|
ISIS certainly has their religious justifications down pat, but they kill a ridiculous number of Muslims on the flimsiest of pretexts. For this reason, I think most Muslims find them about as Islamic as a Quaker would find Reagan Christian.
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
1) You just cited the Express 2) There are 1.62 billion Muslims on Earth.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
That animism sure makes Indians shoot an arrow at me, while I'm exterminating their game animals. *pulls arrow from hat* What gives man? You need to quit loving around with such a violent religion.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
L-Boned posted:If 97% of muslims do not view ISIS positively, you would think there would at least be a decent amount headed to the middle east to fight against ISIS. The fact that this hasn't happened at all makes me question polls like these. Do you want to fight ISIS? I don't. Is it their job to fight them?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Al-Saqr or Fizzil might be better at writing up an effort post about this (I'll try later, though) but one of the major problems is actually that traditional Sharia jurisprudence, which accepts a diversity of opinions on religious issues as legitimate, has been increasingly attacked by dictatorships since the 1960s. The idea that it is legitimate for two Muslims to have different interpretations about a religious issue is considered dangerous since it removes the ability for the state to say "If you are a good Muslim you have to agree with us on this issue." This has been playing out in Egypt especially, with military governments putting pressure on Al-Azhar to only allow their scholars to give (super conservative) rulings that they agree with. This is a huge tragedy, it's as if Oxford became the mouthpiece of a fascist government.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:All the meandering, hypothetical, dystopian bullshit in the world isn't going to convince me that bombing Daesh isn't justified and necessary. Live in the moment, as they say.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I worry that you really believe that, that there is a Christian equivalent to Da'esh poised to emerge in Europe or North America. Don't be silly, Christian death squads will have many points of distinction from ISIS. For example, they'll use Ford trucks instead of Toyotas, ARs instead of AKs, and their execution videos will be set to Toby Keith instead of nasheeds.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:if we're talking just islam vs christianity in general it's germane imo, you don't have many IS types running around threatening to murder people in america We are in fact experiencing a brief lull in death squad activity, but the world used to look to us to see how it was done 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:not sure i'd accept that the klan are a primarily christian group, though they obviously mix a weird christianity in with their odious racism This sounds like the same thing as "IS is unislamic because they are sectarian butchers" which has a kind of point, but not really.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Oh, by the way, turns out that "Islamic" attack on women's right to sunbathe in parks was actually a gang fight. I like that the comments are one incredibly long call of "noooooo" or "riiiiiiiiight."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
blowfish posted:wimmin are inferior. I think it was similar for trial by combat in mediaeval Europe. Other way around at least in some cases:  http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/trial_by_combat/combat_man_and_woman.htm
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Saudi Arabia is funding them, I am surprised I have to articulate this. The only emotion you are projecting is fear. Your weakness is jumping off the screen. You wouldn't be so concerned with controlling Islam if you didn't secretly think it was stronger than your own Western liberal traditions. Please accept my apologies that your parents didn't condition you like a Spartan, instead purchasing gifts for you and answering your every need.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
Sethex posted:I talk about goons arguing about emotions an not information then you argue exclusively on emotion an not information lol. The fear and emotions belong to you. You fear the collapse of society, like the followers of Wahabbism. In their nations, you'd be among the most compliant and observant of fundamentalists, participating in stonings.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Thinking the west will drift toward totalitarianism because of Islamic terrorism isn't a fringe theory nor is it equivocal to believing in doomsday. Presumably due to the overreaction of racist whites? I defer to you; I suppose you'd know better than I would.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Uh huh. I hesitate to categorize the bulk of US political culture to the white racist camp. I think tumblr is missing a slactivist. Is it some reason other than racist whites? That's the reason for the erosion of civil liberties, the belief that it would be applied to nonwhites only. Please, let me know exactly how, step by step, Islamic terrorism will lead to Western totalitarianism. Without white racism.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Alright tumblrina I think we've found your ruling ideology an it involves a reductionist oversimplification that revolves around race issues. In that case, why does Islamic fundamentalism lead inexorably to Western totalitarianism? It sounds like totalitarianism will proceed apace regardless of what Islamists do. Get your arguments straight.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:People are disagreeing with me, gas it! Let's see here: -population bomb!! -poisonous ideologies (we all know Islam is the only source of these) -tumblr lol Have I missed anything?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
eurabiaaaaaAAAAA.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Inshallah our infiltration of France may reach 10 percent  Foolish, infertile Euros! If only they knew what was in store once we hit the magic number...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Immortan posted:
Yes, correct. White American voters pose an exponentially greater threat to secularism and freedom than the most pop-eyed, shouting mullah with the longest beard.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I don't think White American voters are that big of a threat to secularism and freedom in Europe. Yeah, but they're more of a threat than Islam is.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Edit: But seriously though - Sedan Chair, Effectronica, 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" How magical, we are somehow the ones conflating religion with ethnicity, in spite of our not being the bigots who strive to repress others.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Going to a mixed race Masjid is not, in fact, "a material signifier of an oppressive social system." The fact that you think it is is Here's a hint: for Muslims, there's no way to win except to be rounded up and exterminated. This is what all this fancy talk is dancing around, and boy will these bigots deny it right up until they accomplish it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 19:18
|
|
. If anything, demanding that everyone only pray with others of their race lest they be branded an extremist is the sign of an oppressive social system, not the free mixing of people of different ethnicities.
|
Uh, restricting the wearing of burkas is quite misogynist actually.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Miltank posted:And yet one functions by turning its wearers into semi-anonymous symbols of feminine otherness and the other is an uncomfortable patriarchal norm. High heels have more in common with neckties than burkas. Both actually do that first thing, if you think about it for a minute. ZZ Top wrote a song about it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I've thought about it for more than a minute and you are still wrong. High heels literally turn their "wearers into semi-anonymous symbols of feminine otherness." I was amazed you actually wrote that out without having some kind of realization. Now whether women want to avoid them for that reason, or claim their power, should be 100% up to them, just like any form of religious covering. Activists who appeal to the state to regulate women's clothing are misguided; instead, they should appeal to the state to regulate abusive men who would tell them what to wear. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:High heels turn their wearers into slightly taller versions of themselves with a different color of thing on their feet, depending on what they've chosen to wear. It's in no way anonymizing, and isn't comparable to the burka/niqab. I say it is, and you say it isn't; I don't think we're going to bridge that gap. But clothing that fetishizes the body can have the effect of projecting women as little more than a body. I am choosing to express this phenomenon as "anonymizing," because the male gaze has no interest in the personality, only the body. Obviously it doesn't cover your face; literal-minded people will get high-centered on this. Agreed about the shelters. Interestingly enough the abused and trafficked Muslim girls I have dealt with often still wear hijab, and do not immediately tear it off when they escape their patriarchal oppressors, hair flowing out like a Pantene commercial. For the record every Islamic scholar I have heard talk about the reasons for hijab disgusted me and I would love to see them all vanish, but only by women's choice.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:The primary purpose of a garment like the niqab is to enable and justify rape, whether by impulsive male action or as part of arranged marriage. The primary purpose of a garment like high-heeled shoes is to enable and justify rape, whether by impulsive male action or as part of a ZZ Top video.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Yeah security. That's why we want women to take off burkas, all of a sudden. You never know when the five foot tall woman in a burka is going to whip out a jambiya and go "alalalala" in the supermarket aisle, just stabbing. Then slip away, unidentified. Heck it could be al-Baghdadi under there.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:But isn't that an unironically valid point? It's not exactly unheard of for people with malicious intentions to disguise themselves to evade detection. I mean, don't you think there are good reasons to make someone wearing a balaclava or a full-face bike helmet take it off before being allowed through airport security? If yes (I assume yes), why should those reasons not apply to religious face coverings? Because that's not why people want to prevent women from choosing to wear it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:So, I'll repeat my simple two-part question: I don't care and the question is irrelevant. quote:If so (and I assume so), do you not also grant that it is equally valid to refuse someone service if they do not comply with a request to remove their religious face covering so that they may be visually identified by their face? No and it's freakish and creepy that you think you get to demand to see women's faces.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Sethex posted:TIL face an tits are in the same category as far as sedanchair is concerned. You don't have a right to see any of it, understand?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:As if "no different than Haredi dress" is a good thing? That poo poo is pretty awful too and I'd gladly see it officially discouraged and banned from certain institutions. Do you think there is any particular reason no one is pushing for that? And "certain institutions"? Your standard for Muslim headgear seems to be "you don't get to wear it in public."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Hijab fashion is very diverse and there's no reason to think that similar coverings wouldn't follow suit if it wasn't treated so seriously in contemporary society. But they all look the same to him.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:This is what you call thinking? "You support a ban on clothing, so surely you support extermination camps!" As Islamophobes are so fond of saying, that's how it starts.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:No, I was specifically commenting on the stupidity of SedanChair unironically endorsing someone's over the top exaggeration of his already dumb slippery slope argument. Enlightened people understand the difference between a slippery slope argument and a deliberately incrementalist set of policies designed to eradicate a culture.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:Provide one shred of evidence that that is the position of anyone in this thread, based on a genuine reading of their posts. It's all about never giving the evidence, isn't it? I mean if you gave evidence that you wanted to wipe out the Islamic faith, that would give the game away. The idea is to appear very Western, progressive and concerned with women's rights.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:Are you trolling? There is no point to even engage with someone who argues based on what opinions their opponents are secretly hiding. Really? After all, most Republicans discussing immigration policy manage to cover themselves with at least a fig leaf of being concerned with something other than having too many nonwhites in America. Yet we all, not being deaf and blind, manage to understand their true intentions.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm still wondering why indirectly punishing domestic abusers by making their targets wear different clothing is the ideal strategy. Because it punishes women.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 02:20
|
|