The Religion of Peace?

[Jive Turkey]

I think it can literally be traced to this guy

Al-Ghazali - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sure there were contributing factors, but this is the man who more or less buried Islamic science

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Nothing to do with religion. Move along folks.

BBC News - Riot police battle Islamists in Dhaka Bangladesh

The majority of Dhaha are Muslim, so in this example the members of the government and police would probably be majority Muslim. Yet you are insisting that the religion is at fault and not the interpretation of the religion. So practicing Muslims are fighting and arresting rioting Muslims, but you are convinced it's the religion and no other factors? So what's wrong with these practicing Muslims what are part of the government and police force? They don't seem to fit into your black and white argument.

I feel like there's a chicken or the egg conversation going on, most of us are saying it's a conversation about how the chicken is raised or how the egg is cooked, and you are red faced pounding the table yelling with all absolution that it's the egg.

[Jive Turkey]

How can you say this isn't a religious matter?? Jesus. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears "la la la la la!". You've got a population of highly religious people - people who only want what the Quran is asking of them - rioting against a relatively secular government. The problem is they don't think their government is Islamic enough. You need to open your eyes.
And I'm not red faced (though I guess it helps you to justify your irrationality by projecting it onto me), but you should be red with embarrassment. Your analogy says absolutely nothing substantial about anything (I'm sure you thought it was pretty clever... sorry). Maybe try addressing actual facts instead of making vague, pseudo-intellectual analogies. Actually, this would be the perfect time to relate it all back to the "socio-economic" factors you were talking about the other day

And please stop hiding behind the dishonest phrase "interpreting the religion", as if those people are doing it wrong (again, the majority of them)

[Jive Turkey]

Even on the sliding scale of secularism, the government is still doing this:

"She said the government had already arrested four bloggers for making "derogatory comments" against the Prophet Muhammad and they would be punished if found guilty. "

And you don't think any of this has to do with religion? Take your head out of the sand, chief. This illustrates perfectly how irrational you are in defense of religion. I'd love to hear all about your "other factors"

[Kieran McConville]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

But it wasn't colonialism that stifled their progress; it was their own religious fanaticism. Progress and an intellectually fertile society were nearly instantly stopped in their tracks.
I'm not disagreeing with your whole post, just clarifying that detail
In a way, yes, much like the Taliban; But imagine that happening in the west today and you'd have a more accurate understanding of how much of an impact it had

Mmmm... I know you've got your hobby horse and far be it from me to drag you from the saddle, but why did this particular process take the better part of a thousand years?

Because the serious decline in the Islamic world's material and political ascendency (Middle East, Africa, Mughal India; admittedly Spain was long gone by then) mostly post-dates 1500 (not coincidentally when Europe began to become less dependent on the Mediterranean and land routes to Asia). ...Though the earlier (13th C?) Mongol attacks on Baghdad and further west arguably dealt a very heavy blow also. Ancient Rome proved unable to withstand similar assaults from the Huns etc.

The marriage of convenience between the house of Saud and Wahabbist fundamentalism in the 19th century, although unrelated to the above developments (indeed they were mainly antagonistic toward a perceived-to-be insufficiently pious Ottoman Empire), has a lot to answer for.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

How can you say this isn't a religious matter?? Jesus. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears "la la la la la!". You've got a population of highly religious people - people who only want what the Quran is asking of them - rioting against a relatively secular government. The problem is they don't think their government is Islamic enough.

So where is the majority in this particular matter? Why are they not joining this riot against the government? So are the majority in this country doing it wrong and the rioters have it correct? I guess once we have these inconsistencies hashed out we can start to discuss in a civil manner this very black and white issue you've put forth.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by BVS

So where is the majority in this particular matter? Why are they not joining this riot against the government? So are the majority in this country doing it wrong and the rioters have it correct? I guess once we have these inconsistencies hashed out we can start to discuss in a civil manner this very black and white issue you've put forth.

So because everybody isn't rioting in the streets, you're right? I've shown you the numbers. The majority of muslims support Sharia law. Hell, since this conversation began, I've come across a Canadian study that says over 60% of muslims living in Canada want Sharia law to apply to Muslim communities. 60%! It's amazing that your whole argument consists of saying (and little more) that the people not abiding by the word of the quran are proof that this isn't a religious issue.
When are you going to stop dodging and actually apply your geopolitical reasoning to any of the situations brought up here. You've literally not supplied us with any argument save for vague notions and platitudes. "no it's not" seems to be all you can muster

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

Mmmm... I know you've got your hobby horse and far be it from me to drag you from the saddle, but why did this particular process take the better part of a thousand years?

Because the serious decline in the Islamic world's material and political ascendency (Middle East, Africa, Mughal India; admittedly Spain was long gone by then) mostly post-dates 1500 (not coincidentally when Europe began to become less dependent on the Mediterranean and land routes to Asia). ...Though the earlier (13th C?) Mongol attacks on Baghdad and further west arguably dealt a very heavy blow also. Ancient Rome proved unable to withstand similar assaults from the Huns etc.

The marriage of convenience between the house of Saud and Wahabbist fundamentalism in the 19th century, although unrelated to the above developments (indeed they were mainly antagonistic toward a perceived-to-be insufficiently pious Ottoman Empire), has a lot to answer for.

A thousand years? The end of the Golden Age of Islamic Science was some time in the 13th century. Even if we go by your 1500 date, where are you getting 1000 years from??? (and this was all more of an aside and not really relevant anyway)

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

So because everybody isn't rioting in the streets, you're right? I've shown you the numbers. The majority of muslims support Sharia law.

Now go and poll those majority of Muslims and see if they agree on what Sharia Law means or if they all agree on the interpretation of these laws. We've had this discussion in here before and there's a large disparity of what these laws mean, if they are literal, or how they are to be upheld amongst Muslim scholars, so how are you to have the absolute answer if those that know the religion can't?

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

It's amazing that your whole argument consists of saying (and little more) that the people not abiding by the word of the quran are proof that this isn't a religious issue.

"Not abiding by the word of Quran"? Come on, so in order to prove your point you're now going to argue the fundamentalists' point of view? This is why your whole premise doesn't stand, you are pretending to have the absolute answers to issues that don't even have absolute answers from within their own communities.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by BVS

"Not abiding by the word of Quran"? Come on, so in order to prove your point you're now going to argue the fundamentalists' point of view?

As was stated so elegantly in the article that you either didn't bother reading or glossed over, they're called fundamentalists because they're following the fundamentals of the religion. It's not them that have it wrong; it's that the ones who pick and choose what to follow and what to ignore are more secular. Fundamentalism isn't a bastardization of religion, it's religion in its purest form. Your whole premise is that the less religious followers are proof that the religion isn't at fault; it's completely counter intuitive and wrong. I couldn't be happier that there are Muslims who have the common sense and common decency not to follow the quran to the letter (Just the same as I'm glad there are Christians and Jews who do the same). And like everything else in life, there's a sliding scale to which people adhere to religious beliefs. It just so happens that the further away from religion you slide on that scale, the better off people are.
Are you not willing to concede that there are elements to the religion that are causing serious problems?

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by BVS

Now go and poll those majority of Muslims and see if they agree on what Sharia Law means or if they all agree on the interpretation of these laws. We've had this discussion in here before and there's a large disparity of what these laws mean, if they are literal, or how they are to be upheld amongst Muslim scholars, so how are you to have the absolute answer if those that know the religion can't?

I showed you a poll at the very beginning of the thread

[Kieran McConville]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

A thousand years? The end of the Golden Age of Islamic Science was some time in the 13th century. Even if we go by your 1500 date, where are you getting 1000 years from??? (and this was all more of an aside and not really relevant anyway)

I thought there was no golden age, and they created nothing. I thought that was the point you were making. Islam is the problem, right?

1500, you're correct, is somewhat on the downhill slide of their scientific high point, not so much their political high point.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

I thought there was no golden age, and they created nothing.

Where on Earth are you getting that from?

[Irvine511]

i'm sorry, but this has to be said. let's not let political correctness stand in the way of moral courage and the bravery to do what's right.

It's time to face up to the problem of sexual abuse in the white community

Joseph Harker
guardian.co.uk, Monday 6 May 2013 07.08 EDT

Every day across Britain, it seems, there's a new and horrific revelation of sexual abuse: last week we had the guilty plea of veteran TV presenter Stuart Hall, who confessed to 14 cases of indecent assault against 13 girls, the youngest only nine years old.

Days earlier the possible scale of child abuse in north Wales children's homes was revealed. We now know there were 140 allegations of historical abuse between 1963 and 1992. A total of 84 suspected offenders have been named, and it's claimed the abuse took place across 18 children's homes.

But after the shock has subsided and we have time to reflect on these revolting crimes, the main question in most reasonable people's minds must surely be: what is it about white people that makes them do this?

Jimmy Savile is alleged to have abused 300 young people, and in his case and in north Wales, the abuse could not have happened without a wide range of co-conspirators either grooming children or ensuring the truth never got out. Hardly a week goes by without another white man being arrested in connection with sexual abuse.

I'm beginning to feel sorry for whites. I have many white friends and I know most of them are wholly opposed to sexual abuse. But they must be worried that their whole community is getting a bad name. I can imagine that, every day, with each unfolding case, they must be hiding their face behind their hands, pleading: "Please, God, don't let it be a white person this time."

And with so many senior community figures implicated, many of us are starting to wonder what will happen to the next generation of whites. How will today's young whites learn that abuse is wrong when their role models are so tarnished?

First, though, we need to find out what's causing the problem. Is it something to do with white people's culture? Is it something to do with their loss of empire, and their new role in the world, as a diminished state desperately clinging to its glorious past? Do they seek to impose their last vestiges of power on the most vulnerable in society?

Or is it that, having spent so much of their history waging wars against each other, they cannot cope with the relative peace of the last half-century, and their frustration at not fighting is taken out on the weakest? I may have no evidence for this, but that's not going to stop me putting it out there as a cause.

Or maybe it's their religion? Child abuse in the priesthood has, of course, also been tolerated for decades, allowed to continue unpunished through a conspiracy of silence among the church hierarchy.

And despite the recent falls in attendance, Christianity still dominates European culture. And the Bible, which many whites still look to, has such verses as: "Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol [hell]." (Proverbs 23:13-14) It hardly fits with white society's claims to care for children. And even those who don't believe, such as Richard Dawkins, a senior cleric in the atheist community, have sought to downplay the gravity of child abuse, believing it's no worse than religion itself. As he wrote: "Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place." Of course, what we really need now is for brave white community leaders to come out and distance themselves from the abusers.

Maybe, say, the new head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission should come out and admit the issue is "racial and cultural" and that she fears that "in those communities there were people who knew what was going on and didn't say anything, either because they're frightened or they're so separated from the rest of the communities". Or a white cabinet member could say: "There is a small minority of white men who believe that young children are fair game. And we have to be prepared to say that. You can only start solving a problem if you acknowledge it first." Or the head of a leading children's charity could say: "There is very troubling evidence that whites are overwhelmingly represented in the prosecutions for such offences." Yet none of this has happened. And this saddens me. Because until we hear those brave voices speaking out against abuse, what are we meant to think?

I urge white people to break this conspiracy of silence. Call on your leaders to show leadership. To show us all that you're not like the people who dominate the news headlines. That you really do care about protecting children.

You may think all the above is ridiculous; that I'm stirring ethnic tensions on an issue that is clearly about individuals and small groups of people and has nothing to do with race or religion. And that by making this spurious case I'm ignoring the core issue, which is that children, many of them in vulnerable situations, were terrorised and physically harmed by opportunistic men who were able to get away with their crimes for years. You'd be right.

But all of the above arguments were made within various parts of our print and broadcast media when similarly small numbers of Muslim men were revealed to be grooming young girls for sex. If you think the claims about white people are wrong, then so is the stereotyping of Britain's Muslims, and the widespread questioning of their culture and their religion, because of the perverted actions of a few.

Since the "black crime shock" tabloid stories of the 1980s, editors have known that stoking fears about misunderstood minorities is good for sales. If you object to this article, then you should understand how it feels to be a Muslim reading similar pieces pandering to Islamophobia day after day – and you should object to those too.

It's time to face up to the problem of sexual abuse in the white community | Joseph Harker | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Fundamentalism isn't a bastardization of religion, it's religion in its purest form.

This is where you and I will part, you are arguing the simpleton's approach in order to prove your point. Taking the literal word of your edition of your religion's book is not religion in its purest form. Just like I can discuss context, original text, whether its parable or literal about the Bible; Muslims are doing the same regarding their texts. Socio-economic factors will take part in what side one will usually fall on. The less education will often breed those that cling to the text at face value. I know of American denominations of Christianity that actually believe the version they read wasn't even translated that God wrote the Bible in several languages, they believe that men can't wear shorts(I can't remember what verse they took this from), and that fire breathing dragons were once real. So religion in its purest form?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

I showed you a poll at the very beginning of the thread

That poll did not speak to the question I asked.

[Jive Turkey]

Yep, it seems white men are more likely to be the perpetrators of child molestation (but don't have a monopoly on it as evidenced by the 4 year old girl who was raped to death in India last month). Serial Killers are also almost entirely white men. The numbers don't lie. It could be a social thing. It could be hereditary. But there's also no White Man's Dogma that we adhere to irrationally. I'd much rather be part of a social group where bad people occasionally do bad things than one where otherwise good people are convinced to do bad things. Or one where good people do good things because they're afraid of eternal punishment.
What a stupid article

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by BVS

This is where you and I will part, you are arguing the simpleton's approach in order to prove your point. Taking the literal word of your edition of your religion's book is not religion in its purest form. Just like I can discuss context, original text, whether its parable or literal about the Bible; Muslims are doing the same regarding their texts. Socio-economic factors will take part in what side one will usually fall on. The less education will often breed those that cling to the text at face value. I know of American denominations of Christianity that actually believe the version they read wasn't even translated that God wrote the Bible in several languages, they believe that men can't wear shorts(I can't remember what verse they took this from), and that fire breathing dragons were once real. So religion in its purest form?

The simpleton's approach? As opposed to your completely nuanced "nope. not religions fault" approach? You're not even willing to dissect religious teachings and take some while condemning others. And you want to throw around the simpleton name calling? Yes, education has a lot to do with it. Just like education has a lot to do with not following Christianity so closely. And you know why education is so important? Because you're able to see religion for the bullshit that it is.

"Taking the literal word of your edition of your religion's book is not religion in its purest form."

Yes it is. It literally is. And you keep trotting out this whole "interpretation" crap. We're not talking about vague, possibly symbolic verses. We're talking about simple, clear declarations.

"Socio-economic factors will take part in what side one will usually fall on."

For the last time, WHAT socio-economic factors? You can't keep using this as your magic, cover-all word. Do some thinking and some writing. Actually, stop using that word all together and be specific for a change

And I'll ask you again, are you not willing to concede that there are parts of religion that are problem causing in this case?

For the record, 200 000 people were involved in these riots (so far)

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by BVS

That poll did not speak to the question I asked.

right, because you'd rather dodge all the questions that poll answers

[Jive Turkey]

"Of course, what we really need now is for brave white community leaders to come out and distance themselves from the abusers."

We call that the legal system. Those white men get thrown in jail because we don't tolerate that kind of behaviour