Islam as a dangerous bet with no return

[icehorse]

Hi ideogenous,

Again, see if you can remove the politics and the nations. The UNDHR was created almost 70 years ago after WW II.

It doesn't matter who wrote it, what matters it what it says. So every individual can read the declaration and decide for themselves whether they embrace and support its ideas or not.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

OK.......... back to basics. The thread title reads:-
Islam as a dangerous bet with no return
The whole thread title, its message, the OP, etc......... seems totally cranked to me.
I live in a country which has experienced some terrorism, the worst of which had no religious foundation at all, and some which was motivated by crazed and perverted ideas about religion.
But we have a Government here, and it makes laws to reduce and deter such troubles where possible, and other laws to protect minorities and small groups of people.
In fact, nearly every country has a Government, with rules and laws.
You might not like some of the rules and laws of your own and other countries, but there is a common-sense guide to this.......... We all (everyone!) should obey the rules and laws of the countries which we live in and visit.
This reduces your idea of a dangerous bet to a mere nothing by comparison.
We (see? .... everyone...) should leave countries alone! We should leave their religions and beliefs ALONE! No manipulation, no interference, no needling. If our countries feel the need to distance from another, or cease trade, so be it.
Where we find intensely strange groups in our own countries then we should trust to our Governments to handle this.

A brilliant example is happening here in Britain at this time. A North London group of a particular religion has informed all parents that send children to its schools that children will be disbarred if their mothers drive cars. Women should not drive cars, they think. We don't have to march up and down outside these schools! Our Education Minister is handling the matter in her own way........ there is no need for you to even know the group's religion.......... it's 'handled'.!!!

So all you have to do is get involved in who governs your own country.
Your problems all begin........ at home.
And I don't expect that Islam is any greater problem for you than us, if at all.

A lot of Europeans believe that Islam is a religion spiritual only
And he calls people to worship one God
But this idea is wrong
Because Islam is not a religion, spirituality
That Islam is a political and colonial and expansionist ideology and authoritarian
Here lies the seriousness of Islam
Give examples of the modern era
Bosnia is the province of the old provinces of Yugoslavia
Where Islam spread gradually and when the Muslims of stability and expansion have become able to demand a state
So Islam spread between individuals and these are peaceful and when they breed are demanding the application of political Islam
This dangerous phenomenon in parts of Britain, France
In the near future British and French Islamist movements calling for the establishment of an independent Islamic provinces will appear

 

[faroukfarouk]

Hi ideogenous,

Again, see if you can remove the politics and the nations. The UNDHR was created almost 70 years ago after WW II.

It doesn't matter who wrote it, what matters it what it says. So every individual can read the declaration and decide for themselves whether they embrace and support its ideas or not.

Hi icehorse
If you remove politics and nations then the entire document becomes worthless because the document has a whole relates to nations and politics.
Further why is it called universal?

 

[oldbadger]

Because Islam is not a religion, spirituality
That Islam is a political and colonial and expansionist ideology and authoritarian
Bosnia is the province of the old provinces of Yugoslavia
Where Islam spread gradually and when the Muslims of stability and expansion have become able to demand a state

Ah yes............ Bosnia.
Do you think that the Serbians, with the Yugoslav army, were right to do what they did in Bosnia and Croatia in 1992-95??

 

[Augustus]

Islamic societies have a very hard time living with even themselves, and tend to think way too much of power and conquest. In a very real sense they are their own worst enemy.

What are you basing this on?

1) What makes you think that over the last 1500 years, islamic societies have had a harder time living with themselves than non-Islamic ones?
2) Same question, since start of 20thC
3) As above re: thinking too much about power and conquest


There aren't many societies that have done well on these criteria, why should Islamic ones be held up as being significantly worse than any others?

Islam will not be stopped. It will collapse under its own weight. It is unavoidable, but we can and must defend from the fallout.

It is far more probable that Western liberal democracy will collapse before Islam does. A social system that has lasted for 1500 years is far more likely to be around in 100 years time than a 100 year old system is. To believe otherwise is a faith based position, not an evidence based one.

You certainly will not see the collapse of Islam in your life time, Western democracy though, possibly (but unlikely).

 

[icehorse]

Hi icehorse
If you remove politics and nations then the entire document becomes worthless because the document has a whole relates to nations and politics.
Further why is it called universal?

The document is about human rights. It is about what freedoms and rights every individual should enjoy. It is not about politics or nations.

Now, since Islam is a totalitarian ideology - i.e. it mixes religion and politics and human rights - you might see this as a political document. And this is a problem in itself.

 

[faroukfarouk]

The document is about human rights. It is about what freedoms and rights every individual should enjoy. It is not about politics or nations.
Now, since Islam is a totalitarian ideology - i.e. it mixes religion and politics and human rights - you might see this as a political document. And this is a problem in itself.

icehorse
Article 19
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".

Is this not an open license to insult and hate?

 

[icehorse]

icehorse
Article 19
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".

Is this not an open license to insult and hate?

Yes, you could look at it that way. It is a necessary freedom, and it's one of the prices we have to pay for a free society. Let me ask you this, if you say that you want to restrict freedom to insult, then who do you think is qualified to be the censor? (I can tell you that I've never met nor heard of anyone who I think is qualified to censor me )

 

[faroukfarouk]

Yes, you could look at it that way. It is a necessary freedom, and it's one of the prices we have to pay for a free society. Let me ask you this, if you say that you want to restrict freedom to insult, then who do you think is qualified to be the censor? (I can tell you that I've never met nor heard of anyone who I think is qualified to censor me )

Note if the document allows one to insult and hate deceased persons or religions then its absolutely flawed because it encourages violence.

 

[icehorse]

Note if the document allows one to insult and hate deceased persons or religions then its absolutely flawed because it encourages violence.

And who decides what is valid criticism and what is not?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Note if the document allows one to insult and hate deceased persons or religions then its absolutely flawed because it encourages violence.

Do you believe that those with strong opinions about something are free to have those opinions challenged, or does that count somehow as an insult? What is the difference between a challenge and an insult for example?

 

[gnostic]

If I can find it again, it was an article on the BBC, but it involves what a female Muslim is calling Islam Feminism, and the do question certain parts of the Quran.
I have noticed, no one criticizes Martin Heidegger, even though his philosophies were influential during the Islamic Revolution during the 70s. I'm just glad society has largely moved away from the idea that Nietzsche has some very dangerous ideas that are best avoided.
I still stand firm, the problem is not religion, it's people. Why do people not ask questions? Why do some people fear change so much they will kill to preserve tradition? Why do some people cling to their beliefs so much they will turn violent over them? Focusing solely on religion, as many do, will not adequately answer these questions, and when you focus on religion, you must ask "why these followers, but not these?" The answer to that, I am very certain, lies not in the religion but in the individual person, in their culture, and rather than just questioning why are there some violent Muslims and some peaceful Muslims, we can include things like nationalism, animal rights, and profit as other things that incite people to violence, giving ourselves more samples to draw from when trying to answer why some people turn violent. Even over romance, people are known for turning violent. Why is this?

While I agree with on some parts, but I have to say that this view of dividing line between religion and people is not so black-and-White as you think it is.

My view is that religion and their followers as a system of a religion.

Meaning, you can't separate people (followers, believers or whatever you want to call them) from their religion.

Religion is about the people, and not "for the people".

Can a religion exist without the people?

I don't think it can.

No matter what religion you follow, you as the people or group of followers, could be view as the "religion" as a whole.

Sure, you can divide the followers, let's use Muslims as an example, from Allah, from the prophet and from the Qur'an, BUT where would Islam really be if Muhammad was the only follower to follow Islam and if Muhammad had no followers? Could Islam survive without the hundreds, thousands or millions of followers? Could Muhammad win in any battle without any follower?

Considering that Muhammad couldn't read nor write, without followers, there wouldn't be anyone to write the Qur'an after his death.

Without the people, there wouldn't be any Islam.

Because Islam had increasingly grown larger, there were about to be different interpretations to what in the Qur'an and what Muhammad had taught the people, and very early on, after Muhammad's death, there were frictional and conflicts between Muslims, between the Sunni and ****tes, each sside have their own sets of hadiths. And both Sunni and ****tes don't like other newcomers, like the Sufi Muslims and the Ahmadiyya Muslims.

Yes, the divisions between these sects are about divisions between people, but Islam is part of that very division, because they want exclusive rights to the Qur'an and to the followers.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Ah yes............ Bosnia.
Do you think that the Serbians, with the Yugoslav army, were right to do what they did in Bosnia and Croatia in 1992-95??

Yes right of Serbs fighting
In fighting some errors occur
In Bosnia there were fighters from various Islamic countries were Saudi money fights against the Serbs also

 

[faroukfarouk]

And who decides what is valid criticism and what is not?

icehorse you are missing my point.
Hate and insulting is a violation of human rights in itself.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Do you believe that those with strong opinions about something are free to have those opinions challenged, or does that count somehow as an insult? What is the difference between a challenge and an insult for example?

Hello ideogenous
Yes people are free to express their opinions.But there is a red line so far as that opinion is concerned.Your opinion should not violate human rights.Insulting and hatred of deceased persons is violating the rights of the deceased.
Challenging people regarding their beliefs or opinions is not a problem so as long as its done in a dignified and respectful way so as not to insult them.
The bottom line all freedom of opinion and expression should have limits so as not to hurt human feelings.
Any hurt of human feelings is a violation of human rights.
The very object of human rights is to live in harmony.
How can you live in harmony by insulting and hating people?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Hello ideogenous
Yes people are free to express their opinions.But there is a red line so far as that opinion is concerned.Your opinion should not violate human rights.Insulting and hatred of deceased persons is violating the rights of the deceased.
Challenging people regarding their beliefs or opinions is not a problem so as long as its done in a dignified and respectful way so as not to insult them.
The bottom line all freedom of opinion and expression should have limits so as not to hurt human feelings.
Any hurt of human feelings is a violation of human rights.
The very object of human rights is to live in harmony.
How can you live in harmony by insulting and hating people?

Other people might give you different answers, but I'll tell you my opinion about this. There is certain threshold that can be broken down by the psyche, and the personality is no longer incensed easily if at all. I am not the master of it, and it is rare to find those who truly are. Success however comes best to those who can immediately convert an outright insult into counter-wit - he who can do this makes a joker two or three times more the fool. Now, to angrily lash out and imprison or kill this person blesses the defender of their dignity with no increase in the cunning wit which used against the mocker would suit them better. Or, you could be like me - I simply don't talk to people who like be sarcastic all that often as friends. They don't make up a big part of my life. That works too. I just let people have their opinion and move on at a certain point, and I'm happier now.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes right of Serbs fighting
In fighting some errors occur
In Bosnia there were fighters from various Islamic countries were Saudi money fights against the Serbs also

The above was your reply to my question:-
Ah yes............ Bosnia.
Do you think that the Serbians, with the Yugoslav army, were right to do what they did in Bosnia and Croatia in 1992-95??

Do you really support the Serbs for killing 80,000 Bosnians and 20,000 Croatians?
Do you think that the raping of 50,000 women was just an error?

Question: What religion do you follow?

 

[icehorse]

icehorse you are missing my point.
Hate and insulting is a violation of human rights in itself.

Hi farouk - Let's take one example, the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. One person sees them as hateful, and another person sees them as valid criticism. Who decides which person is correct? In other words, who is the judge or the censor?

What happens when a cruel dictator takes over a country. If he can decide that any criticism against him is "hateful", he can block all criticism.

The thing is, I'm not saying we should all go around insulting each other. But we MUST preserve the right to criticize - with no exceptions.

As for your idea that hate and insulting is a violation of human rights... what if I told you that I find many Islamic teachings to be hateful and insulting? Are Muslims violating MY human rights by practicing Islam? (BTW, I find many Christian teachings to be hateful and insulting as well )

 

[faroukfarouk]

Hello icehorse

Let's take one example, the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. One person sees them as hateful, and another person sees them as valid criticism. Who decides which person is correct? In other words, who is the judge or the censor?

Note if you critical of ones belief then that is a challenge to another to oppose your criticism.Totally accepted.....its not an insult.
But if some one starts attacking the man instead of playing the ball then that is offensive.Charlie Hebdo played the man and that led to emotional confrontation.
My point freedom of expression needs limits.If that freedom is going to raise emotions then it will lead to violence.Now if that is the object of the UNDHR then its a flawed document.Note its an excellent document but its needs revision to become universal.

What happens when a cruel dictator takes over a country. If he can decide that any criticism against him is "hateful", he can block all criticism.

Now this is politics.I taught you said keep politics and nations out.

The thing is, I'm not saying we should all go around insulting each other. But we MUST preserve the right to criticize - with no exceptions.

Precisely my point.Play the ball and not the man.If you give absolute freedom then it becomes a boxing match with abusive words.

As for your idea that hate and insulting is a violation of human rights... what if I told you that I find many Islamic teachings to be hateful and insulting? Are Muslims violating MY human rights by practicing Islam? (BTW, I find many Christian teachings to be hateful and insulting as well

Ye i challenge you on this point.Please list all verses that you find hateful and offensive and i will prove your ignorance on those verses.

icehorse and ideogenous mover
Ask yourself this question do the people of the World want to live with freedom of expression as a cherished moral value.Does it celebrate freedom to insult and guards it at all costs. Every member of it enjoys this freedom and practices it regularly. In a business everyone insults everyone else. The boss is insulting the employees, the employees are insulting the bosses. The salesmen are insulting the customers. The accountants are insulting the creditors. Everyone is enjoying the great freedom to insult. The same is true of the home. The parents are always insulting the children. The children are constantly insulting the parents. The spouses are incessantly insulting each other. And in doing so they all stand on the high moral ground because freedom to insult is such a fundamental freedom on which the society is built.
Note if the Western society was truly built on this “cherished moral value" then it would have perished a long time ago .It would have been consumed by the fires of hatred and negativity generated by this freedom. No home, no neighborhood, no village, no business, no organization and no society can survive for long if it makes freedom to insult as a cornerstone of its freedoms. Clearly most who advocate this freedom do not practice it in their daily lives. But they are making an exception in the case of Islam and Muslims. The driving force behind this is not any great moral principle but a deep rooted hatred born of ignorance.
Freedom to insult is nothing more than a growing sickness of Islamophobia in the West which is being presented as a high moral value, packaged by the slick marketing departments as freedom of expression.Whether or not freedom to insult is a Western value in Islam we have nothing to do with it.In Islam we lay emphasis on its exact opposite and that is the freedom from insult.We value human dignity, decency, and harmony in the society.
Every human in this World wishes to live in peace and harmony irrespective if he belongs to a religion or he may be an atheist.In order to live in peace and harmony and make this World a safer place we all got to make a concerted effort to avoid insults.
Imagine you go to the grave yard and some one writes on your mothers tombstone that she was a whore or worst still they may write some other disgusting words.Will that not raise emotions.Then again not everyone love their mother-in-laws.
The UNDHR falls far short of addressing the issue on insults and as such it needs revision.
Peace

 

[icehorse]

Hi farouk,

Not everyone who lives in a free society cherishes their freedoms, but some of us do. There should be no law that makes insults or criticism a crime. The normal day to day conversation between people will take care of those people who always insult everyone. Such non-stop insulters will quickly lose all of their friends and will not be welcome in stores. But it's not illegal. It's many things: ill-advised, anti-social, rude, and on and on, but it is NOT illegal.

Now let me give you a specific case. I believe that climate change is an incredibly important issue. There are politicians in the US who deny climate change. I cherish my right to insult and criticize those climate change deniers. In some countries, if the leaders denied climate change the people would not have the right to criticize the leaders. It is always the case that societies in which leaders cannot be criticized turn into horrible places to live.

So insults go along with criticism, and the freedom to criticize is an essential freedom in a healthy society. And once again I'll ask you, if you think that this freedom is wrong, then you need a judge and censor. Who do you think is qualified to judge which criticism is acceptable and which criticism is not acceptable?