The high price of telling the truth about islam

[hmelton]

You might find this interesting, just make sure you read the full article before reaching a conclusion.

http://frontpagemag.com/2...g-the-truth-about-islam/

hmelton

PS

For something funny check this link out.

http://thenextweb.com/sha...ually-illegal-to-remove/

I've often heard it said that the knee jerk reaction of most people saying "There otta be a law" just creates more problems than it solves and the above link seems to support that idea.

[nemonowan]

Poor guy, he got a little unhinged there at the end.
I mean, going from "An Islamic regime is incompatible with human rights" to "All muslims are terrorists" makes him look as grotesque as the anti-mosque activists at the beginnning.
I guess he got too close to the real conclusion and couldn't handle it, so he diverted himself into loonyness to avoid the horror.
The real conclusion  is "any religious regime is incompatible with human rights", whether it is islamic, hebraic, christian or pastafarian.
Look at those activists demanding that the constitution be suspended in the name of Christianity. Look at Israel where being non-jew makes you a second classs citizen. Look at the Vatican where pedophiles get aided and abetted.
And then get a good look at yourself and see where you really stand on this.

[Jinx999]

The following is my view on the subject and should be taken with a certain amount of salt.

A lot of American political alliances are fairly weird when looked at objectively (which is part of the reason why I regard labels such as left wing or right wing as effectively meaningless), and the aliance between Islam and certain groups in the American left is a particularily strong example. It's a fairly standard enemy of my enemy aliance, with the the odd proviso that the left wing groups regard political cynicism and deal making as part of what they're against, so have convinced themselves that the aliance is a matter of principle.

My view on all religions is that you get out what you put in. If you're a decent person, your religion will influence what forms your decency will take and if you're a bastard it'll influence the form of your bastardy. Disentangling Islam from Middle Eastern culture is insanely difficult and to determine to what extent either is compatible with what varoius people consider to be post enlightenment western liberalism is somewhat tricky. I'd say that Islam has had fewer of it's rough edges knocked off than Christianity, on average, but your guess is as good as mine as to what that's worth.

[CattyNebulart]

Part of the problem is that the politics, culture and religion are all intertwined, and the religion part is the least important of it.

In the Koran Christians and Jews are 'people of the book' and can get into the lowest level of heaven, while in the bible it is immoral to not kill those that worship another god. ("22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.")

Now both books are so full of contradictions that it doesn't really matter, but if it's what's written in the holy books that matters then Islam is far less bloodthirsty. Of course if you look at what atrocities the people that claim to be religious do then Islam suddenly looks a lot worse, but Christianity is far from blameless.

The big problem is that if Islam becomes a persecuted minority they will act like any other persecuted minority through history and become far more hard-core and will lash out out their oppressors.You actually need to break down those walls and integrate those people, which is difficult.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[ECSNorway]

Part of it is that Christianity is a much more mature religion than Islam. We've had our terrible two's, our tempestuous teenage years, our torrid affairs and steamy romances, and we're now moving into midlife-crisis territory.

Islam, on the other hand, is a teenager pouting and throwing temper tantrums when he doesn't get his way, constantly trying to break into daddy's booze cabinet and borrow his car.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Black Aeronaut]

In the Koran Christians and Jews are 'people of the book' and can get into the lowest level of heaven, while in the bible it is immoral to not kill those that worship another god. ("22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.")

Okay, now this is the problem that we're having here.
That is an misinterpretation that many people are only too happy to take as license to do 'God's Work'.  But in this, they're not only wrong in the eyes of man, but they're wrong in the eyes of God as well.
Now, I can't claim to have read and understand the Koran, but my understanding of the Bible is a bit better.  (Besides, IIRC, a lot of the fundamentals are all but interchangeable.)  This is how the interpretation should go.  First of all, notice how it never really says exactly who does the destroying.  It's not saying that you're to go out and 'take care of it' in the Chicago Mobster sense.  It's saying to mind yourself and leave the others to God's judgement.
Look to the Old Testament and see exactly what happened with people that turned away from God.

• When Noah and his family was all there was left of virtuous people, God flooded the Earth and saved them.  Noah didn't kill anyone.
• When Nimrod felt that he was like unto God, built the Tower of Babel, and then shot the arrow into the heavens, it was God that confounded the language and scattered the people.
• When the people of Sodom and Gomorrah became vile even by our reckoning, it was God that leveled the two cities, saving only Lot and his family.

Now, I know that, for the most part, the Koran and the Bible pretty much agree on the accounts of Noah's Arc and Sodom and Gomorrah with only a few variations between them.  Which means that there's precedence in the Koran as well for Allah - let him deal with unbelievers as he wishes.
There are few and rare occasions where man is fully authorized to slay other men in the Bible and the Koran, and usually it is in self defense of the virtuous against some aggressor, like what happened with Abraham's people.  (Forget the name of the people that came and took a good number of his people prisoner, but Abraham came and absolutely annihilated them in return and freed his people.)
Of course, I could be wrong here.  Counterpoints?

---

As for issues with Islam taking over entire countries and instituting Sharia Law...
I gotta ask.  Does anyone here feel that the majority of followers of Islam believe that Sharia Law should be the law of the land?  I don't think so myself.  Personally, I think that the folks that feel Sharia Law is a Good Thing are a very vocal minority.  (Even if they are a minority by a small margin.)  The problem I think Islam has in the Middle East is that they too readily put the Church and the State together.  And then the minority, being the gung-ho extremists they are, take control and institute their brutal ways throughout the government.  (Shudder.  Mental imagery of Church being like that guy from Deliverance towards State: "You shur have a purty mowth."  But that's pretty much what happens.)  And the Majority don't even move to do anything because as far as they're concerned (at first, anyways) these people are okay - they read the Koran, they believe in Allah, they're certainly not infidels.  Sure, let them take charge.
And then everything goes to hell as the state grows brutal and isolationist and starts to think that the entire world is out to get them.  (Except they we are.  Heh-heh-heh.)
So, yeah.  I don't think Sharia Law is gonna be instituted anytime soon around here.  The Constitution wouldn't allow for it, and if some ass-clown does somehow achieve that goal... well, there's a reason why individual States are allowed their own militias.
As for charities and their associated watchdog groups... Yeah, good idea to check up on the paper trail and exactly who they give their money to.  And if you feel the need to cry 'Wolf' make sure you got a verifiable paper trail so they just can't call you crazy without looking crazy themselves.

[Werehawk]

Blackareonaut:
On the charities front I'd suggest also watching where and from who they get money from particularly when it's coming from outside the U.S. some of the sources of funding for some of the charities can be a nasty surprise. In fact one issue with Islam is there is no institutional system in place to prevent the nutcases from becoming clerics (Mullah/Imam). Any Muslim can become a cleric if they study to do so and are then recognized by another cleric as being one. I agree with you that in most western countries an islamic takeover is unlikely and nor are most western Muslims likely to wish to institutionalize Sharia (the same can't be said for some of their clerics). But the situation in many Islamic countries isn't to reassuring where there has been a trend for Islamic parties taking over and wholesale forcing a dominant role for Sharia law at the expense of secular law.
One nasty aspect of Sharia is its in built biases against women and those of other faiths most of whom to me look as pretty much well set up to drive those of other faiths in a Islamic country to convert. See how the testimony of Muslim versus that of a Christian are weighted in a court case there is a specific mathematical formula for that purpose. I'd suggest doing some checking for yourself on the translated versions of the Koran yes some of the fundamentals are very similar to those in the old testament but when you get down to the nuts and bolts the differences can be pretty jarring particularly in how the Koran treats those of other faiths as well as the punishments prescribed for certain crimes. As well as the differences between how certain crimes are punished if offender is a female and or if a male. Also look at what the age of consent in Islamic law is...
--Werehawk--
My mom's brief take on upcoming Guatemalan Elections "In last throes of preelection activities. Much loudspeaker vote pleading."

[Black Aeronaut]

Eh, I just see it as the Kohran never getting out of its 'Old Testament' phase like the Bible eventually did. Fire and brimstone and all. (Hell, I think all the Koran's references to the bible are Old Testament.) Anyhow, YMMV. It's why I have so much hope for Moderate Muslims - fundamentalism should never be taken to extremes.

[Acyl]

Personally, what jumped out for me in the linked article was the argument that the author opposes "anything which I perceive to be in violation of human rights". Now, I'm all for human rights...but human rights have to be based on something. Historically, justifications often harken back to religion.

There have been plenty of contemporary attempts to find a fully secular and humanistic basis for human rights. Richard Rorty makes a particularly interesting case for this. But personally, I find these arguments...really really iffy. And if your conception of rights and values isn't absolute, then it's just relative. And if it's relative, how can you justify condemning someone else?

Hence the liberal dilemma. You can't condemn. 

Having said that, obviously, obviously it isn't right to tar all Islamic politics with the same brush. For instance, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is not a political party. It is a movement that various nominally secular political parties are aligned to. A technicality, yes, but a critical one. The Muslim Brotherhood hasn't hijacked a liberal revolution - they were the leading opposition group to begin with. At least in Egypt, an argument can be made that the Arab Spring was a revolution of the educated elite - students, netizens, young professionals and the like. These folks never really represented the majority in the first place.

I mean, yes, most of the outside world would much rather Egypt's new parliament be run by liberal parties rather than the Muslim Brotherhood aligned ones, but really, that's their business. It's democracy.
-- Acyl

[Black Aeronaut]

Personally, I could care less what religion someone ascribes themselves to be. What I do care about is what they do with their power.

And the absolute worse thing, I believe, is to use religion of any form as an excuse for murder, thievery, and raping. There is very little justification for the first, and none at all for the last two.

Do I judge Islam by itself? Not really. I can find fault and favor with it. I judge only the person him/herself.

[Thesilentjackofalltrade]

I personally agree with this writer on several things, disagreeing on many others.

I agree that anything, even religion, that violates human rights of the innocent is wrong, and should be dealt with accordingly based off of what they did.

(tyrants killing their own people unjustly should die, and child abusers should at minimum be forced to stay away from children and be watched by police.

Innocent being those that are not and have not abused human rights, or people.

But this ideal his naive, because there are just too many people who gladly abuse human rights. This has been shown in history.

A lot of slavers in the pre civil war era would justify they actions by saying that them kidnapping the native Africans to sell in America was a good thing because they received 'true religion' aka, mistranslated (Over hundreds of years) and misinterpreted (due to bigotry and the mistranslation) sections of the bible that they agreed with.
_____________
Veni, vidi, vici. [I came, I saw, I conquered
Quote from Julius Caesar

[Jinx999]

What struck me most about the American slave trade was the extent the slave owners went looking for justifications and excuses. Religion, Culture, Science, History, nothing was left unmangled in their quest for reasons.
While the Romans? It was because they could. No excuses necessary.

[Bob Schroeck]

What struck me most about the American slave trade was the extent the slave owners went looking for justifications and excuses. Religion, Culture, Science, History, nothing was left unmangled in their quest for reasons.
While the Romans? It was because they could. No excuses necessary.

Well, the reason for that is simple.  The Romans thought it was right.  The Americans knew it was wrong but didn't want to stop.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[CattyNebulart]

Several Roman intellectuals though it was wrong, and it destabilised their entire economy, mostly due to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, always a recipe for unrest. Also in Roman times a human life was worth less, because there was less of an investment in education and because life was brutish and short for most people. Also it is not that long ago that being a miner was essentially a death sentence, and it is still a very risky business.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Rod.H]

I thought the real thing here was that he'd actually come across evidence of something else -which I currently can't articulate properly-, but kept focused on the extremist fundamentalist Islam factor to probably his detriment.