I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Londoner »

Seleucus wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 11:53 am We absolutely would analyze a history in terms of the political and religious structures: the affect of Indo-European religion, the affect of American democracy, of the arrival of Buddhism in Japan.
But not exclusively. All these things interact, so we cannot trace any specific cause-and-effect. For example, that American democracy took hold, and the form it took, were the result of prior conditions. Similarly, the effects of American democracy will be a function of all the things that are going on at any one time.
Continuously pivoting to how evil America and the West supposedly are only proves the depth of pathological cognitive distortion in the argumentation.
I do not use words like 'evil'. My contention is that the west, (like the east and the north and the south), are all humans and - under certain pressures - will act in similar ways.
In a democracy however, the majority rules and the situation for religious and ethnic minorities has deteriorated, particular rapidly in the '65 to '66 genocide and again in the period of chaos in 1988.
But that is not a unique experience. The same happened in Europe when the multinational empires fell apart. If you replace them with 'self determination', the natural question is 'Who are we?' Europe suffered exactly the same things; the states you see today are the result of a bloody period of 'ethinic cleansing'.
Any account of Islamic history could only be interpreted in terms of "always inclined to attack other communities". Islamic civilization is the history of its pillaging and looting as I have described in my narrative,
I am a resident of a small island that a one time possessed 24% of the world's land surface and 23% of its population.
No. The reason why the Near-East is Muslim today is because non-Muslims lived under persecution and by attrition eventually converted rather than continuing to live under oppression, or else fled.
Well, I have pointed out that Jews and Christians lived in Islamic countries for over a thousand years. If the Muslim objective was to convert them they were taking their time.
Continuously pivoting to how evil America and the West supposedly are only proves the depth of pathological cognitive distortion in the argumentation.
You wrote that earlier. Once again, I have never said any such thing. To point out that at some periods of history Muslims have been tolerant and Christians intollerant - and at other times it has been the other way round - is not to 'Continuously pivoting to how evil America and the West supposedly are'
Continuously pivoting to how evil America and the West supposedly are only proves the depth of pathological cognitive distortion in the argumentation.
That is the third time you have copy/pasted that remark in your post!
Me: If the argument is that Islam is intolerant by its nature it would have to be the case that (a) it is always intolerant and (b) it is more intolerant than the norm. Neither is the case, so it cannot be that when Muslims are intolerant the cause is 'being Muslim'.

It is the case. As the Pew survey on attitudes (2013) shows, about a quarter of Indonesian Muslims support stoning of adulterers and death for those who convert out of Islam...
But just look at what you have written! If a quarter support it, then three-quarters do not! So it cannot be the case that 'being Muslim' makes you think it is right to stone adulterers.

If we weren't discussing Muslims, I'm sure you would see this. Some blue-eyed people voted for Donald Trump. Did they vote for Donald Trump because they had blue eyes? No. How do we know that? Because (a) not all blue-eyed people voted for Donald Trump and (b) people without blue eyes also voted for Donald Trump. So, it must be some other factor than eye-colour that makes people vote for Donald Trump.
We don't extend tolerance to those who won't reciprocate it unless we want to be beheaded and have our loved ones sold into slavery. This is sometimes called "the paradox of tolerance", being tolerant doesn't include tolerating intolerance.
And who are 'those'? If I come across somebody who wants to behead me and sell my loved ones into slavery I will indeed contact the police, but that is very unusual.

In other cases, I will assume a position of tolerance as the default, since what is the alternative? If we treat all members of other communities as if they were hostile, then that is a certain way of making them exactly that.

You applaud western civilisation, but western civilisation is founded on the notion of individual rights; treating other people according to what they do as individuals, not as members of a group. Yes, that will sometimes involve extending tolerance to those who would abuse it, but that is the price we pay.
User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Seleucus »

Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 1:15 pm
Seleucus wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 11:53 am We absolutely would analyze a history in terms of the political and religious structures: the affect of Indo-European religion, the affect of American democracy, of the arrival of Buddhism in Japan.
But not exclusively. All these things interact, so we cannot trace any specific cause-and-effect. For example, that American democracy took hold, and the form it took, were the result of prior conditions. Similarly, the effects of American democracy will be a function of all the things that are going on at any one time.
No. The field of history is in deed concerned with tracing cause and effect and a religious or political institution would be a very normative frame of reference for an historical investigation as judging from the existing corpus of historical works.
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 1:15 pm
Continuously pivoting to how evil America and the West supposedly are only proves the depth of pathological cognitive distortion in the argumentation.
I do not use words like 'evil'. My contention is that the west, (like the east and the north and the south), are all humans and - under certain pressures - will act in similar ways.
No. Western civilization is far superior to Islam.

Not all cultures are equal.
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 1:15 pm
In a democracy however, the majority rules and the situation for religious and ethnic minorities has deteriorated, particular rapidly in the '65 to '66 genocide and again in the period of chaos in 1988.
But that is not a unique experience. The same happened in Europe when the multinational empires fell apart. If you replace them with 'self determination', the natural question is 'Who are we?' Europe suffered exactly the same things; the states you see today are the result of a bloody period of 'ethinic cleansing'.
Continuously pivoting to how evil America and the West supposedly are only proves the depth of pathological cognitive distortion in the argumentation.

Rather than digressing into a debate about democracy, the point of the explanation was that Muslims had invaded the Hindu kingdoms of Central Java, an exemplar of the fact that "Muslims are always inclined to attack other communities" which you had objected to after it being pointed out that large and small Muslim organizations perpetrated the Indonesian Genocide, the third largest genocide after the Armenian and Greek Genocides carried out by Muslims in the 20th Century. Islamic civilization is the history of its pillaging and looting as I have described in my narrative,

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=22054&start=90#p312870
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 1:15 pmI am a resident of a small island that a one time possessed 24% of the world's land surface and 23% of its population.
Britain is the core of Western civilization today. Naturally it is appropriate that the country play a husbandry role to the mideaval, neolithic and stone-age societies. Britain's withdrawl from its empire was largely interpreted as a defeat by Britons who assumed an attitude of "White guilt" in response. Hopefully Western people will recover their morale and assume their role as world leaders.
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 1:15 pm
No. The reason why the Near-East is Muslim today is because non-Muslims lived under persecution and by attrition eventually converted rather than continuing to live under oppression, or else fled.
Well, I have pointed out that Jews and Christians lived in Islamic countries for over a thousand years. If the Muslim objective was to convert them they were taking their time.
Islamification was the goal, and yes it did take quite a long time since obviously no moral and intelligent person would want to accept a superstitious and oppressive dogma like Islam. The process is essentially complete today. Since the Near-East is in fact the homeland of Western Civilization we can hope that current involvement in Iraq, Syria, and the region will ultimately turn into a reestablishment of these areas as Western lands.
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 1:15 pm
Continuously pivoting to how evil America and the West supposedly are only proves the depth of pathological cognitive distortion in the argumentation.
That is the third time you have copy/pasted that remark in your post!
I expect that if this discussion continues you will need to hear it many times more yet.
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 1:15 pm
It is the case. As the Pew survey on attitudes (2013) shows, about a quarter of Indonesian Muslims support stoning of adulterers and death for those who convert out of Islam...
But just look at what you have written! If a quarter support it, then three-quarters do not! So it cannot be the case that 'being Muslim' makes you think it is right to stone adulterers.
The number of people who would respond YES to those questions should be only a tiny fraction of a percent of insane people in mental hospitals. But of Muslims world wide it ranges from a quarter to more than half. The survey is conducted so the first question is 'are you Muslim?', the second is 'do you support Sharia law?', the third is 'do you agree with death for converting from Islam and stoning?' Taxonomically, death for converting from Islam and stoning are sub-sets of Islam. Death for converting from Islam and stoning do not exist independently of the first two superordinate taxon.
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 1:15 pm
We don't extend tolerance to those who won't reciprocate it unless we want to be beheaded and have our loved ones sold into slavery. This is sometimes called "the paradox of tolerance", being tolerant doesn't include tolerating intolerance.
And who are 'those'?
Whomever won't reciprocate tolerance which includes the world wide majority of Muslims. Being tolerant doesn't include tolerating intolerance.
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 1:15 pmIf I come across somebody who wants to behead me and sell my loved ones into slavery I will indeed contact the police, but that is very unusual.
Lucky for you you live in Britain so you are guarded by a massive proactive military and police force. While these questions of beheading and enslaving kafir, like you, were not specifically asked in the Pew 2013 survey, we can infer from related questions that somewhere between a quarter and half of Muslims worldwide would like that you be decapitated and your loved ones enslaved.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Londoner »

Seleucus wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 3:18 pm No. The field of history is in deed concerned with tracing cause and effect and a religious or political institution would be a very normative frame of reference for an historical investigation as judging from the existing corpus of historical works.
It could be a frame of reference, certainly, but the mistake would be thinking a religious or political institution was the cause of everything, or was itself uncaused.
Not all cultures are equal.
But neither are all cultures fixed. What characterises the culture of a place or people at one time can be different in another. If that was not the case, there would be no such thing as history at all, since everything would be fixed for all time.
Continuously pivoting to how evil America and the West supposedly are only proves the depth of pathological cognitive distortion in the argumentation.
You paste that sentence in every post, sometimes several times. How is it connected to what I wrote?
I expect that if this discussion continues you will need to hear it many times more yet.
If it remains unconnected with what I wrote, just repeating will just look odd.
Britain is the core of Western civilization today. Naturally it is appropriate that the country play a husbandry role to the mideaval, neolithic and stone-age societies. Britain's withdrawl from its empire was largely interpreted as a defeat by Britons who assumed an attitude of "White guilt" in response. Hopefully Western people will recover their morale and assume their role as world leaders.
Your contention was that aggression was peculiar to Islam; I'm pointing out that you could hardly describe the nations of Europe as stay-at-homes. I don't feel guilty about that, it is simply a fact.
Islamification was the goal, and yes it did take quite a long time since obviously no moral and intelligent person would want to accept a superstitious and oppressive dogma like Islam.
But if Islam was as aggressive and ruthless as you say, why did it take them so long? Europeans were much quicker to exterminate religious minorities. During the 700 years the Muslims lived in Spain there was a Jewish community. A year after the Catholic Spanish completed the reconquest all the Jews had been exiled, converted or killed.

Just to save you copy-pasting the usual remark, that isn't saying the Spanish are therefore 'evil', it is just how things were at that time. Like the Muslims, they have had periods of both tolerance and intolerance.
Whomever won't reciprocate tolerance which includes the world wide majority of Muslims.
That really isn't true. I have traveled reasonably widely in Arab countries and live in a city with lots of Muslims, but have never yet met any who want to cut my head off or enslave my loved ones.

You characterise Muslims as aggressive and intolerant; are you sure you are not seeing a reflection of your own attitude towards them?
User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Seleucus »

Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 4:04 pm
Whomever won't reciprocate tolerance which includes the world wide majority of Muslims.
That really isn't true. I have traveled reasonably widely in Arab countries and live in a city with lots of Muslims, but have never yet met any who want to cut my head off or enslave my loved ones.
Hannah Arendt called this phenomena "the banality of evil". We hear it after every terrorist massacre: "they seemed like such a nice couple, quiet, they kept to themselves and didn't make any trouble". If the shit goes down and your pleasant neighbors riot, or civil order breaks down and there is an invasion of a city, you are gonna be eviscerated, your head put on a pike, and your mother, girlfriend and daughter sold at the slave market. You know that. If you have any doubt, read Pew's Muslim-Western Tensions (2011) and The World’s Muslims (2013). (Pew quite starkly answers the subject of antisemitism too, Westerns have roughly an 85% positive view of Jews, Muslims are running about 5%.)
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 4:04 pm
Yes it did take quite a long time since obviously no moral and intelligent person would want to accept a superstitious and oppressive dogma like Islam.
But if Islam was as aggressive and ruthless as you say, why did it take them so long?
Yes it did take quite a long time since obviously no moral and intelligent person would want to accept a superstitious and oppressive dogma like Islam.
Londoner wrote: Mon May 29, 2017 4:04 pmEuropeans were much quicker to exterminate religious minorities. During the 700 years the Muslims lived in Spain there was a Jewish community. A year after the Catholic Spanish completed the reconquest all the Jews had been exiled, converted or killed.
Continuously pivoting to how evil America and the West supposedly are only proves the depth of pathological cognitive distortion in the argumentation.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Londoner »

Seleucus wrote: Tue May 30, 2017 4:19 am Hannah Arendt called this phenomena "the banality of evil". We hear it after every terrorist massacre: "they seemed like such a nice couple, quiet, they kept to themselves and didn't make any trouble".
No, she didn't.

She was talking about the character of Eichmann, who was not a terrorist (or a Muslim!). 'Banality' means conventionality, platitudinous, ordinariness, and that was the character of Eichmann, rather than the aggression and extremism you would expect of an organiser of the Holocaust.
Yes it did take quite a long time since obviously no moral and intelligent person would want to accept a superstitious and oppressive dogma like Islam.
You have copy-pasted that remark before.

But your argument is that it would not be voluntary; that it would be conversion or death. That does not square with there having been Christian and Jewish communities in the heart of the Muslim world for many centuries.
Continuously pivoting to how evil America and the West supposedly are only proves the depth of pathological cognitive distortion in the argumentation.
It seems you are no longer bothering to respond to my arguments, but are just copy-posting the same remarks irrespective of what I write. I am happy to allow any readers to draw their own conclusions.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Belinda »

The more a religion is an an institution the more it's bad for individuals and societies. The history of religions shows that religions have caused more bad than good. Authoritarian religions are worse than liberal ones for causing bad, and Islam is at present one of the authoritarian religions that have a lot of controlling rules and regulations. Any religions that hold that everything within holy books is good and true is potentially a danger to others, and this applies to Islam, and to Biblical-literalist Christians. RC also is full of controls that originate with the Papacy and the Magisterium.

True, all the main religions have mediated the civilised moral Message of liberality, mercy, universal compassion, and peace. There were socio-historical causes for the mediacy of religions with respect to civilised values. This time has now passed. Islam, like the RC church, may be engaged in modernising however the poverty and backwardness of nations with Islamist states*** is a drag on the process of Islam's modernisation. The RC Church's lack of progress towards the modern worldview is due to the conservative power of the RC institution.

***Saudi Arabia's regime is morally backward despite its wealth, and is a great example of a very authoritarian religion (Salafism) which is handy for oppressing people.
User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Seleucus »

Londoner wrote: Tue May 30, 2017 1:38 pm
Seleucus wrote: Tue May 30, 2017 4:19 am Hannah Arendt called this phenomena "the banality of evil". We hear it after every terrorist massacre: "they seemed like such a nice couple, quiet, they kept to themselves and didn't make any trouble".
No, she didn't.

She was talking about the character of Eichmann, who was not a terrorist (or a Muslim!). 'Banality' means conventionality, platitudinous, ordinariness, and that was the character of Eichmann, rather than the aggression and extremism you would expect of an organiser of the Holocaust.
Yes she did.

"When I speak of the banality of evil, I do so only on the strictly factual level, pointing to a phenomenon which stared one in the face at the trial. Eichmann was not lago and not Macbeth, and nothing would have been farther from his mind than to determine with Richard III "to prove a villain." ... He merely, to put the matter colloquially, never realized what he was doing."

The situation is shrouded in normalcy. Recall that your original point was that you have Muslim neighbors who appear pleasant even though we know from survey that almost all support Sharia, around about the majority want coverts from Islam killed, adulterers stoned, and nearly all are extreme anti-Semites. The same when traveling in Muslim cities, everyone seems so nice so normal, but we know from attitude surveys what would happen if civil order cracked.
Londoner wrote: Tue May 30, 2017 1:38 pm
Yes it did take quite a long time since obviously no moral and intelligent person would want to accept a superstitious and oppressive dogma like Islam.
But your argument is that it would not be voluntary; that it would be conversion or death. That does not square with there having been Christian and Jewish communities in the heart of the Muslim world for many centuries.
Forced conversion stretches from the Wars of Apostasy in the Seventh Century to the ambush of Coptics in Egypt last week. The attrition I'm talking about is vigilante violence and institutionalized oppression Jizya/dhimmi laws, also called the Pact of Umar:

-Prohibition against building new churches/synagogues, places of worship, monasteries, monks or a new cell.
-Prohibition against rebuilding destroyed churches.
-Prohibition against hanging a cross on the Churches.
-Christians were forbidden to show their religion in public, or to be seen with Christian books or symbols in public, on the roads or in the markets of the Muslims.
-Palm Sunday and Easter parades were banned.
-Muslims should be allowed to enter Churches (for shelter) in any time, both in day and night.
-Obliging the church bells or a kind of gong to be low in volume.
-Prohibition of Christians and Jews against raising their voices at prayer times.
-Funerals should be conducted quietly.
-Prohibition against burying non-Muslim dead near Muslims.
-Prohibition against raising a pig next to a Muslims neighbor.
-Obligation to show deference toward Muslims. If a Muslim wishes to sit, non-Muslim should be rise from his seats and let the Muslim sit.
-Prohibition against preaching Muslim to conversion out of Islam.
-Prohibition against preventing the conversion to Islam of some one who wants to convert.
-The appearance of the non-Muslims has to be different from those of the Muslims: Prohibition against wearing Qalansuwa (kind of dome that was used to wear by Bedouin), Bedouin turban (Amamh), Muslims shoes, and Sash to their waists. As to their heads, it was forbidden to comb the hair sidewise as the Muslim custom, and they were forced to cut the hair in the front of the head. Also non-Muslim shall not imitate the Arab-Muslim way of speech nor shall adopt Arab names.
-Obligation to identify non-Muslims as such by clipping the heads' forelocks and by always dressing in the same manner, wherever they go, with binding the zunar (a kind of belt) around the waists. Christians to wear blue belts or turbans, Jews to wear yellow belts or turbans, Zoroastrians to wear black belts or turbans, and Samaritans to wear red belts or turbans.
-Prohibition against riding animals in the Muslim custom, and prohibition against riding with a saddle.
-Prohibition against adopting a Muslim title of honor.
-Prohibition against engraving Arabic inscriptions on signet seals.
-Prohibition against any possession of weapons.
-Non-Muslims must host a Muslim passerby for at least 3 days and feed him.
-Prohibition against non-Muslims to lead, govern or employ Muslims.
-If a non-Muslim beats a Muslim, he becomes a [homo sacer].
-The worship places of non-Muslims must be lower in elevation than the lowest mosque in town.
-The houses of non-Muslims must not be taller in elevation than the houses of Muslims.
-Houses of the non-Muslims must be short so that each time that they would enter or exit their houses they would have to bend, in a way that it would remind them of their low status in the world.
Londoner wrote: Tue May 30, 2017 1:38 pm
Continuously pivoting to how evil America and the West supposedly are only proves the depth of pathological cognitive distortion in the argumentation.
It seems you are no longer bothering to respond to my arguments, but are just copy-posting the same remarks irrespective of what I write. I am happy to allow any readers to draw their own conclusions.
Pasting it is faster than typing it out each time you go through that same thought-loop.
Last edited by Seleucus on Wed May 31, 2017 7:16 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Seleucus »

Belinda wrote: Tue May 30, 2017 6:32 pmThe history of religions shows that religions have caused more bad than good. Authoritarian religions are worse than liberal ones for causing bad, and Islam is at present one of the authoritarian religions that have a lot of controlling rules and regulations. Any religions that hold that everything within holy books is good and true is potentially a danger to others
At least I'll agree that an institution can outlive its usefulness. This is obviously a major difference between Western civilization which is syncretistic and accepts change both today, and also in ancient Indo-European times, its a core trait of the culture. Islam by contrast holds that the Qur'an is perfect, innovation is discouraged, and exact emulation of the Prophet and his medieval cohorts is the ideal.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Belinda »

Seleucus wrote:
At least I'll agree that an institution can outlive its usefulness. This is obviously a major difference between Western civilization which is syncretistic and accepts change both today, and also in ancient Indo-European times, its a core trait of the culture. Islam by contrast holds that the Qur'an is perfect, innovation is discouraged, and exact emulation of the Prophet and his medieval cohorts is the ideal.
Top
Islam is a western religion.

When you contrast "Western civilisation" with "Islam" you are comparing different categories. Islam is part of western civilisation.

The acceptance of change is not necessarily attached to Europe and its colonies. Christianity accommodates more change than does Islam because Christianity is founded upon a life not a holy book, so Christianity is therefore open to interpretation: lives are adaptable whereas books of rules are fixed.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Londoner »

Seleucus wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 4:00 am
Yes she did.

"When I speak of the banality of evil, I do so only on the strictly factual level, pointing to a phenomenon which stared one in the face at the trial. Eichmann was not lago and not Macbeth, and nothing would have been farther from his mind than to determine with Richard III "to prove a villain." ... He merely, to put the matter colloquially, never realized what he was doing."

The situation is shrouded in normalcy. Recall that your original point was that you have Muslim neighbors who appear pleasant even though we know from survey that almost all support Sharia, around about the majority want coverts from Islam killed, adulterers stoned, and nearly all are extreme anti-Semites. The same when traveling in Muslim cities, everyone seems so nice so normal, but we know from attitude surveys what would happen if civil order cracked.
There seems to be no connection between those two paragraphs.

As for Muslims, they don't just seem nice, they are nice. They don't think the way you say. They are not terrorists, they are accountants and shopkeepers and schoolgirls and couch-potatoes and all the rest.

But let's suppose that 'the majority' did think the way you describe. In that case, some Muslims don't. Which means that the two things are not correlated, they are not cause-and-effect. I have pointed out this awkward fact several times but you never respond to the argument.

And I am baffled why you would have chosen to bring up the Nazis in this thread! Eichmann was also part of a movement that treated an entire religion as guilty by association.
Forced conversion stretches from the Wars of Apostasy in the Seventh Century to the ambush of Coptics in Egypt last week. The attrition I'm talking about is vigilante violence and institutionalized oppression Jizya/dhimmi laws, also called the Pact of Umar...
If this 'forced conversion' stretched over 13 centuries and yet there were still non-Muslim minorities all over the Muslim world, it must have been remarkably gentle!

Certainly non-Muslims had a different legal status (not all bad), but we have to compare that to non-Muslim countries where religious minorities were expelled or killed. It seems baffling that you can write about Eichmann and the Holocaust in one paragraph, then accuse the Muslim world of being particularly prone to persecuting religious minorities!

Remember, my contention is that Muslims, like Jews and black people and Christians and Germans and everyone else are all the same species. What history shows is that every group is capable of both liberalism and repression, which proves that your theory of cause-and-effect must be wrong.
Pasting it is faster than typing it out each time you go through that same thought-loop.
You should try to break out of thought-loops.

Try thinking about contrary examples, of instances of Muslims being liberal and non-Muslims being repressive.

Let's start trying to break out of the loop by asking if you agree that non-Muslims have ever been violent towards those with a different ideology? Or whether there has been any example of a good Muslim?
User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Seleucus »

Belinda wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 8:56 amIslam is a western religion.

... Islam is part of western civilisation.
Because?

I used to think so too, seeing Greco-Roman lands as thaumaturgically converting into Islamic lands, something like how Daphne turned into a tree. On further investigation, I no longer accept that Greek and Roman influence informed Islam and its institutions, rather they were repressed. Islam I now believe is fundamentally Arabian culture. Semitics are traditionally categorized as non-Western.
Belinda wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 8:56 amThe acceptance of change is not necessarily attached to Europe and its colonies. Christianity accommodates more change than does Islam because Christianity is founded upon a life not a holy book, so Christianity is therefore open to interpretation: lives are adaptable whereas books of rules are fixed.
Myself, I don't see Christianity as entirely something Western, though not as a totally alien imposition either. In Indo-European religion, Odin could enter and join Freya and Tyr, their meanings could shift, no one would be alarmed by that, because they are only ways of expressing the perennial philosophy. In Islam, the standard of orthopraxy is total.
Last edited by Seleucus on Wed May 31, 2017 1:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Seleucus »

Londoner wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 9:26 amAs for Muslims, they don't just seem nice, they are nice. They don't think the way you say. They are not terrorists,
Pew's Muslim-Western Tensions (2011) and The World’s Muslims (2013) contradicts you. Not to mention the thousands of corpses and maimed children.
Londoner wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 9:26 am
Forced conversion stretches from the Wars of Apostasy in the Seventh Century to the ambush of Coptics in Egypt last week. The attrition I'm talking about is vigilante violence and institutionalized oppression Jizya/dhimmi laws, also called the Pact of Umar...
If this 'forced conversion' stretched over 13 centuries and yet there were still non-Muslim minorities all over the Muslim world, it must have been remarkably gentle!
As gentle as oppression, genocide and ethic cleansing are.

I'm not a leftist so I'm not going to go through the whole 'I'm offended' routine and call you slurs, but I would none-the-less advise you to be careful with your words when you call the Islamification of the Near East and North Africa "remarkably gentle". Do you understand the series of events by which Turkey, Iraq, or Pakistan have become totally Islamized?

Turkey 99%
Iraq 99%
Pakistan 96%
Londoner wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 9:26 amRemember, my contention is that Muslims, like Jews and black people and Christians and Germans and everyone else are all the same species. What history shows is that every group is capable of both liberalism and repression, which proves that your theory of cause-and-effect must be wrong.
No one but Muslims are carrying out Islamic terrorism.
Londoner wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 9:26 amMuslims being liberal and non-Muslims being repressive.

Pew's Muslim-Western Tensions (2011) and The World’s Muslims (2013) contradicts you. Not to mention the World Values Survey.
Londoner wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 9:26 amLet's start trying to break out of the loop by asking if you agree that non-Muslims have ever been violent towards those with a different ideology? Or whether there has been any example of a good Muslim?
No. Not in the sense of their identifying as Muslims. But there are lots of people who do wonderful things by virtue of their humanity.

As an aside, I have to say that I'm very proud of someone who is dearly close to me, and has this year given up fasting for Ramadan and instead focusing on eating a nutritious diet and getting good nights sleep and trying to pursue a more rational and healthy lifestyle. Cheers tonight to everybody who is waking up out of a thousand years of oppressive dogmatism and superstition! Clink!
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Londoner »

Seleucus wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 1:03 pm Pew's Muslim-Western Tensions (2011) and The World’s Muslims (2013) contradicts you. Not to mention the thousands of corpses and maimed children.
And the millions upon millions of peaceful Muslims contradict you.

Are you really saying that every single Muslim, man, woman and child, even if they seem peaceful, even if they have lived blameless lives, are the same as the terrorists.

That is the sort of thinking that lead to the Holocaust.
No one but Muslims are carrying out Islamic terrorism.
What sort of an argument is that?

And nobody except Irishmen are carrying out Irish terrorism, nobody except Germans are carrying out German terrorism, nobody expect Hindus are carrying out Hindu terrorism...but then I'm not sure you admit that anyone except Muslims has ever been a terrorist!
Me: Let's start trying to break out of the loop by asking if you agree that non-Muslims have ever been violent towards those with a different ideology? Or whether there has been any example of a good Muslim?

No. Not in the sense of their identifying as Muslims. But there are lots of people who do wonderful things by virtue of their humanity.
Seriously, you believe no non-Muslim has ever been violent to those with a different ideology?

You can think of no historic examples at all? Really?

Never mind. You can't quite bring yourself to say that there has never been any example of a good Muslim; I think you are hinting that there might have been one or two 'by virtue of their humanity'

Even that is enough to prove you are mistaken. If it is possible for even one Muslim to still be a good 'by virtue of their humanity', then that alone would disprove your idea that being a Muslim and being good must be contradictory. No need for dubious histories, just do the logic!
User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 662
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Seleucus »

Londoner wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 1:34 pmAnd nobody except Irishmen are carrying out Irish terrorism, nobody except Germans are carrying out German terrorism, nobody expect Hindus are carrying out Hindu terrorism...but then I'm not sure you admit that anyone except Muslims has ever been a terrorist!
Stay with the now... Today in 2017 it is Muslims who are committing rampant terrorism. Irish have their problems I'm sure, alcoholism it is commonly said. Germans apparently have anxiety and sexuality issues. Hindus are filthy slobs. If we were having a discussion about littering then Hindus would be front and center!
Londoner wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 1:34 pmMe: Let's start trying to break out of the loop by asking if you agree that non-Muslims have ever been violent towards those with a different ideology? Or whether there has been any example of a good Muslim?
I for one am not saying that there are no decent people who identify as Muslim or otherwise have it on their ID card, are of Muslim heritage and so on.

What I am saying is that in 2017 about half of those people follow an ideology of dogmatic and superstitious views and support using violence against people I wouldn't want to see hurt such as people who identify as homosexual or Jewish, people who want to stop identifying as Muslim or want to call themselves free-thinkers or atheists, or people who want to have casual sex. Not to mention all the random innocents: in 2016 almost 7000 people were killed in Islamic terrorist attacks, we can estimate another 50 to 100,000 seriously injured, many maimed for life. Not to mention whole countries of millions are sliding under the influence of this ideology.

That is a very scary and concerning problem. It is a manifestation of historical and cultural factors.

Let us just get to what matters here:

Now is the time to get very serious about what to do about Islam. A wide variety of options exist ranging from wars of attrition to bans on travel and residence, banning long beards or niqab, cultural transformation efforts such as funding Ahmadiyya or Quilliam, and on and on. Myself, I favor an escalation of war against terrorist organizations worldwide; in the West I support limiting immigration, intense policing, repatriating refugees, not giving ground on accommodating Islamic culture i.e. prosecuting FGM, not permitting prayer in the streets or megaphones on mosques, ensuring Islamic schools are teaching national curriculum; in Muslim countries I support assisting oppressed minorities, pressuring Muslim governments to reform, and funding establishment of rational secular education such as philosophy departments among other things. That's what I'll vote for, work for, and donate money for.
Last edited by Seleucus on Wed May 31, 2017 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: I am an Islamophobe. If you are not, you might not be a moral person.

Post by Immanuel Can »

Seleucus wrote: Wed May 31, 2017 2:39 pm
Let us just get to what matters here:

Now is the time to get very serious about what to do about Islam.
Well said.

The problem you will find, Seleucus, is that Western liberals love to preen themselves as proponents of "acceptance" and "tolerance." Thus, the Left has taken up "anti-Islamophobia" as it's cause, and anybody in the West who advocates never blaming Islam for anything is just posing and strutting, not thinking clearly.

And you'll never change their minds, because they aren't interested in the facts, in the body count, or even in understanding Islam itself at all: they're just fascinated by the opportunity to virtue-signal and pose as "understanding." It makes them feel good about themselves. And you can't really beat that kind of selfishness.

In fact, it concerns them less that women are force to wear the hijab, that anti-Semitism is rampant among Muslims, or even that Western women are raped and little girls are sliced up by circumcision or blown to pieces at concerts. Because to the Lefty Islam-supporters in the West, it's not about truth, goodness, light or even survival: it's about the chance to show themselves off as "liberal." And that they get; so they don't concern themselves if Europe should burn in the process.

If you want to understand them, you have to understand this: they actually don't care about Muslims. They care only about themselves, about being seen as "caring."

The way to beat this is not to focus on Muslims as such at all. Nor is it even to focus on Islam the religion itself. The answer is to focus resistance against Sharia, in every form it takes.

Now, that solution isn't a bit "sexy" to the Lefitist desire for self-promotion: they would much prefer to call this a "war" of "racists" against "moderate Muslims." (It's stupid, but that's exactly how they want to pitch the conflict, for their own pride's sake.) But reconstructing the argument this way, against Sharia, robs the Leftie weasels of their chance to preen; it forces them either to join the resistance to the very illiberal precepts of Sharia, or to defend those precepts. And I think that just may be too stupid and hypocritical for even them to do. So they'll lose their chance to pose, and they'll be forced to address the real issues instead.

Ban Sharia. Ban it constitutionally, totally, and for all nations in Europe and around the world. Be completely open to the private practice of Islam, if individual people still want to do that: but grant it no footprint at all in the public or political sphere.

There's nothing racist about banning Sharia. To focus on that is merely to focus on banning a set of public demands, not banning people or their beliefs. Let people believe in Islam if they wish: but prevent them using any part of the law or public policy to force it on anyone else.

That's the right solution, it seems to me.
Post Reply