Liberal_L33t posted:

If this was the 1940s or the immediate aftermath of WWII, I'd probably be pretty breezy about leveling harsh accusations at the western intellectual tradition as a whole, and shaming would-be defenders of western civilization by association with the Nazis. I think a lot of good came for Europe as a result of having the historical example of the Nazis around to discourage people from flirting with the ideas of the extreme right.

Xandu posted:

Ignore the 3%, it's not really based on anything accurate, but I'd be surprised if it were that much higher.

Iran, Saudi, Afghanistan (not legally anymore, but basically).

Azran posted:

1) Can you point me to a source on the "3% of Muslims support Daesh" thing? I was expecting it to be REALLY low, but not THAT low.

Smoothrich posted:

Israel is one of the world's most advanced nations in like, every way dude. In agricultural science, water conservation, pharmaceuticals, microchips, nanotechnology.. it's literally the opposite kind of nation, one driven on science, humanism, education, and collective good, instead what "evangelical fundies of the same mold" as you so anti-semitically chortled would actually imply. 20 percent of Israelis are Arab Muslims you know. They are able to vote in elections, freely practice their religion, and are afforded all the rights and protections under Israeli law as equal citizenry.

You are probably safer as a Muslim in Israel than in most other Arab nations nowadays honestly, heh.

ToxicAcne posted:

Yeah it's fixed and you can't bullshit because then you would be defying god.

Sharia is not the solution that the Muslim world needs but supporting it is a very understandable and dare I say rational line of thought.

Nessus posted:

This can presumably be checked by other religious scholars who can go "that's bullshit," and is perhaps preferable to the law of "I have the army, so gently caress you." It is obviously not a perfect system but it seems like secular authorities are perhaps seen as materially worse?

TheImmigrant posted:

Rakosi posted:

I think youve just highlighted my point for me. The level of distortion required to twist the dogma a Jain follows, or a Quaker or an Amnish, to allow for them to behead infidels, or blow themselves up in a crowd of innocent people would be so extreme and readily apparent that every sane person could come to the reasonable conclusion that a person purporting to be a Jain or Quaker or whatever, who did these things, is obviously not representative of the faith.

If a Muslim does it, there is not that cognitive dissonance between extreme violence of the follower and the content of their religion because like it or not, such violence is fundamentally supported in the Quran and Hadith. Islam is not a religion of peace, if it were, extreme Islamists would be extremely peaceful.

ISIS, it bares repeating, are Muslim, and its really dumb for religious moderates to say otherwise. They are too Islamic, and thats the problem. We would be much better off in the world if all Muslims paid a bit more lip service to their faith and the Quran and didn't really take it all too seriously, like the stereotypical western, modern Muslim does, picking and choosing carefully which parts of the Quran to closely model themselves against..

Rakosi posted:

I disagree that they are off. The point of the comparison was to highlight what an actual religion of peace (Jainism) looks like, specifically including extreme adherents, in comparison to a so-called 'religion of peace' (Islam), and I don't think it's a disingenuous comparison to make if I am trying to prove that Islam is not, at it's most basest and core level, a peaceful religion. That Islam can be followed in a way that is horrifically violent when other religions cannot is the point I am making. There is a very popular public perception among the more religiously liberal left that all religions are equally respectable, or equally valuable to society, or can all be distorted into violent interpretations and this is just simply not true.

Rakosi posted:

Edit: Maulana Muhammad Ali, The Religion of Islam (Lahore: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha'at Islam, 2005), p. 32; Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Nahhas, An-Nasikh Wal-Mansukh (Cairo: Maktabat ‘Alam al-Fikr, 1986), pp. 2-3.

Liberal_L33t posted:

quote:

For the Islamic apologetics in this thread; can you give a hypothetical example of a quote or doctrine that would mark Islam as an inherently violent doctrine to your satisfaction (yet isn't obviously counteproductive to spreading the religion like "kill every non-muslim you meet, then yourself")? I understand your unwillingness to dismiss a faith practiced by so many as utterly rotten from the roots on up. But can you at least admit that the more literally you follow the Qur'an and the more certain you are it is the unchallengeable word of god, the worse a person you are going to be to live around?

Immortan posted:

You so conveniently leave out the other passages posted in this thread saying otherwise with thorough explanations while continuing to fling poo poo towards people you disagree with after your "lol islomophebe get banned!!!" nonsense. Apologetics applies to you accurately.

Uroboros posted:

I thought it was pretty much a way to make 7th Century Arabic cultural norms the equivalent of the word of God, which unrprisingly doesn't work so well in the 21st Century.

Also, I know a lot of you hate Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but her latest book "Heretic" is a lot more constructive on its criticism of Islam than "Infidel" or "Nomad", apparently the Arab Spring gave her a bit more hope that differences might be overcome.

computer parts posted:

It kinda follows from precedent too since they held all of the previous prophets (Moses, Jesus, etc) had the exact same message as before but people just didn't understand.

bitey posted:

Ah yes. Well explained.

Except that people are using that verse not only to burn somebody's face, or push their faces into the ground, but also to murder them. Yes, the most insane and violent understanding of that verse is being applied.

"Burn somebody's face?" That's kind of what they do in some places; they throw acid at women who dare to show their faces.

"At worst, you have something saying that throwing acid in women's faces is ok."

But that's "at worst." No, you would never have an interpretation that would justify throwing acid in people's faces. That would be barbaric.

ToxicAcne posted:

We know through homer that oral poetry can be very intricate. What would Muhammad's influences be at the time of revelation.

Bitey posted:

edit: The established pattern being: Anti-Islamic bloggers are being hacked to death in Bangladesh. In this latest one, the daesh assassins used a ruse ("Taqiya") to gain entry to his house, and then killed him with machetes.

bitey posted:

Excuse me? The names of the targets are on a list distributed by Al Quada.

"Barest, most flimsy excuse?" What the gently caress is the matter with you?

Liberal_L33t posted:

Rigged Death Trap? What are your thoughts on ex-muslims? Should there be a certain amount of leniency granted to those who intimidate, threaten and/or murder them, on account of the fact that they are betraying their race by leaving the religion with which it is, according to you, synonymous? Is that an accurate representation of your views? Even if it isn't , it's closer to the truth than responding to any concern with the political attitudes of Muslim immigrants with "HITLER HITLER HITLERRRRR"

Hammurabi posted:

but just North African culture being hideous garbage.

icantfindaname posted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Malaysia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Indonesia

let's watch those goalposts fly

CommieGIR posted:

Let me know when a real court in a Western country signs off on a Sharia court. Thanks in advance.

The Insect Court posted:

Trying to "reclaim" the burqa as a feminist icon is as ludicrously stupid as attempting to reclaim FGM or sati. The burqa is a tool of the subjugation of women, the fact that as a highly visible sign of Muslim piety it's often targeted by xenophobes doesn't change that undeniable fact.

The Insect Court posted:

One might suggest that the self-styled leftist or liberal defending the burqa is engaging in a bit of Orientalist fetishizing of the mystery and exoticism of foreign couture, they just like to imagine 'real' Muslims wearing foreign attire because they identify authentic Muslim identity as being alien and distinct from Western identity.

Blazing Ownager posted:

This is partly why I don't get religious people. If you really truly believe in it as much as you confess, why are you OK with society saying "Well ignore this part, and don't do this part?" How can you be a tolerant and moderate <insert religion here> when you're effectively ignoring huge parts of your supposedly sacred text? It doesn't add up. I'm not a believer, but if I truly believed, and I mean TRULY believed.. why wouldn't I bet an extremist? Because - again, if - I truly believed, anything that happens in this life doesn't matter, as long as you appease your deity.

So yeah. Not exactly a Political Science analysis, but I am kind of tired of this bullshit. If you have to hack and chop up a religion to make it compatible with the real world, instead of doing that and calling anyone who goes with it a "moderate" maybe we should look at the core religion and discuss that instead; namely all of them.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

small Haredi boy was masturbating. His mother looked angrily at her, and told her "this is your fault".

Kopijeger posted:

That doesn't work either:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31851830

Sethex posted:

To spell it out to the unimaginative person that you are, if you are interacting with people less and treated as an 'other' by everyone, you are going to encounter less ideas, hindering your personal growth as an individual.

An regarding your previous terrible comment about niqabs and 'what if they want to wear it' the answer is they mostly all want to wear it because that is how they were raised. But the cost of forcing them to not wear it is smaller than the price people forced into the lifestyle at an early age pay.