Seeing a disaster slowly unfolds in front of my eyes... I have to say yes... The Islamic world only have itself to blame for nurturing this idiocy, but it won't turn into a full-blown disaster such as a civil war as long as the west doesn't intervene.Islamic idiocy is not likely to cause a civil war kind of situation in most of the West anytime soon; although UK, France and Germany could be there in a number of decades. However, it has been a disaster in many other parts of the world. Examples: 1) Persia (Iran) has a rich history involving non-Muslims, but it is now an Islamic state with the non-Muslims totally marginalized, with their percentage in the population being less than 1 in 2011. 2) Due to systematic hatred and atrocities committed/supported/tolerated by Muslim-ruled governments, the percentage of non-Muslims in Pakistan has gone down from ~23 in 1947 to less than 4 in 2010. 3) Because of the same reasons, the percentage of non-Muslims in Bangladesh has gone down from ~35% in 1947 to less than 11% in 2013. (The recent year numbers are taken from the CIA World Factbooks on these countries.)
Seeing a disaster slowly unfolds in front of my eyes... I have to say yes... The Islamic world only have itself to blame for nurturing this idiocy, but it won't turn into a full-blown disaster such as a civil war as long as the west doesn't intervene.Islamic idiocy is not likely to cause a civil war kind of situation in most of the West anytime soon; although UK, France and Germany could be there in a number of decades. However, it has been a disaster in many other parts of the world. Examples: 1) Persia (Iran) has a rich history involving non-Muslims, but it is now an Islamic state with the non-Muslims totally marginalized, with their percentage in the population being less than 1 in 2011. 2) Due to systematic hatred and atrocities committed/supported/tolerated by Muslim-ruled governments, the percentage of non-Muslims in Pakistan has gone down from ~23 in 1947 to less than 4 in 2010. 3) Because of the same reasons, the percentage of non-Muslims in Bangladesh has gone down from ~35% in 1947 to less than 11% in 2013. (The recent year numbers are taken from the CIA World Factbooks on these countries.) I'm not talking about the West. I'm talking about moderately secular but majority Muslims nations not too different from Syria. When the secular forces are as strong as the islamist ones, it won't simply end with the persecution of religious minorities. It would end with a civil war between the secular government and the islamists who are financially backed by the west.
I'm not talking about the West. I'm talking about moderately secular but majority Muslims nations not too different from Syria. When the secular forces are as strong as the islamist ones, it won't simply end with the persecution of religious minorities. It would end with a civil war between the secular government and the islamists who are financially backed by the west.There is practically no secular government in any Muslim-majority country of the world. So, I would not expect the secular forces in any Muslim-majority country to be able to defeat the Islamic fanatics any time soon. Here is a news report where there is no Western incentive for Muslims to be Islamic fanatics. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39112840
There is practically no secular government in any Muslim-majority country of the world. So, I would not expect the secular forces in any Muslim-majority country to be able to defeat the Islamic fanatics any time soon. Here is a news report where there is no Western incentive for Muslims to be Islamic fanatics. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39112840How do you know that? It seems your opinion on Muslims is simply based on the news you get from the media. There are some secular majority Muslim nations. While it's not what I would call western secularism where religion doesn't exist in the public space, the constitution is secular. A large part of the society believe in the separation of religion and state. They refused to be identified as an Islamic nation, because they aren't. The women are far more empowered than the average US Evangelical Christians. Most of the women don't wear hijab. It's only after the spread of Wahhabism things suddenly go downhill.
There is practically no secular government in any Muslim-majority country of the world. So, I would not expect the secular forces in any Muslim-majority country to be able to defeat the Islamic fanatics any time soon. Here is a news report where there is no Western incentive for Muslims to be Islamic fanatics. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39112840How do you know that? It seems your opinion on Muslims is simply based on the news you get from the media. There are some secular majority Muslim nations. While it's not what I would call western secularism where religion doesn't exist in the public space, the constitution is secular. A large part of the society believe in the separation of religion and state. They refused to be identified as an Islamic nation, because they aren't. The women are far more empowered than the average US Evangelical Christians. Most of the women don't wear hijab. It's only after the spread of Wahhabism things suddenly go downhill. Samyaza, thank you for weighting it. It's nice to get a little counter balance to Sam's imagination.
There is practically no secular government in any Muslim-majority country of the world. So, I would not expect the secular forces in any Muslim-majority country to be able to defeat the Islamic fanatics any time soon. Here is a news report where there is no Western incentive for Muslims to be Islamic fanatics. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39112840How do you know that? It seems your opinion on Muslims is simply based on the news you get from the media. There are some secular majority Muslim nations. While it's not what I would call western secularism where religion doesn't exist in the public space, the constitution is secular. A large part of the society believe in the separation of religion and state. They refused to be identified as an Islamic nation, because they aren't. The women are far more empowered than the average US Evangelical Christians. Most of the women don't wear hijab. It's only after the spread of Wahhabism things suddenly go downhill. Samyaza, thank you for weighting it. It's nice to get a little counter balance to Sam's imagination. My friends, I make my judgments mostly based upon news in the media such as Reuters and BBC, surveys done by organizations like the Pew Research Center, information found in the CIA World Factbooks, and my own personal experience; not upon imaginations. In this forum, I have pointed out that even Indonesia and Malaysia have laws to punish apostasy. The fact that they do not identify themselves as Islamic nations is not enough to call them anything like champions of human rights irrespective of religious affiliations or lack thereof. Samyaza, do you know for fact that Wahhabism is contrary to the Koran and Hadits, the books of Islam? Here is a link for a good translation of the Koran; and you might want to check it out for things that you heard about Islam, but did not actually know. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/ However, it really does not matter what the so-called holy books of religions contain; what really matters is what people do and accept being done, how much of the nonsense, injustice, hatred and atrocities in the religious books people actually believe in and practice.
In this forum, I have pointed out that even Indonesia and Malaysia have laws to punish apostasy. The fact that they do not identify themselves as Islamic nations is not enough to call them anything like champions of human rights irrespective of religious affiliations or lack thereof.While it's true they are not necessarily the champions of human right, but so do non Muslims nation such as China, Myanmar or the Philippines. The point is human right has never been a priority in Asia. And it's not true that Indonesia punishes apostates. There is blasphemy law. But freedom of religion is guarantee as long as it's among the 6 state approved religion. There are actually some ex-Muslim celebrities turn Christians and this is protected by the state. The thing about Indonesia is we actually have a civil religion that took form in a single state ideology. This ideology is held supreme including above the Islamist ideology, which is why the Islamists continuously try to discredit the nation ideology. This is actually a treason.
Samyaza, do you know for fact that Wahhabism is contrary to the Koran and Hadits, the books of Islam? Here is a link for a good translation of the Koran; and you might want to check it out for things that you heard about Islam, but did not actually know.Do you realize what this statement actually mean? This mean you are saying all these mess are not related to Islam, because non Muslims here have never have problem with the local traditionalist, nationalist, non Wahhabi Islam. In fact, we see the local traditionalist Muslims as the protector of diversity. The Wahhabis accused them of heresy, so that more and more Muslims would join their rank of radicals. They continued to discredit the secular government, trying to topple it and replace it with a Sharia government, which is why the traditionalist nationalists dislike them.
However, it really does not matter what the so-called holy books of religions contain; what really matters is what people do and accept being done, how much of the nonsense, injustice, hatred and atrocities in the religious books people actually believe in and practice.This I agree. But this is also the reason why I believe Islam is not a hopeless case, because a decade ago Islam here is not as shitty as it is today. It was due to the constant funding of Wahhabism that it turned shitty. Now the traditionalists and the wahhabis are fighting for control. Ideologically, the traditionalists nationalist are losing their ground, but they have the military... So, yeah... As long as nobody decides it's a good idea to arm the radical, I guess the government is in control.
You are right, Indonesia does not have anti-apostasy law. I should have said blasphemy as opposed to apostasy; Indonesia has anti-blasphemy law. The bottom line is that practically all Muslim-majority countries in the world have lawful preference for Islam; some talk respect for all religions, but in reality give preference to Islam.In this forum, I have pointed out that even Indonesia and Malaysia have laws to punish apostasy. The fact that they do not identify themselves as Islamic nations is not enough to call them anything like champions of human rights irrespective of religious affiliations or lack thereof.While it's true they are not necessarily the champions of human right, but so do non Muslims nation such as China, Myanmar or the Philippines. The point is human right has never been a priority in Asia. And it's not true that Indonesia punishes apostates. There is blasphemy law. But freedom of religion is guarantee as long as it's among the 6 state approved religion. There are actually some ex-Muslim celebrities turn Christians and this is protected by the state. The thing about Indonesia is we actually have a civil religion that took form in a single state ideology. This ideology is held supreme including above the Islamist ideology, which is why the Islamists continuously try to discredit the nation ideology. This is actually a treason.
Really, you had to ask the question that you asked above? My friend, you have mixed up Islam and Muslim here. There is no such thing as 'the local traditionalist, nationalist, non Wahhabi Islam'; there is such a thing as the local traditionalist, nationalist, non Wahhabi Muslim. The Koran is the principal book of Islam, anyone who follows the Koran strictly is surely Muslim by the book. Anyone who does not follow the Koran strictly is not a pure Muslim. Obviously, most Muslims are not Muslim by the book or pure Muslim. But, of course, all Muslims are humans; and all of them use some of their human intelligence and rationale over following the Koran, that is why, for example, most of them would not kill themselves for promoting/protecting Islam. The bottom line is that by looking at Muslims in different parts of the world, you cannot say that there are more than on kind of Islam; you surely can say that there are more than one kind of Muslims.Samyaza, do you know for fact that Wahhabism is contrary to the Koran and Hadits, the books of Islam? Here is a link for a good translation of the Koran; and you might want to check it out for things that you heard about Islam, but did not actually know.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39112840Do you realize what this statement actually mean? This mean you are saying all these mess are not related to Islam, because non Muslims here have never have problem with the local traditionalist, nationalist, non Wahhabi Islam. In fact, we see the local traditionalist Muslims as the protector of diversity. The Wahhabis accused them of heresy, so that more and more Muslims would join their rank of radicals. They continued to discredit the secular government, trying to topple it and replace it with a Sharia government, which is why the traditionalist nationalists dislike them.
If you agreed, you could say that Muslims are not a hopeless case, as opposed to 'Islam is not a hopeless case', if you observed that Muslims were increasingly using their human intelligence over following Islam.However, it really does not matter what the so-called holy books of religions contain; what really matters is what people do and accept being done, how much of the nonsense, injustice, hatred and atrocities in the religious books people actually believe in and practice.This I agree. But this is also the reason why I believe Islam is not a hopeless case, because a decade ago Islam here is not as shitty as it is today. It was due to the constant funding of Wahhabism that it turned shitty. Now the traditionalists and the wahhabis are fighting for control. Ideologically, the traditionalists nationalist are losing their ground, but they have the military... So, yeah... As long as nobody decides it's a good idea to arm the radical, I guess the government is in control.
If you agreed, you could say that Muslims are not a hopeless case, as opposed to 'Islam is not a hopeless case', if you observed that Muslims were increasingly using their human intelligence over following Islam.This is pretty much why I quit responding to you Suk. The basis for your arguments is that there is some "Islam" that is definable. Even though you constantly acknowledge that the culture has changed throughout time and is practiced differently in different parts of the world now, you insist there is some agreed upon version of Islam that is the one correct version. And you never really try to say what it is or how you know it's correct. You pick a point here or there, say that's it, then you move on. There is no such thing as "using their human intelligence OVER following Islam". There are just humans. Sometimes they act rationally, intelligently, sometimes they follow something without knowing why.
The basis for your arguments is that there is some "Islam" that is definable. Even though you constantly acknowledge that the culture has changed throughout time and is practiced differently in different parts of the world now,That's ridiculous arguing. Anything is definable. Islam is easily definable. Things that change through time and have local variations are definable. Are you saying Islam is not definable?
you insist there is some agreed upon version of Islam that is the one correct version. And you never really try to say what it is or how you know it's correct. You pick a point here or there, say that's it, then you move on.I follow Sam's posts pretty carefully and I have never read anything like that.
There is no such thing as "using their human intelligence OVER following Islam". There are just humans. Sometimes they act rationally, intelligently, sometimes they follow something without knowing why.That's pretty much true. But that doesn't mean there is a problem people can't address. Well, frankly people are addressing the problem more and more in a democratic fashion.
Are you saying Islam is not definable?It's not definable. Your turn. Define Islam.
I follow Sam's posts pretty carefully and I have never read anything like that.He does what I'm talking about in the post I responded to; "The Koran is the principal booK", despite the fact that very few could quote it accurately, despite that extremists say you have to read it in the original Arabic. He uses the words "pure Muslim", knowing there is debate about this. They don't even have a central authority like the Pope. There are two distinct sects and every Imam is a variation. I didn't say there isn't some definable problem or that it couldn't be addressed. I said it is not a good idea to address something by telling people what their beliefs are or telling them what they think, then telling them their thinking is wrong.
I didn't say there isn't some definable problem or that it couldn't be addressed. I said it is not a good idea to address something by telling people what their beliefs are or telling them what they think, then telling them their thinking is wrong.Would you hold that value if we were talking about racists? Let's say proponents of apartheid? What if you don't tell people what their beliefs are, but rather they tell you what their beliefs are? Can you then tell people if their thinking is right or wrong? And anyways how does one come to the conclusion that there is a definable problem? One that could be addressed. I know how people come to these conclusions, I just want to know how you say, "I didn't say there isn't some definable problem or that it couldn't be addressed."
The answers to your questions are fairly obvious. They support my point more than they do yours. Iām not sure what your point is, or if you have one. You just wanted to say Iām wrong. Having failed at that, you try blasting me with rhetoric.
The answers to your questions are fairly obvious. They support my point more than they do yours. I'm not sure what your point is, or if you have one. You just wanted to say I'm wrong. Having failed at that, you try blasting me with rhetoric.Your answers to my questions are not fairly obvious. You're evading the questions.(big surprise!) I'm trying to get to the bottom of your point and then show you that it's wrong. You realized that and have shut down the chain of inquiry.
They support my point more than they do yours. I'm not sure what your point is, or if you have one.This is contradictory. You're fumbling, like always.
I answered your question in post 11. Iāll discuss that if you respond to it. But you are opening up a bunch of questions that I donāt see as relevant. Iām not āevadingā, Iām flat out telling you Iām not going to engage in your interrogation.
No thatās fine.
I didnāt say there isnāt some definable problem or that it couldnāt be addressed.That's good enough. Like I said, the definable problem is already being addressed.
No that's fine.I liked the discussion between Lausten, VYAZMA and Citizenschallenge-v.3. Could you guys provide your names? I like the statement, āLike I said, the definable problem is already being addressed." the most. Of course, the definable problem is Islamic fanaticism. But let me clarify that Islam could not cause problems if people did not follow it. More fanatic following causes more misery.I didnāt say there isnāt some definable problem or that it couldnāt be addressed.That's good enough. Like I said, the definable problem is already being addressed.
Of course, the definable problem is Islamic fanaticism.Actually the definable problem is more broad than that. It also involves massive influxes of immigrants and refugees in these recent years. That was one of the main driving forces of the Brexit and the rise of nationalist populism in France, Holland, Eastern Europe and the US. So it is an issue. A Definable Problem, It is being played out democratically by the voices of citizens in many countries in the West and Eastern Europe....Poland, Hungary to name a couple. The influx of immigrants and refugees and the real threat of islamic terrorism are two separate things. Both equally relevant and important and politically connected for convenience. And a convenience that is not wholly unwarranted.
I went to this lecture recently. Basically her theme is, itās not an immigration problem, itās a foreign policy problem. ]
When you say āinfluxā, that means youāve defined some borders and made laws about who can cross them. This is not how humans have typically defined the world. It used to be perfectly normal for people to migrant to one area, farm, then return to their āhomeā when the season was over. Also, wars, famines and disasters frequently resulted in mass migrations. They werenāt āimmigrantsā, they were people forced to relocate. They were dealt with in a number of ways, not always in a just manner, but sometimes they were welcomed. These laws we have created to categorize people and declare them āillegalā and ārefugeesā are a recent creation, they are not laws of nature that must be followed.
What higher order of morality are you invoking when you use words like āinfluxes of immigrants.ā How is that a problem just by the nature of those definitions? Or is the problem something else?