|
Fuzz posted:Despite all this, I consider myself to be a pretty good Muslim and don't doubt that God probably will, too. I may not be the best there is, but what kind of goon would I be if I wasn't a chronic underachiever in all aspects of my life. (I am kidding don't worry) ashgromnies posted:Is that her position, though? The stuff I've seen from her has been calling for more moderates and a "reformation" of Islam to clearly say that Quranic literalism is unacceptable in the modern era. quote:Islam is not a race...Islam is simply a set of beliefs, and it is not 'Islamophobic' to say Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy. quote:Islam is not a religion of peace. It's a political theory of conquest that seeks domination by any means it can. quote:Violence is inherent in Islam – it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder. quote:We are at war with Islam. And there's no middle ground in wars. quote:“The assumption is that, in Islam, there are a few rotten apples, not the entire basket,” Ali tells The Post. “I’m saying it’s the entire basket.” Someone pushing from the outside from a position of hate is not going to cause a reformation, they're going to cause antipathy. Her motivations are, I think, not that bad but her method is horrible. She is in many ways one of the people who makes the job a lot harder for Muslim progressives because the reaction among the orthodox to blanket, stupid criticism like that is to get even more stubborn about belief and unwilling to listen to moderate voices.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:35 |
|
|
ashgromnies posted:Is that her position, though? The stuff I've seen from her has been calling for more moderates and a "reformation" of Islam to clearly say that Quranic literalism is unacceptable in the modern era. For starters, she has felt that "Islam" is such a bad religion that she apostatized from the faith and actively speaks against it. This alone excludes her from wanting to be a "reformer" and puts her in the camp of "opponents". That isnt to say that some of what she says is not legitimate concerns but she cannot claim to be a reformer on a faith she no longer believes in. She disguises her opinion as "reformation" advocacy similar to that of Christianity in Europe after the Crusades but in the same breathe will hold "Islam" accountable for the unislamic and barbaric acts of criminals and corrupt politicians and governments in Muslim countries. Christian reformers in Europe did not abandon the Christianity and demand reform of the religion, examples are the likes of Martin Luther, John Calvin and Huldrych Zwingli. Her language isnt the language of a reformer but someone who places their podium outside of the faith to speak against it and she takes every available opportunity to speak against rather than give answers for religious reform. She isnt actually very knowledgeable of her birth religion (that I can tell in the dozen interviews of hers that I have seen or the few articles Ive read) but knows a lot of external facts about cultures and behaviours that make up Muslim countries and gives no tangible evidence for reform from within the faith, ei texts, examples of religious figures, etc. She draws mainly on her experiences with her abusive father and childhood upbringing from her parents country and unislamic practices (barbaric) that exist in Muslim countries. There is no real substantive positive suggestions or advice on how to change Islam from within. Only to force change externally by going to non-Muslim groups and governments who will hear her speak about the horrors and her personal experiences as a child in an abusive home. She has never (to my knowledge) appeared in an Islamic forum or engaged scholars on how to advocate for reform of the faith. Someone who does not believe in a religion cannot be a reformer for it, IMO. Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Nov 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:My analogy speaks to my paying 17% tax and not living in the country, contrast to the 5-10% of those non-Muslims who actually live in their country. I think if we are to argue over how much we are forced to pay for whatever reason, Id say that the jaziya is a better deal than I have today, certainly financially. People often want to argue how unfair it was having to pay jaziya, but frankly, its really a non-issue unless we want to make an issue out of the times corrupt Calipahtes jacked up the tax unfairly. In that case, its still a non-issue because it was unislamic. It's really not an analogy then, you're not establishing similarities but comparing two situations on the same metric and trying to argue that one which is clearly not coercive (responsibility for paying taxes due to US citizenship) is worse in this metric and so the smaller tax can't be coercive. That argument doesn't work because you're comparing a single metric, tax rate, when the two situations are radically different in terms of the benefits, system it's happening within, etc. It's also ignoring the fact that the Jaziya was part of a general system that treated non-Muslims differently, I think that's a context you have to look at to understand whether there was coercion or not. Making comparisons to other systems of government at the time is fair in terms of tax burden but not particularly easy. Maybe tax rates in the Eastern Roman Empire (which was culturally and geographically probably the closes entity to the early Islamic 'states'). Latin Christianity ended up being mired in feudalism that didn't really have taxation in the same way. Later Christian nations certainly were utterly coercive in terms of forcing conversions or stripping rights from non-Christians but you can't really argue that the higher tax rate wasn't coercive because it wasn't as bad as threatening execution. Also you tend to excuse the abuses of religious power on one hand (corrupt Caliphs) while holding it as a fair example on the other (excesses of the Inquisition taking property from Jews). I think it's fair to accept any religion can be used to justify bad actions. I guess my ultimate point is that having a higher tax rate isn't necessarily coercive and I don't think it was invented as a tool of conversion. Hell I'd say the Jizaya was a pretty strong incentive to prevent conversion to Islam and I'd say was one of the reasons early Islamic states were so tolerant of non-Islamic populaces. Arab chauvinism aside, mass conversions meant killing off your tax base and would be a pretty strong argument against encouraging these conquered peoples to convert to Islam.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:It's really not an analogy then, you're not establishing similarities but comparing two situations on the same metric and trying to argue that one which is clearly not coercive (responsibility for paying taxes due to US citizenship) is worse in this metric and so the smaller tax can't be coercive. That argument doesn't work because you're comparing a single metric, tax rate, when the two situations are radically different in terms of the benefits, system it's happening within, etc. It's also ignoring the fact that the Jaziya was part of a general system that treated non-Muslims differently, I think that's a context you have to look at to understand whether there was coercion or not. Okay. Well my "comparison", if you see, was a half serious joke based on ppl moaning about being charged a modest tax. Im not going to debate over it. I think my main point is made.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:"There's too much sectarianism, and religious fundamentalism, and uncritical reading of ancient texts outside their historical context, and immoderate language, and anti-semitism in Islam today. Do you know who would sort this out? Martin Luther!" I've taken 2 Uni courses in Islam (a long time ago)and I read Infidel by Hirsi Ali 2 years ago. With the mention of Martin Luther and reformation in this thread, isn't it not possible to have a reformation in Islam as the Quran is considered to be the direct word of god? Wouldn't suras and passages have to be removed or edited in a reformation? Who would be qualified. It does not seem likely. Positive Optimyst fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:"There's too much sectarianism, and religious fundamentalism, and uncritical reading of ancient texts outside their historical context, and immoderate language, and anti-semitism in Islam today. Do you know who would sort this out? Martin Luther!" Positive Optimyst posted:I've taken 2 Uni courses in Islam (a long time ago)and I read Infidel by Hirsi Ali 2 years ago. I will be direct, on this issue. There is no antisemitism in the Islamic faith. Arabs are themselves "semites" and through Abraham blood related to Hebrews (from which Jews come from). (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semite) Some Muslims may interpret their text (like Christians have the Bible) to be overly critical of others such as the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) but that is a human problem which exists in many religions based on religious texts (even Judaism), not an Islam problem. People may interpret the Quran how they wish, but the Qur'an cannot be changed. It is the Word of God. Its our job to try to understand it properly. Jews and Christians hold elevated status in Islam because they are people who have received Gods Revelation and among their Scriptures still resides some truth. To say Islam is antisemitic is a false assumption. The reform has to happen in the hearts of mankind (in this case Muslims), not the texts of the religion. Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 11:09 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 10:41
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:With the mention of Martin Luther and reformation in this thread, isn't it not possible to have a reformation in Islam as the Quran is considered to be the direct word of god? The reformation in Christianity was primarily centred on the issue of authority. Luther and other reformers were essentially questioning the authority of Catholic Church to discharge certain theological functions, particularly those related to "soteriology" (salvation). Luther believed that the Church was an unnecessary intermediary when it came to the salvation of the individual, or at least that they had misappropriated this role with their reliance on indulgences and other similar processes. For Luther, and all subsequent Protestants, salvation was a matter between the individual and God, and they created a series of so-called "solae" (by faith alone, by scripture alone, through Christ alone etc.) to denote this. He never changed or edited the Bible (though he did dismiss the apocryphal texts from the canon, and called the role of some minor NT epistles into question) and in fact placed a greater emphasis on the reading of the Bible than the pre-Reformation Catholics had ever done. Such a reformation couldn't happen within Sunni Islam, because there isn't a central authority equivalent to the Church that could be challenged or bypassed. The Quran could in theory be challenged, but that would represent a very different scenario. The closest thing to a reformation within Sunni Islam that I can think of are the revivalist movements like Wahhibism, in the 18th century and later, which sought to return to the purported fundamentals of the faith and to purge the religion of later cultural practices (like the veneration of the saints, etc.). This, needless to say, wasn't a liberalising influence within the Islamic faith, but rather a radically conservative one. As an outsider, I think any revolution within Islam would be better served by allowing more outside influence into the faith (from philosophy, liberal politics, feminism, science etc.) than by severing anything from within.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:I've taken 2 Uni courses in Islam (a long time ago)and I read Infidel by Hirsi Ali 2 years ago. Questions like "how do you convince someone to read 'cut off the hand of a thief' as being not literal but metaphorical to show that crimes should be punished" and "how do you convince someone that the Sunnah should be viewed not as binding dogma but as lessons that were often specific to the time and place, and thus not always relevant to current times" are the million dollar questions in progressive Islam. There is so much historical baggage attached to a "rational" study of the Qur'an, like how the Muta'zila are viewed as having been drat near or actual heretics by quite a few orthodox Muslims, that I have no idea how to change minds or if it's possible. Maybe it'll end up being more a split like the Shi'a and Sunni, I honestly don't know. I don't think it'll be solved during my lifetime, but I'll work hard to try to make it happen anyhow. Tendai fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:I will be direct, on this issue. There is no antisemitism in the Islamic faith. Arabs are themselves "semites" and through Abraham blood related to Hebrews (from which Jews come from). (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semite) Amun, You have misunderstood the post of mine you quoted. I did not post anything about "Anti-semitism, nor did I post about Jews or Arabs. Please re-read my post - my post that you have quoted above.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Tendai posted:My theory -- and admittedly, the sort of reformation that I and many other progressive/moderate/whatevers are quietly pushing for -- is that reformation will come in the sense of a movement away from Qur'anic literalism and the idea that we must literally do what Muhammad did in his time. In Islamic theology the Quran is considered the direct word of god. Correct? Therefore, this will not happen, quote:It's more a reformation in thinking than in the actual content of the religious texts. I'm not sure how this will ever happen. It will never happen. quote:Questions like "how do you convince someone to read 'cut off the hand of a thief' as being not literal but metaphorical to show that crimes should be punished" and "how do you convince someone that the Sunnah should be viewed not as binding dogma but as lessons that were often specific to the time and place, and thus not always relevant to current times" are the million dollar questions in progressive Islam. Then, there is no solution. I've talked with several muslims over the years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:In Islamic theology the Quran is considered the direct word of god. Correct? Positive Optimyst posted:It will never happen. Positive Optimyst posted:Then, there is no solution. Positive Optimyst posted:I've talked with several muslims over the years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:Amun, Sorry if i seemed to have misunderstood your post. I think i was speaking to the entire subject which began with the post you quoted, which is why i quoted both yours and their post. Apologies
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:I will be direct, on this issue. There is no antisemitism in the Islamic faith. Arabs are themselves "semites" Antisemitism is a term created by German intellectuals to describe anti-Jewish sentiment. It doesn't refer to all semitic peoples.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:"There's too much sectarianism, and religious fundamentalism, and uncritical reading of ancient texts outside their historical context, and immoderate language, and anti-semitism in Islam today. Do you know who would sort this out? Martin Luther!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Hey islam thread what's up? How the gently caress do they identify people in burqas other than fingerprinting? Do they just take the lady in a private room and take off her headpiece? How do passport pictures work? Is it offensive for a male attendant to see a passport with a non-burqa lady picture on it (like, is this a social issue?)? This isn't "them turrists" this is "do they just fingerprint literally every burqa person? How does this work?" because I imagine there has to be some way. Otherwise identity theft would be tremendous, surely?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Fluffy Bunnies posted:Hey islam thread what's up? Here in the UAE, a female security person handles it, and they take off the burqa in a seperate room and take a picture of their face. Passports do not allow pictures of people with burqas on, and i'm pretty sure this is the same in Saudi Arabia, but don't take my word for it, i heard it from other saudis. EDIT: fwiw it was pointed out apparently in hadith that women who cover their face would be akin to having a "litham", a litham means "face covering" this includes niqab (a war niqab is made out of chainmail) this means they're engaging in crossdressing which is super haram, because its what men do when engaging in banditry. I mean this is one way to talk against the niqab, but then again you have the religious heads in saudi debating eyepatches for women so only one eye is visible from a niqab, or even both eyes covered by a mesh screen of sorts like the burqa in afghanistan. Fizzil fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:I will be direct, on this issue. There is no antisemitism in the Islamic faith. Arabs are themselves "semites" and through Abraham blood related to Hebrews (from which Jews come from). (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semite) Yeah, sorry, I was just making a dumb joke about Luther.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:Here in the UAE, a female security person handles it, and they take off the burqa in a seperate room and take a picture of their face. Passports do not allow pictures of people with burqas on, and i'm pretty sure this is the same in Saudi Arabia, but don't take my word for it, i heard it from other saudis. Niqab is 100% an old Arab custom being shoehorned into the religion. It's like debating the religious significance of Christmas Trees as they relate to the Bible, they literally have nothing to do with anything. Case in point: at the time of Pericles in Ancient Greece, married Athenian women similarly had to wear veils and couldn't leave their homes without a male escort. We never hear about that because oh wait, they were white people and they invented democracy (only for men, and only if you weren't a slave and actually were a citizen) so it's TOTALLY DIFFERENT (it's not). It was a common custom in a lot of the Middle East, and Arabs clung to the tradition and ran with it to a ridiculous degree. A lot of the modern Sharia insanity and nonsense actually data back to Ottoman rule, when the Ottomans, who were not particularly religious themselves, decided to use the religion as a means of control and codified a bunch of bullshit under the guise of Sharia law, because it allowed them to better exert control on the huge territory they owned. Something that hasn't really been touched upon in this thread and is such a huge and massive component to the current misunderstanding of Islam is the whole darkie factor. If the Quran had been revealed to some white guy, we'd be having very different opinions and discussions about the religion, but because it's some "heathen darkie religion" let's not take it seriously or even give it any thought before casting wide assumptions and aspersions about both it and its followers. Fuzz fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Fuzz posted:Something that hasn't really been touched upon in this thread and is such a huge and massive component to the current misunderstanding of Islam is the whole darkie factor. If the Quran had been revealed to some white guy, we'd be having very different opinions and discussions about the religion, but because it's some "heathen darkie religion" let's not take it seriously or even give it any thought before casting wide assumptions and aspersions about both it and its followers. If Muhammad had been born in, let's say, an Israel suburb some 750 miles due north, what would be different? (EDIT: Just going by significance of the founder's skin color here, as a change in location would obviously otherwise change the historical story of Islam.) Bolocko fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:If Muhammad had been born in, let's say, an Israel suburb some 750 miles due north, what would be different? don't be disingenuous, most muslims are not white and i think that's what fuzz meant
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Of course, but I'm still curious how Fuzz thinks responses would shift. VVVV I'm assuming symatics is meant to be semantics Bolocko fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Haledjian posted:Antisemitism is a term created by German intellectuals to describe anti-Jewish sentiment. It doesn't refer to all semitic peoples. Symatics. To my knowledge it was intellectuals among the Jews who propagated the word for use in their own struggle against hatred. Naturally we will see it as exclusively "anti-Jew" when it is not since that has become the common western usage. These "intellectuals" did not create the word "semite" nor the prefix "anti" and cannot construe the meaning of the word antisemitism to negate everyone except Jewish people. Anyone can use a prefix with any word and it doesnt mean that they now own that word and can change the meaning. Ultimately we cannot exclude Arabs in the term. Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Yeah, sorry, I was just making a dumb joke about Luther. drat, I really got off mark! So sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Tendai posted:Why do you think God can't talk in metaphors and expect us to think? This is basically the fundamentalist stance to take and it kind of baffles me when non-Muslims (I assume you aren't, if I'm wrong correct me) take this stance as well. Muslim does not equal literalist. Nothing in the basic statement of faith says "and also, you must take this literally rather than metaphorically." I think it's hard for western agnostics and atheists to understand. The texts obviously weren't metaphorical in the time of Mohammed -- the ugly parts of the Quran, like chopping the hands off thieves, were reality in those times. So the prevailing and earliest historical precedent is non-metaphorical, but now people are expected to pick and choose parts that should be read as metaphorical. And then you've got people like Al Baghdadi who has a Ph. D in Islamic studies and moderates saying, "well, he's not a real Muslim, it's a religion of peace"... but it seems like he is in a good position to know what the intent of various passages and historical precedent is, given his education and study? It seems disingenuous to hand wave him away as "not a real Muslim". Edit: I mean no disrespect with this post, I am just trying to reach an understanding of the moderate position, coming from the perspective of someone raised without religion (and raised suspicious of it). ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:I think it's hard for western agnostics and atheists to understand. The texts obviously weren't metaphorical in the time of Mohammed -- the ugly parts of the Quran, like chopping the hands off thieves, were reality in those times. So the prevailing and earliest historical precedent is non-metaphorical, but now people are expected to pick and choose parts that should be read as metaphorical. People declare other people "not-Muslim" far too easily. Committing crimes does not make one a non-Muslims. A Muslim, even one acting in the name of Islam, is a Muslim regardless of the severity of his/her crime. The only thing that makes one a non-Muslim is committing shirk, ei declaring partners to God, worshipping false gods or people. Al Baghdadi is a Muslim. He is acting out his criminal acts disguised under a cloak of Islam. Somehow the words of Jesus (pbuh) ring true here only because he is reported to have said it well, "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." Mathew 7:15. It isnt particular to Islam to disguise criminal behaviour in a cloak of religion or good behaviour. It has happened in all religions and in secular civil behaviour. Anyone can have a degree in Islamic studies, even extremists. Its important to understand that millions of scholars also have these degrees and are as qualified or even moreso to declare that he has gotten off the wrong track somewhere. I mean, the Crusades were based in religion beginning with Pope Urban II and the slaughter of Jews, Muslims Pagans and even other Christians was based on the Bible. However, it isnt the Bible that is at fault. Its our humanity and its failings that is to blame. In the time of Muhammad the world was very different than today. Capital punishment was commonplace all over the world. They didn't have massive prison business complexes to care for criminals with programmes to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society, nor fancy drugs to execute criminals in a neat and tidy manner (if there is such a thing). People who acted outside of the law were dealt with harshly as a deterrent. At the same time, the Qur'an also gave leniency for criminals. Victims rights were paramount and had direct say in if a punishment was to be meted out. And the retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it, but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation - his reward is [due] from Allah . Qur'an 42:40 And [there are] others deferred until the command of Allah - whether He will punish them or whether He will forgive them. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.. Qur'an 9:106
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
A lot of it is the fact that if you go by modern American standards, most of the Muslim-majority nations I can think of off the top of my head are basically human rights hellholes. It can be hard to buy that those things are meant to be taken metaphorically when Muslim nations are famous for things like "murdering apostates" and "forcing women into arranged marriages" and people in this very thread are talking about their friends getting jail time for drinking wine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Khizan posted:A lot of it is the fact that if you go by modern American standards, most of the Muslim-majority nations I can think of off the top of my head are basically human rights hellholes. It can be hard to buy that those things are meant to be taken metaphorically when Muslim nations are famous for things like "murdering apostates" and "forcing women into arranged marriages" and people in this very thread are talking about their friends getting jail time for drinking wine. Killing apostates solely based on religious apostasy is against Islam, the Qur'an expressly forbids it. "There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut (false deities) and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing." Qur:an 2:256 Apostasy entails something a bit different than it does to westerners who separate Church from State. The death penalty for apostasy is carried out for those BOTH abandon the Islamic state by renouncing their faith AND actively work to destroy it (ei treason). It wasnt until after WWII that the US itself stopped killing people who committed treason. Executing people on the basis of leaving Islam is itself an unislamic practice. Forced marriage is to an unislamic practice and forbidden in Islam according to every reputable scholar. "The Prophet said, “No previously-married woman should be married off without being consulted, and no virgin should be married off without asking her permission.”” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4843; Muslim, 1419" Jail time for drinking wine is hardly a human rights issue, imo, though it may be heavy handed. When in Rome, dont break the fking law. If alcohol is forbidden, then why the hell would they break the law? Where I live eating on the train is against the law, subject to a minimum $300 fine the first time. I can get caned for spray painting a car. wtf, dont eat on the train or spray paint cars. Muslim majority countries are underdeveloped countries. Naturally their laws will not be to our "developed nation" liking. Buddhist countries are largely underdeveloped and known to be human rights hellholes too as are many Christian countries. Again, this isnt a reflection on religion, but on humanity. Some countries develop faster than others. I find it odd that Christian countries (in Europe, US, etc) hold the view that they are somehow better. The facts are that if you took a snapshot if ancient history during the Crusades and the centuries after, you'd find that they were just as barbaric if not moreso. Human society was not as advanced as it is today and just because western countries developed faster (by butchering indigenous cultures and raping their land of resources) doesnt give us the moral authority to look at Muslim populated countries and point the finger in the name of human rights. Rather we should be helping them in light of our own brutal histories, not blaming and accusing them. Muslim countries will find their way. However, they were the colonized, not the colonizers. It will take more time than it did for the colonizing nations of Europe or North America. Their being underdeveloped is not a reflection on the Islamic religion any more than it is a reflection on Christianity or Judaism.. Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Of course, but I'm still curious how Fuzz thinks responses would shift. When the Crusades happened, the Dark Age Europeans went to the Holy Land and realized: "Holy poo poo! While we've been squatting in the rubble of Rome, these guys have actually made progress! Look at all this technology and the advancements these people have made in engineering, medicine, navigation, philosophy, heck, they even have a great numbering system and this whole new type of math that lets us solve all sorts of problems! We should probably adopt some of this stuff and bring it back with us!"  Jump forward to when they came home: "Those filthy darkie heathens are unwashed and uncivilized barbarians. Also we liberated all of these wonders of knowledge and technology from their uncouth hands."  Jump forward to the Renaissance, at which point the Ottomans had already ruined everything: "Look at those mongrel hordes scraping out a living and rolling in their own filth in the desert! What savages."  If you don't think the race of the people involved had a major effect on the reception of their faith and culture, you have a poor understanding of human nature. Yes, Christianity had already taken hold of Europe by the balls, but Hinduism and Buddhism had similarly been staunchly followed in South Asia and the Far East, but due to lots of trade and an overall more open minded viewpoint with regard to race (mainly on the part of the Mongols), Islam gained a foothold, spread, and flourished, because the people following demonstrated that yes, they were educated and cultured, but also the receiving culture was more open and receptive to what they had to say because they weren't looking down the nose of racism and cultural superiority (even though objectively speaking, the East was far more advanced than Europe and therefore Europe had even less of a reason to feel superior in the hand scheme of things) It's not a statement against white people, but revisionist history is dictated by the victors, and by and large the modem world culture has been shaped and defined by white people, and it's reflected in the current shock and surprise at all them filthy terrist Muslims that apparently live in the US, when we've been there since the country was founded and fought for the US in WW1 and 2 and for 200 years no one gave a poo poo about the Muslims in their midst until the Cold War drove the US to start loving around in Muslim countries and having the CIA assassinate people or am militias to fight our wars. Then the Ayatollah raised its head and took some hostages and poo poo has just kept going south ever since, with the entire religion taking the blame for a bunch of radical assholes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 09:51
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:Here in the UAE, a female security person handles it, and they take off the burqa in a seperate room and take a picture of their face. Passports do not allow pictures of people with burqas on, and i'm pretty sure this is the same in Saudi Arabia, but don't take my word for it, i heard it from other saudis. Huh. Okay then. So they basically put the picture away as a "just in case" and file it under her name on the passport, but it isn't actually like, shown to someone processing. That's pretty neat. I assumed it was something like that, but I appreciate it being laid out. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
Fuzz posted:Something that hasn't really been touched upon in this thread and is such a huge and massive component to the current misunderstanding of Islam is the whole darkie factor. If the Quran had been revealed to some white guy, we'd be having very different opinions and discussions about the religion, but because it's some "heathen darkie religion" let's not take it seriously or even give it any thought before casting wide assumptions and aspersions about both it and its followers. How do we know that Mohammed was a "darkie?" No one knows what color or shade of color he was. Same for Jesus. Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Fuzz posted:It's not a statement against white people, but revisionist history is dictated by the victors, and by and large the modem world culture has been shaped and defined by white people, and it's reflected in the current shock and surprise at all them filthy terrist Muslims that apparently live in the US, when we've been there since the country was founded and fought for the US in WW1 and 2 and for 200 years no one gave a poo poo about the Muslims in their midst until the Cold War drove the US to start loving around in Muslim countries and having the CIA assassinate people or am militias to fight our wars. Then the Ayatollah raised its head and took some hostages and poo poo has just kept going south ever since, with the entire religion taking the blame for a bunch of radical assholes. Amun Khonsu posted:Muslim countries will find their way. However, they were the colonized, not the colonizers. It will take more time than it did for the colonizing nations of Europe or North America. Their being underdeveloped is not a reflection on the Islamic religion any more than it is a reflection on Christianity or Judaism.. These are revisionist perspectives as well. What about the Moghlai empire, or, gently caress, even the conquests Mohammed and Abu Bakr began in the Arabian Peninsula and spread throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:How do we know that Mohammed was a "darkie?" I'm happy to take his cousin's word for it. Ali ibn Abi Talib posted:He was not too tall nor too short. He was medium sized. His hair was not short and curly, nor was it lank, but in between. His face was not narrow, nor was it fully round, but there was a roundness to it. His skin was white. His eyes were black. He had long eyelashes. He was big-boned and had wide shoulders
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:These are revisionist perspectives as well. What about the Moghlai empire, or, gently caress, even the conquests Mohammed and Abu Bakr began in the Arabian Peninsula and spread throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa? Im not sure what you are getting at. Its not revisionist history by any stretch. What is happening today has little to do with what happened with previous empires from nearly a millennium ago. What you see happening in the Muslim world (and a large part of the non-Muslim Asia, Africa and the Americas) now is a direct result of European colonialism. Unlike previous Empires that may have come and gone, European colonialism only ended in the late 1940's and much of the policies are still in place with puppet dictatorships propped up by former colonial powers. It is still effecting the populations today. People call the overthrow of Arab governments the "Arab Spring" as if they had some kind of European style enlightenment, but ffs it was an "Arab Uprising" against propped up colonial puppet dictatorships. The effects are very real today in the Muslim world, particularly in the Arab-Muslim world and parts of the Indian subcontinent (former India now modern Pakistan/India/Afghanistan/Bangledesh, etc). Prior to European colonialism there were no formal borders. It was the European colonial powers that drew the borders of the nation states we see today, many of which have become violent flashpoints as a result, like Palestine and Kashmir, etc. Ive heard some history scholars say that it can take up to 400 years for a culture to overcome the effects of a colonial occupation. Of course, some cultures will never recover from it, example, the Native American Indian. Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:Symatics. To my knowledge it was intellectuals among the Jews who propagated the word for use in their own struggle against hatred. Naturally we will see it as exclusively "anti-Jew" when it is not since that has become the common western usage. That's not how words work. It was created to refer to anti-Judaism and that's all it has ever meant or been used to mean, except in the very specific circumstance of other semitic peoples trying to derail accusations of prejudice against Jews. "I can't be antisemitic, I'm a semite too" holds as much water as "I'm not homophobic, I'm not SCARED of gay people.'
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Haledjian posted:That's not how words work. It was created to refer to anti-Judaism and that's all it has ever meant or been used to mean, except in the very specific circumstance of other semitic peoples trying to derail accusations of prejudice against Jews. "I can't be antisemitic, I'm a semite too" holds as much water as "I'm not homophobic, I'm not SCARED of gay people.' Well I cant be bothered to argue over the word. English isnt that difficult to figure out, nor politicize for ones own purposes. Frankly, anyone "Anti-Jew" or "Anti-Arab" is antisemitic. A semite is from the line of Shem. Someone hateful of a semite based on his heritage alone is an antisemite in the purest (unpoliticized) meaning of the word, IMO. The word was coined after WWII to refer to hatred of Jews in Europe in response to the holocaust by Nazis who killed them based on their race. As such, it was a heritage (race) based word, not a religion based word. However, now we enter the dichotomy of "What is a Jew", and this I have had a lot of discussion when I studied Judaism. Its debatable even among Jews. Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:Well I cant be bothered to argue over the word. English isnt that difficult to figure out, nor politicize for ones own purposes. Frankly, anyone "Anti-Jew" or "Anti-Arab" is antisemitic. A semite is from the line of Shem. Someone hateful of a semite based on his heritage alone is an antisemite in the purest (unpoliticized) meaning of the word, IMO. One of the things about English is that etymolygy doesn't dictate meaning. No credible English dictionary will define the word the way you're defining it because that's not what it means. The word was coined in the 1800s (not after WWII) by German bigots who wanted a classier sounding word than "Judenhass."
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Haledjian posted:One of the things about English is that etymolygy doesn't dictate meaning. No credible English dictionary will define the word the way you're defining it because that's not what it means. This is correct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Fluffy Bunnies posted:Huh. Okay then. So they basically put the picture away as a "just in case" and file it under her name on the passport, but it isn't actually like, shown to someone processing. That's pretty neat. I assumed it was something like that, but I appreciate it being laid out. Thanks! I worded it poorly, i meant to say passports must have pictures on them, and the photo must show the face, but the process to take these photos is handled by female security members.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Haledjian posted:One of the things about English is that etymolygy doesn't dictate meaning. No credible English dictionary will define the word the way you're defining it because that's not what it means. Just a side note. This is stuff I learned in Synagogue from Orthodox Jewish friends, not the Mosque. Whatever you say, learn something everyday. In this conversation, I dont really care much about the origins, but the meanings. Its quite clear the origins of the meaning and usage has been debated and evolved over time, especially after 1945 (WWII). The meanings of "semite" cannot be hijacked by common misuse of words by pop culture or one group IMO. Though the word is used to identify people of a region by language, it invariably identifies the people of that a particular region consisting of many particular races (a racial grouping generally speaking), not just Jews. Arab hate is as Anti-Semitic as Jew hate, IMO. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semite, another interesting article on it http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/who-are-the-semites/ Either way, its irrelevant to the conversation about Islam. Haledjian posted:"I can't be antisemitic, I'm a semite too" holds as much water as "I'm not homophobic, I'm not SCARED of gay people.' Regarding this comment, it is wrong. Arabs didnt write the Qur'an, which is the beginning subject of this discussion. The Qur'an is God's Word and the primary source of the religion of Islam. He holds no prejudices except in matters of Good verses Evil. The Qur'an contains good things about Jews and criticisms about Jews, good things about Christians and criticisms about them, Good things about Muslims and criticisms about them. Edited for clarification. Amun Khonsu fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Nov 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:35 |
|
|
Amun Khonsu posted:Just a side note. This is stuff I learned in Synagogue from Orthodox Jewish friends, not the Mosque. Everybody in the thread knows what semite means. If you want to be convincing, I would recommend that you find evidence that people actually use the phrase "anti-Semitic" to refer to hatred of Arabs in general, and not just when defending Arabs/Muslims against accusations of anti-Jewish prejudice. quote:Regarding this comment, it is wrong. Arabs didnt write the Qur'an, which is the beginning subject of this discussion. The Qur'an is God's Word and the primary source of the religion of Islam. He holds no prejudices except in matters of Good verses Evil. The Qur'an contains good things about Jews and criticisms about Jews, good things about Christians and criticisms about them, Good things about Muslims and criticisms about them. And that's fine, but you weren't talking about the Qur'an specifically, you were talking about Islam. Which includes the Qur'an but also Hadith, and fatwas and a bunch of other writings that were absolutely written by Arabs. Like if you don't want to talk about anti-Semitism in Islam you don't have to, but please stop being so disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 20:38
|
|
