When did that happen? I think being racist and putting all nuslims on trial for the crimes of radicals is netting a ban.
Man decapitated at company near Grenoble, France, Islamist flag found on site
- Thread starter De-mon
- Start date
- Status
You can't be racist against religion.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
He holds a doctorate from the University of Baghdad.
Terra Firma
Banned
It's pretty clear. They see some injustice being done to someone else, they take up arms so they can fight against those perpetrating the injustice. Those who join Da'esh, especially in the West, have no personal experience of injustice being perpetrated towards them. They see Muslims in the Muslim world being persecuted and that nothing is being done about it, so they go and join some violent group that is doing something, albeit immoral.
You'd have to find practical evidence rather than what a poll says. Almost all Muslims would say that they're against drinking alcohol. Even those who do drink alcohol. Same thing when it comes to premarital sex, drug abuse, lying, theft, etc.
That is not traditional Islamic teaching. There are many who hold doctorates in Islamic studies, etc. but would be rejected in the Muslim world because that is still not considered traditional Islamic studies. Traditionally trained scholars are those who live and breathe the environment, rather than attend lectures in lecture halls. Those who have a link back to the Prophet PBUH.
Just because his teacher condemned him doesn't mean he isn't a trained scholar.
So we're again already at the point of "no true scotsman"? Anything to justify your viewpoints i guess.
This is just tiring. Christians are ridiculed all the time because of shit like abortion rallies and "family days" against SSM it's fine but apparently everytime someone say Islam has those problematic views about women and non-muslims suddendly you get a shower of "no true scotman" arguments.
Milly Osworth
Member
So when does evolution get rid of brainwashing?
And why would they say that if they don't believe it?
Terra Firma
Banned
No, he isn't a trained scholar. A PhD in Islamic studies does not a scholar make. In Islam, scholarship is only credible if there is a chain going back to the Prophet PBUH.
No, because Islamic scholarship is completely different from earning a PhD or Masters in Islamic studies.
Because morality and practicality are two different things.
GasProblem
Member
Heard that IS announced they will be 'celebrating' their 1 year anniversary during this Ramadan. Hope no more attacks happen but I'm afraid there will be more.
Way to prove my point, but i guess you can't even see it.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Are we talking about these two posts?
This is horriblekilling someone is horrible, decapitating... there are no words.
Islam is such a cancer, it's sad that in the 2015 people still die because of religion
I don't see any racism. And saying people are dying "because of religion" doesn't equate to putting all adherents of that religion on trial, in my view anyway.
Seriously?
Terra Firma
Banned
How does it prove your point? According to you then, anyone claiming to be a scholar IS a scholar.
Ideas follow darwinian law, they just have to survive and propagate. Our youth will always be naive, and aging often locks in early mindsets.
So if you think islam is fucked, you are racist?
I often observe a double standard: critics of Islamic doctrine, when pointing to questionable parts in the Quran and the Hadith, are readily told that the doctrine is due to interpretation, and the Islam is not what the the teachings in many places very unambiguously say it is literally, but what individual Muslims say it is. Conversely, when talking about the beliefs of Islamic extremists, we are then told that these people got it wrong and are distorting Islam; in other words, that their interpretation is wrong.
That stance does not work. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Please, explain that distinction more clearly.
When we evolve beyond the illusion of self...? Can one evolve beyond something that objectively doesn't exist? That's a very odd evolutionary conundrum; by being aware of being aware, we identify our awareness solely to thoughts.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
No, anyone who is in fact a trained scholar is a trained scholar. Whether or not he is a traditionally trained scholar or has lived and breathed the environment is irrelevant. Whether or not you accept them as being linked back to the prophet or as a speaker of true Islam is also irrelevant. The guy has a legally obtained PhD, and, as such, is a trained scholar.
- Those turririst are extremist because they're ignorant and didn't study islam!
. Tbh , Leader got a degree at Baghdad University
- But he's not a REAL scholar! He's just a self-proclaimed one!
Ok buddy. Keep going with your semantics dribbling and cognitive dissonance , i'm done wasting my time with someone which can't concede an argument and just shift goalposts.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
This is all so heartbreaking. =(
There does appear to be this perception in the West, especially on the left that criticism of Christianity is acceptable but criticism of Islam is off limits. Personally I'm of the view that all brands of bullshit should be open to criticism.
Fahzgoolin
Banned
This is quite true. Being a young Christian male in highschool was hard. People took a verbal dump on Christianity all the time, but when an islam speaker came everyone was all respectful. You couldn't say anything against Islam without someone freaking out at you.
I welcome criticism as a Christian, but unfortunately people seem more interested in insults.
Mr. Giggles
Member
I think that this behavior exists because critics always use the violent, extremism as a point for comparison and to validate their argument (which makes sense in a context of debate). At which point you have the peaceful ones using the "no true scotsman" argument.
However, its rare for those same critics to use the peaceful muslims in any example because we don't fit the narrative for their argument.
just my two cents
Terra Firma
Banned
People may think it is immoral to dress a certain way or do certain things. That doesn't mean that they are going to go out of their way to force people to dress a certain way or do certain things especially when those who hold those views are themselves not adhering to what they think to be moral.
No, my entire point was about traditional training. Anyone can get a PhD. But Islamic scholarship is completely different. There were no PhDs or Bachelors or Masters degrees until recently. Traditional scholarship meant living the religion. After all, Islam itself affects all aspects of a Muslim's life. It is not the same as studying archaeology or anthropology.
For example, someone can get a PhD in Islamic finances but he could very well not know a thing about Islamic etiquettes and manners. The reason Islam promotes traditional learning is precisely because there is a continuity in scholarship and that deviation doesn't occur.
From the start I have talked about traditional Islamic training. If you can't make a distinction between that and simply earning a PhD, I can't help you.
Criticising islam is often seen as racist, criticising Christianity isn't. Sounds stupid, is stupid, but I feel that's largely what has hands and tongues tied on the left.
I guess another large factor is fear. Criticise Islam and you might pay with your life. Not so much the case with modern Christianity.
The intelligentsia on the left has been completely complicit in this and it is a genuine problem.
Criticisms of the doctrine of Islam from a liberal perspective of being concerned with human rights is being conflated with far-right bigotry towards Muslims as people. These things are not the same at all.
Guilt over imperialism and a post-Vietnam suspicion of all western foreign policy has essentially made it taboo for the doctrine of Islam to be seriously criticized in many academic and media settings.
As someone who has been critical of all religions for a long time, it disturbs me to see so many of my fellows on the left are afraid to criticize Islam because they are afraid of supporting some kind of "narrative" that they think might be used against Muslims. This obfuscates the truth and makes open discussion impossible.
Kenshin001
Member
I think you are glossing over that whole violent Islamic Conquest thing that resulted in the deaths of millions of people. The benevolent Ottoman Empire you speak of committed genocide against non Muslims. The fact is Muslims have always been killing people whether the West was involved or not. You have to remember the Ottomans suppressed the Wahhabists 200 years ago when they tried to establish a fundamentalist state and cut off Abdullah bin Saud's head. That had nothing to do with the West. ISIS is just a continuation of a long standing ideology.
You can discriminate against religion though. Putting the whole of Islam on trial for the actions radical groups isn't good in my opinion.
Not to mention that there is indeed actual racism against people of a certain skin colour and look that are associated in the public mind with that religion.
So you believe it is alright that vast numbers of people believe it is morally right to murder someone for leaving the religion, as long as they believe that it may in fact be impractical to do so?
Well, he did qualify with 'traditional Islamic scholar' which probably has its own definitions. The question is if those definitions match with a more general definition of 'scholar'.
I think it kind of obfuscates the argument using a definition about the same subject that hasn't been qualified.
Voicing a disagreement/ criticizing something and being abrasive and incendiary are two different things.
It's ok if they are all hypocritical about it.
Answer one way to please the prophet, but don't put it in practice.
This is just plain false. Polls aren't about the views of extremists, but about peaceful ones. They still have by far and large views incompatible with modern civil rights standards, especially in regards to women, LGBT and non-religious.
The GOP dream electoral base, basically.
Terra Firma
Banned
So you're saying that Ottomans, who carried out an ethnic genocide rather than a religious one, are the same as Da'esh? It's about motivations. Even ultrasecular Turks of today are against calling it a genocide - not because of religion, but because of nationalism. The Armenian genocide took place when the Ottomans were allowing homosexuality and the consumption of alcohol so it is extremely unlikely that they cared about any religious motive.
Expansion of ANY empire involved bloodshed. Every single country that exists today has blood on its hands. What happened after the fact is what is the focus. Why is there terrorism today? Why do these small groups of people carry out attacks against Muslims and non-Muslims alike? Da'esh has killed more Muslims than it has any other group, for example.
Leaving the religion is equivalent to committing treason in Islam. Also, the punishment is impractical now as it requires an Islamic state. Why? For someone to commit treason, they have to show that they are against a state while initially being a part of it. The penalty for treason is death in many countries still. And even within Islamic law, there are valid opinions and positions that call for imprisonment over death. We even see this historically, where someone would challenge the basic precepts of Islam and would not be put to death, such as Al Razi (who wasn't even imprisoned because he wasn't a political challenge). Ibn Taymiyyah, the one who is cited as the father of Wahhabism, was even charged with apostasy. But he wasn't put to death. Even the founder of the largest Islamic school of law, Abu Hanifa, was charged with apostasy but wasn't put to death.
Historically speaking, the death penalty for apostates only came into play when it was politically feasible - i.e. to suppress minority opinions.
I hope when you say "those people" you mean terrorists, and not Muslims in general.
It should be pointed out that the negatives attitudes that Muslims encounter in Europe is actually much more pronounced than in the US, where Muslim communities have been better integrated. There are a lot more homegrown Islamic radicals in Europe than in the US for this reason.
ManUnkindH
Member
at least 27 killed in Tunisia according to NBC and Sky News. 6 nationalities...
One of the witnesses said the attackers came "out of the sea" and started shooting everything in site. I can't even.....
Jesus....
One of the witnesses said the attackers came "out of the sea" and started shooting everything in site. I can't even.....
Jesus....
It should be pointed out that there are a lot more homegrown Islamic radicals in Europe than in the US, where Muslim communities have been better integrated. For this reason the negatives attitudes that Muslims encounter in Europe are actually much more pronounced than in the US.
Chicken? Egg? Chicken? Egg?
GoldenEye 007
Member
People frequently face criticism for their choices on a wide range of issues. Why would religion get a pass?
Mr. Giggles
Member
I don't understand what you're getting at. What's false? That there are peaceful muslims?
No words. There are now words.
RIP to all the victims in Tunisia, Kuwait and France.
Let's all hope this mindless violence linked to daesh will end and the people in the conflict areas will soon be able to live in peace.
MonsterHunter
Member
Come off that bullshit. Conveniently ignore that TOWs are provided to the Kurds and FSA and are a significant part in their success along with western airstrikes.
Strange they report when they don't give a damn
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33287136
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f268838-1bfe-11e5-8201-cbdb03d71480.html#axzz3eAvodNB6
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...nsibility-for-kuwait-mosque-bombing-1.2264039
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/26/us-kuwait-blast-idUSKBN0P618L20150626
It's also interesting you grow a backbone and some sense of morals when it comes to Syria but you'll spend a thousand words of vomit defending Putin's actions in Ukraine.
- Status