response to such an atrocity. Where is the protest? Muslims riot on the streets of the depiction of Muhammad in a cartoon, and this is the best response they can muster about such a horrific act as honor killings? The only reasonable response to such a horrible act has a father sending his sons out to kill his daughter because she turned her back on his religions is massive effort to end such horrible acts. My definition is from the dictionary on my computer stand. Condone means mainly that no action will be taken against these acts, and that is intolerable. It is the mildest thing that can be said about things that people do that are wrong. You might say that you can not condone adultery, or petty theft, but this is not the word for murder.
Here is a definition from another dictionary.
to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless
Something that you can not condone is something that you do not approve of but still live with. Murder is intolerable, it can not be allowed, it is an offense against humanity.
Sorry, but honor killing is completely related to Muhammad, and the Muslim religion, you even have a name for it, and yet you try to deny the connection.
What I am looking for is you to say that honor killings are horrible practice that is associated with the Muslim religion, and admit that there is a reason why it is Muslims who commit this horrible crime. I want you to admit that the Muslim response to honor killings is almost invisible, when it should be a major point of discussion among all Muslims.
You say by definitions Muslims are moderates, but the fact that Muslims will disown their own children for turning their back on the Muslim religion is not moderate. Forcing women to be covered from head to toe, to always be with a male escort, and to beat women for getting raped, these things are not moderate. Either you are in denial, or your real goal is to try and convince others that these things that Muslims do are not real.
No, I do not think you are lacking in intelligence, I think you are a fairly clever deceiver. It is you honesty that I have been questioning from the beginning.
How can you claim that a Muslim stating that he can not condone honor killings, or in the very words you posted as a definition of condone, he can not overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure, as a reasonable response to such an atrocity. Where is the protest? Muslims riot on the streets of the depiction of Muhammad in a cartoon, and this is the best response they can muster about such a horrific act as honor killings? The only reasonable response to such a horrible act has a father sending his sons out to kill his daughter because she turned her back on his religions is massive effort to end such horrible acts. My definition is from the dictionary on my computer stand. Condone means mainly that no action will be taken against these acts, and that is intolerable. It is the mildest thing that can be said about things that people do that are wrong. You might say that you can not condone adultery, or petty theft, but this is not the word for murder.
Here is a definition from another dictionary.
to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless
Something that you can not condone is something that you do not approve of but still live with. Murder is intolerable, it can not be allowed, it is an offense against humanity.
Sorry, but honor killing is completely related to Muhammad, and the Muslim religion, you even have a name for it, and yet you try to deny the connection.
What I am looking for is you to say that honor killings are horrible practice that is associated with the Muslim religion, and admit that there is a reason why it is Muslims who commit this horrible crime. I want you to admit that the Muslim response to honor killings is almost invisible, when it should be a major point of discussion among all Muslims.
You say by definitions Muslims are moderates, but the fact that Muslims will disown their own children for turning their back on the Muslim religion is not moderate. Forcing women to be covered from head to toe, to always be with a male escort, and to beat women for getting raped, these things are not moderate. Either you are in denial, or your real goal is to try and convince others that these things that Muslims do are not real.
reply to post by poet1b
I'm not too fond of being called a liar (probably less so than being called unintelligent). And it is funny, because you are the one who is adding extra meaning to the word 'condone'. Where is this definition that says "mainly that no action will be taken against these acts", or "Something that you can not condone is something that you do not approve of but still live with"?
To illustrate with an example: You said "You might say that you can not condone adultery, or petty theft, but this is not the word for murder". So tell me, do you condone, or do you not condone murder? Simple question: Condone, or not condone. Please tell me. Heck, I can even add a neutral/sometimes option for you to choose from.
Are you trying to be funny? Muslim's did not come up with the name. And please show the relation of honour killings to Muhammad or Muslims, because I see it nowhere- there is no religious justification for honour killings.
But it is not (associated with the muslim religion). Your desire for this to be shows that you care less about honour killings, and more about using them as a tool to defame the Islamic religion. Why should people lie? Nowhere in the Islamic scriptures is there any support for such an act. Hindus perform honour killings as well. So do Sikhs. There is no, and should be no reason why they commit it (Why do you want there to be?!). About protests, why aren't you protesting in the streets against honour killings? What, DO YOU CONDONE THEM?! I've seen more protests by muslims against Honour Killings than I've seen non-muslim Americans protest.
Once again, you use the term 'muslim', with no qualifiers whatsoever, but if I assume that you are talking about all +1.5 billion, you'll call me a deceiver. So lets assume you are talking about all devout muslims (who follow the Islamic Scriptures). If this is the case, none of your points stand. Muslims are not allowed to disown their children. Nobody is forced to cover from head to tow, it is not necessary to be with a male escort, and there is no command for beating women who get raped. I'm not sure who is the one in denial.
[edit on 22-3-2008 by babloyi]
Originally posted by poet1b
No, I do not think you are lacking in intelligence, I think you are a fairly clever deceiver. It is you honesty that I have been questioning from the beginning.
I'm not too fond of being called a liar (probably less so than being called unintelligent). And it is funny, because you are the one who is adding extra meaning to the word 'condone'. Where is this definition that says "mainly that no action will be taken against these acts", or "Something that you can not condone is something that you do not approve of but still live with"?
To illustrate with an example: You said "You might say that you can not condone adultery, or petty theft, but this is not the word for murder". So tell me, do you condone, or do you not condone murder? Simple question: Condone, or not condone. Please tell me. Heck, I can even add a neutral/sometimes option for you to choose from.
Originally posted by poet1b
Sorry, but honor killing is completely related to Muhammad, and the Muslim religion, you even have a name for it, and yet you try to deny the connection.
Are you trying to be funny? Muslim's did not come up with the name. And please show the relation of honour killings to Muhammad or Muslims, because I see it nowhere- there is no religious justification for honour killings.
Originally posted by poet1b
What I am looking for is you to say that honor killings are horrible practice that is associated with the Muslim religion, and admit that there is a reason why it is Muslims who commit this horrible crime. I want you to admit that the Muslim response to honor killings is almost invisible, when it should be a major point of discussion among all Muslims.
But it is not (associated with the muslim religion). Your desire for this to be shows that you care less about honour killings, and more about using them as a tool to defame the Islamic religion. Why should people lie? Nowhere in the Islamic scriptures is there any support for such an act. Hindus perform honour killings as well. So do Sikhs. There is no, and should be no reason why they commit it (Why do you want there to be?!). About protests, why aren't you protesting in the streets against honour killings? What, DO YOU CONDONE THEM?! I've seen more protests by muslims against Honour Killings than I've seen non-muslim Americans protest.
Originally posted by poet1b
You say by definitions Muslims are moderates, but the fact that Muslims will disown their own children for turning their back on the Muslim religion is not moderate. Forcing women to be covered from head to toe, to always be with a male escort, and to beat women for getting raped, these things are not moderate. Either you are in denial, or your real goal is to try and convince others that these things that Muslims do are not real.
Once again, you use the term 'muslim', with no qualifiers whatsoever, but if I assume that you are talking about all +1.5 billion, you'll call me a deceiver. So lets assume you are talking about all devout muslims (who follow the Islamic Scriptures). If this is the case, none of your points stand. Muslims are not allowed to disown their children. Nobody is forced to cover from head to tow, it is not necessary to be with a male escort, and there is no command for beating women who get raped. I'm not sure who is the one in denial.
[edit on 22-3-2008 by babloyi]
reply to post by babloyi
When you use the phrase that you do not condone something, you are saying exactly as I have stated, that it is not something you do not approve of, that you recognize as being wrong, but it is not something you are going to do something about, and even more, it is something that you will overlook. This is what the phrase means, and you know as well as I. This article you linked to goes on to give excuses for committing these honor killings. It is a fluff piece. All these links that you claim show that Muslims are critical of these activities are cleverly worded pretensions to protest.
In my first posting on this thread I provided a link to honor killings, here it is again.
www.iht.com...
I have never heard of any other religion practicing this atrocity. Do you have any links to prove your claims that these other religions engage in this type of activity? Do you have any links that talk about Muslim protests of honor killings? It is well recorded that Muslims engage in this practice, but of course you will deny it, as you deny all the evidence that, and all reasons for criticizing Islam. The evidence is there in this link, and there are numerous articles about this Muslim practice.
Will you admit that this practice of honor killings is carried out by Muslims and denounce it as a horrible practice? Are you willing to state that a father should never coerce and force his children to adopt his religion, but should give his children the ability to choose what faith they will follow?
When you use the phrase that you do not condone something, you are saying exactly as I have stated, that it is not something you do not approve of, that you recognize as being wrong, but it is not something you are going to do something about, and even more, it is something that you will overlook. This is what the phrase means, and you know as well as I. This article you linked to goes on to give excuses for committing these honor killings. It is a fluff piece. All these links that you claim show that Muslims are critical of these activities are cleverly worded pretensions to protest.
In my first posting on this thread I provided a link to honor killings, here it is again.
www.iht.com...
I have never heard of any other religion practicing this atrocity. Do you have any links to prove your claims that these other religions engage in this type of activity? Do you have any links that talk about Muslim protests of honor killings? It is well recorded that Muslims engage in this practice, but of course you will deny it, as you deny all the evidence that, and all reasons for criticizing Islam. The evidence is there in this link, and there are numerous articles about this Muslim practice.
Will you admit that this practice of honor killings is carried out by Muslims and denounce it as a horrible practice? Are you willing to state that a father should never coerce and force his children to adopt his religion, but should give his children the ability to choose what faith they will follow?
reply to post by poet1b
No, I'm sorry, but now you are making up your own words. Since the meaning of condone has "To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.", how can "do not condone" mean you are willing to overlook it? This seems a rather disappointing fall in the discussion. I beg you, please, do not let something you 'heard' (and believe without question) overshadow your logic.
I am surprised at your lack of knowledge on the issue. Here are some from the tip of the iceberg:
www.guardian.co.uk...
www.telegraphindia.com...
timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
It is well recorded that many CULTURES partake in this horrible activity. Of course it is wrong. But it is definitely not Islamic in nature.
I'm sorry. I finally realise that you don't really care. This is not a serious conversation. You will believe whatever you wish to believe, and since you wish to believe that muslims are by definition hate-mongering, misogynistic, greedy, moochers, there is nothing I can do about that. I show the information, you twist it to mean whatever you want. Alright. I admit it. Muslims are evil, and they are out to get you. Don't leave your daughters out, or the muslim boys might 'hit on them'.
EDIT: On rereading my post, I suppose I really did go a bit overboard there. Sorry for that. I think you've broken me .
[edit on 22-3-2008 by babloyi]
Originally posted by poet1b
When you use the phrase that you do not condone something, you are saying exactly as I have stated, that it is not something you do not approve of, that you recognize as being wrong, but it is not something you are going to do something about, and even more, it is something that you will overlook. This is what the phrase means, and you know as well as I.
No, I'm sorry, but now you are making up your own words. Since the meaning of condone has "To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.", how can "do not condone" mean you are willing to overlook it? This seems a rather disappointing fall in the discussion. I beg you, please, do not let something you 'heard' (and believe without question) overshadow your logic.
Originally posted by poet1b
I have never heard of any other religion practicing this atrocity. Do you have any links to prove your claims that these other religions engage in this type of activity?
I am surprised at your lack of knowledge on the issue. Here are some from the tip of the iceberg:
www.guardian.co.uk...
www.telegraphindia.com...
timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
It is well recorded that many CULTURES partake in this horrible activity. Of course it is wrong. But it is definitely not Islamic in nature.
Originally posted by poet1b
All these links that you claim show that Muslims are critical of these activities are cleverly worded pretensions to protest.
I'm sorry. I finally realise that you don't really care. This is not a serious conversation. You will believe whatever you wish to believe, and since you wish to believe that muslims are by definition hate-mongering, misogynistic, greedy, moochers, there is nothing I can do about that. I show the information, you twist it to mean whatever you want. Alright. I admit it. Muslims are evil, and they are out to get you. Don't leave your daughters out, or the muslim boys might 'hit on them'.
EDIT: On rereading my post, I suppose I really did go a bit overboard there. Sorry for that. I think you've broken me .
[edit on 22-3-2008 by babloyi]
new topics
-
Ireland VS Globalists
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 23 seconds ago -
Biden "Happy To Debate Trump"
Mainstream News: 31 minutes ago -
RAAF airbase in Roswell, New Mexico is on fire
Aliens and UFOs: 40 minutes ago -
What is the white pill?
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 2 hours ago -
Mike Pinder The Moody Blues R.I.P.
Music: 2 hours ago -
Putin, Russia and the Great Architects of the Universe
ATS Skunk Works: 6 hours ago -
A Warning to America: 25 Ways the US is Being Destroyed
New World Order: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
President BIDEN's FBI Raided Donald Trump's Florida Home for OBAMA-NORTH KOREA Documents.
Political Conspiracies: 16 hours ago, 34 flags -
A Warning to America: 25 Ways the US is Being Destroyed
New World Order: 10 hours ago, 18 flags -
Mike Pinder The Moody Blues R.I.P.
Music: 2 hours ago, 7 flags -
What is the white pill?
Philosophy and Metaphysics: 2 hours ago, 5 flags -
RAAF airbase in Roswell, New Mexico is on fire
Aliens and UFOs: 40 minutes ago, 4 flags -
Is AI Better Than the Hollywood Elite?
Movies: 17 hours ago, 4 flags -
Biden "Happy To Debate Trump"
Mainstream News: 31 minutes ago, 3 flags -
Putin, Russia and the Great Architects of the Universe
ATS Skunk Works: 6 hours ago, 2 flags -
Maestro Benedetto
Literature: 17 hours ago, 1 flags -
Ireland VS Globalists
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 23 seconds ago, 0 flags
active topics
-
Ireland VS Globalists
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 0 • : TimBurr -
Biden "Happy To Debate Trump"
Mainstream News • 6 • : KrustyKrab -
New whistleblower Jason Sands speaks on Twitter Spaces last night.
Aliens and UFOs • 73 • : pianopraze -
Meadows, Giuliani Among 11 Indicted in Arizona in Latest 2020 Election Subversion Case
Mainstream News • 27 • : IndieA -
RAAF airbase in Roswell, New Mexico is on fire
Aliens and UFOs • 3 • : Degradation33 -
Gaza Terrorists Attack US Humanitarian Pier During Construction
Middle East Issues • 79 • : Asher47 -
University of Texas Instantly Shuts Down Anti Israel Protests
Education and Media • 277 • : Threadbarer -
What is the white pill?
Philosophy and Metaphysics • 14 • : kwaka -
Las Vegas UFO Spotting Teen Traumatized by Demon Creature in Backyard
Aliens and UFOs • 16 • : introufo2 -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7136 • : underpass61