A quick question.

SoulandForm

Look I have a lot of respect for Islam and Muslims- they have valid arguments against Christianity (my Faith) which are sometimes very hard to answer. I would never say that a Muslim is a lost soul the same way that I would say a Wiccan is. I also accept that historically Islam has been a lot more tolerant than Christianity. Muslims and Christians have a lot more in common than either side would like to admit. However it does seem that criticism of Christianity is often more acceptable than criticism of Islam.

SoulandForm

confusedquark wrote: »

Prior to 9/11, Al Qaeda had released many statements specifically targeting the U.S. for their interference in the Muslim world, e.g. in 1998, "for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples."

The same goes for the London bombings, Madrid etc. etc. Most of these have been committed as revenge attacks to atrocities committed against Muslims around the world. It suits Al Qaeda and other extremist groups down to the ground that they can use Islam to convince more and more people to join their cause. But to suggest that Islam and the Quran is the only source for this extremist, and that the ongoing conflicts around the world have nothing to do with it, is a bit short-sighted. Most Islamic scholars do condemn all these extremist atrocities and the killing of innocent people, so how can you attribute them to Islam?



I can only speak for me, and I don't mind having a civilised discussion about Islam. People are completely entitled to their opinions, but it really doesn't take much to be constructive with them. You can still be civil and get along with people even if you don't agree with them - one of my best friends is a hardcore atheist.

By the way, here's another atrocity being committed by the Muslims of this world, and this one is directly linked to Islam. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article3820522.ece

Sorry.

Im a Protestant from Ulster- the same type of justification for such actions was trotted out by supposed "Protestants" during the troubles. Their actions had nothing to do with my Faith. The Koran is against targeting civilians- most Muslims consider the Wahabis heretics; their grandfather Ibn Taymiyyah was so rejected by the majority of Muslims that he was jailed.

MrPudding

confusedquark wrote: »

By the way, here's another atrocity being committed by the Muslims of this world, and this one is directly linked to Islam. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article3820522.ece

Is charitable giving not effectively compulsory for muslims? I think it is less meaningful if it is required...

MrP

unseenfootage

SoulandForm wrote: »

Look I have a lot of respect for Islam and Muslims- they have valid arguments against Christianity (my Faith) which are sometimes very hard to answer. I would never say that a Muslim is a lost soul the same way that I would say a Wiccan is. I also accept that historically Islam has been a lot more tolerant than Christianity. Muslims and Christians have a lot more in common than either side would like to admit. However it does seem that criticism of Christianity is often more acceptable than criticism of Islam.

That's probably because Christians tolerate attacks and insults against their faith, whereas Muslims, although willing to debate on good terms do not tolerate vileness.

SoulandForm

unseenfootage wrote: »

That's probably because Christians tolerate attacks and insults against their faith, whereas Muslims, although willing to debate on good terms do not tolerate vileness.

Jesus is a Prophet in Islam though- someone that I work with mocks my faith by saying that Jesus was a homosexual on and on and on; I complained and was told to laugh it off. Of course neo-con liberals hate Islam as it actually is but they hate Christianity more.

unseenfootage

SoulandForm wrote: »

Jesus is a Prophet in Islam though- someone that I work with mocks my faith by saying that Jesus was a homosexual on and on and on; I complained and was told to laugh it off. Of course neo-con liberals hate Islam as it actually is but they hate Christianity more.

But you should not have to. What if you had to say to your colleague that he is a son of a pedophile?

There would be an uproar.

People should realize that religious figures such as prophets are sometimes dearer to their followers than their own parents.

Why do you say that they hate Christianity more?

SoulandForm

unseenfootage wrote: »

But you should not have to. What if you had to say to your colleague that he is a son of a pedophile?

There would be an uproar.

People should realize that religious figures such as prophets are sometimes dearer to their followers than their own parents.

Why do you say that they hate Christianity more?

Because Christianity is the historic religion of the west and to hate Islam is seen as politically incorrect and/or racially motivated. I dont blame Muslims at all for this; outside of two all the Muslims I have talked/known/befriended have been respectful and even supportive of Christian civil liberties (for instance the right to wear a Cross to work).

Mark Hamill

SoulandForm wrote: »

neo-con liberals

What is a neo-con liberal?

Mark Hamill

unseenfootage wrote: »

But you should not have to. What if you had to say to your colleague that he is a son of a pedophile?

There would be an uproar.

People should realize that religious figures such as prophets are sometimes dearer to their followers than their own parents.

Calling someone a son of a paedophile is a personal insult, insulting a (long dead) religious leader is not.
Also, calling someone a homosexual (even as an insult) is not in any way the same as calling someone a paedophile.

confusedquark

MrPudding wrote: »

Is charitable giving not effectively compulsory for muslims? I think it is less meaningful if it is required...

MrP

That's purely a matter of perspective. If we live in a world where the poor die everyday because of starvation and disease, and the inherent good nature of the rest of us isn't sufficient to balance it out (which unfortunately it never has and probably never will be), it's more practical and meaningful to the poor for charity to be made compulsory for those who can afford it.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Calling someone a son of a paedophile is a personal insult, insulting a (long dead) religious leader is not.
Also, calling someone a homosexual (even as an insult) is not in any way the same as calling someone a paedophile.

People hold religious leaders very dearly, and it is a personal thing if one strongly identifies with them as a role model and follows their teachings, because you're insulting a person's beliefs as well then. And just because people are long dead, it doesn't make it ok to insult them - it's probably worse to do so than if they were alive.

MrPudding

confusedquark wrote: »

That's purely a matter of perspective. If we live in a world where the poor die everyday because of starvation and disease, and the inherent good nature of the rest of us isn't sufficient to balance it out (which unfortunately it never has and probably never will be), it's more practical and meaningful to the poor for charity to be made compulsory for those who can afford it.

Which is fine, but the point remains that the impact you were looking for when you posted the story about Muslims giving more to charity than others is greatly reduced when one considers that it is effectively compulsory.

Personally, I think a person that gives 0.5% of their salary with no compulsion other than thinking it is the right thing to do, has done more than a person that gives 5% because they have to.

MrP

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

That's purely a matter of perspective. If we live in a world where the poor die everyday because of starvation and disease, and the inherent good nature of the rest of us isn't sufficient to balance it out (which unfortunately it never has and probably never will be), it's more practical and meaningful to the poor for charity to be made compulsory for those who can afford it.

Compulsory "charity" is taxation.

SoulandForm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What is a neo-con liberal?

Tony Blair would be a good example; despite his claims to faith New Labour was viciously anti-Christian. Ironic when you consider that Methodism was one of the driving forces behind the formation and rise of the Old Labour Party which he destroyed.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

People hold religious leaders very dearly,

People hold sports personalities very dearly, they above criticism too?

I don't support throwing empty insults around, they add nothing to debate, but no figure or belief is above criticism. And if the followers of religious believers really believed that heathens and blasphemers are going to hell for their non-belief and disrespect, then base insults shouldn't matter either.

SoulandForm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Compulsory "charity" is taxation.

The UK is not Saudi Arabia- some Muslims there drink and have sex outside marriage, there is nothing forcing them to give to charity in England.

Mark Hamill

SoulandForm wrote: »

Tony Blair would be a good example; despite his claims to faith New Labour was viciously anti-Christian.

Christianity is not the only faith in existence. Christianity isn't even one faith by itself.

Mark Hamill

SoulandForm wrote: »

The UK is not Saudi Arabia- some Muslims there drink and have sex outside marriage, there is nothing forcing them to give to charity in England.

They are religiously obligated to give charity. That's how they are forced.

SoulandForm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They are religiously obligated to give charity. That's how they are forced.

No one in the UK is forcing them to be Muslims- they are Muslims there through choice. The obligations are purely voluntary.

SoulandForm

unseenfootage wrote: »

That's probably because Christians tolerate attacks and insults against their faith, whereas Muslims, although willing to debate on good terms do not tolerate vileness.

Maybe you are right.

SoulandForm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

People hold sports personalities very dearly, they above criticism too?

I don't support throwing empty insults around, they add nothing to debate, but no figure or belief is above criticism. And if the followers of religious believers really believed that heathens and blasphemers are going to hell for their non-belief and disrespect, then base insults shouldn't matter either.

I have criticized to Muslims' faces many of the teachings of their Prophet and we both walked away without any anger or hurt done to either party. However he does have a valid point- to me Jesus is a living person who I love, He is a living reality to me in a way that a sports person or celebrity isnt. I dont want to see Jesus abused so Im not going to abuse EDL style their Prophet- because I understand how hurtful it can be. I think that people who have never been religious can fully understand.

Mark Hamill

SoulandForm wrote: »

No one in the UK is forcing them to be Muslims- they are Muslims there through choice. The obligations are purely voluntary.

I imagine most of the muslims in the Uk are raised to be muslims, thus removing their choice. The few converts there are follow religious obligations under threats of punishment in hell. If the charity was purely voluntary then the religion would not have it as one of its fundamental pillars.

Mark Hamill

SoulandForm wrote: »

I have criticized to Muslims' faces many of the teachings of their Prophet and we both walked away without any anger or hurt done to either party. However he does have a valid point- to me Jesus is a living person who I love, He is a living reality to me in a way that a sports person or celebrity isnt. I dont want to see Jesus abused so Im not going to abuse EDL style their Prophet- because I understand how hurtful it can be. I think that people who have never been religious can fully understand.

And I don't want to see any of them abused, as abuse is not congruent to useful discussion and criticism. However it ultimately doesn't matter if they are insulted as they are 1) dead and therefore immune to slander or libel, 2) powerful religious icons who do not need anyone to get offended on their behalf.

The problem with trying to justify someone's offence at having their religious beliefs insulted or criticised comes when you have someone who is offended (justified, in their eyes, by their religious texts) by the mere existence of non/alternate believes. Some people are offended by the mere existence of different religious iconography, or even different religious adherents themselves. What do you do with someone, a theist of the same religion as you, who gets offended at your offence, on behalf of your religious leader or icon? Someone who questions your arrogance for thinking that God or Allah etc. needs your help to deal with someone who disagrees or disbeliefs?

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Compulsory "charity" is taxation.

The difference between compulsory charity (without quotes) and taxation is that Muslims choose themselves where the charity goes to, it can be given to a charity organisation, or can be given directly to a person in need. Taxation on the other hand goes to the government, and they decide how it's spent.

I'm firmly of the belief that compulsory charity is a good thing for humanity, because it results in the poor being looked after better than they would without compulsory charity (as I mentioned earlier, our inherent good will is woefully inadequate), and only people above a certain disposable income threshold are obliged to give it. I don't see any of that as a bad thing in the greater context of things. Whereas I could write a long essay on how poorly our taxation money is spent.

old_aussie

Tom Dunne wrote: »

No, I fully accept 19 Muslim men flew planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and that field. No conspiracy theories, quite the opposite. I would hope at this stage that you appreciate I am a man who relies on factual information not conjecture.
.

Then using that logic, prove to the forum that allah is real!

Frank Grimes

old_aussie wrote: »

Then using that logic, prove to the forum that allah is real!

What is the point of this comment, or do you even have one?

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And I don't want to see any of them abused, as abuse is not congruent to useful discussion and criticism. However it ultimately doesn't matter if they are insulted as they are 1) dead and therefore immune to slander or libel, 2) powerful religious icons who do not need anyone to get offended on their behalf.

1) The living followers of the religions are not immune to slander, because the insults target THEIR beliefs and practices. It is a personal issue.

2) The religions might not "need" anyone to get offended, but people being humans with emotions, can and do get offended, as per point 1.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The problem with trying to justify someone's offence at having their religious beliefs insulted or criticised comes when you have someone who is offended (justified, in their eyes, by their religious texts) by the mere existence of non/alternate believes. Some people are offended by the mere existence of different religious iconography, or even different religious adherents themselves. What do you do with someone, a theist of the same religion as you, who gets offended at your offence, on behalf of your religious leader or icon? Someone who questions your arrogance for thinking that God or Allah etc. needs your help to deal with someone who disagrees or disbeliefs?

Yes it's all relative, but you're quoting relatively extreme examples there and most followers of most religions will not fall into those categories. You can't take examples from the extreme end of the spectrum and use it to justify criticism and insults in all their constructive and nasty forms. I'm not sure where the line is on what's OK and what's not, but a lot depends on the intention of the critiser and how things are phrased. I do object to the "I can say whatever the hell I want I want, and it's ok because I'm entitled to my freedom of speech" philosophy which many people go by, because some people relish conflict and go looking for it, whether it means attacking another person's appearance, their actions, their race, their family, or their religion etc. Of course that's not an excuse to completely ban all people from expressing their opinions, but it should be done in a decent (and ideally constructive) manner.

confusedquark

MrPudding wrote: »

Which is fine, but the point remains that the impact you were looking for when you posted the story about Muslims giving more to charity than others is greatly reduced when one considers that it is effectively compulsory.

Personally, I think a person that gives 0.5% of their salary with no compulsion other than thinking it is the right thing to do, has done more than a person that gives 5% because they have to.

MrP

My point was that Muslims contribute a lot of good to the world, in contrast to the previous post which suggested we commit the most atrocities. You're right, it's not because we are more inherently good willed, but it's because of an Islamic ruling. And indeed, a person who gives 0.5 percent without compulsion has probably shown more character than someone who is obliged to give charity, but the fact and the bottom line remains - it's better for the poor people of this world to have compulsory charity, because the the final total raised for them WILL be significantly greater.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

The difference between compulsory charity (without quotes) and taxation is that Muslims choose themselves where the charity goes to, it can be given to a charity organisation, or can be given directly to a person in need. Taxation on the other hand goes to the government, and they decide how it's spent.

I'm firmly of the belief that compulsory charity is a good thing for humanity, because it results in the poor being looked after better than they would without compulsory charity (as I mentioned earlier, our inherent good will is woefully inadequate), and only people above a certain disposable income threshold are obliged to give it. I don't see any of that as a bad thing in the greater context of things. Whereas I could write a long essay on how poorly our taxation money is spent.

It doesn't matter if you get to say where the money will go, compulsory payments are taxation.
I am not questioning whether it is good or not, I am only disputing (like MrPudding has already) how paying a compulsory payment actually reflects on the character of the muslims obliged to pay it.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

1) The living followers of the religions are not immune to slander, because the insults target THEIR beliefs and practices. It is a personal issue.

2) The religions might not "need" anyone to get offended, but people being humans with emotions, can and do get offended, as per point 1.

1) Slander only applies to living people, it doesn't apply to beliefs.
2) People should not get offended on behalf of others.

confusedquark wrote: »

Yes it's all relative, but you're quoting relatively extreme examples there and most followers of most religions will not fall into those categories. You can't take examples from the extreme end of the spectrum and use it to justify criticism and insults in all their constructive and nasty forms. I'm not sure where the line is on what's OK and what's not, but a lot depends on the intention of the critiser and how things are phrased. I do object to the "I can say whatever the hell I want I want, and it's ok because I'm entitled to my freedom of speech" philosophy which many people go by, because some people relish conflict and go looking for it, whether it means attacking another person's appearance, their actions, their race, their family, or their religion etc. Of course that's not an excuse to completely ban all people from expressing their opinions, but it should be done in a decent (and ideally constructive) manner.

But until you do define the line to take on what's ok, how can you say what's ok? My example is not as extreme as you may think, there is much in all religions that can be easily interpreted by people to leave them opposed to non-believers and alternative religious iconography (commandments 1 and 2, in the Christian bible, for instance) and this can easily lead to offence.

You say that it is intent that should inform of us of where the line is, but I say that intent is irrelevant. It is only justification that should inform us. Can a supposed "offender" justify the speech and actions that offends others? Because if they can, it is no longer offensive, it is simply the truth and if you are offended by the truth then that is your own problem.

The reality is that offence is something that most people just attach to some position or act another takes simply because they do not like its implications and have no justifiable way themselves to counter it. Its not about the offenders lack of justification for what they say or do, if it was then it would only be about the offenders lack of justification for what they say or do and the offence wouldn't need to be raised.