Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

[Bintang]

So how do you think we ought to judge non-Muslims we meet to be sure whether they're poisonous or not.

luutzu, this whole thread has attempted to answer that question for you. I can say no more.

How about White Muslims? Or non-Arab Muslims? Can we assume that if a person whose race and nationality is not Muslim/Islamic but who chose to convert to Islam... we just assume they're up to no good?

Muslim is not a race and Islam is not a nationality. Aside from that minor technicality, the reason why someone would convert to Islam depends on the circumstances. Throughout history and even today in Iraq and Syria non-muslims have converted to Islam only because a sword was raised above their necks.

I saw that movie Zero Dark Thirty - about the hunt for bin Laden.... I think it showed a high ranking Pentagon officer being White, American, have high security clearance, and also a convert of Islam. Man, they're everywhere... it's like one in four people in the world is a Muslim or something.

Well there are a very large number of people in America who believe that President Obama himself is a muslim (but a closet one). I happen to think they are wrong. He is just America’s chief Islamotoady.

 

[Bintang]

So how do you think we ought to judge non-Muslims we meet to be sure whether they're poisonous or not.?

luutzu, this whole thread has attempted to answer that question for you. I can say no more.

luutzu, after giving your question some more thought I think I can offer you a slightly more helpful answer. I can’t tell you how to judge whether a non-muslim is poisonous but I have devised a simple method you can use to decide whether a non-muslim harbours poisonous thoughts of Islamophobia.

Here is what you do: Show them the attached set of photos and ask them to identify which one is an image of an Islamotoady. If they answer ‘B’ you will know that they are not poisonously Islamophobic.

 

[luutzu]

luutzu, after giving your question some more thought I think I can offer you a slightly more helpful answer. I can’t tell you how to judge whether a non-muslim is poisonous but I have devised a simple method you can use to decide whether a non-muslim harbours poisonous thoughts of Islamophobia.

Here is what you do: Show them the attached set of photos and ask them to identify which one is an image of an Islamotoady. If they answer ‘B’ you will know that they are not poisonously Islamophobic.

View attachment 61344

I'm pretty I was asking you that since we now know how best to treat Muslims - see them as all potential poisonous vipers as that quote you attached suggests... How else do we judge other potential vipers of the dangerous kinds that are not Muslims.

That is, I get the point that it's safest to assume all Muslims are bad; How do I judge the same in others, say White folks.. or Asians. Those people tend to all look the same, how do I tell good from bad? Especially when they're Christian and... and Asians; White and Muslim.



You serious about Obama or any US president being a puppet of any Muslim leader? Any leader in any other country? Prince Charles I could understand because he's just a figurehead there to cut ribbons or receive some knighthood or something... but a US president? Kowtowing? Not until after WW3 at least man.

 

[Bintang]

I'm pretty I was asking you that since we now know how best to treat Muslims - see them as all potential poisonous vipers as that quote you attached suggests... How else do we judge other potential vipers of the dangerous kinds that are not Muslims.

Judge them by their acts and from where they get their inspiration and direction.

 

[luutzu]

Judge them by their acts and from where they get their inspiration and direction.

That is actually quite clever.


Why do smart people do and say the dumbest thing I don't know. Anyway...

 

[Bintang]

That is actually quite clever.

Thank you. It applies to non-muslims and muslims alike.

Have we actually reached agreement on something? Awesome. :bananasmi

 

[basilio]

So this thread is still weaving its way through ASF... I really hoped that a consensus of views that it was an essentially poisonous conversation that was not going to be constructive.

As I have watched it the thread began with a title that framed/presupposed an outrageous outcome "Is Islam inherantly evil". Transpose the word Islam for a score of other entities ( Judaism /Communism/ Capitalism/Facebook !) and one can see damaging the discussion will be.

Essentially it is almost impossible to prove someone/something is not inherently evil.

The discussion has done from the most simplistic and virulent comments wanting all mongrel Islams killed to relatively calm and sophisticated theological analysis.

But the final conclusion that it seems Bintag et all come to is

a total distrust, fear and hate of anything to do with Islam and then by association anyone who doesn't support that view

From my perspective I'm not sure if Islam (and all its adherants ) are to distrusted feared and hated.. I think thats a pretty big call on 1.6 billion people not to mention the Islamtoadys who have now become part of the fellow travelers.

What I am certain about.

I an totally certain that taking the above view of Islam and its supporters is fundamentally evil.

I'm totally certain that it will create its own consequences in terms of reciprocal distrust, fear and hate.

If a group is pronounced fundamentally untrustworthy, dangerous and threat to our way of life and this view becomes a significant part of the social discourse we will have war.

Words are weapons. When we make the accusations made in this thread (and a score of others) we are assaulting people.

 

[SirRumpole]

If a group is pronounced fundamentally untrustworthy, dangerous and threat to our way of life and this view becomes a significant part of the social discourse we will have war.

Which is why we have to draw a line between people and ideology.

If the ideology states that people who turn away from their religion (apostates) must be killed, then would you agree that is an evil ideology ?

Would you agree that an ideology that says that women are the possessions of men is an evil ideology ?

On the other hand there are probably many Muslims who don't take these two teachings seriously, but practise a more relaxed version of Islam. Those people should not be condemned as evil, even though their ideology contains some evil ideas. So does Christianity. Is Christianity inherently evil ? Some may say so, but it's not Christians that are beheading people in Syria.

 

[basilio]

What happens when a race is deemed inherently evil.

It's been 70 years since Auschwitz was liberated. The survivors of that horror and now in their mere hundreds. The Guardian ran a series of stories on the commemoration of the day and what we need to remember about treating people as fundamentally dishonest, dangerous and sub human.

How about having a look at the consequences of going down the path of categorizing an entire faith as evil.

Irene Fogel Weiss, born in 1930 in Bótrágy, Czechoslovakia, now Batrad, Ukraine. She lives in Virginia, US. She will be returning to Auschwitz for the third time, as part of the US presidential delegation, along with her daughter, Lesley Weiss

We lived in Bótrágy, a very small, mostly poor town in Czechoslovakia with a population of approximately 1,000 mainly farming families, including about 10 Jewish families. The town was a typical low-income community with a tailor, a shoemaker, a grocery store, where people struggled to get by, but where everyone knew each other and there was easy communication between the neighbours, though that didn’t mean we were equal.

When I was eight years old Czechoslovakia broke apart and we became part of Hungary. That was when our problems started, because the Hungarians were allied with the Nazis. It was a difficult time for Jewish families, as suddenly the law no longer protected us and overnight we lost our civil rights. My father’s lumber business was confiscated and given to a non-Jew, and we received no compensation. Jewish children were thrown out of Hungarian schools, so right away we had no choice but to concentrate on hunkering down and trying not to bring attention to ourselves. We couldn’t ride the trains and we had to wear the yellow star. It was a free for all. With no law to protect us, it was common for Jews to get beaten up or thrown off the train.

It’s an incredibly scary feeling when you’re exposed to anyone’s raw feelings and enmity. These young Nazis habitually roamed around and did tremendous damage to many individuals. But at least we were still in our community and were not evicted from our home, so that was some comfort.

We didn’t have radio or much access to newspapers, so all the children were reliant on listening to their parents for information. But I remember many things about the course of the war, who was winning and losing, and the repression of Jews elsewhere.

Hungary didn’t give up its Jewish population until it was invaded by Nazi Germany in 1944. The very first task the German government gave the Hungarians was to round up Jewish families and deport them to Auschwitz. There was a huge rush to take half a million Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz and it was completed in just six weeks, in 147 cattle cars. So in the spring of 1944 my family – my parents and their six children, the oldest of whom was 17 and I was 13 – found ourselves in the Munkács ghetto and from there being taken on cattle carts to Auschwitz in Nazi-occupied Poland.

Imagine it like this: three generations of your family have lived in the same house in the same town. They’ve struggled to raise a family, put kids through school, to feed them all. You have your friends and family. All of a sudden you are told to leave it all and walk out with a single suitcase.

I remember the night of the packing very well. Things went in the suitcase, things were taken out of the suitcase. In the end my mother filled it with food she had cooked and warm clothing and bedding. Then it was full. Plus we took a watch, some earrings, a wedding ring with us to exchange for food if necessary. The next day my father was forced to hand over his remaining money to a delegation that included the mayor and the school principal as they rounded us up at the town

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/26/tales-from-auschwitz-survivor-stories

 

[luutzu]

Which is why we have to draw a line between people and ideology.

If the ideology states that people who turn away from their religion (apostates) must be killed, then would you agree that is an evil ideology ?

Would you agree that an ideology that says that women are the possessions of men is an evil ideology ?

On the other hand there are probably many Muslims who don't take these two teachings seriously, but practise a more relaxed version of Islam. Those people should not be condemned as evil, even though their ideology contains some evil ideas. So does Christianity. Is Christianity inherently evil ? Some may say so, but it's not Christians that are beheading people in Syria.

I'm pretty sure those two teachings/practices don't just happen in Islam.

Regarding Islam's prescription for apostates, you can point to sections in the Koran and argued that the Prophet himself does not do that and so it is forbidden; With regards to Islam's treatment of women, again you can point to Muhammad's first marriage to a woman older and wiser than himself, how much he loved her and learnt from her and argued that the prophet himself respect and love and treasure his wife and women...

So like all religion and religious texts, it all depends on the purpose and character of the interpreter/reader.

I heard that some sect within Christianity does not recognise/worship the Virgin Mary; from Dan Brown's DaVinci Code, seems the entire Christian faith whitewash Jesus' marriage and love with Magdalene or him ever having a family or children... From Chomsky, I heard that during the writing of the US constitution a question of asked whether or not women should be allowed to vote - the answer is no because they figured that will disadvantaged unmarried men as women will vote however their husband/father wanted them to vote... and women didn't get to be their own person and vote until the 1950s [?]. And forget about the "coloured" people or coolies in the colonies.


So yea, let a bunch of racists male chauvinists write the rules and run the country... hell, don't need any major religion to screw up the rights of just about every citizens who aren't the ruling class.

 

[basilio]

If the ideology states that people who turn away from their religion (apostates) must be killed, then would you agree that is an evil ideology ?

Would you agree that an ideology that says that women are the possessions of men is an evil ideology ?

Sir Rumpole

I can't say I am happy or agree with some of the behaviors of some Muslim states. The challenging part is trying to pick ones way through the "ideology" of Islam.

Bintag and others have give numerous quotes which attempt to show that the fundamental Islamic ideology is untrustworthy and essentially evil. For my part I also have looked at Islamic theology and interpretation and found that the verses quoted have often been taken out of historical context. On other occasions there have been revisions that reflect the realities of a 21 st Century environment. I note that Bintag rejects any of these interpretations as simply another example of Islamic deception.

But regardless of the religious discussion it doesn't change the facts of some countries killing people who turn away from their religion or abusing women. Yeah its wrong. Yes we can't allow or even consider such concepts in our country. Yes we do need to make sure (in as constructive a way as possible) that religious leaders in Australia or elsewhere respect the overall freedom that we have to choose our religious beliefs.

___________________________________________________________

While I was researching Islamic interpretations of the Koran I came across the open letter sent by scores of Muslim leaders to the head of ISIS. It's not short but it certainly made clear how much they were revolted by the behaviour of ISIS in the name of Islam.

I'll post the Executive Summary. Anyone interested can read the full story and in particular the doctrinal discussion.

1
Executive Summary
1 It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwa s without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an or part of a verse to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that mat ter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherry pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith

2 It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings abo ut anything without mastery of the Arabic language.

3 It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.

4 It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.

5 It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.

6 It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.

7 It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.

8 Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.

9 It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.

10 It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat in any way Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.

11 It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.

12 The re introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.

13 It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.

14 It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.

15 It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.

16 It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.

17 It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.

18 It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.

19 It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God

20 It is forbidden in Islam to dest roy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.

21 Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler
and not allowing people to pray.

22 It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.

23 Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.

24 After the death of the ProphetIslam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere

http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/14/english-v14.pdf

 

[bellenuit]

As I have watched it the thread began with a title that framed/presupposed an outrageous outcome "Is Islam inherantly evil".

Basilio, if you worked on the assumption that the topic theme was outrageous from the start and should not be discussed, then you are not open to persuasion no matter what facts are presented to you.

Transpose the word Islam for a score of other entities ( Judaism /Communism/ Capitalism/Facebook !) and one can see damaging the discussion will be.

It would not be in the least bit damaging to discuss whether any of those memes are inherently evil. In fact how could you persuade society of the evil of anything if it is above discussion?

Essentially it is almost impossible to prove someone/something is not inherently evil.

No it isn't. Just because some memes may have parts that are bad won't mean that one could conclude that they are inherently evil. However, if a meme had large parts that are inherently bad and it can be shown that those parts have been the cause of so much suffering in the world for one and a half millennia, then it is possible to conclude that that meme is inherently evil.

It is like an apple. We pick up and apple and see that it is bruised and soft under the skin in a small section. We cut that part off and eat the rest. But if we see the apple, apart from a small part looking OK, is infested with maggots, we conclude it is inherently bad and throw it out. Islam is like that.

The discussion has done from the most simplistic and virulent comments wanting all mongrel Islams killed

I have not seen mention of mongrel Islams. In fact you are mixing up Islam with its followers. Islam is the religion (meme), Muslim is the follower.

But the final conclusion that it seems Bintag et all come to is et al

a total distrust, fear and hate of anything to do with Islam and then by association anyone who doesn't support that view

An incomprehensible conclusion. I would suggest that you haven't understood one single post that supported the thread topic. In fact post after post went out of the way to differentiate between Islam the meme and Muslims the followers of that meme. Yet YOUR conclusion is that these posters have a total distrust, fear and hatred of muslims and also of non-muslims who don't hold the view Islam is inherently evil. An unbelievable example of lack of comprehension, whether deliberate or not.

From my perspective I'm not sure if Islam (and all its adherants ) are to distrusted feared and hated.. I think thats a pretty big call on 1.6 billion people not to mention the Islamtoadys who have now become part of the fellow travelers.

Again repeating my previous comment. An unbelievable example of lack of comprehension, whether deliberate or not.

What I am certain about.

I an totally certain that taking the above view of Islam and its supporters is fundamentally evil.

Again, the same straw argument. No one claimed all its supporters are inherently evil. And what hypocrisy to suggest that it is possible for the meme that says "Islam is inherently evil" to be inherently evil in itself, but that Islam itself being inherently evil as a meme is beyond discussion. That is worse than 1984.

I'm totally certain that it will create its own consequences in terms of reciprocal distrust, fear and hate.

That may be so, but that doesn't mean that the thread topic is untrue. In fact because such consequences are possible is an indictment of Islam to begin with. Going back to one of your original comments above: Transpose the word Islam for a score of other entities ( Judaism /Communism/ Capitalism/Facebook !) and one can see damaging the discussion will be. For all those other entities, there would be NO consequences like you have suggested for a meme "XXX is inherently evil". There have been such discussions all the time without any threat of a backlash.

If a group is pronounced fundamentally untrustworthy, dangerous and threat to our way of life and this view becomes a significant part of the social discourse we will have war.

If you are talking about Muslims in Australia or Muslims in general, then you are again showing your complete lack of comprehension of what has been discussed. If in regards to specific Islamic groups, ISIS for example, then if you are suggesting that ISIS, for example, is not fundamentally untrustworthy, dangerous and threat to our way of life then I am sorry for you.

Words are weapons. When we make the accusations made in this thread (and a score of others) we are assaulting people.

No, Islam the meme is being assaulted. If people feel threatened by what is said about Islam then they either do not want to hear the truth, are so brain washed that they cannot see the truth or are so unsure about their convictions that they know they cannot be defended. That is not a reason why such discussions should not take place.

Reading back through your other posts I have found little in the way of genuine argument from you other than faux offence and straw man arguments. On several occasions you have equated Islam the meme with the Jewish people who were the victims of Nazism, yet when it was argued that the parallel was not Islam and the Jewish people but Islam and Nazism, with many many examples given, you simply ignored what was said.

I'm sorry Basilio, but if that is your conclusion on the discussion that has taken place on this thread, then it is obvious that you have approached it with a completely closed mind and ignored everything that was said.

 

[basilio]

Well Bellenuit you certainly took some trouble to refute me piece by piece. Where do we go from here ?

I stand by my criticism of the framing of this topic. Asking the question "Is Islam/Judaism/Christianity inherently evil " is , in my view an extreme statement of fact dressed up as a question. There would be far more neutral ways of opening a discussion on such a topic without such a damning conclusion created in the question itself.

But in my observation the intention of this discussion on this and many other forums is to arrive at the conclusion as quickly as possible.[/B]

As far deciding just how bad/sick a meme is and the misery it has caused in the world?

Where do you start Bellenuit? Whose statements do you believe? What do you actually look at ? How do create a balance between the good and the bad ?

For arguments sake Christianity has had much to answer for in terms of its impact on the world. Religious persecutions, slavery, Inquisitions, institutional pedophilia (expose of sexual misconduct amongst clergy in past 20 years )

I wouldn't even try to describe or balance these actions. I can't imagine how it could be sensibly done. And yet this thread feels comfortable about condemning an entire faith and its adherents with a series of handpicked religious quotes and a number of incidents.

It would be childs play to do the same with any other entity.

So the question remains "Why do we want to demonise Islam" ( and not look too closely at other religions or institutions?

With regard to my bolded statements

a total distrust, fear and hate of anything to do with Islam and then by association anyone who doesn't support that view

I disagree with you that that is not the intended outcome of many (but not all) participants in this thread.
I have watched Bintags posts closely as probably the most prolific poster. From my reading of his posts he appears to distrust all Muslims as matter of necessity. He has said repeatedly there are no moderate muslims. Finally he users as a signature note

"The most authentic form of Islam being practised in the world today is that being practised by ISIS"

It is presented as some sort of clear fact. In fact it is a monstrous lie. In the statement he attempts to connect the entire Muslim community to the actions of a bunch of psychopaths who are using their own special interpretation of Islam to justify the unjustifiable.

Bintang has also chosen to call out "Islamtoadys" as he calls them. Essentially it is any politician who doesn't stand up and attack Islam. (I suspect its a phrase that would also be applied to anyone else who doesn't agree with the total attack on Islam.) Again the use of very selective quotes which seems to be the common thread when one is trying to destroy a persons reputations. ( He pulled a single line from President Obama defending Islam. When the whole speech is exposed its clear the President was arguing for the protection of all faiths and all people.)

But I stand by my main point. Creating a climate of distrust, fear and hatred is a short step to anarchy.
I mean how obvious is to say that demonising a whole group in a society is not going to create problems? And maybe thats why we have established hate laws to STOP any tendency for such behavior as a danger in itself to our society

I have changed my mind through this thread.

1) There are issues with some Islamic beliefs that arn't compatible with our present society. Our laws are set in this country for all people. Sharia law and in particular some of the extreme interpretations are unacceptable. I don't believe we can ignore this issue.

2) If this thread is any sort of litmus test of our society then the risk of returning to full on religious war as a result of our own behaviour is very real.

 

[dutchie]

a total distrust, fear and hate of anything to do with Islam and then by association anyone who doesn't support that view

I don't know if you realise it or mean it but this is deemed as shouting.

 

[Bintang]

I'm sorry Basilio, but if that is your conclusion on the discussion that has taken place on this thread, then it is obvious that you have approached it with a completely closed mind and ignored everything that was said.

Excellent post bellenuit.

For those with the time and patience and I am posting two very interesting videos.

WARNING: Both these videos contain TRUTH which some people will find OFFENSIVE.

The first is a video about what is happening in the town of Luton, UK as seen through the eyes of a young woman who grew up there, moved away and returned after a few years to investigate for herself its notoriety as a hot-bed of Islamic extremism. It is also the birth-place of the English Defence League (EDL). It is a long video but worth watching.



The second video is of former EDL leader Tommy Robinson speaking at the Oxford Union last December. Just the fact that he was invited to speak there provoked controversy and anger. It is also a very long video and Tommy’s accent is a bit difficult to follow at times. Nonetheless, the man has an amazing story to tell if one has the patience to listen.

 

[basilio]

Hi Dutchie.

My understanding of internet protocols is that BOLDED letters indicate shouting.

However I was certainly trying to emphasize my point because it seems to encapsulate the overall view on many people on the thread. You could certainly call it a loud call.

I do notice how quickly I am accused of supporting terrorists when I question the overarching antipathy to Islam.

It's a very quick jump.

 

[moXJO]

Hi Dutchie.

My understanding of internet protocols is that BOLDED letters indicate shouting.

However I was certainly trying to emphasize my point because it seems to encapsulate the overall view on many people on the thread. You could certainly call it a loud call.

I do notice how quickly I am accused of supporting terrorists when I question the overarching antipathy to Islam.

It's a very quick jump.

Capital letters shouting, bolded to emphasize a point I always thought

 

[Bintang]

I have watched Bintags posts closely as probably the most prolific poster. From my reading of his posts he appears to distrust all Muslims as matter of necessity. He has said repeatedly there are no moderate muslims. Finally he users as a signature note

"The most authentic form of Islam being practised in the world today is that being practised by ISIS"

It is presented as some sort of clear fact. In fact it is a monstrous lie.

In which case we will just have to conclude that the Primer Minister of Turkey is also a liar:

Bintang has also chosen to call out "Islamtoadys" as he calls them. Essentially it is any politician who doesn't stand up and attack Islam.

Your definition not mine. The polite thing to do if you are unsure would be to ask me what my definition is before you make such an assumption.

 

[Bintang]

Bintang has also chosen to call out "Islamtoadys" as he calls them. Essentially it is any politician who doesn't stand up and attack Islam. (I suspect its a phrase that would also be applied to anyone else who doesn't agree with the total attack on Islam.)

basilio, you seemed to have missed the self-deprecating humour contained in my post #582.

What do you think about the following?
Is it light-hearted fun or would you condemn it as an act of Islamophobia?:

"****** have recently announced that they have opened voting for their Islamotoadyism Awards for 2015. The awards ceremony promises to be “an evening of comedy mayhem as we recognise the worst Islamotoadys from around the world.”

 

[dutchie]

Hi Dutchie.

My understanding of internet protocols is that BOLDED letters indicate shouting.

However I was certainly trying to emphasize my point because it seems to encapsulate the overall view on many people on the thread. You could certainly call it a loud call.

I do notice how quickly I am accused of supporting terrorists when I question the overarching antipathy to Islam.

It's a very quick jump.

Capital letters shouting, bolded to emphasize a point I always thought

I took it as shouting but obviously I was wrong.