Irony in Islam

[Severian]

They just like to fight' date=' kill, condemn, burn, rape, behead, fly planes into skyscrapers, blow kids up, stab pregnant women, kidnap, threaten, and build nukes to blow up Israel.

 

Its what they do.

[/quote']

 

White people have also done all these things (except maybe the fly planes into skyscrapers(?)) and many worse. Should we judge you to be guilty of these crimes because of the colour of your skin?

 

And BTW, we really don't need you to tell us your name three times in each post.

[Zero Wing]

Superficially, we may be the same. However, the differences in intent, morals, and mind-set make too obvious; it's not like anybody on the planet has a longer record than the middle east when it comes to unnecessary riots and war over some of the most stupid things - so what Israelis live there now; they're not leaving, so get the f*ck over it.

 

Muslims are the only ones you ever hear about when it comes to rioting over something like a damn cartoon. It's called 'turning the other cheek', something every other religion has learned to do. Over here, we make fun of jesus all the time, and even the born-again people and evangelists just ignore it, or at least quietly condemn it. Muslims for some reason just have to find an excuse to start something, and is extremely childish in my view. If they all went and nuked eachother into oblivion, chances are i'd be the last to care - we'd probably be better off without Islam.

[Aardvark]

White people have also done all these things (except maybe the fly planes into skyscrapers(?)) and many worse. Should we judge you to be guilty of these crimes because of the colour of your skin?

 

Please do NOT bring race into this.

 

This is not about race, it is about religion and culture.

 

Surely you are aware that there are white Muslims just as there are Arab Christians?

[ski_power]

Well, actually this is used in the play Merchant Of Venice, in the court scene.

Just click the link below and search for the word.

http://pd.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/merchant/section19.html

 

It's used for a good judgement, impartial and a well said statement.

 

I agree wholly with Aardvark that those fellows need to learn tolerance.

 

I don't think it's as much as the skin colour as it is the religion.

 

For arguement sake, if a white baby grows up in an Islamic family then I think the skin colour won't make ANY difference, and that kid when he/she grows up will be just as fanatic as a...say...non-white/non-black

 

Race has nothing to do with it. Its the attitude of the religion.

 

edit: 2 guys beat me to post

[Severian]

Please do NOT bring race into this.

 

This is not about race' date=' it is about religion and culture.

 

Surely you are aware that there are white Muslims just as there are Arab Christians?[/quote']

 

Would you have been happier if I had said 'Americans'?

[Aardvark]

Would you have been happier if I had said 'Americans'?

 

No.

 

This isn't about America. That would have made your point simply incomphensible.

[john5746]

No.

 

This isn't about America. That would have made your point simply incomphensible.

 

He was trying to use an analogy towards a group that Bettina might be a part of to show her a view from the 'other side'. He wasn't implying whites or Americans are guilty of anything, IMO

[Aardvark]

He was trying to use an analogy towards a group that Bettina might be a part of to show her a view from the 'other side'. He wasn't implying whites or Americans are guilty of anything, IMO

 

 

Bettina pointed out the fact that extremist Muslims openly and explictly condon and carry out violent acts, justifying them with reference to their religion. There entire world view is one of confrontation and violence.

 

What analogy can be made of that by pointing out that some 'white people' have also done bad things?

 

At most it seems to be that you can't criticise Muslim bigotry because some people who aren't Muslims have been bigots. If that is the point it is a complete abdication of reason and moral responsibility.

 

Or maybe it was just a cheap jibe at white people (or americans, whichever group he decides)?

[Severian]

Bettina pointed out the fact that extremist Muslims openly and explictly condon and carry out violent acts' date=' justifying them with reference to their religion. There entire world view is one of confrontation and violence.

 

What analogy can be made of that by pointing out that some 'white people' have also done bad things?

 

At most it seems to be that you can't criticise Muslim bigotry because some people who aren't Muslims have been bigots. If that is the point it is a complete abdication of reason and moral responsibility.

 

Or maybe it was just a cheap jibe at white people (or americans, whichever group he decides)?[/quote']

 

Oh good grief - now who is being deliberately obtuse? I was making the point that you cannot hold an entire culture responsible for the acts of a few lunatics. If you want to do that, then our entire western culture is in deep shit.

[Aardvark]

Oh good grief - now who is being deliberately obtuse? I was making the point that you cannot hold an entire culture responsible for the acts of a few lunatics. If you want to do that, then our entire western culture is in deep shit.

 

Fine, no one here has condemned all Muslims everywhere.

 

The problem is the growing strength of Muslim violent bigotry and fanaticism that is increasingly influential and powerful within Islam.

 

Islam has a major problem and that effects everyone else as well. It needs to be openly acknowledged and confronted, it is more than just the actions of a few unrepresentative Muslims, these attitudes are gaining wide and deep currency in the Muslim world.

 

For proof just listen to the comments of such people as the foreign minister of Syria.

[reverse]

How about this idea.

 

You might have a deeply religious belief and loyalty to liberal democracy and free speech.

That is like your religion.

it's central to your identity.

 

The turban folks might have a deep belief and loyalty to their mentor.

it's central to their identity.

 

So in the end it’s just your religion versus theirs.

[Aardvark]

How about this idea.

 

You might have a deeply religious belief and loyalty to liberal democracy and free speech.

That is like your religion.

it's central to your identity.

 

The turban folks might have a deep belief and loyalty to their mentor.

it's central to their identity.

 

So in the end it’s just your religion versus theirs.

 

I wouldn't actually characterise a belief in the need for tolerance of free speech as the basis of a functioning civil society as a religious belief.

 

However, if you force me i would state that my 'religion' is superior to theirs. It is not a case of two equal but contradictory abritary opinions. It is a matter of one group trying to impose its ideas on another by force. That is wrong and should be resisted.

 

The Muslims are attempting to impose there beliefs on to others. They have no right to do so and are wrong. They are entitled to their beliefs, they are not entitled to impose them upon me.

[reverse]

hmm..

 

alrighty then...let me just look down, God like from space, down at our little blue orb..

 

now.... who's troops are where.

[Severian]

Haven't you got that a bit ass-backwards? The US invaded Iraq because they wanted to impose their world-view on the country (I am being kind in not saying for the oil). Isn't that a "matter of one group trying to impose its ideas on another by force". So is that "wrong and should be resisted"?

 

Edit: Ah - reverse beat me to it.

 

Edit2: I wish it was acceptable for the UK to invade the US in order to impose decent spelling on the population.

[Aardvark]

Haven't you got that a bit ass-backwards? The US invaded Iraq because they wanted to impose their world-view on the country (I am being kind in not saying for the oil). Isn't that a "matter of one group trying to impose its ideas on another by force". So is that "wrong and should be resisted"?

 

I'm not quite sure why you are suddenly asking me to defend US foriegn policy since this is a debate about Muslims trying to impose their views on Denmark (when was the last time Denmark attacked anywhere?)

 

Yes, the USA has invaded Iraq. If you think that is wrong then how does that make it right for Muslims to impose Islamic laws on Denmark? There is no logical connection there.

 

Anyway, in Iraq the Americans are not imposing their beliefs and outlawing Islamic expression. The Iraqis have just voted in a free election for Islamic candidates, remember? The US is demostating tolerance for those with different opinions and points of view, even those which it finds offensive.

 

If the USA was forbidding people to practice their religion or to express their opinions then yes, it would be in the wrong and should be resisted. But it isn't.

 

The preamble for the new Iraqi constitution (written by the Iraqi assembly, not Americans) even explicitly recognises the Muslim nature of the Iraqi state. What political, world view imposition from USA there?

[Aardvark]

hmm..

 

alrighty then...let me just look down' date=' God like from space, down at our little blue orb..

 

now.... who's troops are where.[/quote']

 

Good logic. American troops in Iraq so therefore Muslim religious law should be imposed on Denmark. :rolleyes:

[gcol]

Only spelling? Can I add my own wish-list?

[john5746]

Haven't you got that a bit ass-backwards? The US invaded Iraq because they wanted to impose their world-view on the country (I am being kind in not saying for the oil). Isn't that a "matter of one group trying to impose its ideas on another by force". So is that "wrong and should be resisted"?

 

It is ironic because I think there is a strong possibility that Iraq will eventually become an Islamic theocracy. We invaded out of security concerns, IMO but they won't necessarily have a democracy that will meet our approval.

 

 

Edit2: I wish it was acceptable for the UK to invade the US in order to impose decent spelling on the population.

 

Hey, I resemble that remark! I speak and write American just fine!

[gcol]

Severian:

Only spelling? Can I add my own wish-list?

[john5746]

How about this idea.

 

You might have a deeply religious belief and loyalty to liberal democracy and free speech.

That is like your religion.

it's central to your identity.

 

The turban folks might have a deep belief and loyalty to their mentor.

it's central to their identity.

 

So in the end it’s just your religion versus theirs.

 

How about this idea.

 

If we offend their religion, they can go about their killing, etc.

 

If they offend our 'religion' we can invade and change their government, or just bomb them willy-nilly.

 

That will work.

[Aardvark]

If we offend their religion' date=' they can go about their killing, etc.

 

If they offend our 'religion' we can invade and change their government, or just bomb them willy-nilly.

 

That will work. [/quote']

 

And when was the last time Denmark bombed anywhere, willy-nilly or not?

 

For the discussion to degenerate into a critic of USA foreign policy is to miss the point. Now does the failings of US foreign policy justify the imposition of Islamic law on Denmark?

[john5746]

And when was the last time Denmark bombed anywhere' date=' willy-nilly or not?

 

For the discussion to degenerate into a critic of USA foreign policy is to miss the point. Now does the failings of US foreign policy justify the imposition of Islamic law on Denmark?[/quote']

 

Actually, I was being sarcastic. Since you are correct that no one is doing any harm to an islamic country for being 'offended', naturally, we would expect the same from them. If someone feels they are justified for taking violent action, then they should also support the US or Denmark, etc to take action when they are 'offended'. Israel should have bombed Iran by now, since he offended them - and not just their nuclear facility.

 

I agree with you on this one.

[Bettina]

And BTW, we really don't need you to tell us your name three times[/b'] in each post.

 

Maybe you can show me where that is happening. I see one mistake in post 95 where I signed it twice.

 

Bettina

 

P.S. Are you sure your the real Severian? Some of your posts make me wonder.

[Dak]

Muslims are the only ones you ever hear about when it comes to rioting over something like a damn cartoon. It's called 'turning the other cheek', something every other religion has learned to do. Over here, we make fun of jesus all the time, and even the born-again people and evangelists just ignore it, or at least quietly condemn it. Muslims for some reason just have to find an excuse to start something, and is extremely childish in my view. If they all went and nuked eachother into oblivion, chances are i'd be the last to care - we'd probably be better off without Islam.

 

Actually, no: we make fun of jesus all the time, and alot of extremist christians do go into 'burn the heretic' mode (the jerry springer show is the most recent extreme example of this that i can think of).

 

The only difference that i can see is that, in the UK and US, the christian-extremists are not allowed to kill, otherwize im absolutely sure that many of them would (we all must have seen christian-religiouse-self-rightiouse-ferver working in overdrive, essentially creating a baying pack of unthinking animals, and history shows that they've certainly acted like the muslims currently are before); in the muslim-heavy countries, the religiouse extremists seem to not be prevented from acting upon their furvor.

 

So, i think its probably more to do with the local politics than the religion itself.

[pcs]

Actually, no: we make fun of jesus all the time, and alot of extremist christians do[/i'] go into 'burn the heretic' mode (the jerry springer show is the most recent extreme example of this that i can think of).

 

When did they actually "burn a heretic?" Or for that matter, when did they attack an embassy, gather by the thousands to burn effigies and flags, or commit any other acts of mass violence?

 

The only difference that i can see is that, in the UK and US, the christian-extremists are not allowed to kill, otherwize im absolutely sure that many of them would.

 

I don't know about Christian extremists, but I'm pretty sure most young men claiming to be vocal atheists draw strong psychological parallels to Kleibolds and Harrises. Or does that generalization that cross a line?