Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

[Bintang]

haha... so a good Muslim is a former Muslim?

I supposed that's better than "a good Muslim is a dead Muslim" or something along that line.


Don't take the auto-censor too negatively... it's a program where the developer put in an array of offensive English words and programmed it to remove/replace them when detected. Maybe contact Joe to add Kafir or whatever else you find offensive.

No it's not necessary to bother Joe about this.
Yes I find it offensive that muslims are able to call us kafirs without copping any criticism from the PC brigade but it is more the disrespect, arrogance and hypocrisy underlying its use rather than the word itself. In every other respect I prefer freedom of speech not to be diminished by the constraints of political correctness.

 

[Bintang]

haha... so a good Muslim is a former Muslim?

I supposed that's better than "a good Muslim is a dead Muslim" or something along that line.

I guess this remark is partly mirth but unfortunately I think there are many now dead muslims who would fit the category to which you are referring.
And the young muslim man who helped the jewish shoppers in Paris is probably on a hit list by now.

 

[Julia]

This guy may have the answer

Interesting, Boggo, thank you.

One of the comments following the video observes that it's OK for this person to tell them to "**** off" if they don't assimilate, only because he himself is a Muslim, the suggestion being that a non-Muslim would meet with a chorus of condemnation. Probably right.

 

[SirRumpole]

This guy may have the answer

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ck-bags-f-live-TV.html?ito=video_player_click

Sounds like a good man, and hopefully he won' be targetted by the loonies.

 

[Bintang]

Interesting, Boggo, thank you.

One of the comments following the video observes that it's OK for this person to tell them to "**** off" if they don't assimilate, only because he himself is a Muslim, the suggestion being that a non-Muslim would meet with a chorus of condemnation. Probably right.

I sense a similar double standard lurking in this forum.

 

[basilio]

In every other respect I prefer freedom of speech not to be diminished by the constraints of political correctness.

Bintang

How about simply mutual respect, courtesy, good manners or some other "goody two shoes" nicety?

It is really easy to be unthinking, vicious, spiteful, wrong or deceitful. (This is NOT having a go at you Bintang )

In my view Internet forums have enabled people to repeatedly make simplistic, thoughtless and often nasty comments. We are anonymous keyboard warriors. Lets create mayhem!!

On top of that our media culture revels in "simplistic, thoughtless and often nasty comments". Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt take a bow. And these are some of the most well paid highest rating performers. And their prize is money and recognition and ratings. (All very useful to sell more tat to people who already have a life full of the stuff)

A few pages ago I tried to be take an extreme and satirical view of dealing with the trashing of Islamic culture and beliefs. Is it possible Muslims are just normal people? Or does half this group privately think they are one step away from hacket wielding jihidists? The sad part is that irony seems to be largely lost on this forum and ignorance and lack of respect dominate far too many exchanges.

Just too xxxxxing sad.

 

[Bintang]

Bintang

How about simply mutual respect, courtesy, good manners or some other "goody two shoes" nicety?

It is really easy to be unthinking, vicious, spiteful, wrong or deceitful.

Yes, wonderful if it could be practiced by everyone concerned and without any double standards.
And if certain words are used in a vicious and spiteful context the whole post deserves to be expunged.

 

[Bintang]

Is it possible Muslims are just normal people? Or does half this group privately think they are one step away from hacket wielding jihidists? The sad part is that irony seems to be largely lost on this forum and ignorance and lack of respect dominate far too many exchanges.

Yes, that is possible. But what is not possible imo is for Islam to be a normal religion. In fact I don't consider it a religion. It is an ideological and a political system of control. I know other people disagree with me on this point and they are free to do so.

 

[Julia]

How about simply mutual respect, courtesy, good manners or some other "goody two shoes" nicety?

It is really easy to be unthinking, vicious, spiteful, wrong or deceitful. (

In my view Internet forums have enabled people to repeatedly make simplistic, thoughtless and often nasty comments. We are anonymous keyboard warriors. Lets create mayhem!!

On top of that our media culture revels in "simplistic, thoughtless and often nasty comments". Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt take a bow. And these are some of the most well paid highest rating performers. And their prize is money and recognition and ratings. (All very useful to sell more tat to people who already have a life full of the stuff)

Agree 100%, basilio. I worry also that the huge response to the Paris killings, including the symbolic joining together of linked arms of many world leaders, has unintentionally provided some sort of 'open season' on expressing hatred, giving implied licence to many who would have previously held their collective tongues, to unleash anger and insults.

Many of the posts on social media show an alarming level of vicious abuse, often a sort of pack mentality with multiple posters falling into the vituperative bullying.
Surely those same people would not behave like that in a face to face situation?

Occasionally I've heard bits of Alan Jones and Ray Hadley on morning radio and just cannot understand how they attract the audiences they apparently do.

 

[SirRumpole]

Yes, that is possible. But what is not possible imo is for Islam to be a normal religion. In fact I don't consider it a religion. It is an ideological and a political system of control. I know other people disagree with me on this point and they are free to do so.

I think I agree with you on the general concept behind Islam. It contains many passages that if followed turn it into a violent and untrustworthy religion.

All religions are a mechanism for control of the masses. What I don't accept is that all people who say they belong to a certain religion necessarily follow that religion to the letter. eg, the snake example from Christianity. Some loonies literally believe that God will save themselves from snakebite, but most regard that as a silly archaic example to be taken allegorically.

Many religions are inherited and provide a club to belong to where their friends and relatives are. I think their degree of devoutness is variable, some are fundamentalists, others take it with a grain of salt. Same with any other religion.

 

[Calliope]

Bintang

How about simply mutual respect, courtesy, good manners or some other "goody two shoes" nicety?

It is really easy to be unthinking, vicious, spiteful, wrong or deceitful. (This is NOT having a go at you Bintang )

In my view Internet forums have enabled people to repeatedly make simplistic, thoughtless and often nasty comments. We are anonymous keyboard warriors. Lets create mayhem!

Okay bas, you have made your point that you respect Islamists, but I think you could have done this without accusing those with opposing views of being "unthinking, vicious, spiteful, wrong or deceitful" or making " simplistic, thoughtless and often nasty comments". You have made similar criticisms about those who oppose your views on Global Warming.

You are too fond of proseletising. Chill out.

 

[cynic]

Okay bas, you have made your point that you respect Islamists,...

Did basilio actually make any specific comment to this effect?

...but I think you could have done this without accusing those with opposing views of being "unthinking, vicious, spiteful, wrong or deceitful" or making " simplistic, thoughtless and often nasty comments".

I didn't happen to read such implications in the particular post to which you refer. I do grant that on occasions some posters do indeed make similar criticisms about their opponents.

...You have made similar criticisms about those who oppose your views on Global Warming...

Could this observation have influenced the context through which you've interpreted basilio's recent post?!

 

[Boggo]

Bintang

How about simply mutual respect, courtesy, good manners or some other "goody two shoes" nicety?

It is really easy to be unthinking, vicious, spiteful, wrong or deceitful. (This is NOT having a go at you Bintang )

In my view Internet forums have enabled people to repeatedly make simplistic, thoughtless and often nasty comments. We are anonymous keyboard warriors. Lets create mayhem!!

On top of that our media culture revels in "simplistic, thoughtless and often nasty comments". Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt take a bow. And these are some of the most well paid highest rating performers. And their prize is money and recognition and ratings. (All very useful to sell more tat to people who already have a life full of the stuff)

A few pages ago I tried to be take an extreme and satirical view of dealing with the trashing of Islamic culture and beliefs. Is it possible Muslims are just normal people? Or does half this group privately think they are one step away from hacket wielding jihidists? The sad part is that irony seems to be largely lost on this forum and ignorance and lack of respect dominate far too many exchanges.

Just too xxxxxing sad.

Your theory is great bas, the reality is a bit different.

Maybe the people you are taking offence to are judging these groups by how they treat others in their countries while they demand respect elsewhere.

You don't get the "mutual respect" automatically, you have to earn it and to do that you (they) need to demonstrate that it is deserved.

(the pic below is not an attack on any poster or group, more a statement of fact)

 

[bellenuit]

No it's not necessary to bother Joe about this.
Yes I find it offensive that muslims are able to call us kafirs without copping any criticism from the PC brigade but it is more the disrespect, arrogance and hypocrisy underlying its use rather than the word itself. In every other respect I prefer freedom of speech not to be diminished by the constraints of political correctness.

In the same theme, a great letter from a member of the Baha'i Faith.

Dear offended religious people,

Please stop the hypocrisy. The right to offend is not exclusively yours.

If you know the holy scriptures of the religions that you uphold so dearly, you already know how offensive parts of them are to people.

Yet, some of you still continue to publish them. Some of you buy those publications and read them. Some of you recite them to your children. Some of you force your children to uphold them as sacred and act upon them as far as they can. And all of you regard those scriptures beyond questioning and criticism, otherwise why would you feel offended when one did so?

If you know the holy figures of the religions that you uphold so dearly, you probably know of a few things they have done that are offensive to people.

Yet, some of you consider them as the paragons of how one should live their earthly life, and all of you regard desecration of those figures an offense to the sacredness of your religion.

Your religions have not only deeply offended women, homosexuals, and non-believers, but have also been a source of physical pain and agony for them by the actions of those followers who have been literally following their instructions, throughout centuries and millennia.

And yet, the right of these people to offend you back by questioning, criticizing, and mocking the religious concepts that you uphold so dearly has been breached for most of the history, only granted to them for a couple of decades or centuries in some parts of the world, now, and not granted to them in so many other parts, yet.

Despite such historical privilege, you still whine when somebody starts to use their right to mock your religion or desecrate its figures. Worse than that, when a tragedy happens because some of your fellow offended religious people have gone nuts and killed a group of blasphemers, some of you distort a conversation that should be about the right to blasphemy, to a conversation about your offended feelings at the blasphemy that the blasphemers were killed for. KILLED FOR…

Take a moment and think about it.

If a group of atheist homosexual women, deeply agonized and in pain bullied by expression of your religious beliefs for decades, had gone nuts and had exploded a few mosques and churches and other religious centers for “incitement of hatred and prejudice” against them, and had killed a dozen of hate preaching Imams, how would feel if all the world would turn to you when you were moaning your loss, by changing the conversation to be about how offended their feelings would get the sermons were given at those centers? How would you feel if those religious centers were not even actually preaching such hate?

Do you see how hypocritical it is?

So this is what I am gonna do: Next time you mention something about empathy, and how it requires that people don’t offend each other, I ask you for empathy first. I ask you to stop offending people by giving up your support for religions that have such offensive concepts in their scriptures, or the actions of their holy figures as recorded by history. I ask you to show your empathy for your fellow human beings by leaving your religion. Until you haven’t shown enough empathy not to offend others, please don’t ask others to show that to you.

Please stop the hypocrisy. The right to offend is not exclusively yours. The empathy not to be offensive is not exclusively other people’s responsibility, either.

Disclaimer:
This is only intended for those religious people who feel offended at blasphemy, and took the CH events to express their feelings. I understand there are many religious people like myself, who can take a witty joke about their religion with a smile, and face a serious criticism of it by a deep thought.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2015/01/guest-post-dear-offended-religious-people/

 

[Calliope]

In the same theme, a great letter from a member of the Baha'i Faith.

A great blog? As an atheist I consider the Baha'i Faith to be a load of cobblers

The Bahá'í Faith (Arabic: الدّين البهائي‎ Ad-Dīn al-Bahā'ī) /bəˈhaɪ/[1]) is a monotheistic religion which emphasizes the spiritual unity of all humankind.[2] Three core principles establish a basis for Bahá'í teachings and doctrine: the unity of God, that there is only one God who is the source of all creation; the unity of religion, that all major religions have the same spiritual source and come from the same God; and the unity of humanity, that all humans have been created equal and that diversity of race and culture are seen as worthy of appreciation and acceptance.[3] According to the Bahá'í Faith's teachings, the human purpose is to learn to know and to love God through such methods as prayer, reflection and being of service to humanity.

Wiki

 

[bellenuit]

A great blog? As an atheist I consider the Baha'i Faith to be a load of cobblers

Wiki

Maybe. But I didn't say the blog was great. I said the letter was great. I consider all religions a load of cobblers, but that doesn't mean that everything written by their followers is crap.

 

[basilio]

I have a problem with the basic question of this thread - "Is Islam inherently evil ?"

It already presupposes that we should ask that question and seriously entertain the possibility that it is "inherantly evil". Consider for example if we wanted to replace the word "Islam" with

"Catholicism," "Judism," "Scientology," "Socialism" "Capitalism" "Atheism" "Germany" "Iran" "USA"

Wouldn't it be strange or unnecessarily aggressive to begin such a conversation with any of those replacement entities?

I also have a problem with peoples understanding of Islam (or in fact any religion/ creed) . In all fairness even experts in any field would be circumspect about professing an understanding of the relgion. There are simply too many interpretations and variations to pull up a paragraph and damn the religion on that basis.

Finally in the case of Islam I have no confidence in the presentation of various "facts" about it by most keyboard warriors. I have seen so many cherry picked , distorted and just plain wrong statements made by people who sole intention is to trash Islam. (And I'm absolutely sure I could find a similar swag of quotes to trash Christianity, Judaism, and a score of other belief systems.

There is no doubt a small number of people have a real, bitter anger against The West. They certainty want to create some havoc.

But do we really want to blacken 1.2 billion people on the basis of a small group? And is there any particular reason why these people might feel so aggrieved ?

Thoughts ?

 

[SirRumpole]

But do we really want to blacken 1.2 billion people on the basis of a small group? And is there any particular reason why these people might feel so aggrieved ?

Thoughts ?

The problem as I see it is the multifarious interpretations that can be put on the Koran by people who want to use it for their own benefit, ie increase their own power.

The evidence is, through acts of terrorism and the activities of IS, that Islamic religious fundamentalism can be easily turned to violence in the minds and actions of the weak and easily led. (And there are many of those). So the ideology is the problem.

To use an analogy, if the disease is extremism, although most Muslims are not infected, by passing the need for allegience to the Koran on to their successive generations they are carriers of the disease.

The disease probably can't be completely eradicated unless Islam itself can be destroyed. Considering the number of adherents in the world, that is unlikely. Maybe it can be contained by identifying and isolating the radical elements, and sadly (or not) by extermination of the violent jihadists in action in places like Syria and elsewhere.

Also, secular countries like Australia can stop pandering to religion in general by not providing any special amenities for them, like religious chaplains or prayer rooms or the like, and keeping the Muslim population here to a minimum.

It's going to be a long battle imo, but experience has shown that secular society and Islam do not mix, as Islam believes that it is, or should be the government, not that it is subservient to government and the elected representatives of a secular society.

We need to keep impressing, gently but firmly that religion in general, while being tolerated, does not tell the rest of us what to do.

 

[bellenuit]

I have a problem with the basic question of this thread - "Is Islam inherently evil ?"

It already presupposes that we should ask that question and seriously entertain the possibility that it is "inherantly evil".

Yes, we should certainly entertain that possibility. Just as we should entertain the possibility that Mein Kampf is inherently evil or any other work that is strongly influential and leads some followers to commit terrible acts.

Consider for example if we wanted to replace the word "Islam" with

"Catholicism," "Judism," "Scientology," "Socialism" "Capitalism" "Atheism" "Germany" "Iran" "USA"

Wouldn't it be strange or unnecessarily aggressive to begin such a conversation with any of those replacement entities?

No it wouldn't if the entity in question is the assumed cause of much misery. It may be a valid question worth discussing.

I also have a problem with peoples understanding of Islam (or in fact any religion/ creed) . In all fairness even experts in any field would be circumspect about professing an understanding of the relgion. There are simply too many interpretations and variations to pull up a paragraph and damn the religion on that basis.

The Bible and the Quran were not written on the basis that they would be interpreted by just scholars and experts. They were supposedly the written word of God and meant to be followed by all the faithful. There are passages in both books (and the Hadith) that are beyond doubt in their meaning, The interpretations that we hear usually involve the complete ignoring of embarrassing passages as it doesn't fit in with the particular face of the religion that certain groups try to portray.

Finally in the case of Islam I have no confidence in the presentation of various "facts" about it by most keyboard warriors. I have seen so many cherry picked , distorted and just plain wrong statements made by people who sole intention is to trash Islam. (And I'm absolutely sure I could find a similar swag of quotes to trash Christianity, Judaism, and a score of other belief systems.

Islam is thrashed by most atheists not by stating falsehoods about the Quran, but by actually quoting directly from it. Many atheists regard a thorough reading of the Bible as the basis for their rejection of Christianity.

There is no doubt a small number of people have a real, bitter anger against The West. They certainty want to create some havoc.

The main victims of Islam are Muslims, not the West. The complete lack of respect for human rights in many Islamic countries bear testimony to this. Death for apostasy and for homosexuality. Women denied basic rights, such as an equal hearing in civil and criminal trials. The list is endless and if you are not aware of them at this stage in your life you must have your head in the sand.

But do we really want to blacken 1.2 billion people on the basis of a small group?

Again and again we hear this same diversion. Nobody is accusing all Muslims of being extremists or bad, so why keep using that straw argument. And the question is not whether Muslims are evil, but whether Islam is evil. Even if every Muslim in the world was a moderate who fully respects the rights of others (including other Muslims), it would not mean that Islam is not evil. One is the underlying philosophy, the other the followers.

 

[luutzu]