''Islam is a religion of peace'' (debate)

Turtwig

deravarra wrote: »

Nit picking....

PFO

Nit picking?

It's a genuine question, what defines what is and what isn't sacred?

deravarra

Malty_T wrote: »

Nit picking?

It's a genuine question, what defines what is and what isn't sacred?

It's individual to each person. Something which is logical, not facetious, has historical context/tradition.

I value my private and personal space as sacred to me. Logical. Not facetious. And it has historical context - in that others have also shared the same value before me.

Improbable

deravarra wrote: »

It's individual to each person. Something which is logical, not facetious, has historical context/tradition.

I value my private and personal space as sacred to me. Logical. Not facetious. And it has historical context - in that others have also shared the same value before me.

You can't say "It's individual to each person" and then say "Others have shared the same value before me". They're just completely contradictory. Feel free to stop falling over your own arguments anytime you want.

Dades

deravarra, I'm getting sick of reading your posts littered with throwaway insults. The fact that you still posting is testament to the tippy-toeing that people have to do around some religious for fear of giving them an excuse to shout "oppression!"

You clearly will claim some moral high ground, but if you don't quit personalizing your posts you're going to be deservedly ejected, and your posts will stand in evidence to any objective reader of this thread.

deravarra

Improbable wrote: »

You can't say "It's individual to each person" and then say "Others have shared the same value before me". They're just completely contradictory.

FFS - yes you can.

Not everyone will hold sacred a private place, correct? Not everyone will value it as much as others. But there is historical context for that private place to be seen as sacred, as others have done so in the past.

Improbable wrote: »

Feel free to stop falling over your own arguments anytime you want.

feel free not to be stupid anytime you want

deravarra

Dades wrote: »

deravarra, I'm getting sick of reading your posts littered with throwaway insults. The fact that you still posting is testament to the tippy-toeing that people have to do around some religious for fear of giving them an excuse to shout "oppression!"

You clearly will claim some moral high ground, but if you don't quit personalizing your posts you're going to be deservedly ejected, and your posts will stand in evidence to any objective reader of this thread.

And the huge amount of accusations that have come my way are ok?

Oh - and thanks for the reply to my message last night.... the one i never got!

Improbable

deravarra wrote: »

FFS - yes you can.

Not everyone will hold sacred a private place, correct? Not everyone will value it as much as others. But there is historical context for that private place to be seen as sacred, as others have done so in the past.

You're using sacred in an inapproriate context for the purposes of this discussion for a start. Sacred with regards to this discussion necessarily has to involve the component that it be somewhat religious in nature as opposed to what may be perceived as human rights or dignities.

deravarra

Improbable wrote: »

You're using sacred in an inapproriate context for the purposes of this discussion for a start. Sacred with regards to this discussion necessarily has to involve the component that it be somewhat religious in nature as opposed to what may be perceived as human rights or dignities.

Not neccessarily. Sacred is not always deemed to be religious. Can be used in this context.

Improbable

deravarra wrote: »

Not neccessarily. Sacred is not always deemed to be religious. Can be used in this context.

Not in the context of a thread about islam it can't. Not without giving the appearance that it's being dragged into a different realm that applies to everyone rather than the believers of a particular faith so that you can once again play all sides of the field and then once the argument is concluded, try to shoehorn in the religious aspect of it which would make it seem like you won except for the fact that the core issue, the sacred status of religion and the supposed restriction we should face when criticising it was never discussed.

Dades

deravarra wrote: »

And the huge amount of accusations that have come my way are ok?

You are far and away the biggest offender in this thread.

deravarra wrote: »

Oh - and thanks for the reply to my message last night.... the one i never got!

Following your PM I responded in this thread last night, and since then you are the only one throwing insults about.

This isn't a discussion.

deravarra

Dades wrote: »

You are far and away the biggest offender in this thread.

Following your PM I responded in this thread last night, and since then you are the only one throwing insults about.

This isn't a discussion.

let's take this private - i have a number of things i want to say

deravarra

Improbable wrote: »

Not in the context of a thread about islam it can't. Not without giving the appearance that it's being dragged into a different realm that applies to everyone rather than the believers of a particular faith so that you can once again play all sides of the field and then once the argument is concluded, try to shoehorn in the religious aspect of it which would make it seem like you won except for the fact that the core issue, the sacred status of religion and the supposed restriction we should face when criticising it was never discussed.

keep up with the flow of the discussion, and see it in the context in which it was given. It was acceptable until you made it unacceptable, about 20 postings after i used the word "sacred"...

Improbable

Let's take a look at the context then:

deravarra wrote: »

dlofnep wrote: »

Deravarra - do you condemn all Islamic nations that punish blasphemy? Do you believe that anyone has the right to insult Allah and Muhammad if they so desire, without reprisal?

Would I stand up for their right to be as beligerent and demeaning to the sensitivities of those who hold those places sacred and dear to them? Absolutely not! Would they deserve whatever action would befall them should they choose to express their "right" to insult? a big YES from me.

So yes, the context is quite CLEARLY about religion, and specifically about islam.

deravarra

Improbable wrote: »

Let's take a look at the context then:



So yes, the context is quite CLEARLY about religion, and specifically about islam.

Totally different context - we were talking about the context in which I used the word sacred.

Sarky

deravarra wrote: »

Not at all. I do not condone violence, but if you wanna play with fire you are gonna get burnt. simples. need a diagram?

Well if you think you can draw a diagram that demonstrates how you can be totally against violence but still claim it's deserved in certain cases without any cognitive dissonance, by all means please do. I love diagrams.

I think the issue most people have is that in a couple of posts you claim you have no problem with people getting a beating if they insult something that other people take very personally. It's right there on the last couple of pages. And in another couple of posts, you say you believe nothing should beget violence. It does look awfully like you're either not totally against violence, or you're not totally for free speech, or you're not totally sure what you believe yourself. And that's why people are asking for clarification.

And it really would help matters if you just openly condemned violence. It may seem that way to you, but not condoning something isn't the same as opposing it. If you're disgusted by people who use religion to justify their horrible acts, you really should just openly condemn them. I suspect that's a major factor in why people still do horrible things in the name of one god or another. Too many people just not condoning their actions, instead of being disgusted at them and calling them out on it.

Improbable

deravarra wrote: »

Totally different context - we were talking about the context in which I used the word sacred.

Yes, and I've realised that it is not the appropriate context for the argument when you use it in an argument for "personal space". I believe Malty (Not to put words in his mouth) meant what makes something sacred in the religious sense as opposed to something being an important human right.

Turtwig

deravarra wrote: »

It's individual to each person. Something which is logical, not facetious, has historical context/tradition.

I value my private and personal space as sacred to me. Logical. Not facetious. And it has historical context - in that others have also shared the same value before me.

Others once shared the value that the Earth was the centre of the universe and everything else rotated around it. You could argue that to some that was a sacred value, indeed, many got persecuted for proposing ideas that went contrary to those values. Although this is just an anecdote, the point I'm trying to illustrate is that your vague description of sacredness as being "personal" to the individual is a slippery slope. If the inferiority of Jews was sacred to a person's beliefs and that person was deeply offended by another person challenging his beliefs on Jews who would actually deserve what's coming to them in such a scenario?

Fromthetrees

Quran specifically describes three types of punishment for apostates via these verses;
“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;” [Surah Al-Maidah 5:33]."
Iran – illegal (death penalty)
Egypt – illegal (death penalty)
Pakistan – illegal (death penalty since 2007)
United Arab Emirates – illegal (death penalty)
Somalia – illegal (death penalty)
Afghanistan – illegal (death penalty, although the U.S. and other coalition members have put pressure that has prevented recent executions
Saudi Arabia – illegal (death penalty, although there have been no recently reported executions)
Sudan – illegal (death penalty, although there have only been recent reports of torture, and not of execution
Qatar – illegal (death penalty)
Yemen – illegal (death penalty)
Malaysia – illegal in five of 13 states (fine, imprisonment, and flogging)
Mauritania – illegal (death penalty)
Nigeria – illegal in twelve of 37 states (death penalty)
Syria – possibly illegal (death penalty) although there is evidence to the contrary

Galvasean

deravarra wrote: »

Totally different context - we were talking about the context in which I used the word sacred.

Forgive the off topic post, but I do love that word...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

kylith

deravarra wrote: »

Saying "words" ... depends on what those words are.

...

Like a criminal... before conviction, he/she would have a freedom of movement. After incarceration, they wouldnt. Because they have, by their actions, forfeited that right.

Criminals have their freedom of movement curtailed because of their actions, but because of their words. No-one is banned from travelling to the US for saying "I should be allowed to kill people who annoy me". To equate criminal acts with freedom of speech is to say that a person's right to express themselves is, in itself, a criminal act.

Incidentally; checking out this list of commonly recognised human rights, there is no 'right to freedom of movement' as you mean it. Freedom of movement refers to an individual's right to travel to any part of the state they they live in that they wish to (i.e. I have the right to travel to Cavan and look for work there). The only people who claim that the right to freedom of movement includes international movement are immigrant's rights activists.

What are commonly recognised human rights, however, are Freedom of Speech and the right to live without fear of violence. Violence which you, apparently condemn (you said that you think nothing should beget violence), but which it is on record that you said you don't condemn*. Which is confusing.

*your repeated statement that people who are assaulted because something they say offends others gets what they deserve.

Dades

Freedom of speech has inadvertently been labelled on this thread as the right to insult someone's religion. For the most part people really just want to comment on, or at worst criticise something in religion they see as bad. You can understand anger at having something precious to you insulted, but nothing in life should be above comment or criticism, and that the two are often conflated is a problem.

kylith

Dades wrote: »

Freedom of speech on this thread has inadvertently been labelled on this thread as the right to insult someone's religion. For the most part people really just want to comment on, or at worst criticise something in religion they see as bad. You can understand anger at having something precious to you insulted, but nothing in life should be above comment or criticism, and that the two are often conflated is a problem.

Unfortunately some people people see criticism as insulting.

dead one

kylith wrote: »

Unfortunately some people people see criticism as insulting.

Unfortunately some people people see racism as criticism ---- The prime victim of this treatment are christians, Muslims and those who aren't atheists/agnostics

Improbable

dead one wrote: »

Unfortunately some people people see racism as criticism ---- The prime victim of this treatment are christians, Muslims and those who aren't atheists/agnostics

So your statement is that all atheists are racist?

dead one

Improbable wrote: »

So your statement is that all atheists are racist?

no, is this how you understand?--- some people ? doesn't mean-- all atheists are racist!!!

Manic Moran

BTW: Islam=Selm=Peace ( I once thought islam doesn't mean peace and i was wrong ),

Two quotes from Yes Minister come to mind.

"In any document, get rid of the difficult bit in the title"

"Like any Democratic Republic, it's a communist dictatorship"

NTM

Wibbs

dead one wrote: »

Unfortunately some people people see racism as criticism ---- The prime victim of this treatment are christians, Muslims and those who aren't atheists/agnostics

Oh I agree that some people some atheists/agnostics do go overboard. Often to a degree uncomfortably akin to some religious people. The "I'm right you're wrong deluded, stupid etc" defence. A position I take issue with regardless of who is pushing it.

On the racism front I disagree. Muslim, Christian etc is not a "race". There are all colours and cultures underneath those titles. Racism is too lazy an answer. Culturalism? Maybe. Yea I'd agree somewhat with that. Personally I'd have no great problem admitting I'm a culturist. I do believe some cultures, certainly some aspects of some cultures are inferior to others. I'd include aspects of my own culture in that BTW. We would be a lot closer to agreement in opinion on some aspects of western culture. IE rampant consumerism, dubious portrayal of women to name but two. This culturism of mine anyway is also contextual in time. So I'd rather have lived under Muslim rule in Al Andalus at times than in the Christian parts of Europe. I'd rather have lived in Arab lands 1000 of years ago when they were busy building roads, science, astronomy, writing, literature, law etc.

Manic Moran wrote:

BTW: Islam=Selm=Peace ( I once thought islam doesn't mean peace and i was wrong ),

Two quotes from Yes Minister come to mind.

"In any document, get rid of the difficult bit in the title"

"Like any Democratic Republic, it's a communist dictatorship"

Well it means peace but not quite the western notion of it. It's root means submission, surrender, peace, submission to the will of Allah and as a secondary thing the submission to Islamic values and rules if one is not submitting to Allah in their terms of reference. http://www.islamicfinder.org/faq/list.php#9 It's a different view of peace. It's an active one, not the turn the other cheek/if someone wants to take your shirt given him your jacket too passive Jesus thing. On that point, though Jesus came out with that and according to the writings of his followers lived by that, Christians as a group rarely have. Self described Christians have probably killed more people in history than Muslims ever have. Their founder specifically told his own disciples to chill the fcuk out and put away their swords, even when they were defending him, yet no such sentiment is common in the history of nearly all of the christian churches. Bit of a disconnect there. I suppose in one way Islam is just more practical and indeed honest about it from the get go.

Wibbs

Improbable wrote:

So your statement is that all atheists are racist?

Ahh now I, to be fair to the chap he did say some people/atheists. Maybe I've missed it, but I've yet to see dead one say "all" in relation to those who may not agree with him.

SamHarris

dead one wrote: »

Unfortunately some people people see racism as criticism ---- The prime victim of this treatment are christians, Muslims and those who aren't atheists/agnostics

Christians and Muslims are a race now? No they are ideas - ideas with real consequences for those who believe them and those who do not. This makes them completly fair game for criticism, denounciation and even insults.

It is NOT in any way close to judging someone because of their biology. Trying to lump them into the same camp has been attmpted for the last 10 years by those that dont want any observations made on the nature of Islam. Luckily it did not and will never stick.

Brown Bomber

SamHarris wrote: »

Christians and Muslims are a race now? No they are ideas - ideas with real consequences for those who believe them and those who do not. This makes them completly fair game for criticism, denounciation and even insults.

It is NOT in any way close to judging someone because of their biology. Trying to lump them into the same camp has been attmpted for the last 10 years by those that dont want any observations made on the nature of Islam. Luckily it did not and will never stick.

Could you give an example of someone who is an Islamophobe in your opinion and then someone who is a fair critic of Islam?

And then briefly explain why they are different in your opinion?