Two Important Things about Islam

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Aedes
 
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 12:06 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;89033 wrote:
I'm not sure where you are going with this, almost sounds like you are playing both sides of the fence now.
I'm open-minded -- which means that you're not going to force me into a corner or expect that I force the world into convenient categories.

Krumple;89033 wrote:
From my perspective I am talking about where they get the motivation from?
Why don't you first ask why Muslims in Palestine are a lot more militant than Muslims in Tunisia, and why Muslims in Somalia are a lot more militant than Muslims in Gambia, and why poor Muslim teenagers in Paris are a lot more militant than poor Muslim teenagers in Niamey.

Seems that the uniting thread is NOT their religion, but rather their socioeconomic and political marginalization. Angry, disaffected young men rise up in every society and they look for fiery leaders to follow. It happens that in the current world militant Islam speaks loudly to disaffected young Muslims. But that was manifestly NOT the case in Turkey for the angry young men who followed Ataturk, who was a SECULAR Muslim ruler with great appeal.

Krumple;89033 wrote:
some might argue that violent video games or violent movies are the cause for teen violence
Well, the evidence basis supports an associative relationship between exposure to violent media and violent behavior. However the evidence is insufficient to discriminate whether there is an a priori self-selection by which latently violent kids choose more exposure to violent media; or whether kids with more heavy exposure to violent media lack social and familial support systems (which is why they spend more time playing video games); or whether there is a two-hit effect of inadequate social/family support PLUS exposure to violent media. Furthermore, the developmental stage of a child has a lot to do with their impressions of media exposure -- and this may be far more important than the nature of the exposure. Furthermore, there is a well-documented psychological effect of desensitization -- and you CANNOT compare the visual exposure in Doom to the teachings in any religious group. Furthermore, you cannot compare indoctrination by extremists to religious practice in general.

Two sides of the fence still? What fence? We're talking about humans, we're more complicated than yes/no answers.

Krumple;89033 wrote:
If you support the freedom of religion yet do not support violent movies or violent video games, then you are a hypocrite.
And if you think either is reducible to just a yes/no causal relationship then you are ignorant. Are we done trading insults now?

---------- Post added 09-08-2009 at 02:12 PM ----------

Krumple;89025 wrote:
Is it being white that causes nazi extremists? What is the catalyst for them being prejudice?
Considering that virtually 100% of their roughly 15 million victims were white, I fail to understand the question.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 12:46 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;89037 wrote:
I'm open-minded -- which means that you're not going to force me into a corner or expect that I force the world into convenient categories.


No force to it, I am simply pointing out the contradiction. If you support one aspect be consistent otherwise you are playing favorites to a personal bias and refusing to acknowledge the similarity.

Aedes;89037 wrote:

Why don't you first ask why Muslims in Palestine are a lot more militant than Muslims in Tunisia, and why Muslims in Somalia are a lot more militant than Muslims in Gambia, and why poor Muslim teenagers in Paris are a lot more militant than poor Muslim teenagers in Niamey.

Seems that the uniting thread is NOT their religion, but rather their socioeconomic and political marginalization. Angry, disaffected young men rise up in every society and they look for fiery leaders to follow. It happens that in the current world militant Islam speaks loudly to disaffected young Muslims. But that was manifestly NOT the case in Turkey for the angry young men who followed Ataturk, who was a SECULAR Muslim ruler with great appeal.


I understand it varies and it is much easier to influence the less affluent than the highly educated. Which only goes to show that if they target a particular group for recruiting Islamic Extremists that the fuel for the hatred or anger is a religious one while using a social or economic basis for blaming rival groups. This happens in America too.

Aedes;89037 wrote:

Well, the evidence basis supports an associative relationship between exposure to violent media and violent behavior. However the evidence is insufficient to discriminate whether there is an a priori self-selection by which latently violent kids choose more exposure to violent media; or whether kids with more heavy exposure to violent media lack social and familial support systems (which is why they spend more time playing video games); or whether there is a two-hit effect of inadequate social/family support PLUS exposure to violent media. Furthermore, the developmental stage of a child has a lot to do with their impressions of media exposure -- and this may be far more important than the nature of the exposure. Furthermore, there is a well-documented psychological effect of desensitization -- and you CANNOT compare the visual exposure in Doom to the teachings in any religious group. Furthermore, you cannot compare indoctrination by extremists to religious practice in general.


I think they appeal to the same aspect of a psychological disorder.

Aedes;89037 wrote:

Two sides of the fence still? What fence? We're talking about humans, we're more complicated than yes/no answers.


Which is something I keep saying, so why would I be in conflict with that?

Aedes;89037 wrote:

And if you think either is reducible to just a yes/no causal relationship then you are ignorant. Are we done trading insults now?


[/COLOR]I never reduced it to a yes or no. I'm not sure why you like to place this onto me.

Aedes;89037 wrote:

Considering that virtually 100% of their roughly 15 million victims were white, I fail to understand the question.


I'm not sure what you are saying here. Victims? Victims of what?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 12:54 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;89048 wrote:
No force to it, I am simply pointing out the contradiction.
I never made a contradiction -- as hard as you try to manufacture one be offering false dichotomies. But I'm not playing this game except to say that I don't advocate banning video games and I don't advocate banning religion, so enough already.

Krumple;89048 wrote:
I understand it varies and it is much easier to influence the less affluent than the highly educated. Which only goes to show that if they target a particular group for recruiting Islamic Extremists that the fuel for the hatred or anger is a religious one while using a social or economic basis for blaming rival groups.
Right, but the Michigan Militia and the Branch Davidians and the KKK also target particular groups. These particular groups have a lot in common -- mostly young men, mostly angry, mostly poor. And whether it be the Nazis or the KKK or Al Qaeda, the common messages are 1) strong, fatherly, charismatic leaders, 2) violent struggle of us against them. Beyond that the doctrine is window dressing. You can spin violence out of anything.

Krumple;89048 wrote:
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Victims? Victims of what?
You brought up the Nazis, I assume you're aware of the victims of the SS.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 01:03 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;89050 wrote:
I never made a contradiction --


I wasn't saying you as in you personally. I was saying in general towards the aspect of someone being consistent.

Aedes;89050 wrote:

Right, but the Michigan Militia and the Branch Davidians and the KKK also target particular groups.


Right, but are there any NON religious extremist groups that spark violence or hatred? That openly protest civil rights or use extreme tactics to remove another group using violence?

Aedes;89050 wrote:

You brought up the Nazis, I assume you're aware of the victims of the SS.


Well actually Caroline brought up nazi extremists but I personally was referring to the revival individuals and not so much the nazis themselves.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 01:44 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed;89019 wrote:
If we judge religions by their most ugly and extreme believers, then none of them deserves anything but condemnation by mankind.


I agree.

But the question remains: is there any middle ground between religious and secular viewpoints?

When one feels deeply threatened by the other, to what forum can they retire to even begin to explore their common ground?

Islam is different from Christianity in this: Christianity is not a recipe for creating a functioning society. It came into existence in the Roman world. There was no shortage of social order. Christianity is about how you relate to a society that's already working.

Islam's success is due in part to the fact that it was merchant law throughout the region in which it flourished. An Islamic state and a Christian state don't compare.

And the threat that secularism poses to Islam is not insignificant. The middle east has experienced change in the last century that Europe had five centuries to digest.

What I've been wondering for decades now is: where is the Muslim Ghandi? Where is the Palestinian Martin Luther King? Could somebody maybe fly over the middle east tossing out copies of Civil Disobedience? When are they going to realize that they could have the world eating out of their hands? The world is waiting to be on their side. The question I keep coming back to is: is it a religious problem?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 01:50 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;89051 wrote:
Right, but are there any NON religious extremist groups that spark violence or hatred? That openly protest civil rights or use extreme tactics to remove another group using violence?
The KKK and neo-Nazis are not religious extremists.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 01:50 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;89008 wrote:
Riiiiiiiiight. Can you please illuminate for me the authority behind the child slavery on coffee plantations in Cote d'Ivoire, which is a Christian and animist country?

And if you took about 2 minutes to read about Mauritania you'd realize that the slaves held in Mauritania are ALSO Muslim. The difference is that the slaveholders were (are) Moors and the slaves were (are) black. The problem with slavery in Mauritania is RACIAL, not religious. In 1989-1991 there were massive riots in both Senegal (ALSO a Muslim country, but without slavery) and Mauritania because of the RACIAL problems, in which blacks were expelled from Mauritania and Moorish shops in Dakar were destroyed and looted (it was nominally a border war over grazing, but that was just the catalyst). And while you're apparently scrambling on Google to find something to support your arguments, take note that I've lived and worked in Dakar, Senegal and Fajara / Serekunda, Gambia (a country completely surrounded by Senegal), and I've been to the Mauritanian border area north of Saint-Louis; I've known many people from both countries, so I'm not basing this on the first website to show up on my browser.

These countries are not in Africa!!!!!!!! :brickwall:

Please point out where it is "condemned" in the Christian bible or in the Torah.

---------- Post added 09-08-2009 at 12:39 PM ----------

Are you really asking about the crimes of modern-day Christians? How about the Serbian Christians who literally tried to exterminate Bosnian Muslims just 16 years ago?? How about the Hutu Christians who tried to exterminate the Tutsi Christians just 15 years ago, including luring them into churches to be slaughtered?

The difference is that you know better than to blame it on some fundamental characteristic of the Christian religion, despite the perpetrators being Christian -- but you DON'T know better than to blame it on Islam.

Most fundamentalist Islam is political and social violence that finds its rationalization in religious doctrine, just as fascist violence in the 1930s was political and social unrest that found its own rationalization in nationalist parties. It's the exact same phenomenon.
You fail to recognise the significance of Mohamed holding slaves and allowing their ownership. Its this authority that permits muslims to continue this trade.

No one is saying there are no other horrors being perpetrated by men of other faiths, we are debating the significance of Islamic teachings not christian or Jewish. As you well no im no lover of RC church and have said so on many occassions.

Sorry that i mentioned other than African countries that have recently banned slavery but it was relative to the time frame of how muslims where only recently convinced of the horrors of slavery.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 02:03 pm
@xris,
xris;89060 wrote:
You fail to recognise the significance of Mohamed holding slaves and allowing their ownership. Its this authority that permits muslims to continue this trade.
Jesus never married and Mary was a virgin, but no one would say that by this "authority" Christians should never have children.

I do FAIL TO RECOGNIZE Mohammed's ownership of slaves as significant, because it's not doctrinal, and in modern times slavery has not been a REPRESENTATIVE feature of Muslim countries any more so than Christian countries.

xris;89060 wrote:
it was relative to the time frame of how muslims where only recently convinced of the horrors of slavery.
All four of my grandparents were slaves from 1939-1945. The USSR made routine use of slave labor in the Gulag system even until the 1980s. So I'm still struggling to see how these horrors are somehow 1) UNIQUE to Islam, and 2) REPRESENTATIVE of Islam, because neither is the case.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 02:12 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;89059 wrote:
The KKK and neo-Nazis are not religious extremists.


They consider themselves a Christian organization and base their doctrines upon their own reading of the Bible. Their theology is strongly influenced by Christian Reconstructionism - they hope to "reconstruct" the United States along biblical (primarily Old Testament) lines and to establish a white-dominated theocracy.
 
Justin
 
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 02:20 pm
@peter74,
This thread has jumped topics so let's get back on track of the original post and if we'd like to carry out other conversations on different topics then we should open a new thread.

Also, let's all be careful not to generalize or make sweeping judgments about people based on religions, beliefs or colors of their skin. We're all people and people are the catalysts to all that we've become and developed over centuries. One blind man leading whomever will follow.

This thread is being watched and will be closed if become much more off topic.
 
Grimlock
 
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 02:23 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed;89019 wrote:
If we judge religions by their most ugly and extreme believers, then none of them deserves anything but condemnation by mankind.


Many people in this thread are judging Islam not by the monsters who call themselves Muslims, but by the systematic sicknesses practiced by the vast majority of it's adherents. I think it can be fairly said that Islam's present relationship with human sexuality is deeply rotten, in a way that makes even catholics appear healthy. The fact that the vast majority of muslims will neither listen to nor consider criticism of their religion is another glaring fault in the system. We're not talking about the bombers here, but the regular, everyday muslims who deserve criticism - not because they believe in a creator and call it Allah, but because they denigrate their own humanity and willingly take part in a social system which crushes the voices who speak out against that denigration.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of seeing Westerners apologize for the ignorance of Islam, but the West has been sucking on the rotten stump of cultural relativism for so long we've forgotten what our values are. Maybe the cast of The Real World can tell us?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 02:47 pm
@Grimlock,
Grimlock;89070 wrote:
Many people in this thread are judging Islam not by the monsters who call themselves Muslims, but by the systematic sicknesses practiced by the vast majority of it's adherents.
Vast majority, huh.

Well, with roughly 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, an absolute majority would require 1 person over 50% -- let's say 750,000,001 people. How many people are in a "vast majority"?

So that leads me to ask which representative survey of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims has yielded this conclusion of yours?

Grimlock;89070 wrote:
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of seeing Westerners apologize for the ignorance of Islam
Your statement about the "vast majority" defines "igorance of Islam".
 
Icon
 
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2009 02:57 pm
@peter74,
This thread is under Staff review.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/17/2019 at 06:07:02