Is this board anti-muslim?

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

The muslims however have not. They still chop off heads and limbs for real now in the 21st century.

In how many of the Muslim countries of this world? Seems more like mostly a Middle-Eastern problem than one of "the muslims", to me.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

really nimh is it any wonder that so many people like me regard Islam as not only backward and irrational, but positively harmful?

I was content to let them get on with their lives within the law so long as it doesnt bother me. But they are not. They want to change the law to suit themselves, and that does indeed bother me.

Yeah, I still have a problem with how you define "they". It's not "the Muslims" that are trying to govern your life - it's specific, radical political-religious groups.

So I think you have misdefined your enemy, and are thus ending up choosing means of combat that will work totally unproductive.

Ridiculing all muslims (for being backward and dangerous if they live according to the specific Quranic admonishments you quote, and for being "not a real muslim" if they admit to not agreeing with one) doesn't, to me, look like yielding less terrorists in the end. More, more likely.

And that'll be something for all of us to live with, not just those of you who have chosen to make this your personal crusade.

0 Replies

Nigeria is not Middle Eastern.

Quote:

Imam: Starting in 1999, a number of states in Nigeria began passing a series of Sharia acts, which had the objective of extending Muslim laws. In particular they passed Sharia criminal codes, which created new offenses and mandated new punishments for existing offenses. Consequently, criminal law came to include punishments like stoning or amputation, and the implementation of these laws clearly discriminates against women, although the legal texts are gender neutral.

Working within Nigeria's Sharia Courts

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
The muslims however have not. They still chop off heads and limbs for real now in the 21st century.

In how many of the Muslim countries of this world? Seems more like mostly a Middle-Eastern problem than one of "the muslims", to me.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
really nimh is it any wonder that so many people like me regard Islam as not only backward and irrational, but positively harmful?

I was content to let them get on with their lives within the law so long as it doesnt bother me. But they are not. They want to change the law to suit themselves, and that does indeed bother me.

Yeah, I still have a problem with how you define "they". It's not "the Muslims" that are trying to govern your life - it's specific, radical political-religious groups.

all of whom happen to be Muslims

So I think you have misdefined your enemy, and are thus ending up choosing means of combat that will work totally unproductive.

I am quite clear about who the enemy is and what it represents. This is not a pro active fight. This is a defense against Islamic facism which seeks to dominate us. The only way to resist it is to point out the absurd nature of their ideas, which thankfully is not difficult

Ridiculing all muslims (for being backward and dangerous if they live according to the specific Quranic admonishments you quote, and for being "not a real muslim" if they admit to not agreeing with one) doesn't, to me, look like yielding less terrorists in the end. More, more likely.

I have a problem with all people who fanatically hold to irrational and sometimes demonstrably wrong ideas. But again my target is not the ordinary Muslim (for whom I have some sympathy) but political islam which seeks to exploit unhappiness within the Muslims for its own ends

And that'll be something for all of us to live with, not just those of you who have chosen to make this your personal crusade.

I wish it was only a crusade of words and ideas. These days the violence implicit in that word comes from the other side, sure in the knowledge they are doing Gods will, and desirous of taking their allocated place in paradise.

You know nimh I am not quite as naive as you make me out. The muslim anger we see is a reaction to what we are doing in the middle east (and have been for the last 100 years). But just because we have provoked this anger and violent reaction against us, it does not follow that the other side's reasoning and motivation must therefore be 'good' or worthy of support.

0 Replies

Mesquite wrote:

Nigeria is not Middle Eastern.

I know ... hence how

I wrote:

In how many of the Muslim countries of this world? Seems more like mostly a Middle-Eastern problem than one of "the muslims", to me.

You saw "mostly", right? Eg, how many of the African Muslim countries "chop off heads and limbs" in Sha'ria fashion?

There's the northern parts of Nigeria where they do gruesome things to convicted women ... there's Sudan ... and?

Meanwhile, what about Morocco, Lybia, Algeria, Egypt, Mauretania? Or Turkey, Indonesia? Some of those I dont know, some I know for sure that they dont do such stuff ... there's a reason that Nigeria attracts so much attention.

And for every Nigeria outside the Middle East, there's a Middle Eastern country that does not chop off heads and limbs as a course of Sha'ria (eg, Jordan).

Hence, "mostly a Middle-Eastern problem". <shrugs>

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

nimh wrote:
Yeah, I still have a problem with how you define "they". It's not "the Muslims" that are trying to govern your life - it's specific, radical political-religious groups.

all of whom happen to be Muslims

Yup, but just because all of A are B doesnt mean that B can be used as synonym for A, since not all of B need be A.

Eg, I dont like Fortuynists, I think they're misguided and harmful. All Fortuynists are Dutch. So it's OK or logical for me to direct my criticism at "the Dutch"? No.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

nimh wrote:
And that'll be something for all of us to live with, not just those of you who have chosen to make this your personal crusade.

I wish it was only a crusade of words and ideas. These days the violence implicit in that word comes from the other side, sure in the knowledge they are doing Gods will, and desirous of taking their allocated place in paradise.

Yes, and I think the worst we can do is adopt their logic, their dogmatism, thinking in collectivities and claims of moral certainty. The best way to fight fanaticism is by not being fanatic.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

But just because we have provoked this anger and violent reaction against us, it does not follow that the other side's reasoning and motivation must therefore be 'good' or worthy of support.

If it is the militant or dogmatic Islamists you are talking about, I do not think their motivation is 'good' or worthy of support, and have never thought or implied so.

0 Replies

And if we in Europe are fighting against political islam, the non limb chopping states in the middle east and elsewhere are fighting desperately to suppress that same Islamic upsurge, which is much more of an immediate threat to them than it is to us.

0 Replies

of course the real irony is that we created the islamists in the first place

to fight against our enemies such as the ottomans and the russians.

0 Replies

Absolutely.

0 Replies

There is a difference between muslim countries and countries with a muslim population. You might ask the question Is the number of countries using shariah law stable, increasing, or decreasing?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Absolutely.

That was in re: to Steve's first post, though the second is largely true as well of course.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Eg, I dont like Fortuynists, I think they're misguided and harmful. All Fortuynists are Dutch. So it's OK or logical for me to direct my criticism at "the Dutch"? No.

only nimh

have a good w/e ok bye

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

There is a difference between muslim countries and countries with a muslim population.

Ehm, OK. So how many people live under a limbchopping regime in north-Nigeria and its like, and how many people live in non-limb-chopping Muslim countries elsewhere outside the Middle East?

If the latter number outweighs the former by far, then saying it's "mostly a Middle-Eastern problem" rather than a problem of "the Muslims" is simply observing a fact.

Look at the Muslim population of Indonesia alone, and I dont think you have much of a point there... ;-)

mesquite wrote:

You might ask the question Is the number of countries using shariah law stable, increasing, or decreasing?

Increasing, of course, and that's an interesting question, though not one that refers to the point I made which you seemed to be challenging.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

mesquite wrote:
You might ask the question Is the number of countries using shariah law stable, increasing, or decreasing?

Increasing, of course, and that's an interesting question, though not one that refers to the point I made which you seemed to be challenging.

How so?

nimh wrote:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
The muslims however have not. They still chop off heads and limbs for real now in the 21st century.

In how many of the Muslim countries of this world? Seems more like mostly a Middle-Eastern problem than one of "the muslims", to me.

It is wherever countries come under control of the mullahs (Iran, Afghanistan) or islamic fundamentalist pressures (Nigeria) that limb lopping and stoning are practiced. Seems to be more of an Islamic problem than regional to me.

0 Replies

nimh, in responding to Steve, wrote:

If it is the militant or dogmatic Islamists you are talking about, I do not think their motivation is 'good' or worthy of support, and have never thought or implied so.

You are ignoring, however, a cogent point which he is making. Mainstream chrisitanity, judaism, hinduism--none of them state that a holy warrior will be in paradise at the right hand of god in the instant of their death if they die in a holy cause. Islam lacks any hierarchical structure, and it has no priesthood. This can be a good thing, and it can be bad thing. It is a most often a bad thing in our times in that any self-professed Imam who is accepted by a community of believers can declare holy war, and his followers will immolate themselves in order to acheive the simultaneous immolation of infidels, of "kaffirs." Other religions have been murderous historically despite their credos--Islam has a murderous credo, which--although often not only not scripturally-based, but actually in contradiction of its scripture--based upon the vicious tribal values of its adherenets, sees the world in terms of "the House of God," and "the House of War." Those who ignore that aspect of Islam do so at the potential peril of us all.

0 Replies

Interesting, Set. Would suppose (asking for a guess) that Islam has more appeal to a trible people, than otherwise?

0 Replies

I'm not the one to ask, Roger. It is my never humble opinion that organized religion of any description has its strongest appeal to people who cherish tribal values, among whom i include the Europeans (and therefore, North and South Americans).

0 Replies

Before someone jumps all over that, Roger--the point of what i wrote is that Muslims see the world in terms of the House of God and the House of War. That makes their credo uniquely, potentially dangerous.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I'm not sure that rednecks would like to be associated with the word terrorist in any way at all.

Quote:
You seem to base MANY contentious arguments with me on what you "seem to remember," and you are increasingly INCORRECT! "Redneck" is a silly slang term. I've tried to draw comparisons to make the point I make now. Redneck is on par with towelhead.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=70133&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=170

Quote:
This is incorrect. I referred to a specific group of terrorists as "towelheads," as well as several other much more colorful terms.

Not Arabs. Or Muslims.

Terrorists

You link to a fart button, which is likely the most appropriate contribution you will make to this discussion.

I see you lied about not responding to my posts. Big surprise.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:
au1929 wrote:
No more so than it would have been anti Gerrman during WW2

Didn't you mean anti-Nazi? There were a lot of good Germans who detested Hitler, and what he was doing to Europe.

Yeah? Just curious (not a student of history), did they say anything at the time, or did history hear about their protests after the smoke cleared?

Risking their lives protecting Jewish people was proof enough for me.

0 Replies

Damn, I missed the fart button again!!

0 Replies

Is this board anti-muslim?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know