• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

[Merged] General Criticism of Islam/Islamophobia Topics

Status
Not open for further replies.


This clip is such a classic.

My guess is that our local Islamic apologists find Dawkins more bigotted than the Muslim guy in that clip. Am I right?

Go on, defend the indefensible!
 
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:

Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "
 
Belgian thought said:
A'isha said:
Do you still believe that "the tafsirs" say that Q 8:39 commands Muslims, believing Muslims, living right now, today, to carry out an agenda of eliminating all religions other than Islam by waging aggressive war to "fight the infidels until all worship is for Allah alone"?[/quote

Those who cherry pick, yes, as did that twat in Texas when he wanted to burn the koran. His justification was the bible.

It is regardless, all these events show how such books, which we should apparently all learn about, can result in horrible repercussions.

Going on with the idea that one must learn everything, I decided to create my own tome of godly rights, having had a period of enlightenment (on the way home tonight - can you believe it?) - crazy - but now in my eyes, true.

It starts as follows:

'And so god decided he liked pink flowers and wanted to place them everywhere, and because he could, did so. But, some people did not like pink flowers and they planted blue ones. God then said, those blue planters have ignored my wishes and will be sent to work for Tescos'

Now this book will be some 600 pages, but I hope Dinwar, you will not stop to criticise this book until I have finished it, and you have read it too.


ETA - there is an icon on this post, I do not know how to delete it - the winking one
Click to expand...

And lo on the second day, Sainburians took umbrage since they never planted any plants, be they pink or blue. Why have the Tesconians been selected and we not, for we have our loyalty cards too?
Click to expand...
 
Humes fork said:
The passage clearly equates non-worship of Allah (and polytheism for that matter) with oppression.
Click to expand...

Only to you. Yusuf Ali, Asad, and Tabatabaei, for instance, describe the "oppression" as the Meccans refusing to let the Medinan Muslims undertake the hajj to Mecca and worship at the Ka'aba.

It seems to be a matter of theological dispute if it only applies to Meccans or to all of humanity.
Click to expand...

Which was kind of my point: that there's no single "Islamic interpretation" of that verse, contrary to what your buddy JihadJoe was trying to get at, and Muslims today read that verse as everything from thinking it says what the the Saudi salafist interpretation says to thinking it was about a particular situation dealing with a particular group of people from 1300 years ago.

But shouldn't Meccans have freedom of religion too?
Click to expand...

The Meccans of 624 AD? Yes, but that ship has kinda sailed, you know.

The Meccans of today? Absolutely, but the Wahhabiyya won't let them, and the insistence of people like you and JihadJoe that the Wahhabiyya are right and any Muslim who disagrees is wrong isn't exactly helping, you know.

Humes fork said:
This clip is such a classic.
Click to expand...

What's so "classic" about it? I saw Dawkins pushing the issue of apostasy in Islam during a discussion about Muslim schools in the UK, and the representative of the Muslim schools answering that in Islamic countries under shari'ah, the penalty would be death (though there are only a tiny handful of Muslim-majority countries today where this is true). Then Dawkins tries to talk over him as he tries to ask what that has to do with the UK.

Humes fork said:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:

Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "
Click to expand...

Yes, that's certainly a hadith that exists (strange fact: most traditions about the identity of the people 'Ali burned say that they were members of some cult that wanted to worship 'Ali as divine and wouldn't listen to him when he told them to cut it out). What about it?

Are you, like with Q8:39, perhaps under the impression that it has only one single significance and meaning for "Muslims", and there is no discussion whatsoever about that hadith and how it should be interpreted?
 
A'isha said:
Only to you. Yusuf Ali, Asad, and Tabatabaei, for instance, describe the "oppression" as the Meccans refusing to let the Medinan Muslims undertake the hajj to Mecca and worship at the Ka'aba.
/quote]


Sorry Aisha, but i must try and finish these god given thoughts.

''And Waitrose they called? For the lord indeed shops in aisles of wide space wherein overpriced goods can be pertained, yet they are good,because the lords says so.

Repent at Asda, and worse at Iceland, but beware of those from foreign lands such as Lidl or Aldi because they truly have ignored the loyalty card. They do not have one.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A'isha said:
What's so "classic" about it? I saw Dawkins pushing the issue of apostasy in Islam during a discussion about Muslim schools in the UK, and the representative of the Muslim schools answering that in Islamic countries under shari'ah, the penalty would be death (though there are only a tiny handful of Muslim-majority countries today where this is true). Then Dawkins tries to talk over him as he tries to ask what that has to do with the UK.
Click to expand...

I think I posted this link before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aposta...le:States_with_death_penalty_for_apostasy.svg

The article itself is also quite interesting.
 
Humes fork said:
From here:



They are ideologically opposed to modernity, yet seem keen to use its technological products. Interesting...
Click to expand...

Yeah, but in War of the Worlds, humans began using a heat ray against the Martians and I don't remember you complaining about that being Martian technology nor do I remember the Martians going, "Awwww, thassnot fair!!"
 
Humes fork said:


This clip is such a classic.

My guess is that our local Islamic apologists find Dawkins more bigotted than the Muslim guy in that clip. Am I right?

Go on, defend the indefensible!
Click to expand...

I have a suggestion for you - something novel that you have never tried before: Address the points other people made, openly and honestly. Do not spam the same crap once more, do not address some idiotic strawmen you created, just what people have actually said.

But then, I can´t order you around. I can only point out that you are continously demonstrating your unwillingness to participate in debate.
 
Belgian thought said:
'Empathy may be the wrong word'. It is. Let us apply the 'concept' to Charles Manson shall we? Having applied it, what conclusion could it lead to? "Well he was only was doing what he thought was correct."

No, as I stated, when one moves to an emotive approach we face a massive hole of reasoning, the misinterpretations are infinite.
Click to expand...

Empathy is understanding another person's emotional perspective. It does not imply agreement, nor does it excuse bad behavior. It is an ability to understand people. Far from hindering rational discourse, it is essential for rational discourse on any topic involving human motivation.
 
Belgian thought said:
A'isha said:
Sorry Aisha, but i must try and finish these god given thoughts.

''And Waitrose they called? For the lord indeed shops in aisles of wide space wherein overpriced goods can be pertained, yet they are good,because the lords says so.

Repent at Asda, and worse at Iceland, but beware of those from foreign lands such as Lidl or Aldi because they truly have ignored the loyalty card. They do not have one.
Click to expand...

The problem with your 'clever' tactic here is that no one gives enough of a crap about your scriptures to bother criticizing them. I don't have to learn about them because I'm not going to bother to criticize them.
Click to expand...
 
[QUOTE="Belgian thought, post: 10059843, member: 2750"][QUOTE="Mister Agenda, post: 10059217, member: 21507"]


Suepertmateaphobe. :p

Show me your empathy...[/QUOTE]
Click to expand...

Could you please try to check you [QUOTE][/QUOTE] tags before you post? There has been quite a lot of inadvertant misattribution in this thread. :(
 
mijopaalmc said:


Could you please try to check you [noparse] tags before you post? There has been quite a lot of inadvertant misattribution in this thread. :(
Click to expand...
Sorry, if that is the case. I am clicking on 'quote' and adding my crappy bits etc. I am using Ubuntu, maybe that is the problem. From my screen view, the crap I spout seems to be perfectly legible. And the crap I read too :)
Click to expand...
 
I find it quite interesting that the Swedish person in the OP identified himself as a Salafi (AKA Wahhabi, though that's considered derogatory). This refers to an ultra-orthodox offshoot of Sunni Islam. It's the official form of Islam in Saudi Arabia, thought the only country with more than 50% Salafis is UAE.

Salafism is certainly a backward, anti-modern, and dangerous subset of Islam, and I think it's pretty fair to dislike or even hate it.

I keep hearing on this thread accusations that anyone who does hates all Muslims. Now, to be sure, the concept of Islamophobia kind of forces a similar conclusion, but I have to wonder how people who defend Islam deal with the fact that Salafism is a subset of Islam and that therefore a bad reaction to Salafism means every form of Islam.

So I have to ask A'isha and Dinwar, who seem to be the most outspoken: Are you really telling me I am that ignorant and stupid? Because there's always the option of saying, "yeah, Salafis are a problem and have too much power in too many places." Unless, of course, you have some particular reason to defend them.
 
epepke said:
I find it quite interesting that the Swedish person in the OP identified himself as a Salafi (AKA Wahhabi, though that's considered derogatory). This refers to an ultra-orthodox offshoot of Sunni Islam. It's the official form of Islam in Saudi Arabia, thought the only country with more than 50% Salafis is UAE.

Salafism is certainly a backward, anti-modern, and dangerous subset of Islam, and I think it's pretty fair to dislike or even hate it.

I keep hearing on this thread accusations that anyone who does hates all Muslims. Now, to be sure, the concept of Islamophobia kind of forces a similar conclusion, but I have to wonder how people who defend Islam deal with the fact that Salafism is a subset of Islam and that therefore a bad reaction to Salafism means every form of Islam.

So I have to ask A'isha and Dinwar, who seem to be the most outspoken: Are you really telling me I am that ignorant and stupid? Because there's always the option of saying, "yeah, Salafis are a problem and have too much power in too many places." Unless, of course, you have some particular reason to defend them.
Click to expand...

I don´t see anyone here accusing YOU of anything.

I do, however, see people, including myself, observing that certain posters who do post a lot in this and similar threads have shown their inability to distinguish between Salafism and similar creeds on one hand, and Islam as a whole and all Muslims on the other.

I don´t see anyone here defending Salafism, either.

In short, you´re complaining about things that aren´t happening.
 
mijopaalmc said:
For people who are so adamant about their accumen in psychiatric diagnonsis to label believers "delusional", <snip>
Click to expand...
Actually religious belief is pretty much a definition case of delusion:
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
​
Humes fork said:
Okay, you educate me then.

This is going to be hillarious...
Click to expand...
Try and pay attention.
 
epepke said:
I find it quite interesting that the Swedish person in the OP identified himself as a Salafi (AKA Wahhabi, though that's considered derogatory). This refers to an ultra-orthodox offshoot of Sunni Islam. It's the official form of Islam in Saudi Arabia, thought the only country with more than 50% Salafis is UAE.

Salafism is certainly a backward, anti-modern, and dangerous subset of Islam, and I think it's pretty fair to dislike or even hate it.

I keep hearing on this thread accusations that anyone who does hates all Muslims. Now, to be sure, the concept of Islamophobia kind of forces a similar conclusion, but I have to wonder how people who defend Islam deal with the fact that Salafism is a subset of Islam and that therefore a bad reaction to Salafism means every form of Islam.

So I have to ask A'isha and Dinwar, who seem to be the most outspoken: Are you really telling me I am that ignorant and stupid? Because there's always the option of saying, "yeah, Salafis are a problem and have too much power in too many places." Unless, of course, you have some particular reason to defend them.
Click to expand...

I am confused by where you say "I have to wonder how people who defend Islam deal with the fact that Salafism is a subset of Islam and that therefore a bad reaction to Salafism means every form of Islam", though. Did you mean to say "a bad reaction to Salafism doesn't mean [a bad reaction to] every form of Islam"?

Anyway, no one is saying that "yeah, Salafis are a problem and have too much power in too many places" is a problematic statement, nor that anyone who makes such a statement "hates all Muslims". Particularly since "yeah, Salafis are a problem and have too much power in too many places" is a position I myself hold.

The problem comes when some people start doing things like declaring the Salafi version of Islam to be the One True Islam, and accusing any Muslims who have a different, less backward, less anti-modern, and less dangerous interpretation of their religion to be committing a great sin in Islam because they're ignoring the straightforward and clear dictates of their religion. To these people, you can't work to end the practice of FGM/C, or be against child marriage, or believe that apostates don't have to be murdered, or think that the Qur'an doesn't mandate the forcible conversion of everyone to Islam so that no other religions remain, and still call yourself a Muslim.

And strangely, the people who are doing those things aren't all Salafist takfiri, like you might think, but instead include a number of outspoken self-proclaimed non-Muslim "critics of Islam". If they're against things like the practice of FGM/C and child marriage and the death penalty for apostasy and forcible conversions to Islam, I would think that they'd want to be supportive of the Muslims who are also against all that, rather than taking the side of the Salafists and using the Salafists' own arguments against those other Muslims to argue that they're wrong and the Salafists are right after all. It's almost like these "critics" don't want Muslims to try to fight against the backwards, anti-modern, dangerous members of their religion like the Salafists and those backwards, anti-modern, dangerous beliefs and practices, and I can only wonder why that might be.

Your post reminds me, though: Humes fork, any response to what TubbaBlubba discovered about "the Swedish person in the OP"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom