Is Islam The Problem?

[Tahuti]

Islam isn't the problem. The problem is that the family instead of individuals are the basic societal unit of Arab society. That was a problem in most Western countries as well when the pope was all-powerful.

 

[r16]

the problem lies with the potential of a billion and half of people achieve something if acting in some sort of cohesion . Leads to issues with the long held superiority of the West / Capitalism / Christianity . That's why you see so secular states raising so not secular means and groups to divide and misdirect . Only a single step to my ranting on how the West hates the secular yet Muslim Turkey and wants it destroyed ; alas it also happens to be the truth . The West has no issues with heart eating head cutting savages . And the Muslims can not shame those creatures into human behaviour only because the state apparatus in Muslim states can not act to protect and serve . Unless you are a posterboy of heart eating and head cutting .

 

[Berzerker]

You can call it "running away" if you wish. I call it futile to try to have a discussion when your posts are being ignored.

I also made it perfectly clear why I thought some of your statements were sweeping generalizations. You just chose to repeatedly ignore my statements. Using sweeping generalizations is a common trait with those who try to paint any religion with far too wide of a brush. This is particularly true with Islam since 9/11.

I dont care what you think, I want to see the actual quotes... where are these sweeping generalizations?

you cant even quote one

 

[Tahuti]

I dont care what you think, I want to see the actual quotes... where are these sweeping generalizations?

you cant even quote one

Some posters are more interested in proselytising than in giving actual arguments. That's a fact of life.

 

[r16]

and while the discussion is hardly about what ı am saying , the chance to rant is too good to miss . The recent experience of the country shows that the "debating" is good only when it serves the interests of those who hold the ropes . There's no inclination to leave when the things are bad , now that it can be painted away as the work of traitors and no fault can ever be assigned . Have been ranting elsewhere on how the previously "liberal" and humanistic bunch of people have all turned up to Turkish Nationalists and all . As soon as the seperatists showed that the deal they signed was indeed for a quarter of the country and co-ownership of the rest . And not dying for the interests of New Turkey , which simply revolves around making this country a more suitable hatchery for the designs of the Saudis . Even the chief of the goverment generals declare that "his" army is a national one , still woving the fight the traitorous Congregation , too . He is the primary beneficiary of the conspiracy that disgraced the Turkish Military , diminished the prestige of the last to encourage of the rise of the Arab Spring where the Muslim Brotherhood would supposedly follow Turkish guidance to make the Middle East a better place . Because , as you might not exactly know the Arab capitals have been slightly afraid of what Turkey might do and when the last Kemalist vestiges were done away with all those Arab kings and presidents would hide under their beds instead of facing a "restored" mentality . The replacement of the chief of the goverment generals happens to be the guy who assigned an expert to legalize the conspiracy where it was plain for all to see that the forward thinking Turkish Military was using the Calibri font 4 years before the Microsoft released the relevant Office programme . When an entire army (of nearly a million on the 2nd day of mobilization) was taken hostage . He , too , is the same . Declares no competition will be allowed . Don't know who is supposed to be competing with him ... And poor old poll-takers chiding some retiring military guy who appears on talk shows , urging him to be more like Mahir Kaynak , the father of the Voice of the Counter-revolution . Kaynak's so called successes are just the same kind of BS that has been emanating from the New Turkey , long on talk - short on fact ...

indeed relevant to the thread . When Turkey is locked into a corner , it's all too easy to start a bloodbath , so that all people can ever manage to see is a bloodbath . So that they can even offer a "stiff competition" to Islam as a Religion .

 

[Funky]

I have. He says a lot of smears against Islam, including his famous remarks about a potentially logical necessity of a first strikes against Islamic fundamentalists should terrorists ever get hold of nuclear weapons.

Show me a single instance of a "smear" against Islam by Sam Harris.
His philosophical argument about having to consider using nukes when the stakes get too high is totally rational. In the context of this passage, he was talking about the doctrine of martyrdom and how it, when believed, would not act as a restraint to mutual annihilation. Do you really think a group like ISIS would refrain from using nukes if they had the technology? Harris doesn't imply that using nukes is a solution to the problem, he merely wants to show the potential danger of certain beliefs. The solution he advocates is to combat problematic beliefs.

To answer the OP, saying "Islam is a problem" is like saying "video games cause violent behavior". Anybody who becomes violent as a result of playing video games had underlying issues going on.

National Socialism was also a benign ideology. Saying it caused the violent behaviour of Germans in the 30s and 40s is to smear an entire people. National Socialism didn't have anything to do with the eradication of Jews, the belief in a German superrace, or the 2nd World War. The Germans involved in these things just had underlying issues going on.

Really? I hear it all the time (albeit moreso on other forums). I've seen calls for the massacre of all Muslims, with some calls being to nuke them.

Note: Even the title of this tread implies you might think that Islam is the problem.

Show me a quote by any public critic of Islam where "all Muslims" are criticized.

And despite the title not being mine, yes Islam is the problem. This is not an opinion, or a gut feeling, it is not bashing minorities or being rascist. It is having read Islamic scripture and noting how the belief in it plays out in the world. It is having looked at the terror attacks we see every day around the globe, the submission and oppression of women, the honour killings, the killings of apostates, the killings of blasphemers, the killings of homosexuals, theocracies, sharia, halal meat, hate of the non-believer, jihad etc etc. These are all central parts of this ideology. If any ideology deserves to be criticized, it is this one.
And no, I am not criticizing "all Muslims". Islam = ideology. Muslims = people. Do you understand the difference?

Suicide bombing cannot be justified even by the most literal reading of the Korean, much less suicide bombing against other Muslims.

And who are you to say the strength of faith is determined by your willingness to kill/be killed for it. Killing/dying is easy. Living is hard.

You clearly have not read the Koran. I realize it is much easier to simply repeat what you have heard elsewhere. But seriously, go read it, it's not that big a book. I have read it numerous times and can tell you that there are dozens of passages that can be (and are) used to justify suicide bombing.
And faith in the religious context is believing in things without evidence. Faith is not a good thing. If a religous person doesn't take part of his holy book all too seriously, like a moderate Muslim not believing in the concept of martyrdom, he has less faith in the veracity of the texts than someone who believes all of the book. Which is good! The more faith you have in your religion, the less grounded your beliefs are in reality and the more dangerous you tend to become.

 

[Gary Childress]

Show me a single instance of a "smear" against Islam by Sam Harris.

This is a bit like asking someone to present a single case of where Bill O'Reilly smears "liberals", but OK.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/category/islam

I have long struggled to understand how smart, well-educated liberals can fail to perceive the unique dangers of Islam.

Which will come first, flying cars and vacations to Mars, or a simple acknowledgment that beliefs guide behavior and that certain religious ideas—jihad, martyrdom, blasphemy, apostasy—reliably lead to oppression and murder?

Understanding and criticizing the doctrine of Islam—and finding some way to inspire Muslims to reform it—is one of the most important challenges the civilized world now faces. But the task isn’t as simple as discrediting the false doctrines of Muslim “extremists,” because most of their views are not false by the light of scripture.

 

[Funky]

"Smear" is generally defined as an untrue accusation of someone (or in this case something). Now would you care to point out which parts of the quotes you gave contain untrue accusations towards Islam?

 

[brennan]

Suicide bombing cannot be justified even by the most literal reading of the Korean, much less suicide bombing against other Muslims.

I'm sorry but this is a silly assertion. You might think this way but the muslims who actually do carry out suicide bombings clearly find justification for their actions in the Koran/hadith.

 

[REDY]

I cant say for sure that its roots are rotten or people just interpret it wrongly, but the world would be much better place without it.

 

[Gary Childress]

"Smear" is generally defined as an untrue accusation of someone (or in this case something). Now would you care to point out which parts of the quotes you gave contain untrue accusations towards Islam?

That's a tall order. How do you determine the truth value of a bunch of banal generalizations? Maybe you could equally show me where any of those statements are true?

 

[Funky]

You accused Sam Harris of "smearing" Islam. The burden of proof lies on you to show where he is factually mistaken in his comments about Islam.

 

[Agent327]

I will make a wild guess and assert there are no Muslims responding on this thread...

 

[Borachio]

You guess wrong. Mr Jackelgull has responded.

 

[Tahuti]

You guess wrong. Mr Jackelgull has responded.

He hasn't suicide bombed himself yet, so he is probably not a Muslim.

National Socialism was also a benign ideology. Saying it caused the violent behaviour of Germans in the 30s and 40s is to smear an entire people. National Socialism didn't have anything to do with the eradication of Jews, the belief in a German superrace, or the 2nd World War. The Germans involved in these things just had underlying issues going on.

You've got it backwards: National Socialism was not an inspiration for the Holocaust and WWII, it was a sham ideology created to carry out such plans. Being a Nationalist and a Socialist doesn't make one an anti-semitic mass murderer. There are plenty of people who support both Nationalism and Socialism who don't hurt a fly. And there were tons of self-styled National Socialist parties that were Civic Nationalist Social Democrats (including in Czechoslovakia and China). It ultimately doesn't boil down to the ideology, rather, it boils down to the individuals responsible. If there was no Nazi party, or a Nazi pseudo-ideology, Adolf Hitler would have to campaign on a platform of genocide and sending his own country to its ruin. I doubt that would have been considered appealing.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I dont care what you think, I want to see the actual quotes... where are these sweeping generalizations?

you cant even quote one

You said this to the fact that the same sorts of passages can be found in the Bible:

On the contrary, they've taken a step forward away from a barbaric past

This is implying that Muslims have not done so. That is a blatant sweeping generalization.

I even pointed out that blasphemy was just recently abolished in England and Wales, and it is still illegal in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which you didn't even respond because those facts run contrary to these views.

I also pointed out a number of times that there was no such thing as "Islam's treatment of civilians" because it is clearly based on the specific sect as well as regional and cultural differences. Yet you continued incessantly with the same blatantly absurd sweeping generalization.

Again:

You don't seem to be getting the point that there are few generalizations, if any, which can be made in the controversial matters regarding Islam. Just take a look at the statistics I have posted in this thread. Muslim opinion in these matter is all over the place. So you can't really even say "Islam's treatment of civilians", or its "treatment" of anything or anybody for that matter where there is no broad consensus.

Well, now I hope you are discussing all Muslims, not just civilians. And, again, the opinion is all over the place. For instance, only 1% of Muslims who live in Albania think that an apostate to Islam should be killed. OTOH 70% of the Muslims who live in Afghanistan think he should be put to death.

So, what does the religion of Islam have to say about that incredible discrepancy in opinions besides nothing at all?

I also made it perfectly clear why I thought some of your statements were sweeping generalizations. You just chose to repeatedly ignore my statements. Using sweeping generalizations is a common trait with those who try to paint any religion with far too wide of a brush. This is particularly true with Islam since 9/11.

Of course, you are again going to continue to simply deny all this, while claiming that I haven't given "examples" at all when I clearly have all along.

Some posters are more interested in proselytising than in giving actual arguments. That's a fact of life.

You mean the blatantly Islamophobic ones like Geert Wilders, Sam Harris, and Pamela Geller that so many people now use the same sort of arguments to ridicule and disparage Islam? The ones who try to condemn the religion of Islam on the basis of sweeping generalizations, instead of making it clear they are only referring to a subset who still hold these beliefs, much like even Christianity and Judaism still today?

Those people who are "are more interested in proselytising than in giving actual arguments"?



So where are your "actual arguments" instead of engaging in a blatantly silly personal attack?

He hasn't suicide bombed himself yet, so he is probably not a Muslim.

Ah. here we go...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No, maybe he doesn't actually use the word nutter in the video. He does, though, blanket all religion as "poison".

I'd say that's a rather stronger condemnation than "nutter" myself.

There is some merit to the assertion of poison though. People are routinely expected to accept and practice beliefs that are not based on evidence. They are expected to go through this practice to fit into their society. Presentation of evidence against the beliefs is ignored or scolded, further cementing irrational behavior.

That's a toxic environment, one that allows interchangeable aspects of belief not based on evidence with the ability to suppress dissent through social pressure and indoctrination.

Christianity has moved ahead of Islam in terms of violent actions primarily because the social norms of indoctrinations in Christian countries push followers away from strict literal interpretations of the less moral aspects. A proper dictatorship could easily take that another route, and you'd see much of the same behavior as with Islam...killing people and making war in the name of God with no explicit/practical purpose to the country (other than the negative purpose of keeping the dictatorship in power). I cite history as my basis for this assertion.

I was fortunate enough as a child to be mostly taught to hold beliefs based on evidence. When encountering religion, I started asking the same questions I asked when trying to understand math or how a sink makes water come out. I couldn't articulate it well as a child, but the inconsistency of the answers was staggering to me even then. If I believe in most things because I can be shown evidence, what makes religion the exception to that? Nobody could answer that. I don't believe I can lift a car one-handed, and I have convincing reasoning for why that is. Why should I believe that suicide bombing someone is beneficial to me or anybody else, or even a mundane action like listening to stories every set number of days?

I was allowed to ask those questions without being punished and allowed to think them through. Not everybody is so lucky.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Show me a single instance of a "smear" against Islam by Sam Harris.
His philosophical argument about having to consider using nukes when the stakes get too high is totally rational. In the context of this passage, he was talking about the doctrine of martyrdom and how it, when believed, would not act as a restraint to mutual annihilation. Do you really think a group like ISIS would refrain from using nukes if they had the technology? Harris doesn't imply that using nukes is a solution to the problem, he merely wants to show the potential danger of certain beliefs. The solution he advocates is to combat problematic beliefs.

You just perpetuated one of his many "smears" right here.


Link to video.

This is a guy with a binary view. Us vs them. Good vs bad. Has already said said that he would possibly support a first strike on the Arab world. That it is justifiable in some instances to kill people who just have bad ideas.

This is the irony I love...

If you cite University of Chicago study of every act of terrorism since 1980 to 2010, 95% of all suicide terrorism attacks have nothing to do with religion or are religiously motivated. They are motivated by revenge, altruism even. 95% of the attacks are against an occupying force.

It is no coincidence that 17 of the 21 hijackers were Saudis. It wasn't because they were fundamentally religious nuts. They all downloaded porn, had sex with hookers, and drank beer before 9/11. But they were so determined, so hyped up, to get our bases out of Saudi Arabia, that was the action they were prepared to take. And they saw that as an altruistic act.

It isn't Islam that is the problem in regard to 9/11 and similar terrorist acts. It is nonsensical foreign policy decisions of the US government.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I'm surprised there is no Churchill quote in this thread yet.
Criticism of Islam from 1899, when such criticism was still allowed.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/churchillislam.asp

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

"But Kaitzilla, such criticism is still allowed today", I hear people say.
Wrong!
A man quoting this passage in public was arrested.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-ministers-words-Islam-campaign-speech.html

Arrested for quoting Winston Churchill:
European election candidate accused of religious and racial harassment after he repeats wartime prime minister’s words on Islam during campaign speech


A candidate in the European elections was arrested on suspicion of racial harrassment after quoting a passage about Islam, written by Winston Churchill, during a campaign speech.

Paul Weston, chairman of the party Liberty GB, made the address on the steps of Winchester Guildhall, in Hampshire on Saturday.

A member of the public took offence at the quote, taken from Churchill's The River War and called police.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So it is a good thing that one could openly be so bigoted and racist back then?

What they don't tell us about Winston Churchill - anti-semitic, racist war criminal

=====================================

Another video where Sam Harris gets utterly destroyed:


Link to video.

Islam is the mother lode of bad ideas.

No, no "smear" of Islam there...