On Moderate Muslims

by Guest Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:42 am

Ever since the Islamic atrocity of 9/11 (some would argue even before that), it has become fashionable to run after "moderate" Muslims, to court them, to highly value their views, to appease them to the point of losing freedoms won through centuries of bloodshed and activism. And yet at some point we must ask ourselves, have we been chasing a mirage all along? Fareed Zakaria explains:

Over the past decade, the United States helped organize Iraq’s “moderates” — the Shiite-dominated government — giving them tens of billions of dollars in aid and supplying and training their army. But, it turned out, the moderates weren’t that moderate. As they became authoritarian and sectarian, Sunni opposition movements grew and jihadi opposition groups such as ISIS gained tacit or active support. This has been a familiar pattern throughout the region.
For decades, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been to support “moderates.” The problem is that there are actually very few of them.

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/on-moderate-Muslims.html

by Guest Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:52 am

And lastly, I need to mention the wonderful Tarek Fatah, who I have also quoted frequently.

It is worth noting that not a single Muslim cleric since 9/11 has mustered the courage to say the doctrine of armed jihad is defunct and inapplicable in the 21st century. They rightfully denounce terrorism, but dare not denounce jihad. The armed jihad launched against the infidels, is clearly promoted by the 20th-century writings of such Islamists as Syed Qutb and Hassan al-Banna of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and the late Syed Maudoodi of Jamaat-e-Islami of Indo-Pakistan.
Unless the leaders of Canadian and American mosques as well as the Islamic organizations denounce the doctrine of jihad as pronounced by the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami, and distance themselves from the ideology of Qutb, al-Banna and Maudoodi, they stand complicit in the havoc that these jihadis are raining down on the rest of us. For those who search for the root cause of Islamist terrorism, it’s the doctrine of jihad, stupid.

by Guest Sun Oct 12, 2014 4:09 pm

Has there ever been such a thing as a moderate Muslim?

by Guest Sun Oct 12, 2014 4:11 pm

Nems wrote:Has there ever been such a thing as a moderate Muslim?

Its an illusion Nems, just like there is an illusion on a moderate Christian.

by Guest Sun Oct 12, 2014 4:22 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Nems wrote:Has there ever been such a thing as a moderate Muslim?

Its an illusion Nems, just like there is an illusion on a moderate Christian.

I think that is why so many turned away from the church in this country. The thing is do we have time to wait for Islam to progress and develop enough to stop wanting to kill everyone they disagree with and to stop imposing their dogma on us? Islam is still too attractive to the fanatics.

by Guest Sun Oct 12, 2014 4:33 pm

Nems wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Its an illusion Nems, just like there is an illusion on a moderate Christian.

I think that is why so many turned away from the church in this country. The thing is do we have time to wait for Islam to progress and develop enough to stop wanting to kill everyone they disagree with and to stop imposing their dogma on us? Islam is still too attractive to the fanatics.

We were given the chance to progress, so should they be,it is as simple as that Nems, where you only have the advantaged based on birth rite. Neither the Bible and Quran will progress, but humans can in how they believe, never lose site of that.

by Tommy Monk Sun Oct 12, 2014 5:16 pm

A moderate Muslim is one who is not very religious at all.....

by Fuzzy Zack Sun Oct 12, 2014 5:29 pm

Moderation is subjective. One man's moderation is another's extremism.

What I object to (and Tommy's post above is an example of this) is when non-Muslims think that non-violent Muslims don't really follow the Quran and are not real Muslims.

When in fact, the opposite is true.

In fact, non-Muslims (like Maher) and Muslims who think the Quran justifies war as a preference are the real extremists.

by Ben Reilly Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:04 pm

There are obviously lots of moderate Muslims, lots of moderate Christians, and far more importantly, most of both groups (whether moderate or conservative or liberal) aren't violent and don't support violence.

Murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants in 2012 -- lighter areas have lower rate, darker areas have higher rate.

by Guest Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:52 pm

There is no such thing as moderate Christians or Muslim as they are based around their political views and literal views, so it is irrelevant whether they are violent or non-violent, they all share one the same passion if literal, living by man made myths, which do affect millions daily, especially when religion is applicable to criminal law. So actually many live poor lives based around literal beliefs, that affect millions daily with discrimination and abuse, centered around religious law.
Maybe you need a map, based on human rights where religion has control, that would be more telling, as basing murder rates off countries that suppress coverage of denials, is not a true reflection of the criminal matters of that nation.

by Guest Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:06 pm

by veya_victaous Sun Oct 12, 2014 11:24 pm

Brasidas wrote:There is no such thing as moderate Christians or Muslim as they are based around their political views and literal views, so it is irrelevant whether they are violent or non-violent, they all share one the same passion if literal, living by man made myths, which do affect millions daily, especially when religion is applicable to criminal law. So actually many live poor lives based around literal beliefs, that affect millions daily with discrimination and abuse, centered around religious law.
Maybe you need a map, based on human rights where religion has control, that would be more telling, as basing murder rates off countries that suppress coverage of denials, is not a true reflection of the criminal matters of that nation.

That's not true
a moderate religious person places family and state before their religion, it is not that hard a concept really people place different values on different aspects.
Some will place religion above politics, some will have a basic humanity that will always exceed either religious or politic rhetoric.
I believe we can work with any one that values family over religion and politics, and the vast majority of people will put their family first.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 3:39 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Brasidas wrote:There is no such thing as moderate Christians or Muslim as they are based around their political views and literal views, so it is irrelevant whether they are violent or non-violent, they all share one the same passion if literal, living by man made myths, which do affect millions daily, especially when religion is applicable to criminal law. So actually many live poor lives based around literal beliefs, that affect millions daily with discrimination and abuse, centered around religious law.
Maybe you need a map, based on human rights where religion has control, that would be more telling, as basing murder rates off countries that suppress coverage of denials, is not a true reflection of the criminal matters of that nation.

That's not true
a moderate religious person places family and state before their religion, it is not that hard a concept really people place different values on different aspects.
Some will place religion above politics, some will have a basic humanity that will always exceed either religious or politic rhetoric.
I believe we can work with any one that values family over religion and politics, and the vast majority of people will put their family first.

Incorrect, there is no such thing, you either have a person who is a literal believer or not a literal believer and then again their views are based off their political view points. A person who places their family before their faith is not a literal believer, because a literal believed places their deity first above everything else. All literal believers take the religious command and beliefs above everything else. This is why where in many cases Christianity has progressed and has less people who are literal believers and the fact it has no power or influence in many countries anymore is why you have less extremists who are Christian. The reality is Islam needs progression, because as seen it still discriminates badly within law against apostates, there is no freedom of speech on religion, homosexuality is criminalized, women are treated appallingly etc, the list is endless all of which people are ignoring where again where there is literal belief of the religion made into law. You only have to look in America for example to see that those with literal beliefs who are Christian tend to support Republicans and Tea Party. Yes we can work with anyone, and that will mean progression is required.

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:46 am

Well, in that case you actually have very few "literal believers" because very few people will put their families or other loved ones, or even their lifestyles, behind their religious views.

I promise you that even the vast majority of Tea Partiers wouldn't be willing to sacrifice their loved ones for their faith.

by veya_victaous Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:23 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well, in that case you actually have very few "literal believers" because very few people will put their families or other loved ones, or even their lifestyles, behind their religious views.

I promise you that even the vast majority of Tea Partiers wouldn't be willing to sacrifice their loved ones for their faith.

EXACTLY !!!!

AND AGAIN: Didge you don't get to tell People what they believe to force it to fit you very limited stereotype of the world.....

PEOPLE CAN AND WILL BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT!!!! that means they can believe some some sky giant is up there watching them BUT that doesn't mean they have to but it before their family or well being... A VERY VERY SMALL MINORITY in any religion act as you describe. Literally less than 1% of the world would be classified as religious if there was even the slightest bit of truth to your assertion that PEOPLE are either Atheists or Have to act and believe like a Full blown Fundamentalist and there is Absolutely no middle ground. THERE IS ALWAYS MIDDLE GROUND Even it your racist bigoted text books DON'T TEACH YOU THAT.

Yes Islam and Europe NEED progression from the Archaic mindsets that seem so prevalent in their societies.

On Moderate Muslims Bow-and-arrow-robin-hood-data

PS cool name

On Moderate Muslims Tumblr_mg20mutaBp1rgvklro3_500

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:01 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well, in that case you actually have very few "literal believers" because very few people will put their families or other loved ones, or even their lifestyles, behind their religious views.

I promise you that even the vast majority of Tea Partiers wouldn't be willing to sacrifice their loved ones for their faith.

Well you see this where you are yet again misguided and any literal christian will place God and Jesus before their own family, but then I guess you fail to understand how many children have been disowned if they are homosexual or have turned away from the faith?
Again I asked Zack here what he would place first, he stated his god, just as many do and you may want to check the bible because Jesus even advocates this.
So you are very much mistaken, there is plenty of literal believers and many take their god first over their children.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:15 am

To Veya

Yes, I do tell people it is ridiculous to place something they cannot prove over something they created, that is common sense, where many people suffer at the hands of this lunacy. Unless you now back for example Christian families disowning their gay son?
This is the problem you fail to understand with literal belief and how it is so very dangerous, centuries of history proves this, yet you seem to have not read about it. The very fact religion is the law in many countries under Islam might just give you a clue to this issue, where again a made up God takes precedent over the lives of others.

by veya_victaous Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:28 pm

OKAY

You can tell them but It doesn't mean they will listen... but what I was saying is that you don't get to tell someone they are or are not a Muslim or Christian or Whatever and therefore they MUST believe and behave in a certain way. One only has to Compare Raggs to VOD to see massive difference in level of literal belief. Or even more extreme HF to Groomsy, while one can imagine HF killing people because his god told him to it is pretty hard to imagine Groomsy doing the same.

But how many Christian Families DON'T disown their gay son? plenty

Yes Literally Belief is Very Dangerous WHEN being used by people in power to manipulate the masses and even more so when those masses are uneducated and poverty stricken.

And Most Muslim nations have laws in line with their values but Not necessarily Sharia or religious law. which is pretty much the same as the 'Christian' western nations.

I am not arguing that Secularism is not the Best because it is the Best. but we cant expect Everyone even in far of nations to follow it at this point in time. Look at the USA struggle with it because of the Christian right, seems a bit much to expect nations that don't have the advantage of the Wisdom US founding fathers in the architecture of their constitution to be able to do something that the US is struggling with.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:35 pm

Of course I defined a person as a literal believer, just as they can define me as a non believer, it is that simple. A literal believer views the whole works as the words and commands of God, they place God first above all overs.

You can argue as Victor uses very aptly semantics all day long, but these are the facts and countless centuries of history show where people hold literal beliefs in power it is a million times worse, because laws are based on myths, of which these myths are the formation for the worst kind of prejudice.

Most Muslims countries have religious based laws, you would be hard pressed to show at least 5 that do not have homosexuality, adultery, apostasy as crimes punishable by their religious laws?

You seem to think bringing in Christianity brings some justice to your points, it does not, those who hold literal views, there take the Bible literally, where even though the Pope and Catholic church has shown the most recent progression, I could argue very easily it is moving away from a literal belief. The only way they could still claim to follow a literal belief, would be to remove any association with the Old Testament, of which they are not about to do.

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:43 pm

The point, Didge, is that you don't get to define what a true believer is -- particularly when they can't even define it.

If you're saying the only true believers are fundamentalists, you're going to find a lot of non-fundamentalists who disagree vehemently -- as they have every right to.

They don't even agree on non-fundamentalist questions, like the true nature of the Trinity within Christianity or the true heir of Muhammed in Islam.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:46 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:The point, Didge, is that you don't get to define what a true believer is -- particularly when they can't even define it.

If you're saying the only true believers are fundamentalists, you're going to find a lot of non-fundamentalists who disagree vehemently -- as they have every right to.

They don't even agree on non-fundamentalist questions, like the true nature of the Trinity within Christianity or the true heir of Muhammed in Islam.

Yes I can and I just did and made no point on true believers of what could be described as the correct or right view point, which seems to have you all confused.
Literal belief is believing and having a view the whole religious book is the word of God and that God is supreme above all things.
That is a fact, I made no distinction on what is the true nature of a faith, but on what they believe, where again they believe 100% that either the Quran or the Bible is the word of God.

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:32 pm

So -- there are no "true Christians" who believe that disowning a gay child is un-Christian?

Again -- you don't get to define it.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:35 pm

actually there are no TRUE abrahamic believers (and the same is most likely true for most other faiths)

since what was the "truth" in the context of society 1600 or 2000 odd years ago. most certainly aint the truth in the context of society NOW.

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:46 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:actually there are no TRUE abrahamic believers (and the same is most likely true for most other faiths)

since what was the "truth" in the context of society 1600 or 2000 odd years ago. most certainly aint the truth in the context of society NOW.

Which kind of just goes to underscore my point. Nobody today can be an absolute authority on what was precisely intended when these religions were formulated.

Hell, nobody was an authority when they were formulated, otherwise they wouldn't have developed into sects and denominations, or had different practices and traditions.

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:49 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:So -- there are no "true Christians" who believe that disowning a gay child is un-Christian?

Again -- you don't get to define it.

Seriously did you swallow a thick pill tonight?
I am not making any claim on what is a true believer, but a literal believer, as all have different views and interpretations on the faith, but a literal believer will take all of the religious works, the bible and Quran for example as the word of God and the views of God, supreme over others, which means no matter how they intepret, their views cannot be wrong to them, because they are divinely commanded to them.
I really do not how to dumb this down enough for you to understand and yes I can state as such, because this is a fact, as already pointed out to you.

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:54 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:So -- there are no "true Christians" who believe that disowning a gay child is un-Christian?

Again -- you don't get to define it.

Seriously did you swallow a thick pill tonight?
I am not making any claim on what is a true believer, but a literal believer, as all have different views and interpretations on the faith, but a literal believer will take all of the religious works, the bible and Quran for example as the word of God and the views of God, supreme over others, which means no matter how they intepret, their views cannot be wrong to them, because they are divinely commanded to them.
I really do not how to dumb this down enough for you to understand and yes I can state as such, because this is a fact, as already pointed out to you.

So there are no Christians who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God and yet would believe it un-Christian to disown a gay child?

by Guest Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:58 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Seriously did you swallow a thick pill tonight?
I am not making any claim on what is a true believer, but a literal believer, as all have different views and interpretations on the faith, but a literal believer will take all of the religious works, the bible and Quran for example as the word of God and the views of God, supreme over others, which means no matter how they intepret, their views cannot be wrong to them, because they are divinely commanded to them.
I really do not how to dumb this down enough for you to understand and yes I can state as such, because this is a fact, as already pointed out to you.

So there are no Christians who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God and yet would believe it un-Christian to disown a gay child?

Of course there is, as of those that do they still believe literally in the bible, you are again going down the road on claims to what is the correct Christianity, of which I do not make any such claim.
Sorry considering you are being incredibly thick, let me help you:

PRINCETON, NJ -- About one-third of the American adult population believes the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally word for word. This percentage is slightly lower than several decades ago. The majority of those Americans who don't believe that the Bible is literally true believe that it is the inspired word of God but that not everything it in should be taken literally. About one in five Americans believe the Bible is an ancient book of "fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man."

Belief in a literal Bible is strongly correlated with indicators of religion, including church attendance and identification with a Protestant or other non-Catholic Christian faith. There is also a strong relationship between education and belief in a literal Bible, with such belief becoming much less prevalent among those who have college educations.

Background

One's view of the authority of the Bible has been and remains a key focal point for many religions today.

Some denominations hold the belief in a literal Bible as a hallmark of their faith. The statement of "Faith and Mission" of the Southern Baptist Convention, for example, states that: " The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy."

Although even those who believe in a literal Bible can still be at odds in their attempt to interpret exactly what the Bible says about key areas of Scripture and moral issues, a literal belief structure has been the basis for justifications for a variety of important positions in American life. These have included opposition to evolution and the teaching thereof in public schools (going back to the days of the Scopes Monkey Trial), opposition to same-sex relationships, the proper relationship between husbands and wives with a marriage, observance of a day of rest, the belief that positions as preachers or priests should be maintained for men only, and even such seemingly unrelated topics as immigration.

Americans' Opinions

Only about one-third of Americans today believe the Bible is absolutely accurate and that it should be taken literally word for word. The rest either feel that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but not literally so, or that it is a book of ancient fables, legends, and history as recorded by man.

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:10 am

So now you're simply down to insisting that religious fundamentalists exist. You've been shown that not even fundamentalism goes hand-in-hand, as a rule, with any negative behavior, and you've been shown that one not need be a fundamentalist to be a follower of a faith in the first place. And you've been offered several well-reasoned arguments that show that you don't get to define any given faith's application to any situation, any more than a moderate, a fundamentalist, a "literal believer" or anybody else does.

The truth is, you've been playing fast and loose with your definitions all along. You try to make a distinction between "literal believers" and "fundamentalists," but they're the same thing. A fundamentalist is a religious person who takes their faith literally.

So all you're doing is taking the fundamentalist's side of the argument when it comes to Islam -- the argument that "if you don't interpret the Quran literally, you're not a true Muslim."

It seems there is no anti-Islamic statement that you won't raise over your head and wave around these days, no matter how simplistic or absurd it is ...

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:22 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:So now you're simply down to insisting that religious fundamentalists exist. You've been shown that not even fundamentalism goes hand-in-hand, as a rule, with any negative behavior, and you've been shown that one not need be a fundamentalist to be a follower of a faith in the first place. And you've been offered several well-reasoned arguments that show that you don't get to define any given faith's application to any situation, any more than a moderate, a fundamentalist, a "literal believer" or anybody else does.

The truth is, you've been playing fast and loose with your definitions all along. You try to make a distinction between "literal believers" and "fundamentalists," but they're the same thing. A fundamentalist is a religious person who takes their faith literally.

So all you're doing is taking the fundamentalist's side of the argument when it comes to Islam -- the argument that "if you don't interpret the Quran literally, you're not a true Muslim."

It seems there is no anti-Islamic statement that you won't raise over your head and wave around these days, no matter how simplistic or absurd it is ...

Fucking PMSL, let me ask you a simple question, are fundamentalists all literal believers?

Yes that is a fact, though not all literal believers are fundamentalists, showing how wrong you are yet again, where now being critical of a religion is being anti-Islamic, you cannot make it up how idiotic the left are in their arguments.

Again I am making no view point on what is a true or correct Muslim, let alone Christian, showing how you are incapable of understanding anything on this.

You see you are too emotive to even see why your view points contradict, being utterly clueless on this. The reality is you can have people who take the literal view that it is the word of God, but some do not believe to impose this view on to others. You have not offered anything reasonable accept not even understanding what I saying, side tracking with things I never stated as to what could be considered to be the correct interpretation of faith. It is wet zaps like yourself who have no basic understanding in regards to what is wrong within religions, yes many live good lives by them, but they also allow for supreme prejudice and even worse the persecution of people. When people take literal beliefs to enacting them onto others, you have a major issue. Their beliefs are centered around what they see as the word of God, nothing can over ride this view for them. It is people like you that wishes to protect the prejudice of religious views through your own naive beliefs, thinking you are doing good, when you fail to understand you back discrimination by this stance.

Even though religions preach love of humanity, decades of psychological research have linked religiousness with prejudice. In recent times, certain types of prejudice, particularly racism, have become socially unacceptable and are nowadays condemned by religious leaders. However, religious prejudice against homosexuals and against atheists is still tolerated and even encouraged by mainstream religious groups. Atheists in particular appear to be one of the most vilified minority groups in America today. Some researchers have argued that how dogmatically people hold their beliefs is more important to religious prejudice than the actual content of their beliefs. However, a recent study suggests that when it comes to prejudice against gays and atheists, the content of the belief – specifically belief in God – is as important, perhaps even more important, than how dogmatically a person holds those beliefs.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201305/belief-in-god-supports-prejudice-against-gays-and-atheists

by veya_victaous Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:26 am

victorisnotamused wrote:actually there are no TRUE abrahamic believers (and the same is most likely true for most other faiths)

since what was the "truth" in the context of society 1600 or 2000 odd years ago. most certainly aint the truth in the context of society NOW.

Great point
Geezez Victor I think you're winning the internet today On Moderate Muslims 4211521542

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:33 am

fun·da·men·tal·ism

a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:35 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:fun·da·men·tal·ism

a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

Really, show me all those who act out these principles from each book, being in adherence to them.
Lets start with stoning children who disobey their parents?

In your own time?

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:38 am

I can't help what words mean, Didge.

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:41 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:I can't help what words mean, Didge.

Or that you fail to understand the meaning Ben, I mean all those literal believers to you are fundamentalists, which is of course wrong, as show me those who have adherence to killing children who disobey?
A fundamentalist would of course, but that may not be the case with just a literal believer.
It seems this though is your only defense and have dropped all my other points to defend religion.

Bravo

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:48 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:fun·da·men·tal·ism

a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:50 am

Yes we got that part, now go back and answer my question.

Second time lucky.

Good luck

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:59 am

Anyway I am off to bed.
Ben next time do not start the insults, as you reap what you sow
I am just tired of people making excuses in regards to religion, when there is so much wrong within them and I for one know this better than anyone being as I wrongly defended them. They teach the worst morality, to blindly follow something they cannot prove that instills fear into people to believe of which if they do not are eternally condemned. The first racism, is found in the bible, endorsement of slavery, prejudice to women and homosexuals, the list is endless, there is not much right about religion, apart from bringing about a view to help ease the fear of death. How people defend against being critical of why all these things are wrong, of which they are and why I am glad that some religious people are progressing, hats off to the pope, but people should not shy away from condemning what is wrong in these books and the fact is at least I can be critical, in other nations, I would not have this freedom, but lose my life through religious discriminating laws

Good night

by veya_victaous Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:22 am

the worst thing about religion is that is causes people to hate for no good reason.

unfortunately the ideas of men like didge do the same...

that why I say when we finally do get rid of religion we will just fight about something else, hate is in the veins of some people, and no amount of logic and reason seem to be able to shift it ...

I don't propose killing him for that fact that his ideas limit the potential of humanity and his ideas are dangerous and create perpetuate war...

we are no more than hairless greedy apes after all... can hardly expect perfection.

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 1:26 am

Where have I ever said I hate anything?
More lies easily exposed of the loony left.
No people will become enlightened without religion, in time you will see.
I do not hate, you do not need to hate to combat wrongs in the world, which is where you always get things wrong, anyway, I really cannot be bothered to talk to such an idiot who uses an argument to justify genocide and it is all there for everyone to see by you.

This forum is getting very boring.

by veya_victaous Tue Oct 14, 2014 2:06 am

Brasidas wrote:Where have I ever said I hate anything?
More lies easily exposed of the loony left.
No people will become enlightened without religion, in time you will see.
I do not hate, you do not need to hate to combat wrongs in the world, which is where you always get things wrong, anyway, I really cannot be bothered to talk to such an idiot who uses an argument to justify genocide and it is all there for everyone to see by you.

This forum is getting very boring.

then why aren't you? Suspect

you don't have to tell a foolish ape to hate when you paint the picture of the other guy with devil horns....

your argument is boring because it is so old world... I want to move past that and thankfully there are people down here that want to move past it too.. very few people are intrinsically evil but many people are easily manipulated into evil deeds..

the Japanese proverb 'to fight a devil one must become a devil' is wrong.

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:17 am

Brasidas wrote:Anyway I am off to bed.
Ben next time do not start the insults, as you reap what you sow
I am just tired of people making excuses in regards to religion, when there is so much wrong within them and I for one know this better than anyone being as I wrongly defended them. They teach the worst morality, to blindly follow something they cannot prove that instills fear into people to believe of which if they do not are eternally condemned. The first racism, is found in the bible, endorsement of slavery, prejudice to women and homosexuals, the list is endless, there is not much right about religion, apart from bringing about a view to help ease the fear of death. How people defend against being critical of why all these things are wrong, of which they are and why I am glad that some religious people are progressing, hats off to the pope, but people should not shy away from condemning what is wrong in these books and the fact is at least I can be critical, in other nations, I would not have this freedom, but lose my life through religious discriminating laws

Good night

Maybe you could point out where I've insulted you in this thread?

To the rest of your point, most of the world is not atheistic, yet most of the world doesn't do the things you're (rightly) criticizing. So you can't logically draw an arrow from religious belief of any kind to violence or oppression; there are many other factors at play that all add up to violence and oppression, and in my opinion religious ideas are probably used more often to excuse bad behavior, rather than actually inspiring it.

by Tommy Monk Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:22 am

Except Islamic scripture clearly instructs followers to fight non believers......

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 14, 2014 4:25 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Except Islamic scripture clearly instructs followers to fight non believers......

Actually that's only in cases of self-defense:

Aggression is Forbidden. Fighting is permitted only in self-defence.

The Quranic verses on this are very clear. God repeats, "do not aggress", multiple times. Only if attacked, is one permitted to fight back. If the other party refrains from aggression and offers one peace, we are told to stop fighting.

Rules of War*
[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
[2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.
[2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.
*2:190 All fighting is regulated by the basic rule in 60:8-9. Fighting is allowed strictly in self-defense, while aggression and oppression are strongly condemned throughout the Quran.

[5:87] O you who believe, do not prohibit good things that are made lawful by GOD, and do not aggress; GOD dislikes the aggressors.

[8:61] If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.

[4:90] ... if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them.

The Quran also reminds the submitters (Muslims in Arabic) that they should not be provoked by past animosity into committing acts of aggression (5:2). Additionally, God insists that submitters (Muslims) must be absolutely sure before striking in the cause of God (4:94). Anyone who offers one peace, cannot be attacked.

[4:94] O you who believe, if you strike in the cause of GOD, you shall be absolutely sure. Do not say to one who offers you peace, "You are not a believer," seeking the spoils of this world. For GOD possesses infinite spoils. Remember that you used to be like them, and GOD blessed you. Therefore, you shall be absolutely sure (before you strike). GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do.

http://www.masjidtucson.org/submission/perspectives/striving/wars.html

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:14 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Anyway I am off to bed.
Ben next time do not start the insults, as you reap what you sow
I am just tired of people making excuses in regards to religion, when there is so much wrong within them and I for one know this better than anyone being as I wrongly defended them. They teach the worst morality, to blindly follow something they cannot prove that instills fear into people to believe of which if they do not are eternally condemned. The first racism, is found in the bible, endorsement of slavery, prejudice to women and homosexuals, the list is endless, there is not much right about religion, apart from bringing about a view to help ease the fear of death. How people defend against being critical of why all these things are wrong, of which they are and why I am glad that some religious people are progressing, hats off to the pope, but people should not shy away from condemning what is wrong in these books and the fact is at least I can be critical, in other nations, I would not have this freedom, but lose my life through religious discriminating laws

Good night

Maybe you could point out where I've insulted you in this thread?

To the rest of your point, most of the world is not atheistic, yet most of the world doesn't do the things you're (rightly) criticizing. So you can't logically draw an arrow from religious belief of any kind to violence or oppression; there are many other factors at play that all add up to violence and oppression, and in my opinion religious ideas are probably used more often to excuse bad behavior, rather than actually inspiring it.

Never said this thread, you had a perfectly good discussion on another thread where you acted immature to start off the insults for the night, a common trait of yours of late.

Really, how many countries have laws based on religious principles that discriminate.
Most countries throughout history where there has been religion in power has been prejudiced and discriminated against others for their beliefs, being homosexual, being women etc, ignoring the fundamental fact these views are based off commands, you have no argument and pretend to be liberal, because you are blatantly ignoring history. So yes I can draw a line on how religion leads to some of the worst prejudices and oppression which is still being witnessed today where a nation is ruled with a religious belief. The fact you ignore the facts, is astounding What you ignore is religion has been used to impose these beliefs onto others, yet we allow people to have any religious belief but deny them any foundation to discriminate others based on their beliefs.
I want the world to progress, and at present the majority of the Muslim world is not progressing, because the fact is of which you ignore and the countless evidence, is that people are constantly persecuted by beliefs based around the views of a book and other written works, this is undeniable. The blatant human rights abuses in these countries is appalling, this is not to say other nations also have it bad, but it is consistent within Muslim majority countries, of which your argument is doing nothing to change, but further protect.

Also define self Defense?
To many extremists, this is any attack on a Muslim themselves, which shows how easy it is for extremists to recruit to their case.
What you fail to understand here, is self defense is being used by the extremists to enact armed Jihad. You can argue all day long whether you think their view point is wrong or right, they think it is right and the fact is there are basing there views on fundamental tenants of Islam, self defense, armed Jihad, martyrdom, all of which you are ignoring You should be recognizing there is glowing problems within Islam, because as seen again the belief around the literal view points of belief and how something can be easily translated to commit war and violence

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:24 am

With the Islamic atrocities committed by IS reaching fever pitch, the "Defend the Indefensible" industry is working hard to keep up. On the other hand, while such shameless "blame anything but Islam" characters such as Karen Armstrong and Reza Aslan are given regular spots on the leftist media have their say, the few in the Muslim world who have the guts to call a spade a spade have Western audiences that possibly can be counted on the fingers of one hand. But let's not give up hope; at least do the little we can to have their voices heard. And they have a very important message for us: stop kidding yourself. If you tell yourself you are against terrorism, and yet stand for everything a terrorist does, you are not smarter than a four year old.

The most convenient reaction to 9/11, which has been echoed every time terrorists showcase Islam as the motivation behind their butchery, has been to excommunicate the terrorists – claiming that the Islamist militants aren’t Muslims at all. The same reverberations have been resonating ever since ISIS has come to the fore, with leaders of the West, Barack Obama and David Cameron dutifully lip-synching to the chorus.

This takfir, or excommunication, has been as expedient as it has been precarious, because it allows the Muslim world to rid itself of any responsibility for the action of the terrorists that it nourishes. It also allows Muslims to conjure the aforementioned victim card when the obvious influence of Islam on Islamist terrorism is even hinted at. What this also beefs up is the resolve of the moderate Muslims, a lot of whom [a la Aslan-see above] do not reside within any tangible proximity of the ‘Muslim world’, in shrouding the most important fact in all the debate surrounding Islamism: that majority of the Muslim world supports the Islamist ideology even if they don’t back the ensuing terrorism.

In a PEW survey in April last year it was found that over 80% of Muslims from the Muslim world want Sharia law in their homeland – 84% in Pakistan. Now since the interpretation of Sharia varies, one has to dig deep to find out what exactly the Muslim world seeks.

76% of Pakistanis who support Sharia believe apostates should be killed, 89% believe adulterers should be stoned to death and 87% believe hands should be chopped off for theft. While numbers vary throughout the Muslim world, the extreme viewpoints form the comfortable majorities in most cases. Not to mention the fact that PEW did not include Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan in last year’s survey.

Even so, in another PEW survey conducted in July this year strong majorities all over the Muslim world expressed their apprehension regarding Islamist terrorism – including 66% Pakistanis. Now either the Muslim world has undergone a miraculous reformation in 15 months or it’s completely oblivious of the concept of cause and effect.

Curious, isn't it. While a solid majority of Pakistani Muslims believe that "apostates" should be put to death, they are horrified-horrified!- to find out someone may take the very next logical step and actually do it! That is the mindset I call Islam's culture of irresponsibility. He goes on.

Whilst the majority of the Muslim world is against blowing up one’s own country, the lion’s share still support the ISIS interpretation of Islam of stoning and chopping off hands. What possible logic can then be used to claim that the likes of ISIS have “nothing to do with Islam” or the even more mindboggling claim that they aren’t even Muslims?

Instead of owning up to the Muslim community’s collective shortcomings and instigating a veritable reformation of Islam wherein the precarious commandments are shelved instead of being twisted into a self-defeating coil of apologia, the moderates continue to declare pointless takfiri fatwas on the Islamists. Apostatising the Islamist ideology would mean declaring over 80% of the Muslim world as non-Muslims.

Lol.

It’s the excommunication of terrorists by the tiny moderate fraction of the Muslim world that is directly responsible for the escalation of Islamist terrorism in the past decade. Because you don’t solve a problem that you claim isn’t yours to begin with.

You hear that, Karen Armstrong? You are part of the problem!

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/islams-impossible-struggle-with-obscure.html

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:31 am

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:38 am

Brasidas wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Anyway I am off to bed.
Ben next time do not start the insults, as you reap what you sow
I am just tired of people making excuses in regards to religion, when there is so much wrong within them and I for one know this better than anyone being as I wrongly defended them. They teach the worst morality, to blindly follow something they cannot prove that instills fear into people to believe of which if they do not are eternally condemned. The first racism, is found in the bible, endorsement of slavery, prejudice to women and homosexuals, the list is endless, there is not much right about religion, apart from bringing about a view to help ease the fear of death. How people defend against being critical of why all these things are wrong, of which they are and why I am glad that some religious people are progressing, hats off to the pope, but people should not shy away from condemning what is wrong in these books and the fact is at least I can be critical, in other nations, I would not have this freedom, but lose my life through religious discriminating laws

Good night

Maybe you could point out where I've insulted you in this thread?

To the rest of your point, most of the world is not atheistic, yet most of the world doesn't do the things you're (rightly) criticizing. So you can't logically draw an arrow from religious belief of any kind to violence or oppression; there are many other factors at play that all add up to violence and oppression, and in my opinion religious ideas are probably used more often to excuse bad behavior, rather than actually inspiring it.

Never said this thread, you had a perfectly good discussion on another thread where you acted immature to start off the insults for the night, a common trait of yours of late.

Really, how many countries have laws based on religious principles that discriminate.
Most countries throughout history where there has been religion in power has been prejudiced and discriminated against others for their beliefs, being homosexual, being women etc, ignoring the fundamental fact these views are based off commands, you have no argument and pretend to be liberal, because you are blatantly ignoring history. So yes I can draw a line on how religion leads to some of the worst prejudices and oppression which is still being witnessed today where a nation is ruled with a religious belief. The fact you ignore the facts, is astounding What you ignore is religion has been used to impose these beliefs onto others, yet we allow people to have any religious belief but deny them any foundation to discriminate others based on their beliefs.
I want the world to progress, and at present the majority of the Muslim world is not progressing, because the fact is of which you ignore and the countless evidence, is that people are constantly persecuted by beliefs based around the views of a book and other written works, this is undeniable. The blatant human rights abuses in these countries is appalling, this is not to say other nations also have it bad, but it is consistent within Muslim majority countries, of which your argument is doing nothing to change, but further protect.

Also define self Defense?
To many extremists, this is any attack on a Muslim themselves, which shows how easy it is for extremists to recruit to their case.
What you fail to understand here, is self defense is being used by the extremists to enact armed Jihad. You can argue all day long whether you think their view point is wrong or right, they think it is right and the fact is there are basing there views on fundamental tenants of Islam, self defense, armed Jihad, martyrdom, all of which you are ignoring You should be recognizing there is glowing problems within Islam, because as seen again the belief around the literal view points of belief and how something can be easily translated to commit war and violence

I don't fail to understand anything. I was just showing Tommy the verses. Stop reading a million things into everything I post -- please.

by Guest Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:43 am

Yes verses that allow for extremists to believe they are justified to fight, hence you need to define what is self defense, which as seen is being easily used by extremists to commit to war and agression. I am more concerned at you not wanting to help progress the world, this does not mean just some Muslim nations, but eradicating poverty and all human rights abuses, but there is a problem within poor prejudiced beliefs in the Islamic world, that will take supporting reformists, not back those who wish to keep a religion prejudiced.

On Moderate Muslims Moderate%2BMuslim

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:51 am

Now you're accusing me of not wanting to help the world progress. I honestly don't know when you decided I'm such a horrible human being, or what triggered it, but I really wish you'd stop.

You know as well as anyone that Islamic extremists are a minority within their religion, just like every extremist group is within every religion or political movement. You just seem to be all burn-slash-destroy since you came back.

Honestly, what do you want from me? I'm sick of this bullshit.

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 14, 2014 6:52 am

And you've basically accused me of excusing or supporting everything from terrorism to rape the past few days. I don't know if you actually realize what you're saying at this point, or how another person would take such accusations.

by Sponsored content