If you're muslim you can leave, dead if not

JimmyV wrote:

fuck wrote:

I've not once denied that these problems exist. I've in fact talked about them extensively throughout this thread, but said that they exist for reasons far more complicated than the simplified "it's Islam's fault" that many here have been peddling.

To compare violence by Muslim groups to child rape by priests is absolutely absurd. We've already established in this thread (and I think even Pj_soul agreed, though it's not clear) that not even all Islamic groups have the same motivations. Yes, they define themselves as 'Islamic' but they also define themselves under national, cultural, ideological and other means. It's simply a way to distinguish themselves, get support, etc.

All I'm trying to suggest is we can't simply say these groups exist because of Islam. These groups exist for a huge number of other reasons. They choose to define themselves as Islamic. They cloak their motivations in Islamic rhetoric. But if we want to actually accuse the religion itself of promoting this behavior then we should at least engage the actual religious texts--and if you do you will find that this type of behavior is not only not promoted, but completely condemned! Which is why the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the world are peaceful.

If we want to really be constructive, we should study why these groups form, why they choose to carry out these horrible attacks, and what is truly the best way to stop them. Blaming it all on Islam is not constructive, and not even accurate.

EDIT: My ultimate point is we need to differentiate between groups, the actions they choose to take (some people in this thread called some groups extremist even though they are completely nonviolent), and the religion itself. It's dangerous to mix them and we need to be careful with the words we choose, but it seems like many in here feel comfortable throwing around very general claims, like accusing Islam of doing x and y.

And I'll apologize for saying "you" in that post. I meant it as a general "you," not specifically targeting you, but should have been more careful with that.

Apology accepted.

I don't necessarily disagree with your ultimate point, but we cannot completely disassociate these atrocities and the men committing them from the faith in whose name they act. Islam is a big house and these monsters are living and acting within it. That needs to be remembered. If Christians were storming shopping malls or posting beheadings on YouTube I would be saying the same thing.

PJ_Soul wrote:

I'll just say the same to you - you have no clue what you're talking about as far as women's rights in Islam goes. None. Why in the fuck do you think that is a very small but slowly growing movement among Muslims to encourage equality for women??? Because it's NOT a problem within the faith?? :fp: Whatever.

PJ_Soul wrote:

ALL religions are inherently problematic. I cannot stress that enough, and it is the main reason I disagree with just about everything you say... because you don't seem to be willing or able to acknowledge that or see why it's the case.

PJ_Soul wrote:

fuck wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

ALL religions are inherently problematic. I cannot stress that enough, and it is the main reason I disagree with just about everything you say... because you don't seem to be willing or able to acknowledge that or see why it's the case.

Because what you're essentially saying is 'all religions are problematic and my atheism is what is correct,' which makes you sound like, dare I say, A RADICAL EXTREMIST?!?!?!

What a stupid thing to say.

PJ_Soul wrote:

:roll:
Really though... it just didn't even make any sense.

fuck wrote:

You have a deep problem differentiating between causes of these problems. The whole point of Islamic reformism is that it seeks to go back to the texts, and break from the religious orthodoxy that has been the established norm for centuries, based on scholarship written by mostly men who had misogynist points of view. But the original texts themselves are not that way. The Quran and the example the Prophet set are very clear about equality and justice. Furthermore, you have to take these texts and combine them with our current context to make them relevant. Yes, I do think Islam is in need of reform. I'm not denying that at all, and I'll be at the forefront at that. My only disagreement with you is your claim that Islam ITSELF is the problem. I disagree. I think to solve these problems facing Islam, it is actually the solution--that is, going back to the texts and applying them in a coherent way given our current circumstances in the modern age. Many things have corrupted the way the religion is set in place in many societies today (whether it's cultural norms that are clearly contrary to what the religion itself preaches, or corrupt political rulers who seek to abuse it, etc etc), but I don't think we can then say it is inherently problematic due to these corrupting features that have been incorporated into it by various outside factors that do not have historical precedence.

I think this discussion has pretty much run its course. Take care.

fuck wrote:

Jesus Christ. Where to begin.

First of all, let's clear something up here: none of you, it seems, have even gone through the trouble of looking through the Quran yourself, let alone actual texts written about Islam from even Western scholars. Instead, you are asking another member of the forum to do the work for you and explain it to you.

Fine. badbrains is incorrect, I'm afraid. "Infidel" first of all is not even an accurate translation of the word from the Quran, which is "kafir." A kafir is not simply an infidel. The most accurate explanation is that it's someone who tries to cover "the truth." In fact, the english word "cover" comes from the arabic word "kafir." In other words, it's a person who is actively persecuting your ability to practice and preach your religion. This is because the people living in Mecca during the 7th century were not simply allowing the prophet to preach, but then he was trying to kill them all.

Let me take a break here: one of the biggest problems with Islamic radicals is that they take verses from the Quran, and reports on what the Prophet did out of the historical context and try to apply it in modern day. Unfortunately, that is also what many of you are doing, which is why you are allowing Islamic radicals the ability to shape the religion, because people in the West are just so obsessed with looking at ONLY those guys. In fact, someone in this thread said something along the lines of 'it's not relevant to talk about moderate Muslims,' and that essentially we should only be talking about radicals, which is absolutely absurd.

Anyway, going back to the prophet. What people don't realize is that as he spent 23 years spreading Islam, the first 13 of those years were not just exclusively nonviolent, but he specifically prohibited any armed resistance to the persecution people were facing who converted to Islam: this included torture, killings, isolation which would often lead to starvation in tribal societies, etc. Like the Christian reports of Jesus, he advocated a "turn the other cheek" philosophy for 13 years. It was not until he moved to Medina that eventually they began engaging the Meccans militarily. And even in those instances, killings of women, children, elderly, etc., were prohibited: for more on this, you can read about the conquest of Mecca in 630 which was bloodless. Ultimately, without trying to bore you people with too much history, it was specific instances that the Quran sanctioned the use of warfare: when people are persecuting you, "driving you from your homes" (a literal quote in reference to the fact that the Muslims had to leave Mecca for Medina), etc.

Islam actually takes a very practical approach to these types of situations, which is why it does not completely outlaw warfare. But to argue that it advocates targeting any person who simply does not believe in God is so absurd and has literally no religious OR historical basis. In fact, for hundreds of years the Islamic world was by far the most pluralistic and accepting society, especially in light of the horrible crimes that were going on in Europe.

When Europe began its colonization efforts in the Muslim world, they began implementing many types of policies that began discriminating against the indigenous Muslims. The capitulations that were instituted are by far some of the most obvious examples in the different countries (Tunisia, Algeria, etc), or how they began granting certain religious groups citizenship while denying others (such as the French allowing Jews in Algeria citizenship but not Muslims). These policies that the Europeans were instituting in the 19th and 20th centuries are important because it's what would shape the way religious groups in the Muslim world began interacting with each other: yes, they were political (and economic/resource-oriented) policies, but they were still made on the basis of religious identity. This is why we can't simply try to create distinctions between what is "religious" and what is "political" or "economic" or whatever. It doesn't work that way. Religious identity is a part of society, it's a part of how people view themselves as individuals, as a community, as a nation, etc. It directly plays into politics. And the Europeans exploited it and instituted a 'divide and conquer' strategy, which is why countries like Lebanon now have such horrible animosity between their various religious groups (Christians, Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, etc). The 1975 civil war there was a direct result of the colonial practices of the Europeans. There's also the issue of the state of Israel, a state constructed for Jews and created by ethnically cleansing Muslim and Christian Palestinians--this act was and is defended vigorously to this day by Western powers, even as it continues.

I know there are tons of colonial apologists here who think it's nonsense to "blame" everything that happens today on colonialism. Good thing none of you actually know shit about history or Middle Eastern politics though, cause if you did then you might actually have to deconstruct the bullshit worldview you've been living that vindicates the West of any wrongdoing so you can try to live happily ever after in a "post-colonial" world.

In today's world, we have actually convinced ourselves that the problem with Islam is that it, in and of itself, inspires individuals to commit these horrendous acts, whereas when it comes to Western governments, they simply do horrible things for typical human reasons (greed, etc). How is it that you've actually been able to convince yourself of this, I have no clue, but obviously indoctrination from the media plays a huge role. For instance, none of you care to question why the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world lives peacefully--are they just practicing their religion incorrectly? Are they just overlooking certain parts of their religion that are more "brutal" and that's what makes them so peaceful? So, only the radicals are the ones who are technically practicing it correctly?

This is the problem, again, of allowing radical muslims to shape your view of the religion. Many of you blame Muslim leaders and individuals for not standing up to these radicals as the reason. The problem is that someone in this thread said we can't say the US is spreading Christianity without looking up what different Christian organizations say. Well how many of you actually cared to look up what various elements in Muslim societies say? I don't think any of you have, seeing as how none of you have even cared to open up a Quran or read any credible source on Islam.

The fact is, the radicals did this act in Kenya not for religious reasons, but for various other ones. Yes, they find religious justification, and they try to win over religious favor by doing stupid things like "if you're Muslim leave," etc., but Muslims died by their gunfire too. The fact is, al-Shabab themselves said this was done because of Kenya infringing on Somalian sovereignty before--i.e., a political reason.

The Western religion, Liberalism, has been abused for centuries to justify going to several countries and killing millions of people. But no one ever says liberalism is to blame--it's just been "abused." Well, Islam has been abused. And the reason you hear about it so often is largely because the Muslim world has been at the forefront of several invasions from Western powers for years--not to save them from themselves, but for the West's gain. Add to this the delicate history of the past couple hundred years since colonialism as well, and you have a very troubling scenario. Muslim leaders are trying to speak out, but the problem is that the moment they condemn Islamic radicals AND Western/Israeli invasions and crimes, they are isolated and condemned by Western media. The binary of "Good Muslim/Bad Muslim" means you either support the U.S. and Israel, or you are 'one of them.' This is the reality on the ground. Muslims are spied on and persecuted by the U.S. government in this country for speaking out against crimes committed by the government and by Israel--and they are repressed in their own societies by autocratic governments that are supported by the U.S. (like Saudi).

So what's the solution to this horrible mess? I doubt any of you have one. It's way too complicated. So if you don't have a solution, kindly shut the hell up and stop trashing an entire religion that has over a billion followers.