Islam: What is your problem

Originally posted by Dasa
Dear sir...........you are a perfect example of someone who has been exposed and defeated.

You have nothing to contribute.

And your comments have revealed this.

exposed and defeated by what? you really are a complete loon. I dread to think what you did in your previous life to be reincarnated with such horrific mental issues. Maybe you just need a new hobby, or to get out of the house more, or a girlfriend, are you sexually frustrated is that it? still a virgin? cant talk to girls? or secretly like boys? maybe you like mummy a bit too much? get too nervous in social situations?.....

well i guess there are a million reasons to end up as deranged as you. maybe you should start a hot and cold thread. we try and guess why you are so mental and if we get close you can say hot,hotter,hotter and so on.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have produced my own reasons why its a nonsense, the product of my own mind,
but sure, feel free to ignore them as you have consistently done and no your
references to Christianity will ultimately fail because unlike Islam it has produced an
environment which has fomented liberty. I can easily cite Koranic verses which
state that the apost ere is your condemnation of the violence, please forgive
me but i couldn't find it anywhere.

No I'm not wandering off into all these matters, for which other threads have provided ample debate over the years. As regards this particular thread, I can take it that you are attached to the second of the seven paradigms and consider that Islam as a religion is inherently violent and problematic.

That position is easy to hold - cetainly it does not make very great demands on your imagination. You can learn all you need to know from the popular, right wing media. Remember, regardless of what they may or may not believe, what is revealed here is your attitude.

For example, it presumably will not alarm you to observe that American violence in Pakistan is creating the conditions for long term hostility against any Western influence. You may say that is not Christianity's fault, but I would not hold out much prospect of muslims agreeing with you, since you attribute their political development to their religion and that is a game all can play by your rules. But as they are an alien other, committed to what you think of as satanic delusions, then that is not your problem and we can indeed just abandon them and contain by violence their contagious impact on world peace?

Well that seems to be the position of the Islamaphobic right. Ignoring its ethics, it is also deluded in political terms. They are too important to ignore. That is why the US is meddling there today. In a connected world, the choice is not to take part or to walk away. The choice is only about how to conduct a relationship too important to neglect.

So here is the deal. I think we should respect Islam and you argue we should despise Islam. If I agree with you I will learn to despise Islam and all who believe in it, dehumanise them in the process and endorse western violence and oppression. If you agreed with me, you would learn to respect their humanity and their difference and you would wish to promote the rule of international law, respect for human rights and respect for self determination of other nations. It is me who argues against violence and you who promotes violence. Maybe that is not because you are a Christian but it does look that way.

-Removed-

It's an evil religion created by Satan right?

Originally posted by finnegan
No I'm not wandering off into all these matters, for which other threads have provided ample debate over the years. As regards this particular thread, I can take it that you are attached to the second of the seven paradigms and consider that Islam as a religion is inherently violent and problematic.

That position is easy to hold - cetainly it does not m ho promotes violence. Maybe that is not because you are a Christian but it does look that way.

i have not argued that we should despise Islam, Finn, nor Muslims, I have merely
pointed out that its tenets cannot be defended intellectually and that it has as a
consequence of these tenets produced an environment conducive to violence being
utilised as a legitimate means.

-Removed-

No it is not a race. Neither are Jews.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i have not argued that we should despise Islam, Finn, nor Muslims, I have merely
pointed out that its tenets cannot be defended intellectually and that it has as a
consequence of these tenets produced an environment conducive to violence as a
legitimate means.

And yet curiously at other times in history it has produced an environment conducive to peace, tolerance and prosperity so since the religion has not changed, the change must be elsewhere. The environment conducive to violence is not a product of Islam. People certainly use Islam to provoke violence, but people have used all religions to provoke that as any reading of history will demonstrate.

Originally posted by finnegan
And yet curiously at other times in history it has produced an environment conducive to peace, tolerance and prosperity so since the religion has not changed, the change must be elsewhere. The environment conducive to violence is not a product of Islam. People certainly use Islam to provoke violence, but people have used all religions to provoke that as any reading of history will demonstrate.

It is an interesting point for sure, although i contest the point that Islam itself foments
violence, for as long as you have such strict penalties for criticism in the form of capital
punishment for blasphemy, the cutting off of limbs for theft, beheading for adultery,
and the concept of Jihad, fear and insecurity will always be a factor. Interesting also is
the level of corruption in predominately Islamic nations which leads me to believe that
Islam itself is powerless to affect the lives of ordinary people and that change has been
brought about, not through Islam, but despite it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It is an interesting point for sure, although i contest the point that Islam itself foments
violence, for as long as you have such strict penalties for criticism in the form of capital
punishment for blasphemy, the cutting off of limbs for theft, beheading for adultery,
and the concept of Jihad, fear and insecurity will always be a factor. In ...[text shortened]... of ordinary people and that change has been
brought about, not through Islam, but despite it.

If you wish to foment violence or impose harsh punishment for moral digression then you will find the material you need in the Qu'ran, in the Bible, on the net, or in scientific journals. You and I would worry about a Christian wishing to rely too firmly on Leviticus for a moral compass.

Corruption is a problem in the American Congress as you will know very well. It is certainly a problem in the British parliament, illustrated graphically in the scandal over claiming of expenses. The primary source of corruption is and always has been the ability to use money to get what you want, and that is a characteristic of wealth, not religion. The extent of corporate influence in both American and British politics is a disgrace.

People in America and Britain who campaign against corporate corruption of politics are more usually called socialists (whether they are or not) and not usualy called Christians (though they often are, since that is the mantle cloaking our elites). Countries that have managed to curtail the extent of corruption have very well developed regulatory, audit and policing resources. As you know, the right wing campaign against such regulation and control of corporate wealth is in full swing, with the public apparently confused enough to believe that will improve their lives in some way. The vast sums held in offshore jurisdictions is not just evading taxes, though that is so, but more importantly evading regulation and oversight and proper, public audit and control. So well might you worry and fret about corruption in politics but you do not have to travel far to trace its origins.

Islam is not powerless to change the lives of ordinary people any more than Christianity is powerless to change the lives of ordinary people. Both religions are cheerfully coopted and abused by people holding or seeking power precisely because they see this as a way to influence ordinary people and it is a very effective tool in their hands.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I am not disinclined to read anything about Islamic history and I have read many
articles on Islamic culture, architecture, calligraphy, history, Tamarlene, Saladin,
Jahangir, Islamic poets, Islamic singers, Gulam Ali etc etc, but more than that I used to
live in a predominately Islamic culture and I resent your condescension Duchess64.

The phenomena of Islamic violence is not something new and there is the rather
curious account of similar riots in British India when a Hindu man produced a pamphlet,
'the rangli rasul, (the colourful prophet) which caused a riot and the author was killed,
his murderer claiming it was justified on the basis of his blasphemy. He was defended
by the future president of Pakistan, Jinnah, but the case was lost and the British
executed him.

Again like Finnegan you have produced no intellectual argument which can possibly
defend this type of violence on the basis of a perceived criticism of Islam nor can
you and to cite the fact that Muslims are also the victims of violence does nothing to
address it, does it.

Perhaps you may find this interesting or i could make a video presentation for you if
you are reticent about reading it, let me know, regards Robbie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilm-ud-din

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Again like Finnegan you have produced no intellectual argument which can possibly
defend this type of violence on the basis of a perceived criticism of Islam nor can
you and to cite the fact that Muslims are also the victims of violence does nothing to
address it, does it.

I have never defended violence. Period. I have routinely attacked and opposed violence in my posts. As an atheist I do not promote or endorse any religion. Period. What I have done is to reject and oppose racism, including the current explosion of Islamaphobia. I have also suggested that we would be wise to understand the nature of the violence we all reject and all wish to end. As part of that effort, I have relied on the Christian aphorism - remove the plank of wood in your own eye before you criticize the mote in that of your neighbour.

You don't approve of Islam. I don't approve of religion,. Neither is going to go away in our lifetimes. So we have to get around to accepting it as part of our shared humanity and work out a way of living with each other without violence. Besides, it is less miserable to also try to establish what is positive and what we can actually appreciate and celebrate in our diversity and to locate areas of common ground, which turn out to be huge.

Originally posted by finnegan
I have never defended violence. Period. I have routinely attacked and opposed violence in my posts. As an atheist I do not promote or endorse any religion. Period. What I have done is to reject and oppose racism, including the current explosion of Islamaphobia. I have also suggested that we would be wise to understand the nature of the violence we all rejec nd celebrate in our diversity and to locate areas of common ground, which turn out to be huge.

If you are trying to be objective as i suspect Finn, the surely you must realise that
Islam has created the conditions ripe for violence? It stands to reason that if you
have a reasonable answer then their should be no need to become emotional and no
need for violent outbursts. The problem that Islam has created, because of its
failure to embrace any kind of constructive criticism, lord knows Rushdie tried to get
the Muslim intellectuals to think about it, and like others was rewarded for his efforts
by the pronouncement of death sentences. Its fairly easy to look at the history of
Islam and see this pattern of violence at any kind of perceived slight, justified or not
of their prophet and their Holy book. If one is secure in his beliefs and has a
reasoned faith, there is simply no need for violence, one can defend it intellectually,
but Islam, because of its tenets has fostered an environment of fear and insecurity
and is directly responsible.

One must applaud your magnanimity Finn but I myself remain entirely pessimistic
and foresee even more bloodshed. If you have taken the time to watch and read
the comments on youtube of the video, the innocence of Muslims, you will be
appalled at how deep the prejudice is and how unreasoning people really are.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If you are trying to be objective as i suspect Finn, the surely you must realise that
Islam has created the conditions ripe for violence? It stands to reason that if you
have a reasonable answer then their should be no need to become emotional and no
need for violent outbursts. The problem that Islam has created, because of its
failure to e ...[text shortened]... lims, you will be
appalled at how deep the prejudice is and how unreasoning people really are.

You use the tones of sweet reason butter-wouldn't-melt-in-your-caring-Christian-mouth, while slipping in as your factual, objective evidence a video produced under false names by someone with a criminal record for selling illegal drugs and for bank fraud, funded by Coptic Christians in Egypt, made in America under deceptive conditions including tricking the actors with a script that was later dubbed to transform its meaning and significance. It was made and distributed with the overt intention of provoking the violence which you condemn. It provokes the frustrated rage of the powerless which we shudder to watch. It also provokes the level of hatred towards and the dehumanising of Muslims to justify western - primarily American - violence, so that Americans can terrorise, torture, kill and maim in the name of democracy and freedom. This is the nasty face of fascism at work in our democracies.

Sky News said the video was "anti-Muslim" and "designed to enrage". According to Reuters, the video portrays Muhammad as a "fool, a philanderer and a religious fake"; NBC News said the trailer depicted Muhammad "as a womanizer, a homosexual and a child abuser." Time magazine described the dialogue during the scene with a donkey as "homoerotic". According to the BBC, Muhammad's followers are portrayed as "savage killers hungry for wealth and bent on killing women and children."

The film has been condemned by the Coptic Orthodox Christian Church. Bishop Serapion of the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Los Angeles said in a statement that it "rejects dragging the respectable Copts of the Diaspora in the latest production of an inflammatory movie about the prophet of Islam ... The name of our blessed parishioners should not be associated with the efforts of individuals who have ulterior motives." In addition, the World Council of Churches stated that the film was “an insult to the heart of the Muslim faith” and “to all peoples of faith.

It is protected as free speech in the USA where the Supreme Court has ruled against criminalising "hate speech." In this way the human rights of many people can be trodden upon with glee by unhealthy, poisonous people cheerfully making trouble by exploiting and misusing the very freedoms which make democracy possible.
Get serious about this. We have seen how fascism works and it is really important to decide if we are prepared to defend our democracies or submit to fascism again. Free spech is by all means important, Individual rights are important. And it is possible time and time again to use free speech and individual freedom to incite violence and provoke hatred. That is a conflict that we have got to confront.

There is a good quote from Martin Luther King that I read this week. "We will not remember the words of our enemies, but we will always remember the silence of our friends."

Originally posted by Dasa
This post is for finnegan [excuse the error]

Prubhupada is a pure devotee of God and no one knows the mind of the pure devotee because he is on the trancendental platform - and whilst his body is in this world - his consciousness is NOT because it is always in the spiritual consciousness.

He ws a master diplomat.

Being a master diplomat he would ...[text shortened]... rson could answer the question.

I may take a day or so to get back to this post as I am busy.

True religion is consistent. False relgion is not.

You advise us to follow the teachings of Prubhupada. When we do, you tell us we cannot follow them. Inconsistent.

The idea that he would consistently gloss over the horrors that you ascribe to Islam for diplomacy's sake is untenable. And not the behaviour of someone following true religion. Again, inconsistent.

You say that no one knows the mind of the pure devotee, and you accept that you are not one, and yet you try and offer explanations as to why his views on Islam are incompatible with yours. Another inconsistency.

By your own admission, we should follow his teachings and not yours. His views are consistent. Your views are not.

Therefore, by your own arguments, we should trust his views on Islam, not yours.

After all, why would we not want to follow the views of the pure devotee and instead align ourselves to the views of a lesser being?