Propaganda: Why it is necessary for Islam

[Alla Prima]

out side of cyber space, I have met, talked and made friends with several Muslims. My husband and i even went so far as to consider converting and talked to an imam about it. (obviously we did not go through with it.} Our issue, believe it or not, is also with the propaganda that does paint Islam in a bad light, but we also have an issue with those that do not wish to do anything about it.
Their way of tending to it is "Oh well. That is not Islam so it doesn't affect me." Well it does affect you. Especially if you want people to not look at you when others taint Islam. You are more or less allowing the propaganda to continue by remaining silent.

Yes it's called tacit support.

 

[Gharib]

Islam does not yet have the power to extinguish them. I have no doubt that if it did it would. We only need to look to Islamic countries (and the teachings of Islam) to know this as truth.

talking about power, wasn't the islamic government the strongest ruler on the planet when Muhammed (saws) was alive and very soon after his passing away, and yet that "oppresing" religion never tried to destroy the other religions appart from those people who betrayed the muslims.

 

[Fatihah]

Let us discuss your analogy of groceries and religion. You still seem to be under the illusion that it is a meaningful argument, but as you shall see, it is not.

Your original comment was this:



That comment was in response to the following:



The full text of which is in several translations:



You analogy is weak, at most, Fatihah. Since no one else is willing to tackle it, I�ll give it a shot.

Your so-called �argument� is rejected because:

When showing others the best products available, any person can easily cite reasons to support the suggestion. The idea is that any person, barring personal preferences, can readily test the accuracy of your �best� suggestions.

Given that these are simple products, with basic ingredients, it does not require a huge investment of time and resources to find areas of agreement (and possibly disagreement) with a given �best choices� list. The point is that it is a verifiable process.

The suggestion that one religion is better than another religion is not easy to prove or disprove. One is welcome to state their preference, but I�d wager that most thinking people realize that there is too many subjective issues involved to reach a meaningful conclusion. Likewise, one could not arrive at an answer in a reasonable time frame, unlike with checking the validity of a �best choices� list from a supermarket. Again, someone is welcome to say, �Religion X is the best!� but since virtually all religions make this claim in some form or other it is a somewhat hollow pronouncement and one that I don�t think any reasonable person takes very seriously.

But, let�s look at the text itself, shall we?

Response: O.K. Let's. But before we do so, let me first address your continuous claim of me using a weak argument and analogy. My friend, are you not noticing the question marks at the end of the statements? That means that I am asking him questions. This is not an argument or analogy to prove my point so it can not be a weak argument or analogy. I'm asking questions not trying to prove a point. The point as to why the verse was mentioned was never stated. The reason for why he disagreed or disliked the verse was never stated. That is why my initial question was to know exactly what's wrong with the verse. The title in which he selected was "only accept islam". So based on that, I used an analogy in the form of a QUESTION to ask why is it wrong to recommend something over another in response to his statement of "only accept islam". I never said that the meaning of the verse is the same as my analogy. Had I done so, of course that would be a weak argument and analogy.

Quote: YmirGF
The first difficulty I have with the passage is the nonsensical idea of winners and losers. Such thinking can only appeal to those of the basest mentality. It is little more than an elaboration of the �carrot and the stick�. Here, the carrot is the promise of paradise and the suggestion of being among the �winner�s circle�; whereas, in this instance, the �stick� is the reward of the losers. Curiously, as if losing is not punishment enough, said losers are �rewarded� with especially sadistic punishments designed to scare people into trying to be among the winners. It is rogue psychology at its worst, in my opinion.

Response: Does the verse say that the purpose of the punishment is "designed to scare people into trying to be among the winners"? No. You are putting your own words in the text.

Quote: YmirGF
In my view the verse is not simply extolling the virtues of Islam, but rather it is focusing on the negative consequences of rejecting Islam, and purportedly from God Almighty, not from some Joe Blow in a supermarket. Negative reinforcement can be an effective, but it is arguably a shameful way to sell said product. Not only do we have the negative day to day very real consequences of rejecting Islam, in a Muslim society, but we also have the threat of persecution after physical death. This is in no way similar to saying what products are best to buy at the supermarket because if the same sense were used in both cases you wouldn�t be saying, �I think this is best�, you would be saying, �Only these items are good for you and all other items will cause sickness or death.� This is several hops, skips and jumps beyond caveat emptor due to the implied threat.

Response: Again the analogy was not said to give meaning to the verse, it was a question as to why is it not o.k. to recommend what's best. There's a difference.

Quote: YmirGF
So, Fatihah, this is why I reject the analogy as I found it an unrealistic comparison. Further to this, you do understand that just because an argument cannot be defeated does not mean that the argument is valid or true.

Response: Yes. I understand.

Quote: YmirGF
To illustrate this: �The flying spaghetti monster loves pixies but hates pink fairies.

Although it is a ludicrous example, it is not one that can be defeated as we have no way to test any of the elements of the statement. To defeat an argument requires proof that one or all the elements in the assertion is in error. If you cannot do that, the argument stands, however, it does not mean that the argument is right, correct or even truthful. I am sure you understand.

Response: I certainly do.

Quote: YmirGF
For example, attributing text to Allah is essentially meaningless, as there is no possible way to validate the information. We cannot send a team of scientists to investigate. We cannot call Allah up on our mobile phones and say, �Hey, Dude, is this really correct. Like, are you kidding me?� It cannot even be logically tested without the dispensation of disbelief.

In this way, any and all comments attributed to any form of deity are suspect, due to the problematic nature of deity to begin with. This is one reason why Muslims go to great length to secure the notion that Muhammad was always truthful. To further this is a notion purported by some Muslims I have interacted with that suggest that Muslims also never lie. (I have been told this directly by Muslims on more than one occasion.)

So, we have a highly improbable idea that Muslims always tell the truth, sitting atop the highly improbable idea that Muhammad always told the truth. For all we actually know this could be a fabrication and that all dissenting views have since been eradicated over the course of 1400 years.

To me, that is far more believable, given the nature of the human animal than it is to believe the stories as given.

Response: But there is in fact a way of proving that the qur'an is from Allah and is true and has never been distorted. Please refer to post # 183 for the proof.

 

[Fatihah]

Already did. Islam claims itself to be the 'religion of peace'. This is clearly propaganda since it's teachings advocate hatred and violent jihad towards infidels.

Response: You already did? In what post(s)?

 

[Alla Prima]

so i'm not allowed to defend my religion? then why are you allowed to attack my religion?

Theo Van Gogh was murdered for criticizing Islam. We are not speaking about merely standing up for one's beliefs. We are talking about murder and oppression.

what doesn "Dar el Harb" mean.
so know you are taking my freedom away. i can't defend my self because you wont buy it, then what exactly will you buy?

I will buy the truth. Stop twisting the truth.

good to see your funny side, i think you can be very funny sometimes.

Theo van Gogh was not trying to take anyone's property and I don't find his murder funny. Do you?

ooo yes true, let me list down the people i have killed
first bid is 1 anyone got one? no sorry, this makes your example invalid.

It was your words not mine.

thats right, the knews from middle east, just look at how innocent children are killed for nothing, but they are muslim, so who gives about them huh.

the books of islam consist of the quran. don't edit my religion with false statements.
and what about the quran, where is it violent, which parts are violent to you.

The Koran is not the only book of Islam and you know it.

 

[Alla Prima]

Response: You already did? In what post(s)?

Don't play stupid.

 

[Gharib]

Theo Van Gogh was murdered for criticizing Islam. We are not speaking about merely standing up for one's beliefs. We are talking about murder and oppression.

so you are saying that islam is a perfect religion and it doesn't have unperfect peole in it.
he got murdered, by someone, so what.
people die everyday, look at all the children killed by the invading forces in the middle east, so judaism, christianity, hinduism etc, are all oppresing religions and murder prople for nothing.

I will buy the truth. Stop twisting the truth.

you and i just started to have a conversation so why are you twisting the truth, i've never spoken with you before. i think we haven't.

Theo van Gogh was not trying to take anyone's property and I don't find his murder funny. Do you?

no i don't, and can you stop with this example already, it is getting boring to use just one person. so he was muredered by a human who happens to be a muslim, so.

It was your words not mine.

na'a, not mine. you said them.

The Koran is not the only book of Islam and you know it.

what else is there, i really don't know. i'm serious

 

[Fatihah]

Stupid argument. I'm a minor invisible target in a world of larger visible targets. If I was going around the country giving public criticisms of Islam I'm sure a few death threats would materialize from Muslim trash.

Response: The argument is a direct response to your claim of what happens to those who criticize islam. Now your argument has changed to what would happen if you went "around the country" publically criticizing islam. So if the argument was so stupid you would have never changed yours.

Quote: Alla Prima
It's telling how little concern you showed to those under threat and those harmed by members of your religion.

Response: I show the same concern, if not more, than the concern you show. So the "telling" of my concern is no different from yours.

 

[gnostic]

Just about all religions use propaganda. Muslims are no more immune in the use of propaganda than the Christians.

As England pointed out:

I don't think any propaganda is neccesary because followers of Islam bring criticism on themselves with spurrious claims such as "the one true religion" or "the religion of peace" or the scientific facts in the Quran" etc and this surely invites criticism.

...when you hear Muslims say that Islam is the "one true religion", that simple statement is nothing more than propaganda.

Religion of peace is false one too. In Muhammad lifetime alone, he raided, attack cities and tribes, sold women and children into slavery, if he hadn't ordered them butchered. And the Islamic empire that came about after his death, is both a religion and an empire is built on wars, conquests and taking over lands that don't belong to them. Subjugating and annexing another kingdom into the empire is not that of peace.

 

[Gharib]

Just about all religions use propaganda. Muslims are no more immune in the use of propaganda than the Christians.

As England pointed out:



...when you hear Muslims say that Islam is the "one true religion", that simple statement is nothing more than propaganda.

Religion of peace is false one too. In Muhammad lifetime alone, he raided, attack cities and tribes, sold women and children into slavery, if he hadn't ordered them butchered. And the Islamic empire that came about after his death, is both a religion and an empire is built on wars, conquests and taking over lands that don't belong to them. Subjugating and annexing another kingdom into the empire is not that of peace.

ok you know what, when someone asks about a true islamic country they say we can't use saudi arabia of muhammeds (saws) time, so why are you guys using the examples of that time, it really is getting boring by now, always the same arguments, can you guys look up a different site that actually has something worth discussing, then please bring your arguments forward.

and it really is propaganda to use the same examples all the time, no matter how many times they have been dissproven. well it just shows where all the propaganda is coming from, ain't it.

 

[Fatihah]

out side of cyber space, I have met, talked and made friends with several Muslims. My husband and i even went so far as to consider converting and talked to an imam about it. (obviously we did not go through with it.} Our issue, believe it or not, is also with the propaganda that does paint Islam in a bad light, but we also have an issue with those that do not wish to do anything about it.
Their way of tending to it is "Oh well. That is not Islam so it doesn't affect me." Well it does affect you. Especially if you want people to not look at you when others taint Islam. You are more or less allowing the propaganda to continue by remaining silent.

Response: Indeed one can see the obvious propaganda against islam. You don't have to be a muslim to see this as you are evidence of that. As a jew, I'm sure you are aware of the affects and many forms of propaganda as the jews have been victims of such cruelty for so long.

I don't think that it's a case of muslims not wanting to do something but rather the propaganda has become so extreme and so effective that one does not know where and how to begin fighting off such propaganda.

 

[Gharib]

Response: Indeed one can see the obvious propaganda against islam. You don't have to be a muslim to see this as you are evidence of that. As a jew, I'm sure you are aware of the affects and many forms of propaganda as the jews have been victims of such cruelty for so long.

I don't think that it's a case of muslims not wanting to do something but rather the propaganda has become so extreme and so effective that one does not know where and how to begin fighting off such propaganda.

and heres the proof from the quran that supports your statement;

When they meet those who believe, they say: "We believe" but when they are alone with their evil ones they say: "We are really with you we; (were) only jesting. 2:14

 

[gnostic]

ok you know what, when someone asks about a true islamic country they say we can't use saudi arabia of muhammeds (saws) time, so why are you guys using the examples of that time, it really is getting boring by now, always the same arguments, can you guys look up a different site that actually has something worth discussing, then please bring your arguments forward.

What do you want from me, eselam?

I speak of Muslims today of a specific time, and I get derailed with the argument that there's no "true"Islamic country today.

So when I direct my question or the debate in another direction, either during Muhammad's time or that of the empires after his death, I am not told by you that I shouldn't go in that direction too.

What do you want?

So I can't talk about the propaganda that Muslims used?

I can't talk about Muhammad. I can't talk about the empires of Islam. And it seemed that I can't address any question that deal with Islam and Muslims.

Then what's the point of Fatihah of bringing up the issue when one such as you won't debate. If there is only side, then this forum in the debate section wouldn't be called debate forum.

If you don't want to debate, then it is up to you. You are free to answer or not.

 

[YmirGF]

Response: But there is in fact a way of proving that the qur'an is from Allah and is true and has never been distorted. Please refer to post # 183 for the proof.

Okie dokie. Actually, Fatihah, it is not "proof", but give me a bit of time to explain why. I'll try to repsond by the weekend. Who knows, we may even eventually get back to the OP, lol. (I have already written a VERY long piece about it, but need to edit it down considerably. It currently spans about 8 pages.)

I do want to thank you for being a good sport about all this. So far, you have indeed earned my respect, and I hope the time and effort I am putting into my comments reflects this to you.

 

[gnostic]

the infidels we are tolled to kill are those who have weapons and come to take our homes (country) and harm us. naturally we are obligated to kill the enemie, don't you think so?

So it is okay for Muslims to attack infidels because they have weapons, but it's not okay for infidels to do the same but in reverse?

And are you saying that only Muslims have the rights to carry weapons and defend themselves? So infidels can't carry weapons and defend themselves?

You know what, eselam?

You sound like a typical gun-tottering American.

It is the sort of propaganda that Americans loved to use.

 

[Alla Prima]

talking about power, wasn't the islamic government the strongest ruler on the planet when Muhammed (saws) was alive and very soon after his passing away, and yet that "oppresing" religion never tried to destroy the other religions appart from those people who betrayed the muslims.

Saudi Arabia

 

[Alla Prima]

Response: I show the same concern, if not more, than the concern you show. So the "telling" of my concern is no different from yours.

Direct me to the post(s) where concern was expressed by you.

 

[Alla Prima]

no i don't, and can you stop with this example already, it is getting boring to use just one person. so he was muredered by a human who happens to be a muslim, so.

The death of Theo van Gogh will never be boring Muslim. If it is boring to you perhaps you have little in common with the human family.

Theo is but one of many who were murdered or threatened with harm for criticizing Islam. Some are still living such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina and Brigitte Gabrial. People are being murdered for criticizing Islam and Muslims do nothing to stop it. In fact most Muslims lend tacit support of it by remaining silent. Why? Because the teaching of Islam support it. The very nature of Islam is oppression.

 

[Fatihah]

Just about all religions use propaganda. Muslims are no more immune in the use of propaganda than the Christians.

As England pointed out:



...when you hear Muslims say that Islam is the "one true religion", that simple statement is nothing more than propaganda.

Religion of peace is false one too. In Muhammad lifetime alone, he raided, attack cities and tribes, sold women and children into slavery, if he hadn't ordered them butchered. And the Islamic empire that came about after his death, is both a religion and an empire is built on wars, conquests and taking over lands that don't belong to them. Subjugating and annexing another kingdom into the empire is not that of peace.

Response: A whole lot of statements. Where's the proof?

 

[Fatihah]

Don't play stupid.

Response: Very well.