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

Brown Bomber

Galvasean wrote: »

Hardly sexy though is it....

You've obviously never had a real ego massage with a happy ending.

Brown Bomber

SamHarris wrote: »

Hug. I agree, I hope people noticed I tried my best to depersonlise it, one of the nicest women I know happens to be Muslim (Bangledeshi), if I were to meet someone who was Muslim I would not judge that individual at all on that basis, rather on their own merits.

However in generalising (as generalise one must when speaking about such alrge population) it is clear to me that Islam very often (certainly not all or even most) of the time can be used to justify almost anything. True of nearly every religion you might say, and that is the case, however violence and repression of women is vastly more common when one is dealing with Islam.

Note I never took a shot at why this is the case, whether it the teaching or whatever, because I dont really know. What I do know is it is pretty prevailant over ethnic, political, cultural and soiciologocial lines. The common denominator is Islam and thats will not be dealt with by dismissing all critcism as "islamophobia" or "rasicsm", I am merely commenting on what is a self evident fact.

Some sects, however, are far more conduicive than others (Suffi rarely leads to it, Wahabism almost all the time does) - this does seem to indicate that Islam is the issue, but very particular branches of it.

I don't want to go down the road of good Muslim vs bad Muslim though I think it's positive that you acknowledge that there are various sects in Islam and amongst these sects numerous schools of thought.

I do think it's fair to say IMO that there are negative aspects of Islam certainly but the way I see it is that the threat is exaggerated, the extremists are given an undeserving spotlight like Islam4UK, the Daily Star reporter explaining how he was pressured into contacting Islam4UK's Anjem Choudary to get extemist Islamist soundbites. This is a man who has virtually no support at all from the Muslim community; counter-marches by Muslims to his marches gather far more participants than he could ever dream of yet he is all over mainstream TV, even been on FOX news. Personally, I think he is a fraud. Does this look like an a fundamentalist, militant Muslim to you?




That's a joint in his mouth.



Somehow ending up as this guy



A similar example in the US is Al-Khattab of Revolution Muslim. They've also had serious press exposure (again primarily on FOX, but across the board). They were three blokes with a website who said scary Muslim things. They were not representative of Muslims by a long, long way.

He has a had a strange past too. Going from -

This


To this


Now, you say there is no such thing as an Islamaphobe - I disagree - regardless, you say that the majority of Muslims are enablers for these most extreme cases, themselves a sizeable minority. If what you say is true then I'd quite happily agree with you. I have no loyalty to Islam. I don't see you as a bigot, honest, just misguided by propoganda but I'd be quite happy to be shown to be wrong, all I am interested in is the reality, and my basic reading of the subject tells me that the opposite is true and in fact Muslims are by far victims of intolerance than vice versa.

Galvasean

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You've obviously never had a real ego massage with a happy ending.

:cool:

Wibbs

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Personally, I think he is a fraud. Does this look like an a fundamentalist, militant Muslim to you?.../...He has a had a strange past too. Going from - to this

Eh how is this indicative of anything? For a start there are a few years in the middle between the boozing it up pics and the "I follow God" ones. The second guy was already an extreme god botherer so it's not so unusual that when one flavour doesn't suit he jumps in wholeheartedly into another. It's remarkably common to have very religious types come from an originally secular even extreme secular background. They tend to be extreme thinking people anyway so go from one extreme to the other after they "find God". It's a theological and historical theme that runs through Christianity too. Redemption and all that. It's almost a cliche, no Daily Mail/Fox conspiracy required. So those pics prove nothing unless you actually do want to go down the conspiracy route.

Standman

Also I'd point out that any bias in the media is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Islam is a religion of peace.

Brown Bomber

Standman wrote: »

Also I'd point out that any bias in the media is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Islam is a religion of peace.

Ideally yes. However, it is relevant if it is framing the debate. Let's go back to the definition of an Islamaphobe.

Islamaphobia” may be defined as the unreasonable fear and heightened anxiety one experiences when in the company of a Muslim or someone from a middle-east nation. The fear or anxiety one experiences when near Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslims, arises in some people through a combination of psychological and social factors. Phobias of every type are thought to be the product of both inner conflicts that may have little or nothing to do with the actual precipitating stressor (also known as the phobic stimulus), and elements in the environment that the individual has associated with some type of risk (Barker, 2003)
...
This phobia is another form of discrimination and correlated with the person’s experiences with the stimulus object. These experiences may be direct or, more often, are subliminal. That is the individual may have heard about, read about, dreamed about or otherwise learned about some risk that has been associated with the stimulus object. Then ones anxieties become transferred onto that object, which is then to be avoided.

Many phobias develop and are sustained due to a type of “self-fulfilling prophecy.” If one comes to believe that some bad consequence will occur if confronted by a certain phobic stimulus
...
In many people the effect intensifies until it emerges as a full-blown phobia. Thereafter the individual comes to expect negative consequences from encounters with the phobic stimulus and is more alert to anything that reaffirms that view. Thus, if an individual is told that many Muslims want to cause harm to non-Muslims, then the person might become more vigilant about Muslims
http://www.academicjournals.org/ijpd...nd_illustrated

Especially this part:

This phobia is another form of discrimination and correlated with the person’s experiences with the stimulus object. These experiences may be direct or, more often, are subliminal. That is the individual may have heard about, read about, dreamed about or otherwise learned about some risk that has been associated with the stimulus object. Then ones anxieties become transferred onto that object, which is then to be avoided.

If media bias, fabrications and deception is creating masses of Islamophobes then from that perspective a reasonable debate is unrealistic.

I'll give an example from yesterday's press. The lead story in the daily Express was "UK Immigration levels up 20%!" If your an Islamohpobe like Anders Breivik this gives support to your Islamification on the West theories. I checked the official statistics it was NET Immigration that was up 20%. The reality was that immigration levels were only up 1. something %

Galvasean

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh how is this indicative of anything? For a start there are a few years in the middle between the boozing it up pics and the "I follow God" ones. The second guy was already an extreme god botherer so it's not so unusual that when one flavour doesn't suit he jumps in wholeheartedly into another. It's remarkably common to have very religious types come from an originally secular even extreme secular background. They tend to be extreme thinking people anyway so go from one extreme to the other after they "find God". It's a theological and historical theme that runs through Christianity too. Redemption and all that. It's almost a cliche, no Daily Mail/Fox conspiracy required. So those pics prove nothing unless you actually do want to go down the conspiracy route.

I used to be a Catholic. Doesn't mean my atheistically inclined postings on boards are indicative of a mass conspiracy to make me appear to be more Godless.

Standman

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ideally yes. However, it is relevant if it is framing the debate. Let's go back to the definition of an Islamaphobe.



Especially this part:

This phobia is another form of discrimination and correlated with the person’s experiences with the stimulus object. These experiences may be direct or, more often, are subliminal. That is the individual may have heard about, read about, dreamed about or otherwise learned about some risk that has been associated with the stimulus object. Then ones anxieties become transferred onto that object, which is then to be avoided.

If media bias, fabrications and deception is creating masses of Islamophobes then from that perspective a reasonable debate is unrealistic.

I'll give an example from yesterday's press. The lead story in the daily Express was "UK Immigration levels up 20%!" If your an Islamohpobe like Anders Breivik this gives support to your Islamification on the West theories. I checked the official statistics it was NET Immigration that was up 20%. The reality was that immigration levels were only up 1. something %

Well you do bring it up a lot, however I'm not sure that it is framing this specific debate.

Brown Bomber

Galvasean wrote: »

I used to be a Catholic. Doesn't mean my atheistically inclined postings on boards are indicative of a mass conspiracy to make me appear to be more Godless.

Right, but has your morals/personality/lifestyle changed drastically in the changeover?

muppeteer

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'll give an example from yesterday's press. The lead story in the daily Express was "UK Immigration levels up 20%!" If your an Islamohpobe like Anders Breivik this gives support to your Islamification on the West theories.

And for a racist it will give support to their dilution of white UK theories and for a nationalist it gives support to their "they tuk our jerbs" theory. If a daily rag publishes any statistic at all it can give support to any number of crackpot theories.

Brown Bomber

Standman wrote: »

Well you do bring it up a lot, however I'm not sure that it is framing this specific debate.

I am very sure. Look what was presented from the media as evidence on this thread alone so far.
(not that I am suggesting that the people who posted them did so in anything but good faith or are Islamophobes)

(paraphrasing)

a) Crazed Muslims stone Muslim teenage beauty queen in Sharia killing.

Reality: A Christian youth is killed, not by stoning, by her mentally ill schoolmate in the woods in the Caucus region.

b) Muslims commit all the rapes in Oslo, Norway in 2010!

Reality: Norwegians commited the most rapes in Oslo in 2010.

c) Indonesian Sharia police seperate married women who warns them that the Quran says the should have their heads chopped off.

Reality: The two are fraudently married under the rules of the whole of Indonesia which bans same-sex marriage. They are forcefully seperated but are released unharmed after three days of questioning.

It was not Sharia police who made the claim about heads being chopped off. It was the civil police administration SATPOL.

If the debate is if the media generated Muslim caricature is wholly representative of Islam is this religion then a religion of peace?

It would be a resounding no, no doubt about it. But what good is it to buy into the stereotype? It's not representative. Anjem Choudary, for example has less followers than the flat-earth theory.

What balanced conclusion can you hope to achieve by only focusing the negative aspects of something...? Or worse still, to think you have a rounded view when only aware of the negative aspects.

Make no mistake, I'm quite ignorant when it comes to Shariah law and am certainly no advocate currently but this is just an example. Everyone knows about the MAXIMUM punishment for theft in some Islamic courts - a hand chopped off, but how many people know that a ruling of the Shariah court can be that the thief is released, given charity, aid a job even in the community if he can show that he was thieving only out of desperation due to his circumstances?

That's not to say I think in this case the good somehow levels out the bad but it's important to have all the information to make a balanced judgement. That is extemely difficult at present.

Wibbs

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, but has your morals/personality/lifestyle changed drastically in the changeover?

Red herring again. Clearly the morals and lifestyle has changed radically in the first guy you gave as an example. From boozed up youth to radical Islamic Imam. One couldn't find a better example of the redemptive power of faith and all that. Proper little Augustine he is. Though that muppet caused far more damage than this Choudary guy ever will. The second guy was likely just as OTT in his previous incarnation, but changed the religious focus of it. Your post and pics prove nothing and are just as mis directional as much of the media you seek to rightfully chastise.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

(paraphrasing)

a) Crazed Muslims stone Muslim teenage beauty queen in Sharia killing.

Reality: A Christian youth is killed, not by stoning, by her mentally ill schoolmate in the woods in the Caucus region.

And I'll see your example and raise you these; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning#Usage_today

Afghanistan; A Taliban-ordered public stoning of a couple accused of adultery took place in Kunduz on August 15, 2010

Indonesia; In 2009, a law was introduced in Aceh that called for the stoning of married adulterers[24] but no cases of the sentence having been carried out have yet been reported.

Iraq;In 2007, Du'a Khalil Aswad, a Yezidi girl, was stoned by her fellow tribesmen in northern Iraq.

Iran; Its officially off the books in Iran which is a good thing, however their record of stringing people up with cranes is hardly a good one(and yes I think some US states are just as morally bankrupt).

Read the rest. It varies.

b) Muslims commit all the rapes in Oslo, Norway in 2010!

Reality: Norwegians commited the most rapes in Oslo in 2010.

Again doing what you call others on. Making a statement as fact while ignoring issues with that "fact". I called you on these stats of and your again misdirection in your description of the Muslim perps actions as assault, not sexual assault. To save you and others searching I'll paste it here;

OK lets look at those statistics;

The title of the table is "Types of rape reported to the Oslo Police District 2010 with identified suspects / accused, by the perpetrator's country of origin. By percent." So your contention that Overfall is general assault is incorrect. It's clearly assault of a sexual nature in this context(and they make this clear in the text) so we can dismiss that explanation, or otherwise it's not just Fox news that is distorting the stats.

A couple of things; One Oslo has the highest Muslim population in Norway. Two, they come from different cultural/ethnic backgrounds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Norway#Population broadly 30,000 from Pakistan, 28,000 from Somalia, 22,000 from Iraq, 15,000 each from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iran and Turkey.

The stats for assault/rape/prosecutable sexual events breakdown thus;

Africans; 30%
Americans; 3%
Asians; 22%
Europeans; 21%
Middle Easterners; 23%
Norwegians; 53%

OK Middle Eastern peoples are most likely Muslim. Africans are most likely to be Somalians and Asians it could go either way depending on the defintions. European ditto considering the Bosnians. Either way the African and Middle eastern group combined make up the same percentage as the Norwegian. Yet they're the overall minority in Oslo. If you add in even a small percentage of the Asian/Europe groups that percentage goes up again.

What also comes out in the stat are the different circumstances were the assaults take place. Incest/Relasjon assault is low in Africans, but high in Arabs and Norwegians. Sexual assault/Overfall is highest of all in Arabs. IE "stranger rape".

In any event your contention that it's "Mostly carried out by people of NORWEGIAN descent" is hardly accurate. Dubly so when you break down the numbers of each group represented. The stats do show that party rape(date rape) where the victim is known to their attacker is highest among Norwegians, however the "classic" type stranger rape is highest among Muslim men as the text says Perpetrators of the Middle East, which is strongly present among the identified perpetrators behind the attack rapes, are underrepresented in this party-related rape type. Basically you're in more danger from a Norwegian man you may know in a "party" situation, but in more danger from a Muslim background man thinking a non Muslim woman is fair game walking down the street. GIven the latter is a minority that skews it even further.

I'd add in the "Asian" men in the UK, both singular and in quasi organised groups preying on non Muslim women in the community.

c) Indonesian Sharia police seperate married women who warns them that the Quran says the should have their heads chopped off.

Reality: The two are fraudently married under the rules of the whole of Indonesia which bans same-sex marriage. They are forcefully seperated but are released unharmed after three days of questioning.

I'll see your example and raise you these;
http://www.lolapress.org/elec2/artenglish/heli_e.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Homosexuality penalty for homosexuality being death in Somalia, Nigeria and and Saudi(with Yemen coming up close behind).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Islam#Homosexuality_laws_in_majority_Muslim_countries

Basically being gay aint the best bet in Islamic countries and the more Islamic they are the shorter ones odds get.

If the debate is if the media generated Muslim caricature is wholly representative of Islam is this religion then a religion of peace?

It would be a resounding no, no doubt about it. But what good is it to buy into the stereotype? It's not representative. Anjem Choudary, for example has less followers than the flat-earth theory.

What balanced conclusion can you hope to achieve by only focusing the negative aspects of something...? Or worse still, to think you have a rounded view when only aware of the negative aspects.

Oh I agree. There is much in some teachings of Islam we would do well to emulate, but there is much that is well dodgy and there's quite a bit that is morally dubious, even abhorrent for the 21st century and all of that lot was pickled in aspic a very very long time ago. Most right wing Christians in the US bible belt are very nice people individually, but many hold morally dubious and abhorrent views. Ditto for fundie Jewish settlers in Israel/Palestine. I'd condemn them for similar or at least those views they hold to.

swampgas

I've been following this thread for a while - it's a good one. However something's been niggling me about it, and I think I've finally figured out what - the definition of what peace is.

Funnily enough, it took dead_one's question about beating your wife into good behaviour for the penny to drop.

Does peace simply mean a lack of physical violence? In that case a high security prison with all prisoners in single cells could be considered peaceful.

To me, in the context of this debate - peace should mean a lot more than freedom from physical violence - it should include freedom from mental violence.

It means having the basic freedoms we expect in western secular society, i.e our individual rights as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If I am being discriminated by society on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, or age, or race, or religious belief, and am being coerced to dress a certain way, marry a certain way, work a certain way, and socialise a certain way, then I am not free, and I am not being allowed to live in peace.

From this perspective, most religions are most definitely not religions of peace, including the big three of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

To clarify what I mean my "Islam" here, I mean Islam as it tends to be implemented, not how it might actually be worded in the Qu'ran or Hadith. I can see for example here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Applying_law_in_the_Muslim_world that many Muslim scholars disagree with the death penalty for apostasy, but that doesn't stop the death penalty being the law in many Islamic countries.

Also, given how tightly religion and politics are interwoven in many Islamic countries, I would have to say that Islam cannot be a religion of peace - it facilitates the taking away of human rights from too many people within the countries where Islam is the de facto law. For example, the apostasy laws contravene the right to freedom of religion, and the laws against homosexuality discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation.

And finally, any religion that threatens violence against those who simply disagree with its definition of truth, regardless of whether those threats are actually carried out, cannot be considered a religion of peace from a purely physical point of view either, and I think the legally stated punishment for apostasy in many Islamic countries means this test gets failed as well.

SamHarris

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't want to go down the road of good Muslim vs bad Muslim though I think it's positive that you acknowledge that there are various sects in Islam and amongst these sects numerous schools of thought.

I do think it's fair to say IMO that there are negative aspects of Islam certainly but the way I see it is that the threat is exaggerated, the extremists are given an undeserving spotlight like Islam4UK, the Daily Star reporter explaining how he was pressured into contacting Islam4UK's Anjem Choudary to get extemist Islamist soundbites. This is a man who has virtually no support at all from the Muslim community; counter-marches by Muslims to his marches gather far more participants than he could ever dream of yet he is all over mainstream TV, even been on FOX news. Personally, I think he is a fraud. Does this look like an a fundamentalist, militant Muslim to you?




That's a joint in his mouth.



Somehow ending up as this guy



A similar example in the US is Al-Khattab of Revolution Muslim. They've also had serious press exposure (again primarily on FOX, but across the board). They were three blokes with a website who said scary Muslim things. They were not representative of Muslims by a long, long way.

He has a had a strange past too. Going from -

This


To this


Now, you say there is no such thing as an Islamaphobe - I disagree - regardless, you say that the majority of Muslims are enablers for these most extreme cases, themselves a sizeable minority. If what you say is true then I'd quite happily agree with you. I have no loyalty to Islam. I don't see you as a bigot, honest, just misguided by propoganda but I'd be quite happy to be shown to be wrong, all I am interested in is the reality, and my basic reading of the subject tells me that the opposite is true and in fact Muslims are by far victims of intolerance than vice versa.

I seriously doubt you are interested in truth, considering your position on any number of historical events. your interested in your paradigm and preserving it.

Yes some sects are more conducive to violence in Islam. Jsut like some religions are more conducive to violence. Like Islam. Your one step from recognising the obvious.

I dont care if you think he was a bad Muslim, he said himself why he did it. Christ, I dont see how you so consistantly blank that and pretend it doesnt matter. Your contention now boils down too "People cant change their mind" - this is getting weaker and weaker.

Yes the other guy was probably a Mossad spy, couldnt imagine someone converting and still being radical.

Your defences are paper thin or non existant, you consistanlty ignore evidence that disagrees with you and I believe you DO have a horse in this race. Someone who is so obssessed with Jews and Israel always will.

So wait, let me get this straight. You recognise all the violence done is Islams name (this is indisputable) and the oppression caused/justified by it (again, indisputable) but you do not beleive itas it is, to you, merely a prdouct a massive media conspiracy?

Let me guess, some news scources you find more trust worthy because they are not "mainstream" (whatever that is) would be RT and PressTV? People that hold this view of corporate media like to think they are special in seeing through a non existant media conglomeration, but they are a dime a dozen.

You are, in fact, not arguing the same argument as everyone else? This certainly seems the case given the last few posts and your defence / rational of why it APPEARS as though Saudi women are routinely abused then unable to have a legal recourse through law explicitly because of religious thinking, to you this is merely a description created by this media conglomeration/ agenda that you have identified but have no proof of?

I think Im done...

SamHarris

swampgas wrote: »

I've been following this thread for a while - it's a good one. However something's been niggling me about it, and I think I've finally figured out what - the definition of what peace is.

Funnily enough, it took dead_one's question about beating your wife into good behaviour for the penny to drop.

Does peace simply mean a lack of physical violence? In that case a high security prison with all prisoners in single cells could be considered peaceful.

To me, in the context of this debate - peace should mean a lot more than freedom from physical violence - it should include freedom from mental violence.

It means having the basic freedoms we expect in western secular society, i.e our individual rights as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If I am being discriminated by society on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, or age, or race, or religious belief, and am being coerced to dress a certain way, marry a certain way, work a certain way, and socialise a certain way, then I am not free, and I am not being allowed to live in peace.

From this perspective, most religions are most definitely not religions of peace, including the big three of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

To clarify what I mean my "Islam" here, I mean Islam as it tends to be implemented, not how it might actually be worded in the Qu'ran or Hadith. I can see for example here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Applying_law_in_the_Muslim_world that many Muslim scholars disagree with the death penalty for apostasy, but that doesn't stop the death penalty being the law in many Islamic countries.

Also, given how tightly religion and politics are interwoven in many Islamic countries, I would have to say that Islam cannot be a religion of peace - it facilitates the taking away of human rights from too many people within the countries where Islam is the de facto law. For example, the apostasy laws contravene the right to freedom of religion, and the laws against homosexuality discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation.

And finally, any religion that threatens violence against those who simply disagree with its definition of truth, regardless of whether those threats are actually carried out, cannot be considered a religion of peace from a purely physical point of view either, and I think the legally stated punishment for apostasy in many Islamic countries means this test gets failed as well.

Very interesting, and I agree. But there is no need to expand our definiton of "peace" in the title - good old beheadings are not peacable under any stipulations.

It is still interesting though, and it should certainly be recognised as a reason Islam is not just "not a religion of peace" but dangerously violent intellectually, socially, sexually and not just physcially.

SamHarris

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How is that in anyway relevant?

Where else in your life is it relevant? Correct me if I'm wrong but judging by your username your a taxi driver? Does being a Muslim become relevant to you then?

For example, your crusing along looking for a fare. It's pissing rain and you see a woman in a Muslim veil trying to flag you down.

Would you stop and pickup the average Muslim woman ( to remind you you've already implied that she won't be educated, beautiful, intelligent etc, in your own head at least) or do you drive on and wait for a white person?

It is relevant as if you are debating with a religious person by definition facts, evidence and critical thinking mean little or nothing to them, at least in the context of their religion. If this is the case, then all the tools of a rational argument will not work and you are wasting our time discussing this here and pretending you have rational reasons for disagreeing with the original ascertian.

I know you are not, or at least say you are not I just decided I would answer. I also still have my suspiscions, considering how many of the mental frames and paradgims of victim hood prevalent in the Muslim world (well documented, not least by the poll already linked) you too exhibit.

Just as an example I already used, your double think on 9 11 - It was the CIA / Mossad that attacekd the towers draw disrepute to Islam/ to get oil (then invaded Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia, but whatever).

But ALSO the US brought the attacks on themselves through their policies against Muslims...

I read back on your posts and you hold BOTH these opinions (if not directly contradictory, certainly difficult to co oberate). As does a vast proportion of the Muslim world. As I said, just an example. Mostly because its stupidity annoys me so much.

SamHarris

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cunvQXJ7zSE even within Islam itself, the debate is no longer anywhere near "is Islam a religion of peace" but more stuff like "Is violence justified/ when is it?" and "what are we to do about the violent elements within Islam" - it has moved far and away from even the assumption that "peace" is a central tennant, quiet the opposite would be much easier to argue and demonstrated with ease.

This entire thread was started on a premise that shouldnt even be up for contention, the question of how violent is it, how can it be changed or stopped and what dangers does its more violent elements actually pose is what should be being discussed.

One of the reasons they deem that the West must keep them down, and is therefore a legitimate target for attacks is because they believe we wish to prevent a united Muslim caliphate, which would challenge Western dominance. An example of another thing laced throughout Islam that is almost as annoying as its constant hypcrocisy and violence - its arrogance, based on nothing more than their OWN religious dogma. Its comforting to note that even if all Muslim nations were to unite this new superstate would only be large in numbers, it would not feature one world class university, its contributions to science would be so little as to be non existant, its people would hopefully realise that it is not the West holding them in constant servitude, but their own religion. Islamic societies are almost impressive in how much they fail to achieve that can be measurred in any real way.

The problems with Islam are far, far more deep and far reaching than its constant use as justifications for violence and its effects on societies that consider it important are far greater than even insitutionalised rape.

Brown Bomber

Wibbs wrote: »

Red herring again. Clearly the morals and lifestyle has changed radically in the first guy you gave as an example. From boozed up youth to radical Islamic Imam. One couldn't find a better example of the redemptive power of faith and all that. Proper little Augustine he is. Though that muppet caused far more damage than this Choudary guy ever will. The second guy was likely just as OTT in his previous incarnation, but changed the religious focus of it. Your post and pics prove nothing and are just as mis directional as much of the media you seek to rightfully chastise.

It was never meant to prove anything to be fair, how could it? I just got a bit carried away. I suppose what I was getting at at the time was...actually nevermind.

Wibbs wrote: »

Afghanistan; A Taliban-ordered public stoning of a couple accused of adultery took place in Kunduz on August 15, 2010

The Taliban are not the rulers of Afghanistan. This is a case of tribal "justice" imo. Don't get me wrong it's horrific but I don't think it's fair to attribute it to Islam unless it is a ruling of a Shariah court.

You can't blame The Beatles for the murders by the Manson family or J.D. Salinger for the Catcher in the Rye inspired assasinations.

Wibbs wrote: »

Indonesia; In 2009, a law was introduced in Aceh that called for the stoning of married adulterers[24] but no cases of the sentence having been carried out have yet been reported.

Naturally I think this is wrong but the bolded part is also important here.

Wibbs wrote: »

Iraq;In 2007, Du'a Khalil Aswad, a Yezidi girl, was stoned by her fellow tribesmen in northern Iraq.

This Yazidi tribe has nothing to do with Islam as far as I can tell.

Wibbs wrote: »

Again doing what you call others on. Making a statement as fact while ignoring issues with that "fact". I called you on these stats of and your again misdirection in your description of the Muslim perps actions as assault, not sexual assault. To save you and others searching I'll paste it here;

If I misled you I can assure you it was unintentional and apologise. I said it was "assaut" assuming we both were of the understanding that it was assault as a category of rape as that was what we were discussing.

Wibbs wrote: »

OK lets look at those statistics;

It's the Norwegian news report that is of more interest to me. Can you accept that it is misleading??

"In Oslo all sexual assaults involving rape in the last year has been committed by males of non-Western background"

Cue...Interview with a poor blond haired, pale skinned Norwegian girl who was raped by a Pakistani.

The news report focused on 6 of 150-odd rapes. That is highly msileading IMO.

Wibbs wrote: »

The title of the table is "Types of rape reported to the Oslo Police District 2010 with identified suspects / accused, by the perpetrator's country of origin. By percent." So your contention that Overfall is general assault is incorrect. It's clearly assault of a sexual nature in this context(and they make this clear in the text) so we can dismiss that explanation, or otherwise it's not just Fox news that is distorting the stats.

A couple of things; One Oslo has the highest Muslim population in Norway. Two, they come from different cultural/ethnic backgrounds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Norway#Population broadly 30,000 from Pakistan, 28,000 from Somalia, 22,000 from Iraq, 15,000 each from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iran and Turkey.

The stats for assault/rape/prosecutable sexual events breakdown thus;

Africans; 30%
Americans; 3%
Asians; 22%
Europeans; 21%
Middle Easterners; 23%
Norwegians; 53%

OK Middle Eastern peoples are most likely Muslim. Africans are most likely to be Somalians and Asians it could go either way depending on the defintions. European ditto considering the Bosnians. Either way the African and Middle eastern group combined make up the same percentage as the Norwegian. Yet they're the overall minority in Oslo. If you add in even a small percentage of the Asian/Europe groups that percentage goes up again.

What also comes out in the stat are the different circumstances were the assaults take place. Incest/Relasjon assault is low in Africans, but high in Arabs and Norwegians. Sexual assault/Overfall is highest of all in Arabs. IE "stranger rape".

In any event your contention that it's "Mostly carried out by people of NORWEGIAN descent" is hardly accurate. Dubly so when you break down the numbers of each group represented. The stats do show that party rape(date rape) where the victim is known to their attacker is highest among Norwegians, however the "classic" type stranger rape is highest among Muslim men as the text says Perpetrators of the Middle East, which is strongly present among the identified perpetrators behind the attack rapes, are underrepresented in this party-related rape type. Basically you're in more danger from a Norwegian man you may know in a "party" situation, but in more danger from a Muslim background man thinking a non Muslim woman is fair game walking down the street. GIven the latter is a minority that skews it even further.

I'm not sure why assume all African Immigrants to be Somali but I stand by what I said - Overall in 2010 Norwegians carried out more rapes than other group categorised by the police report. Anything else is guesswork.

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd add in the "Asian" men in the UK, both singular and in quasi organised groups preying on non Muslim women in the community.

Disgusting, obviously, but this is not more representative of Islam than the NJ Organ trafficking Rabbis or the recent case of the Rabbi who represented himself in his criminal trial for molesting his children, meaning he cross-examined his own daugher is of Judaism.

A rabbi charged with molesting his daughter subjected her to hours of cringe-worthy cross-examination Tuesday in Brooklyn Federal Court.
Israel Weingarten, 59, who chose to represent himself against charges that could send him to prison for 20 years, rambled on all afternoon as his daughter looked away, wiped tears and struggled to understand what he was asking.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-03-03/news/17917310_1_molesting-cross-examines-abused

Wibbs wrote: »

I'll see your example and raise you these;
http://www.lolapress.org/elec2/artenglish/heli_e.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Homosexuality penalty for homosexuality being death in Somalia, Nigeria and and Saudi(with Yemen coming up close behind).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Islam#Homosexuality_laws_in_majority_Muslim_countries

Basically being gay aint the best bet in Islamic countries and the more Islamic they are the shorter ones odds get.

This is true, and also wrong but again it's not exclusive to Islam, or all Muslim majority states. In fact it's the minority.

Burma, a Buddhist state for example punishes homosexuals with up to life in prison.

Brown Bomber

SamHarris wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cunvQXJ7zSE even within Islam itself, the debate is no longer anywhere near "is Islam a religion of peace" but more stuff like "Is violence justified/ when is it?" and "what are we to do about the violent elements within Islam" - it has moved far and away from even the assumption that "peace" is a central tennant, quiet the opposite would be much easier to argue and demonstrated with ease.

This entire thread was started on a premise that shouldnt even be up for contention, the question of how violent is it, how can it be changed or stopped and what dangers does its more violent elements actually pose is what should be being discussed.

One of the reasons they deem that the West must keep them down, and is therefore a legitimate target for attacks is because they believe we wish to prevent a united Muslim caliphate, which would challenge Western dominance. An example of another thing laced throughout Islam that is almost as annoying as its constant hypcrocisy and violence - its arrogance, based on nothing more than their OWN religious dogma. Its comforting to note that even if all Muslim nations were to unite this new superstate would only be large in numbers, it would not feature one world class university, its contributions to science would be so little as to be non existant, its people would hopefully realise that it is not the West holding them in constant servitude, but their own religion. Islamic societies are almost impressive in how much they fail to achieve that can be measurred in any real way.

The problems with Islam are far, far more deep and far reaching than its constant use as justifications for violence.

I've already asked you for the final solution to the Muslim question Sam, you didn't answer. But please do...

Brown Bomber

SamHarris wrote: »

It is relevant as if you are debating with a religious person by definition facts, evidence and critical thinking mean little or nothing to them, at least in the context of their religion. If this is the case, then all the tools of a rational argument will not work and you are wasting our time discussing this here and pretending you have rational reasons for disagreeing with the original ascertian.

I know you are not, or at least say you are not I just decided I would answer. I also still have my suspiscions, considering how many of the mental frames and paradgims of victim hood prevalent in the Muslim world (well documented, not least by the poll already linked) you too exhibit.

Just as an example I already used, your double think on 9 11 - It was the CIA / Mossad that attacekd the towers draw disrepute to Islam/ to get oil (then invaded Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia, but whatever).

But ALSO the US brought the attacks on themselves through their policies against Muslims...

I read back on your posts and you hold BOTH these opinions (if not directly contradictory, certainly difficult to co oberate). As does a vast proportion of the Muslim world. As I said, just an example. Mostly because its stupidity annoys me so much.

On: "facts, evidence and critical thinking "
You've said that Muslims are more likely to rape and the majority of Muslims are terrorist sympathisers. Y'know what they say about people in glass houses......?


Isn't stupidity saying you read something and then not understanding it and then going on a rant about the something you read which you didn't understand?

Originally Posted by Di0genes
Out of curiosity BB, what do you think happened on 9/11?
ME
I'm a bit of a floater tbh. Yet to be fully convinced. I've an open mind.

So when your done attacking strawmen perhaps we can discuss the topic? Transferance will get you nowhere

Brown Bomber

swampgas wrote: »

It means having the basic freedoms we expect in western secular society, .

I think you've made some very good points, and I agree with most of what you've said. I'd just like to ask you about the above.

Why does It (peace) "means having the basic freedoms we expect in western secular society," ?

That seems rather intolerant to me. Shariah would not be the way that I want to live my life, but if people in another culture that I could never actually understand as I've never lived it, if they genuinely and freely choose to live in another way, a life of freedom and peace from their own perspective who am I to judge?

And also on the defintion "A Religion of Peace". This implies that all of it's components are peaceful. Do you consider that a reasonable demand? By that criteria Gandhi wasn't a man of peace. Can it be a Religion of peace with some components that aren't considered peaceful in your view? And if so what is the tipping point??

SamHarris

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've already asked you for the final solution to the Muslim question Sam, you didn't answer. But please do...

Christ you are crazy...

SamHarris

Brown Bomber wrote: »

On: "facts, evidence and critical thinking "
You've said that Muslims are more likely to rape and the majority of Muslims are terrorist sympathisers. Y'know what they say about people in glass houses......?


Isn't stupidity saying you read something and then not understanding it and then going on a rant about the something you read which you didn't understand?



So when your done attacking strawmen perhaps we can discuss the topic? Transferance will get you nowhere

Well looking at your posts on the subject it seems very different. And an open mind on the subject indicates enough iwllingness to ignore evidence to be honest. It also does not deal with the thrust of my point at all. It may well be stupidity to completly miss the point of a short paragraph.

Evidence was provided, you deemed it not of sufficeint quality for your strenuos tests. I never said a majoriyty of Muslims are eterrorist symapathisers, you are making things up again. I DID say there was a startiling amount of support for it, its not the couple of 1000 looneys some think it is.

A poll that I saw recently had around 30% in most Muslim countries polled support the tarageting of civilians in the defence of the faith (Whatever that means) . I will look through my history tomorrow for it. For everyone elses edification, not yours, Im sure it will be more Jewish proganda to you. They are soooo sneaky.

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think you've made some very good points, and I agree with most of what you've said. I'd just like to ask you about the above.

Why does It (peace) "means having the basic freedoms we expect in western secular society," ?

That seems rather intolerant to me.

It is only in western secular society, in the last few generations, that human rights have successfully been fought for and to a large extent achieved. It simply happened here first, possibly because of a combination of factors, including acceptance of the separation of church and state and the aftermath of two world wars. In any case, most of the countries of the world adopted the UDHR, so it's not as if it has a narrow European appeal.

Shariah would not be the way that I want to live my life, but if people in another culture that I could never actually understand as I've never lived it, if they genuinely and freely choose to live in another way, a life of freedom and peace from their own perspective who am I to judge?

I have marked with italics the key point in your response: there is no way for many people to "genuinely and freely" choose how they live in many countries. In order to genuinely and freely choose, I would argue that free speech is a prerequisite. If there cannot be open debate about changing the existing system, there is effectively no choice.

There is also the issue of the Tyranny of the Majority - just because most people in a society think certain values are correct, doesn't mean they should force everyone to follow them.

And also on the definition "A Religion of Peace". This implies that all of it's components are peaceful. Do you consider that a reasonable demand? By that criteria Gandhi wasn't a man of peace. Can it be a Religion of peace with some components that aren't considered peaceful in your view? And if so what is the tipping point??

Personally, based on the religions I know most about (Christianity & Islam) I think they contain such a mix of contradictory rubbish that they can be used to justify anything, including violence and war.

Political leaders have always used religion to suit themselves, and very few political leaders have been 100% men of peace. It's incompatible with the job!

Take an example: the Irishmen who drafted the Irish Constitution had no problem embedding a load of Christianity into the preamble; but that hadn't stopped them shooting what were considered military targets in cold blood when their military tactics demanded it.

I don't think a "religion of peace" is possible at all - religions want to tell you how to think, they want to tell you how to behave, they demand "faith" and are inherently irrational. (Maybe Buddhism is an exception - I know little about it.)

Unlike secular political systems, which can be changed, improved, adapted, any religion that claims to have a special Holy Book that cannot be questioned (which is most of them) is immune to meaningful change or reform and stays stuck with a value system a thousand years old.


Refs:

• Sharia & Human Rights
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• Human Rights See the "Universalism vs. cultural relativism" bit.

darealtulip

I don't think a "religion of peace" is possible at all - religions want to tell you how to think, they want to tell you how to behave, they demand "faith" and are inherently irrational.

+1

Brown Bomber

SamHarris wrote: »

Well looking at your posts on the subject it seems very different. And an open mind on the subject indicates enough iwllingness to ignore evidence to be honest. It also does not deal with the thrust of my point at all. It may well be stupidity to completly miss the point of a short paragraph.

Evidence was provided, you deemed it not of sufficeint quality for your strenuos tests. I never said a majoriyty of Muslims are eterrorist symapathisers, you are making things up again. I DID say there was a startiling amount of support for it, its not the couple of 1000 looneys some think it is.

Evidence has not been provided. Let's be very clear about this. You, especially have provided nothing but baseless smears and wild accusations and "evidence" that doesn't support your position.

Might I remind I (unlike you) read through a whole report by Derby Social Services that didn't even mention Islam or Muslims.

SamHarris wrote: »

A poll that I saw recently had around 30% in most Muslim countries polled support the tarageting of civilians in the defence of the faith (Whatever that means) . I will look through my history tomorrow for it. For everyone elses edification, not yours,

Save yourself the trouble.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/a-fascinating-look-at-the-political-views-of-muslim-americans/242975/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/03/poll-muslims-atheists-most-likely-to-reject-violence/







Of course this again will mean nothing to you. PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE IS ACTUAL EVIDENCE!

SamHarris wrote: »

Im sure it will be more Jewish proganda to you. They are soooo sneaky.

More juvenile ****e, perhaps we can stick to the topic?

Galvasean

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've already asked you for the final solution to the Muslim question Sam, you didn't answer. But please do...

Standman

@BrownBomber, That was a survey of US Muslims only and can hardly be indicative of opinions in Muslim countries.

SamHarris

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Evidence has not been provided. Let's be very clear about this. You, especially have provided nothing but baseless smears and wild accusations and "evidence" that doesn't support your position.

Might I remind I (unlike you) read through a whole report by Derby Social Services that didn't even mention Islam or Muslims.




Save yourself the trouble.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/a-fascinating-look-at-the-political-views-of-muslim-americans/242975/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/03/poll-muslims-atheists-most-likely-to-reject-violence/







Of course this again will mean nothing to you. PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE IS ACTUAL EVIDENCE!



More juvenile ****e, perhaps we can stick to the topic?

Wrong again. couldnt bother searching for the more shocking poll but this one will do. http://people-press.org/2004/03/16/a-year-after-iraq-war/

Yes, that amount supporting bombing veeeery peaceful. Your wrong, drop it.

I cant take you seriously after reading some of your pevious posts, I have a feeling you have a cope of the protocols of the elders of Zion beside your bed. I make no apologies for dismissing your views as the racially motivated crap that they are and using them to discredit your opinion on pretty much everything. I wouldnt engatge in a debate about geophysics with a flat earth theoris either.

The topic is finished for anyone with an ounce of common sense with regard to how "peaceful" it is. You and a handful of Muslim are the only ones failed (or say they are failed) to be convinced. To be honest if you disregard all the groups that say they are inspired to violence by Islam, the IMAMS that say its central, then you are not interested in having a discussion, your opinion is based on faith alone.

Brown Bomber

SamHarris wrote: »

Wrong again. couldnt bother searching for the more shocking poll but this one will do. http://people-press.org/2004/03/16/a-year-after-iraq-war/

No it won't! Let me take you back to your original claim:

Originally Posted by SamHarris
A poll that I saw recently had around 30% in most Muslim countries polled support the tarageting of civilians in the defence of the faith (Whatever that means) . I will look through my history tomorrow for it. For everyone elses edification, not yours,

Your link once again shows nothing of the sort.

I can't believe you've quoted this of mine and then just done exactly that once again.

Evidence has not been provided. Let's be very clear about this. You, especially have provided nothing but baseless smears and wild accusations and "evidence" that doesn't support your position.

As can be seen quite clearly above your "baseless smear" which was followed by your link "that doesn't support your position".

If you think otherwise you are actually delusional and the cancer of Islamaphobia is actually rotting away at your criticial faculties giving you some sort of brain filter which only allows to pass into your consciousness facts that are anti-Islamic.

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes, that amount supporting bombing veeeery peaceful. Your wrong, drop it.

I've just shown you data that American Muslims are far less likely to support both a) state-terrorism and b) non-state terrorism against civilians than any other group listed, including atheists/agnostics and we should "drop it"? Why?

SamHarris wrote: »

I cant take you seriously after reading some of your pevious posts,

Likewise,

• UK Muslims are much more likely to rape
• ALL the massacres in the middle east are caused by Muslims
• The majority of Muslims worldwide are terrorist sympathisers.

SamHarris wrote: »

I have a feeling you have a cope of the protocols of the elders of Zion beside your bed. I make no apologies for dismissing your views as the racially motivated crap that they are and using them to discredit your opinion on pretty much everything.

You haven't discredited anything Sammy.You've made wild, sweeping generalisations against Muslims worldwide and haven't supported a single point you've made. If you think that is dismissing anyones views again you are delusional. You've done the same with me. Your cognitive dissonance has kicked in and you've kicked out anytime you've been pushed to actually explain the reasons behind you thinking why you do regarding Muslims. I think deep down you realise that ir is irrational hatred too.

SamHarris wrote: »

I wouldnt engatge in a debate about geophysics with a flat earth theoris either.

Probably for the best. You'd probably find some way of losing that too and then start crying about the flat earthers hating Jews.

SamHarris wrote: »

The topic is finished for anyone with an ounce of common sense with regard to how "peaceful" it is. You and a handful of Muslim are the only ones failed (or say they are failed) to be convinced. To be honest if you disregard all the groups that say they are inspired to violence by Islam, the IMAMS that say its central, then you are not interested in having a discussion, your opinion is based on faith alone.

This is more thick-headedness Sam. In Sam world only a Muslim and someone mentally deficent could disagree with him on the Muslim menace.

I am interested in having a discussion, less and less interested in though in the flights of fancy of someone with an obvious grudge against Muslims.
But I'm a glutton for punishment. Perhaps you could give good examples of Imams saying "they are inspired to violence by Islam".