Aaand... another election

[Brian]

Can you go further on this ? What's political islam ? Maybe you know Islam that well you can state this, but that's a pretty dangerous position.

Here's a starting point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

 

This is the Wiki page for "political Islam."

[futuredaze]

I don't agree.  There are two things which could and should be addressed without extreme measures like this (which would cause more suffering for innocents).  One is the way in which terrorist groups are organised and recruited - which should be disrupted by the police and military.  The other is the honest public examination of political Islam - it's aims and objectives and methods - and from this scrutiny the deconstruction of its validity - how it is anti-thetical to everything that is valuable in the west - this is where our politicians and media are letting us down.

Once this "honest public examination of political Islam" occurs, I suspect that many people will agree with me that mass deportation is necessary.

 

Maybe I shouldn't have said "is the only solution" but "in my opinion, seems to be the best solution."

 

I'm not saying: deport all Islamists.  France can start by deporting non-citizens, especially criminal offenders. They broke the law getting in, and there should be no hard feelings kicking them out.  Of course having safe spaces, or some other place set up for them to go, would be optimal.  but, like I said before, the West needs to abandon the hallucination that it can save the poor repressed minorities around the world.  The West needs to save itself before it can even think of helping other cultures.

 

Read about the Koran, about Taqiyya, about Sharia law... you will eventually agree with me.

 

It's either Sharia for Europe, or Reconquista 2.0.  This sounds ridiculous now, but if things don't change, in 20-30 years it will not sound so ridiculous.  Migration patterns, birthrates in Europe vs. Muslims, and history all support my claims.  The sooner Europe acts (skillfully, we can hope), the less bloodshed there will be.

Edited April 24, 2017 by futuredaze

[Apech]

Can you go further on this ? What's political islam ? Maybe you know Islam that well you can state this, but that's a pretty dangerous position.

 

 

Islam has within it the desire to establish a Caliphate in which Sharia law would be applied universally.  The language of Islam includes holy war and other approaches to achieve this.  The status of muslims as regards non-muslims (even other peoples of the book) is higher.  The status of women relative to men is lower.  Homosexuality is punishable by death.  And so on.

 

The west on the other hand promotes a secular state separate from the church, guarantees freedom of religion, free speech and assembly, democracy not theocracy - and equality under the law.

 

The two are incompatible.  There is no problem with being a muslim in a western liberal democracy provided you are not actively using means other than those allowed by law and democracy to promote a Caliphate.  Just as a Christians may recognise the bible says 'thou shall not suffer a witch to live' - they are free to think this provided they don't burn anyone at the stake.  In the west issues should be resolved by rational public debate.

[CloudHands]

Islam has within it the desire to establish a Caliphate in which Sharia law would be applied universally.  The language of Islam includes holy war and other approaches to achieve this.  The status of muslims as regards non-muslims (even other peoples of the book) is higher.  The status of women relative to men is lower.  Homosexuality is punishable by death.  And so on.

 

I think west tends to simplify the complexity of an huge living religious community. Islam is a much more intelligent and divided religion than it appears. I'm not a big fan of religions either... but common, before you state like you know it well, better understand it just a little further.

 

Among muslims there is considerable part of them that think that the Quran must be interpreted, that Mahomet was a modernist that had to deal with its time and culture. For instance he had only wife he loved and stayed monogamist with a powerful and older (than him) woman until her death 25 years later. And the Quran says to treat each wife the very same manner. Can one man have several wives and give each one the exact same thing, a similar attention ? No that is not possible.

 

Jihad is a controversial concept among muslims, I think the acceptation of Jihad as holy war is minority by far and most by far understand it like an internal fight and all of them will understand the internal fight as a the priority.

From all the french muslims I know, not even one think to harm someone in any relation with Jihad.

 

Homosexuality punishment is not clearly stated in the Quran but in some Hadiths. The Hadiths in question are all subjects of criticism from the muslim community.

 

 

I'm no expert but you see, with these simple arguments that is just a bit more complex than it can appear in the stubborn self obsessed west reflection. It's a living religion, debates and reflection are going on.

Edited April 24, 2017 by CloudHands

[Apech]

I think west tends to simplify the complexity of an huge living religious community. Islam is a much more intelligent and divided religion than it appears. I'm not a big fan of religions either... but common, before you state like you know it well, better understand it just a little further.

 

Among muslims there is considerable part of them that think that the Quran must be interpreted, that Mahomet was a modernist that had to deal with its time and culture. For instance he had only wife he loved and stayed monogamist with a powerful and older (than him) woman until her death 25 years later. And the Quran says to treat each wife the very same manner. Can one man have several wives and give each one the exact same thing, a similar attention ? No that is not possible.

 

Jihad is a controversial concept among muslims, I think the acceptation of Jihad as holy war is minority by far and most by far understand it like an internal fight and all of them will understand the internal fight as a the priority.

From all the french muslims I know, not even one think to harm someone in any relation with Jihad.

 

Homosexuality punishment is not clearly stated in the Quran but in some Hadiths. The Hadiths in question are all subjects of criticism from the muslim community.

 

 

I'm no expert but you see, with these simple arguments that is just a bit more complex than it can appear in the stubborn self obsessed west reflection. It's a living religion, debates and reflection are going on.

 

 

So the marriage to his third wife Aisha when she was 6/7 years old is a myth?

[dust]

Apologies for my earlier tone. I appreciate that people are not out with the intention to lie and misdirect.. but it does bother me that so much information is misquoted, misattributed, omitted, or simply made up so often. Trump and his cronies concoct outright lies on a daily basis, and many on the so-called "left" and "right" lie by omission almost as often. I'd just rather have a conversation where everything said is true and nobody is sweeping the dirt under the rug...
 
 

Mass deportation seems to be the only solution.  Otherwise, the terrorism will rise, the French culture will be threatened.
 
Immigration often goes hand and hand with war.  To some Western lefties, these are "refugees", but they will call themselves "invaders" -- who is more right here?

 
As has been said already I think, the worst offenders so far on US and UK soil have often been home-grown and educated to a medium or high level. Deporting refugees, people genuinely fleeing from a barbaric civil war for example, won't solve the problem with this. It only weakens the position of such nations when we claim to be upright and compassionate.

 

If we're talking about terrorism, about Islamic terrorists, we need to be looking at the people who commit these acts, and they're largely raised and educated in the very places they end up hating -- and their hate comes about because of the fucked up value system that Islam teaches them, not because they're foreign. In fact I'd argue that the most well-educated in Islam, the ones reading the Quran and ahadith in depth, and getting down to the stuff about martyrdom and all that, are the ones who have the time and money to learn such stuff -- not the ones travelling hundreds of miles to get away from their own countries where Islamism has destroyed their homes.
 
I agree that Islam poses a threat. But I disagree that simply closing mosques and "expelling" anyone preaching hate (I'm pretty sure Le Pen is referring to the majority of Muslims when she says that, not just so-called Islamists) is going to solve much at all.
 
Now..if we're genuinely talking solely about outright hate preachers and murderers, not the average nonviolent Muslim, yes of course they should be stopped. And perhaps there is an argument to be made that not enough is done about them... the case of Choudary, for example, who preached hate in the UK for 20 years and was only convicted after ISIS came into the picture.
 
But most British Muslims agree that he should be in prison, that he's a hateful piece of shit. And most of the immigrants and refugees that anti-immigration parties are so keen on deporting are not likely to be the terrorists. But if you just kick them all out, they are far more likely to end up hating you. No, I'm not saying they would be justified in becoming terrorists, simply that compassion and support on our end is more helpful than fear and hatred.

The Muslim Council of Britain said:
 

“The Muslim Council of Britain has been consistent in its opposition to Anjem Choudary, his cohorts and his predecessors. In fact, it was these extremists who have attacked the Muslim Council of Britain consistently and disrupted our meetings.
 
“In 2009 for example we condemned Mr Choudary's then organisation for organising a provocative march.
 
“In 2013, the Muslim Council of Britain condemned Mr Choudary for stoking up sectarian tensions, and we spoke out against the BBC for giving Anjem Choudary a platform on the Today programme.
 
“Indeed, it was Mr Choudary's and Mr Bakri's group who attacked an MCB event promoting democracy and participation in the elections in 2005.
 
“The fact of the matter is that the Muslim Council of Britain is a British organisation funded by mosques and Islamic associations in the UK.
 
“They in turn are supported by the charity of local Muslim communities. The MCB has continued to and will always speak out against terrorism, as is expected from our diverse range of affiliates who represent the broad spectrum of Islam.”

Edited April 24, 2017 by dust

[Brian]

So the marriage to his third wife Aisha when she was 6/7 years old is a myth?

That was after his first wife died. She was the one who convinced him he wasn't hallucinating or under the spell of a demon but was the true prophet of the God of the Jews & Christians.

 

Of interest, I think, are Safiyah bint Huyayy and the other sex slaves (think "war booty"). This is of particular interest because this practice continues today.

[Brian]

I am curious -- what has the Muslim Council of Britain done about things like Rotherham?

[Apech]

That was after his first wife died. She was the one who convinced him he wasn't hallucinating or under the spell of a demon but was the true prophet of the God of the Jews & Christians.

 

Of interest, I think, are Safiyah bint Huyayy and the other sex slaves (think "war booty"). This is of particular interest because this practice continues today.

 

 

Ah so he had three wives consecutively not at the same time - my mistake.

[Brian]

Ah so he had three wives consecutively not at the same time - my mistake.

No, he had a whole bunch of wives (plus lots of "concubines") and there was lots of overlap between wives, just not with that first one.

 

EDIT: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Muhammads_Wives_and_Concubines

Edited April 24, 2017 by Brian

[Apech]

I am curious -- what has the Muslim Council of Britain done about things like Rotherham?

 

http://www.mcb.org.uk/child-abuse-in-rotherham-we-cannot-let-this-happen-again/

 

- to be fair they are not the police who are the ones who should have acted sooner.

[Aetherous]

I'm not saying: deport all Islamists.

 

I absolutely am. Islamist is a term used to describe those who seek to spread Islam globally by force...from what I understand, it's not just a term used to describe Muslims.

 

But at this point, I am of the opinion that all Muslims need to be deported from civilized countries. This is an extreme view in our current Western culture. However, one can't readily tell which Muslim is Islamist and which isn't...many claim not to be, but are.

 

This view is antithetical to freedom of religion. However, when the religion murders so many innocents and has a plan for global domination and the overthrow of your government, I think it becomes a terrorist organization more so than a religion. Even if the majority of its proponents don't do those things, their adherence perpetuates it...and I personally feel like they secretly want their side to win.

 

Our pussyfooting around the issue is their only foothold into our lands.

[CloudHands]

So the marriage to his third wife Aisha when she was 6/7 years old is a myth?

 

 

That's all you have got ? After her first wife died he had many others "wives", asked by people to marry them for protection or linkage and widows. You have to understand that 15 centuries ago so another time and culture. In this time, to marry a widow sounds rather like an act of generosity.

But still he lived monogamist with her first wife 25 years. An older and socially powerful woman. Why ? Why the same exact treatment ?

 

For the record Islam is a religion that emphasize knowledge and science (yes science) much more than it is believed. And after there is what people do with it... The good makes no sound.

[Apech]

That's all you have got ? After her first wife died he had many others "wives", asked by people to marry them for protection or linkage and widows. You have to understand that 15 centuries ago so another time and culture. In this time, to marry a widow sounds rather like an act of generosity.

But still he lived monogamist with her first wife 25 years. An older and socially powerful woman. Why ? Why the same exact treatment ?

 

For the record Islam is a religion that emphasize knowledge and science (yes science) much more than it is believed. And after there is what people do with it... The good makes no sound.

 

 

I'm not anti muslim per se.  In fact I had a good friend who was a member of a Sufi sect for many years and read many of their books.  So I appreciate that there can be many expressions of that faith.  What I am particularly for is western liberal values the main threat to which it seems comes from political Islam - based on the form of islam which is promoted by Saudi Arabia and which backs terrorism.  Whether or not he was monogamous or married a widow and so on I don't see as relevant.

 

Perhaps you could list some contributions made by contemporary Islamic scholars to science and knowledge (other than religious studies)?

[Apech]

I absolutely am. Islamist is a term used to describe those who seek to spread Islam globally by force...from what I understand, it's not just a term used to describe Muslims.

 

But at this point, I am of the opinion that all Muslims need to be deported from civilized countries. This is an extreme view in our current Western culture. However, one can't readily tell which Muslim is Islamist and which isn't...many claim not to be, but are.

 

This view is antithetical to freedom of religion. However, when the religion murders so many innocents and has a plan for global domination and the overthrow of your government, I think it becomes a terrorist organization more so than a religion. Even if the majority of its proponents don't do those things, their adherence perpetuates it...and I personally feel like they secretly want their side to win.

 

Our pussyfooting around the issue is their only foothold into our lands.

 

You can't possibly deport all Muslims.  For a start many are second or third generation and therefore citizens of the US, UK, France etc. and so where would you deport them to?  And on what grounds - for simply practicing a faith?  Thus you would break your own constitutional rights and freedoms - the right to worship and the right to assembly and so on.  So you throw away the rule book which makes us free in order to deal with a minority.

 

What if some one on here meets a Sufi teacher and becomes a muslim - does he/she have to leave the country?

[dust]

But at this point, I am of the opinion that all Muslims need to be deported from civilized countries.

 

Apech made good points in response to the rest so I just want to ask.. what's a "civilized" country?

[CloudHands]

I'm not anti muslim per se.  In fact I had a good friend who was a member of a Sufi sect for many years and read many of their books.  So I appreciate that there can be many expressions of that faith.  What I am particularly for is western liberal values the main threat to which it seems comes from political Islam - based on the form of islam which is promoted by Saudi Arabia and which backs terrorism.  Whether or not he was monogamous or married a widow and so on I don't see as relevant.

 

Perhaps you could list some contributions made by contemporary Islamic scholars to science and knowledge (other than religious studies)?

 

and I'm not against you at all. In fact I'm against people that follows the stigmatisation of a whole population/religion according to the oversimplifying signals of our fast evolving time. There are many things I dislike too among the Islamic population just like among westerners.

 

You better say contemporary because historically the lights was here and this is well documented. Contemporarily you still can find pretty things this I found easily but that will find very few echos.

http://www.la-croix.com/Religion/Actualite/120-savants-musulmans-ecrivent-une-lettre-ouverte-au-chef-de-l-Etat-islamique-2014-09-26-1212430

 

"120 muslims scholars write an open letter to the boss of islamic state" 

 

"n avoir fait « une religion de dureté, de brutalité, de torture et d’assassinat ». « C’est un grand mal et une atteinte à l’islam, aux musulmans et au monde entier »"

 

"they made of  it a religion of hardness, brutality, torture and assassination. That's a big evil and a strike to Islam, muslims and whole world."

Edited April 25, 2017 by CloudHands

[Aetherous]

You can't possibly deport all Muslims.  For a start many are second or third generation and therefore citizens of the US, UK, France etc. and so where would you deport them to?  And on what grounds - for simply practicing a faith?  Thus you would break your own constitutional rights and freedoms - the right to worship and the right to assembly and so on.  So you throw away the rule book which makes us free in order to deal with a minority.

 

What if some one on here meets a Sufi teacher and becomes a muslim - does he/she have to leave the country?

 

Yes, it would be going against the Constitution if Islam is considered a religion.

 

This is how they get us in the pickle that we're in. Exploiting our admiration of liberty.

 

I'm not a spiteful person...if someone on here is getting into Sufism, I understand. It's just my personal view that there is no moderate or peaceful Muslim...if any of them were truly peaceful, they'd leave the "religion" immediately. Just my view.

 

Many have left Christianity for far less legitimate reasons, for instance...such as merely for the fact that Christians are viewed as "judgmental". So people disavow in order to appease.

 

Why don't Muslims disavow, when their founder was a murderous pedophile. When all throughout history, its adherents were the same...and even today, they are doing the same thing? We are literally pussyfooting around the issue at all times. Like I said, I'm not spiteful, but I'm not fooled at this point. If I were Trump, yes I would outlaw Islam and would deport them all to any middle eastern location. So, be thankful that I'm not him.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Aetherous

[Aetherous]

Apech made good points in response to the rest so I just want to ask.. what's a "civilized" country?

 

One where people don't throw homosexuals off of rooftops, where they don't stone women to death, where they don't fuck goats and little boys, where they don't chop off heads, or suicide bomb in a crowded area. Where you can walk the street feeling safe, and you don't even have the notion that you might get bombed or shot for doing so. Where a supposed religion isn't constraining your freedom. In other words, the US.

[dust]

Haha! The USA, epitome of not fucking goats.

 

So in order to be civilized, one simply has to not be a rapist or murderer?

 

And if homosexuals are killed, children are molested, the government kills people, animals get fucked, and people get shot in the street, then the country is not civilized? What bizarre reality are you living in if you think all of those things don't happen regularly, even daily, in the USA?

[Apech]

Haha! The USA, epitome of not fucking goats.

 

So in order to be civilized, one simply has to not be a rapist or murderer?

 

And if homosexuals are killed, children are molested, the government kills people, animals get fucked, and people get shot in the street, then the country is not civilized? What bizarre reality are you living in if you think all of those things don't happen regularly, even daily, in the USA?

 

 

In the USA these things are crimes - in some parts of the world they are institutionally justified.

 

Not that I accept the definitions - just saying.

 

Of course both cultures share the Abrahamic root religion - but in the west the value system has evolved into the attitudes we have today about equality and fairness, while Islamic countries (or at least some) seem to have gone backwards towards fundamentalist understanding.  So while we since the second world war have increased civil liberties and rights for women and gay people, which is really founded on not grouping people by gender and sexuality and so on - but saying each is an individual with rights.  In the islamic world the harder attitudes prevail centred round literal interpretation of the word of the Koran.

 

There's a similar attitude in fundamentalist Christianity - but while this has a big influence in the US in Europe is not a political factor.  And while it does have an evangelical world view it does not have the same aggressive approach.  The problem with Islam interpreted in a certain way is that it translates into the political movement which upholds violence as legitimate means.  This does not mean that most Muslims would commit acts of terrorism but that the conservative nature of the society makes protest against such acts quite difficult and sometimes dangerous.  As most acts of terrorism actually target other muslims - and a stern upholding of a Sharia law based system plus public shaming - makes any voice which prefers secularism and moderation unsustainable.

 

It takes a lot of effort and struggle to reform social attitudes to say, race, sex and sexuality and there is usually a tipping point from generation to generation whereby things like being gay become accepted - even thought as being quite cool.  We forget how recent this is is for us.  Certainly attitudes have changed massively since the 60's and 70's.  But what backed up these changes was the ability to appeal to the law and the legislators who basically all upheld some version of fairness and equality under the law based on reasoned argument and not the immutable word of God.  Once a pressure group has established their rights then there is probably a generational adjustment in social attitude which follows - as with gay rights following the AIDS epidemic in the 80's.  The Islamic world has not embraced any of this change because if you link church and state you can't.

 

In England the leader of the Liberal Democrats who is a born again christian is being repeatedly asked if homosexuality is a sin. He must of course being a Christian believe it is because he reads the Bible literally.  But what he says is that as a Liberal what he upholds is individual liberty - so even if he personally has a view what overrides that is his wish to see every individual live their own lives in their own way if they do not harm others.  This may at first seem a little contradictory but I think actually if you examine his position it is the same as we all must inevitably take.  That is, we all uphold our own ethos based on what we have experienced and understand - and all we can wish for is that others respect our views just as we respect theirs - and that our respective views are debated and challenged by reasoned discourse.

 

What has been lacking from our western leaders is a forceful defence of this position.  This partly because of political correctness of not wanting to sound racist or bigoted when critiquing islam and partly because our very own base on these values has been undermined by inter-sectionalist debased marxism and postmodern relativism.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Apech

[CloudHands]

If we agree on gay people won't marry you, Saudi or daech won't rule you sounds the same to me... stop being scared. Let's defend against offenders and that's all.

By putting different kinds of people in a same big bag with a sticker "evil" on it. One do worse than stupidity he creates enemies. It's all a process. Now the debate is focusing on few tens of thousand lost human... with the feeling half of the world wants to rule us.

 

Remember the story al qaeda, then daech have been favoured by ? by ? bye...

[dust]

In the USA these things are crimes - in some parts of the world they are institutionally justified.

No, not all.

 

In the USA, government murder is legal in 31 states; guns are widespread; many states only eliminated laws outlawing sodomy in 2003, and crimes against homosexuals still occur. That's not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people the country kills in wars. In contrast, a country like Indonesia has no laws against homosexuality; in 2012, 12 people were officially executed by the government (compared to 43 in USA and not dissimilar population size). I don't know anything about gun law over there but the homicide rate is lower than that of the US. The US homicide rate is higher than that of most Western Asian / Middle Eastern nations.

 

China executes more of its citizens each year than the rest of the world put together; they are inwardly hostile towards foreigners; homosexuality is generally taboo; gulags are still commonplace; horrific trades in humans, organs, endangered species, etc are widespread; etc. So, is China particularly civilized? Should all Chinese people be denied immigration to our glorious lands?

 

I'm not saying there isn't a problem with Indonesia, or Iran, or wherever. Yes, there is inequality of gender, sexual preference, etc. Yes, many of their beliefs are dangerous religious tripe. But it's perverse to choose the acceptable limits of behaviour based on where one was born or what religion one assumes people to be following. There is nasty violence in some Buddhist countries -- the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar are among the most persecuted people in the world. Zen Buddhism in Japan was partially responsible for the growth of imperial power, with Zen practitioners among the most vocal supporters of their wars in America and Asia. To adhere to Zen does not mean one must be violent, it's not a prerequisite, but historically Zen and the sword go pretty well together.

 

America is not particularly civilized, in my opinion. With civilization as an ideal, there is no civilized place on Earth. And to suggest that all members of one religion or nation are uncivilized and must be discarded... well, that only proves how... arrogant? ignorant? deluded? many Westerners still are.

Edited April 26, 2017 by dust

[CloudHands]

Thank you for that post, dust. You give me the appreciable feeling of being useless

[Apech]

No, not all.

 

In the USA, government murder is legal in 31 states; guns are widespread; many states only eliminated laws outlawing sodomy in 2003, and crimes against homosexuals still occur. That's not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people the country kills in wars. In contrast, a country like Indonesia has no laws against homosexuality; in 2012, 12 people were officially executed by the government (compared to 43 in USA and not dissimilar population size). I don't know anything about gun law over there but the homicide rate is lower than that of the US. The US homicide rate is higher than that of most Western Asian / Middle Eastern nations.

 

China executes more of its citizens each year than the rest of the world put together; they are inwardly hostile towards foreigners; homosexuality is generally taboo; gulags are still commonplace; horrific trades in humans, organs, endangered species, etc are widespread; etc. So, is China particularly civilized? Should all Chinese people be denied immigration to our glorious lands?

 

I'm not saying there isn't a problem with Indonesia, or Iran, or wherever. Yes, there is inequality of gender, sexual preference, etc. Yes, many of their beliefs are dangerous religious tripe. But it's perverse to choose the acceptable limits of behaviour based on where one was born or what religion one assumes people to be following. There is nasty violence in some Buddhist countries -- the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar are among the most persecuted people in the world. Zen Buddhism in Japan was partially responsible for the growth of imperial power, with Zen practitioners among the most vocal supporters of their wars in America and Asia. To adhere to Zen does not mean one must be violent, it's not a prerequisite, but historically Zen and the sword go pretty well together.

 

America is not particularly civilized, in my opinion. With civilization as an ideal, there is no civilized place on Earth. And to suggest that all members of one religion or nation are uncivilized and must be discarded... well, that only proves how... arrogant? ignorant? deluded? many Westerners still are.

 

 

Hi Dust - are you American?

 

I agree with most of what you say except to say that the death penalty in the US is reserved for serial killers and the like and not apostasy or being gay.  Sure there is a variation state to state - but even so the whole thing is held together by the constitution which is basically 18th century European enlightenment values writ large.  I'm certainly not uncritical of what the western powers do int he world - but at the end of the day if you want to live free and so on - well the best countries are all western.

 

I think the Buddhism example is interesting as I am a Buddhist.  By reading Tibetan history I was able to disabuse myself of the notion that applying Buddhist values to statecraft guaranteed a Shangrila.  Tibetan history is a continuous struggle of politicking, warfare (even between monasteries!), torture and power-seeking.  Similarly the track record in Sri Lanka is not great and I could go on.  So even with gentle, compassionate Buddhism you should not mix religion and politics.  Same for Hinduism - I don't know if Daoism is an exception.