This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
This is grim reading:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30573385
Looks like slavery, rape, and paedophilia are all sanctioned by IS.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30573385
Looks like slavery, rape, and paedophilia are all sanctioned by IS.
1
1
1
In reply to Tony Naylor:
So Mohammed Emwazi grew up in West London, and one of the girls running off to Syria was inseperable from her Chelsea teddy bear..... in love with the Chelsea head hunter more like. I shall be letting Mi5 know of my findings after my cup of tea.
So Mohammed Emwazi grew up in West London, and one of the girls running off to Syria was inseperable from her Chelsea teddy bear..... in love with the Chelsea head hunter more like. I shall be letting Mi5 know of my findings after my cup of tea.
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Apparently his British passport was in the name G. Hardy John and he was travelling with 2 friends whose names were B. Hedda and Ray Pist.
Apparently his British passport was in the name G. Hardy John and he was travelling with 2 friends whose names were B. Hedda and Ray Pist.
8
In reply to Tony Naylor:
Shouldn't be that much of a surprise really, given that those things are also sanctioned in the book they take rather too seriously.
> Looks like slavery, rape, and paedophilia are all sanctioned by IS.
Shouldn't be that much of a surprise really, given that those things are also sanctioned in the book they take rather too seriously.
6
1
In reply to Tony Naylor:
This link posted a week or so is very good. It explains why slavery really shouldn't come as any surprise. Its absolutely true to form:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/...
This link posted a week or so is very good. It explains why slavery really shouldn't come as any surprise. Its absolutely true to form:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/...
1
In reply to deepsoup:
Fair point.
> Shouldn't be that much of a surprise really, given that those things are also sanctioned in the book they take rather too seriously.
Fair point.
In reply to deepsoup:
unfortunately the bible also sanctions many equally abhorrent activities and arguably influences more individuals all over the world to act immorally, luckily for Christianity most of these actions don't have the headline grabbing power of a terrorist act so fly under the radar. Ben
unfortunately the bible also sanctions many equally abhorrent activities and arguably influences more individuals all over the world to act immorally, luckily for Christianity most of these actions don't have the headline grabbing power of a terrorist act so fly under the radar. Ben
3
2
In reply to climbercool:
Do you actually believe this nonsense?
> unfortunately the bible also sanctions many equally abhorrent activities and arguably influences more individuals all over the world to act immorally, luckily for Christianity most of these actions don't have the headline grabbing power of a terrorist act so fly under the radar. Ben
Do you actually believe this nonsense?
6
In reply to Roadrunner2:
no I don't, I agree that it is actually nonsense , I was trying to make a point but now see I failed miserably.
no I don't, I agree that it is actually nonsense , I was trying to make a point but now see I failed miserably.
1
1
In reply to climbercool:
That it does.
Hmm. Not quite so sure about this.
> unfortunately the bible also sanctions many equally abhorrent activities
That it does.
> and arguably influences more individuals all over the world to act immorally
Hmm. Not quite so sure about this.
2
In reply to Tony Naylor:
The most depressing bit is where the BBC does its standard editorialising:
"It is a depraved and depressing document, at odds with mainstream Islam, though well-researched with Koranic verses and hadiths, or reports of what the Prophet Muhammad said or approved."
completely ignoring the fact that his wives included a 12 year old and a captured Jewish woman. What actually needs to happen is for the BBC to criticise Muhammad the same way they would historical figures like Henry VIII who founded the Church of England or medieval Popes.
> This is grim reading:
The most depressing bit is where the BBC does its standard editorialising:
"It is a depraved and depressing document, at odds with mainstream Islam, though well-researched with Koranic verses and hadiths, or reports of what the Prophet Muhammad said or approved."
completely ignoring the fact that his wives included a 12 year old and a captured Jewish woman. What actually needs to happen is for the BBC to criticise Muhammad the same way they would historical figures like Henry VIII who founded the Church of England or medieval Popes.
6
1
In reply to climbercool:
Because your point was simply not true.
The bible on many occasions RECOUNTS brutal actions against tribal enemies (though seldom anything as bad as what ISIS is currently doing and boasting about on the internet), it does not COMMAND them as being obligatory for all believers. So no Christian or Jew is commanded by their faith to kill all apostates, blasphemers or "pagans", yet devout muslims are specifically instructed to do exactly that, by a book proclaimed to be the exact word of God (despite strong doubts about its provenance, in this world not the next), with a magical copy being held in heaven, perfect and subject to no change or revision, God's word being perfect and immutable.
So if God (or his "messenger" claims he said), that women should only have half the value as witnesses in a court as men, or that Christians or Jews should be treated as second class citizens always derided while Hindus or Zoroastrians, or in this current case Yazidis, should be forced to convert or be killed, that is what should happen, because God and the messenger said so.
In any case, what is relevant is how these beliefs are acting now, not what misdemeanours they may all have been guilty of in the past. All religions but one have managed to adapt (read - quietly ignored the really incendiary and intolerant bits) and effectively renounce whatever injunctions to brutality and intolerance they contain (though none contain in their doctrines anything like as many examples as Islam), one has conspicuously not and has caused Boko Haram, ISIS, the Taliban and been responsible for innumerable brutal massacres. It is that religion that is the threat to freedom and democracy, not the others, no matter what sins may lie in their history.
> I was trying to make a point but now see I failed miserably.
Because your point was simply not true.
The bible on many occasions RECOUNTS brutal actions against tribal enemies (though seldom anything as bad as what ISIS is currently doing and boasting about on the internet), it does not COMMAND them as being obligatory for all believers. So no Christian or Jew is commanded by their faith to kill all apostates, blasphemers or "pagans", yet devout muslims are specifically instructed to do exactly that, by a book proclaimed to be the exact word of God (despite strong doubts about its provenance, in this world not the next), with a magical copy being held in heaven, perfect and subject to no change or revision, God's word being perfect and immutable.
So if God (or his "messenger" claims he said), that women should only have half the value as witnesses in a court as men, or that Christians or Jews should be treated as second class citizens always derided while Hindus or Zoroastrians, or in this current case Yazidis, should be forced to convert or be killed, that is what should happen, because God and the messenger said so.
In any case, what is relevant is how these beliefs are acting now, not what misdemeanours they may all have been guilty of in the past. All religions but one have managed to adapt (read - quietly ignored the really incendiary and intolerant bits) and effectively renounce whatever injunctions to brutality and intolerance they contain (though none contain in their doctrines anything like as many examples as Islam), one has conspicuously not and has caused Boko Haram, ISIS, the Taliban and been responsible for innumerable brutal massacres. It is that religion that is the threat to freedom and democracy, not the others, no matter what sins may lie in their history.
Post edited at 17:59
5
4
1
In reply to Simon4:
good post, by and large I agree with you. I think I was doing a really poor job of playing devils advocate.
good post, by and large I agree with you. I think I was doing a really poor job of playing devils advocate.
1
In reply to Simon4:
Your post is far too critical of one religion just because at this time it contains a small proportion of fundamentalists doing appalling things. I think you would have a different view if you had spent time, as have, with, for example, the Ishmaili Muslims of the Hunza Valley in northern Pakistan.
Almost all religions, by their very nature it seems to me, have the potential to be subverted by fundamentalism. When you put faith and revelation above evidence and proof, this is what you get.
Are there not many Christians who believe that their faith commands them to discriminate against and even harm those who don't conform to their interpretation of the teachings of the bible - most specifically right now against gays and lesbians?
Martin
Your post is far too critical of one religion just because at this time it contains a small proportion of fundamentalists doing appalling things. I think you would have a different view if you had spent time, as have, with, for example, the Ishmaili Muslims of the Hunza Valley in northern Pakistan.
Almost all religions, by their very nature it seems to me, have the potential to be subverted by fundamentalism. When you put faith and revelation above evidence and proof, this is what you get.
Are there not many Christians who believe that their faith commands them to discriminate against and even harm those who don't conform to their interpretation of the teachings of the bible - most specifically right now against gays and lesbians?
Martin
4
1
In reply to Simon4:
Are you just conveniently forgetting the Central African Republic, Shatila, Sabra, Srebrenica and Zepa, to name but a few. Let's not get get in the game of pretending they are not all fuelled by hate and violence at their extremes. I'm new here, but you seem a bit extreme yourself.
Are you just conveniently forgetting the Central African Republic, Shatila, Sabra, Srebrenica and Zepa, to name but a few. Let's not get get in the game of pretending they are not all fuelled by hate and violence at their extremes. I'm new here, but you seem a bit extreme yourself.
Post edited at 18:17
3
1
In reply to climbercool:
But the bible does sanction abhorrent acts.
> good post, by and large I agree with you. I think I was doing a really poor job of playing devils advocate.
But the bible does sanction abhorrent acts.
1
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
If you mean Aisha "The Jewel of Medina", according to tradition she was 6, while the "marriage" was consummated when she was 9. The Jewish woman was "enjoyed" by Muhamed, according to Muslim, not hostile accounts, the night after 600 of her male relatives including her husband had been massacred at Muhamed's direct order.
> completely ignoring the fact that his wives included a 12 year old and a captured Jewish woman.
If you mean Aisha "The Jewel of Medina", according to tradition she was 6, while the "marriage" was consummated when she was 9. The Jewish woman was "enjoyed" by Muhamed, according to Muslim, not hostile accounts, the night after 600 of her male relatives including her husband had been massacred at Muhamed's direct order.
1
In reply to Moorside Mo:
You seem a bit naive and delusional, and prone to a ludicrous level of cultural relativism and white guilt. No more extreme than condemning Nazism or for that matter the Inquisition, no need to find excuses for them.
It is in any case the current situation that we have to deal with, and in that Islam is the threat, as it was very recently, brutally and directly to free speech in France.
> you seem a bit extreme yourself
You seem a bit naive and delusional, and prone to a ludicrous level of cultural relativism and white guilt. No more extreme than condemning Nazism or for that matter the Inquisition, no need to find excuses for them.
It is in any case the current situation that we have to deal with, and in that Islam is the threat, as it was very recently, brutally and directly to free speech in France.
2
2
Bible instruction on buying slaves.
Leviticus 25:44-46
Bible instruction on beating slaves.
Exodus 21:20-21
Want to rape? Make sure she's a virgin and 50 silver shekels buys your freedom (and a wife!).
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Post edited at 18:46
4
1
In reply to Simon4:
You seem to make a lot of assumptions. Explain my cultural relatism and white guilt, it will be most informative, attempt it at least and try and make it sound less like an ad Homien attack.
Of course, I am of course in part referring to events more recent than the Paris murders.
> You seem a bit naive and delusional, and prone to a ludicrous level of cultural relativism and white guilt. No more extreme than condemning Nazism or for that matter the Inquisition, no need to find excuses for them.
You seem to make a lot of assumptions. Explain my cultural relatism and white guilt, it will be most informative, attempt it at least and try and make it sound less like an ad Homien attack.
> It is in any case the current situation that we have to deal with, and in that Islam is the threat, as it was very recently, brutally and directly to free speech in France.
Of course, I am of course in part referring to events more recent than the Paris murders.
Post edited at 18:31
2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
As a piece of contextualizing, it is very important. Without at least trying to understand context we are not going to understand what is motivating IS and therefore how to oppose it.
> The most depressing bit is where the BBC does its standard editorialising:
As a piece of contextualizing, it is very important. Without at least trying to understand context we are not going to understand what is motivating IS and therefore how to oppose it.
Paedicide and paedophilia endorsed in the Bible:
Number 31:17-18
Number 31:17-18
1
In reply to Simon4:
WFT?! How do you even know he's white?
You could actually discuss the subject matter in hand you know, rather than the person posting.
That might be refreshing for UKClimbing...
> You seem a bit naive and delusional, and prone to a ludicrous level of cultural relativism and white guilt.
WFT?! How do you even know he's white?
You could actually discuss the subject matter in hand you know, rather than the person posting.
That might be refreshing for UKClimbing...
In reply to Martin Hore:
The problem is that Islam isn't structured like most religions. There isn't a Mosque of England that confines itself to hand wringing and telling it's more extreme Imams to wind their necks in and stick to organising jumble sales. The Muslim equivalent of the local vicar might just have arrived from an extremist madrassa and start telling his flock to start lobbing gays off the nearest multi-storey. There's no hierarchy. The Catholic church might be full of kiddie fiddlers, but if you can convince the Pope this isn't acceptable then the 'followers' will come round to that way of thinking. That won't work with Islam, at least within the next 600 years.
That'll be why members of the WI and the Salvation Army are leaving the UK in their thousands to burn people in cages in Syria then?
> Your post is far too critical of one religion just because at this time it contains a small proportion of fundamentalists doing appalling things. I think you would have a different view if you had spent time, as have, with, for example, the Ishmaili Muslims of the Hunza Valley in northern Pakistan.
The problem is that Islam isn't structured like most religions. There isn't a Mosque of England that confines itself to hand wringing and telling it's more extreme Imams to wind their necks in and stick to organising jumble sales. The Muslim equivalent of the local vicar might just have arrived from an extremist madrassa and start telling his flock to start lobbing gays off the nearest multi-storey. There's no hierarchy. The Catholic church might be full of kiddie fiddlers, but if you can convince the Pope this isn't acceptable then the 'followers' will come round to that way of thinking. That won't work with Islam, at least within the next 600 years.
> Are there not many Christians who believe that their faith commands them to discriminate against and even harm those who don't conform to their interpretation of the teachings of the bible - most specifically right now against gays and lesbians?
That'll be why members of the WI and the Salvation Army are leaving the UK in their thousands to burn people in cages in Syria then?
Post edited at 19:59
In reply to Ridge:
Broadly true of Sunni Islam. The other schisms tend to have a more definable leadership. You could of course apply the same to Christianity, the more 'aesthetic' elements have tended to break away from the now moderate Catholic / Anglican mainstream. The mainstream of course was nuttier than squirrel shit less than a couple of centuries previously. Still is in some parts of the planet.
D
Broadly true of Sunni Islam. The other schisms tend to have a more definable leadership. You could of course apply the same to Christianity, the more 'aesthetic' elements have tended to break away from the now moderate Catholic / Anglican mainstream. The mainstream of course was nuttier than squirrel shit less than a couple of centuries previously. Still is in some parts of the planet.
D
In reply to Ridge:
I came across some images of gay people being killed by Isis too, very sobering. The names of which escape me currently, but there are people within Muslim organisations in the UK who are aware of the problem of preachers coming to the UK from overseas and teaching intolerance of western lifestyles and homosexuality, and all the rest. So while there perhaps isn't the kind of structure in place which could make this problem easier to address, it isn't going unrecognised as being one. Which is something.
> The problem is that Islam isn't structured like most religions. There isn't a Mosque of England that confines itself to hand wringing and telling it's more extreme Imams to wind their necks in and stick to organising jumble sales. The Muslim equivalent of the local vicar might just have arrived from an extremist madrassa and start telling his flock to start lobbing gays off the nearest multi-storey. There's no hierarchy. The Catholic church might be full of kiddie fiddlers, but if you can convince the Pope this isn't acceptable then the 'followers' will come round to that way of thinking. That won't work with Islam, at least within the next 600 years.
I came across some images of gay people being killed by Isis too, very sobering. The names of which escape me currently, but there are people within Muslim organisations in the UK who are aware of the problem of preachers coming to the UK from overseas and teaching intolerance of western lifestyles and homosexuality, and all the rest. So while there perhaps isn't the kind of structure in place which could make this problem easier to address, it isn't going unrecognised as being one. Which is something.
Post edited at 20:13
In reply to Simon4:
Utter piddle man. The old testament or Torah is filled with exhortations to kill unbelievers, apostates, fortnicators, adulterers, sabbath breakers, homosexuals, children who disrespect their parent and any random tribe the Hebrews come into contact with and fancy taking their land.
D
> Because your point was simply not true.
> The bible on many occasions RECOUNTS brutal actions against tribal enemies (though seldom anything as bad as what ISIS is currently doing and boasting about on the internet), it does not COMMAND them as being obligatory for all believers. So no Christian or Jew is commanded by their faith to kill all apostates, blasphemers or "pagans", yet devout muslims are specifically instructed to do exactly that, by a book proclaimed to be the exact word of God (despite strong doubts about its provenance, in this world not the next), with a magical copy being held in heaven, perfect and subject to no change or revision, God's word being perfect and immued to adapt (read - quietly ignored the really incendiary and intolerant bits) and effectively renounce whatever injunctions to brutality and intolerance they contain (though none contain in their doctrines anything like as many examples as Islam), one has conspicuously not and has caused Boko Haram, ISIS, the Taliban and been responsible for innumerable brutal massacres. It is that religion that is the threat to freedom and democracy, not the others, no matter what sins may lie in their history.
Utter piddle man. The old testament or Torah is filled with exhortations to kill unbelievers, apostates, fortnicators, adulterers, sabbath breakers, homosexuals, children who disrespect their parent and any random tribe the Hebrews come into contact with and fancy taking their land.
D
2
In reply to GrahamD:
Right, but the contextualising isn't true. It says Mohammed would not approve of ISIS using captured women as sex slaves but actually he had a captured Jewish woman slave wife.
> As a piece of contextualizing, it is very important. Without at least trying to understand context we are not going to understand what is motivating IS and therefore how to oppose it.
Right, but the contextualising isn't true. It says Mohammed would not approve of ISIS using captured women as sex slaves but actually he had a captured Jewish woman slave wife.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
It doesn't say that, though, does it? It says that the "depraved and depressing document" is "well-researched with [...] reports of what the Prophet Muhammad said or approved."
It doesn't say that, though, does it? It says that the "depraved and depressing document" is "well-researched with [...] reports of what the Prophet Muhammad said or approved."
1
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
The BBC report actually says...
''It is a depraved and depressing document, at odds with mainstream Islam, though well-researched with Koranic verses and hadiths, or reports of what the Prophet Muhammad said or approved.
One theory is that the pamphlet was actually issued to try to restrain the more outlandish behaviour of IS fighters. It says, for instance that a man may not sleep with his wife's slave, or with another man's slave; and that a man may own two sisters but not sleep with them at the same time.''
> Right, but the contextualising isn't true. It says Mohammed would not approve of ISIS using captured women as sex slaves but actually he had a captured Jewish woman slave wife.
The BBC report actually says...
''It is a depraved and depressing document, at odds with mainstream Islam, though well-researched with Koranic verses and hadiths, or reports of what the Prophet Muhammad said or approved.
One theory is that the pamphlet was actually issued to try to restrain the more outlandish behaviour of IS fighters. It says, for instance that a man may not sleep with his wife's slave, or with another man's slave; and that a man may own two sisters but not sleep with them at the same time.''
Post edited at 20:40
1
In reply to Dauphin:
>The mainstream of course was nuttier than squirrel shit less than a couple of centuries previously. Still is in some parts of the planet.
Great point and one I am regularly reminded of when I hear talk of 'moderate' muslims. Who gets to define what constitutes 'moderate Islam'?
As Sam Harris observed, the only reason anyone is moderate in terms of faith these days is because they have assimilated some of the fruits of the last 2000 years of human thought in matters of democratic politics, scientific advancement, concern for human rights etc... The doors leading out of scriptural literalism do NOT open from the inside. Moderation does not come from the evolution of faith but from the hammer blows of modernity that expose the tenets of faith to doubt.
>The mainstream of course was nuttier than squirrel shit less than a couple of centuries previously. Still is in some parts of the planet.
Great point and one I am regularly reminded of when I hear talk of 'moderate' muslims. Who gets to define what constitutes 'moderate Islam'?
As Sam Harris observed, the only reason anyone is moderate in terms of faith these days is because they have assimilated some of the fruits of the last 2000 years of human thought in matters of democratic politics, scientific advancement, concern for human rights etc... The doors leading out of scriptural literalism do NOT open from the inside. Moderation does not come from the evolution of faith but from the hammer blows of modernity that expose the tenets of faith to doubt.
Post edited at 20:49
11
1
In reply to Shani:
I think it's a mixture of causes, with not all people having the same personalities, there will be less and more dogmatic and strictly religious people. Like you get Muslim women who think so long as they're s good person they don't need to cover their hair, and others who decide they have to cover their hair (or faces).
That there are ideas and ways of thinking outside of religion which challenge them is very significant I'm sure, but I think it could be a mistake to imagine that there wouldn't be more and less moderately religious people anyway, ie people who wouldn't decide that homosexuality isn't so bad really upon finding their son fancies other men, or daughter fancies other women. Love within families can be very powerful.
I might be very wrong, but that's how I see it, and you're welcome not to agree. ()
The main thing is for enough people to bang on about what the best/nicest way to live is, so that everybody can have human rights.
I think it's a mixture of causes, with not all people having the same personalities, there will be less and more dogmatic and strictly religious people. Like you get Muslim women who think so long as they're s good person they don't need to cover their hair, and others who decide they have to cover their hair (or faces).
That there are ideas and ways of thinking outside of religion which challenge them is very significant I'm sure, but I think it could be a mistake to imagine that there wouldn't be more and less moderately religious people anyway, ie people who wouldn't decide that homosexuality isn't so bad really upon finding their son fancies other men, or daughter fancies other women. Love within families can be very powerful.
I might be very wrong, but that's how I see it, and you're welcome not to agree. ()
The main thing is for enough people to bang on about what the best/nicest way to live is, so that everybody can have human rights.
Post edited at 21:07
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
You're right, I didn't read it carefully enough. However, 'reports of what Muhammed said or approved' makes it all sound like a theoretical argument about what Muhammed 'said or approved' and carefully does not state the salient fact that Muhammed owned a slave bride.
> It doesn't say that, though, does it? It says that the "depraved and depressing document" is "well-researched with [...] reports of what the Prophet Muhammad said or approved."
You're right, I didn't read it carefully enough. However, 'reports of what Muhammed said or approved' makes it all sound like a theoretical argument about what Muhammed 'said or approved' and carefully does not state the salient fact that Muhammed owned a slave bride.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
What I'm wondering, is, given (in some cases) the current climate of alienation and the problems posed by there being less intergration than one would want ideally , how beneficial it would be for the national broadcaster to mention that in a report about IS, when it could be interpreted as the BBC saying 'This is what Muslims do, their prophet had a young slave bride' ?
Don't you think there may be something a gulf between IS and your more main stream Muslim?
I've only known a handful of Muslims so far in my life, but about the only thing they'd have in common with IS, is that they call themselves Muslims, and 'western values' run through them, as it were.
What I'm wondering, is, given (in some cases) the current climate of alienation and the problems posed by there being less intergration than one would want ideally , how beneficial it would be for the national broadcaster to mention that in a report about IS, when it could be interpreted as the BBC saying 'This is what Muslims do, their prophet had a young slave bride' ?
Don't you think there may be something a gulf between IS and your more main stream Muslim?
I've only known a handful of Muslims so far in my life, but about the only thing they'd have in common with IS, is that they call themselves Muslims, and 'western values' run through them, as it were.
Post edited at 22:37
In reply to Timmd:
Do you think it shouldn't be mentioned because "mainstream" Muslims might be upset? Would they be upset that it happened or upset to be reminded/told about Mo's peccadilloes?
Or shouldn't it be mentioned in case someone misinterprets what the BBC are saying? In which case they presumably shouldn't report stories about paedophile priests in case all priests are tarred with the same brush, or Top of the Pops presenters in case we get it into our heads they were all abusers.
Do you think it shouldn't be mentioned because "mainstream" Muslims might be upset? Would they be upset that it happened or upset to be reminded/told about Mo's peccadilloes?
Or shouldn't it be mentioned in case someone misinterprets what the BBC are saying? In which case they presumably shouldn't report stories about paedophile priests in case all priests are tarred with the same brush, or Top of the Pops presenters in case we get it into our heads they were all abusers.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I'm thinking it could be a HUGE gift for the far right and their narrative, poeple similar to the groups in Europe who are against Islamification as they see it, along the line of 'See, IS and you average Muslim all follow the same prophet, and he had a save bride, before you know it IS will take root here!' That kind of thing.
> Do you think it shouldn't be mentioned because "mainstream" Muslims might be upset? Would they be upset that it happened or upset to be reminded/told about Mo's peccadilloes?
> Or shouldn't it be mentioned in case someone misinterprets what the BBC are saying? In which case they presumably shouldn't report stories about paedophile priests in case all priests are tarred with the same brush, or Top of the Pops presenters in case we get it into our heads they were all abusers.
I'm thinking it could be a HUGE gift for the far right and their narrative, poeple similar to the groups in Europe who are against Islamification as they see it, along the line of 'See, IS and you average Muslim all follow the same prophet, and he had a save bride, before you know it IS will take root here!' That kind of thing.
Post edited at 23:08
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I don't think it shouldn't have been reported, and the BBC make the distinction between IS and mainstream Islam/Muslims (whichever it was), which I think is a good thing.
I do wish for time when there isn't such a climate of fear and of people feeling at odds with one another based on identity, that it wouldn't be important if a national broadcaster mentioned a prophe years ago having a slave bride, and it could something like a historical footnote, in the sense of 'By the way, did you kno ?'
With things as they are right now, though, I think the right decision was made.
I don't think it shouldn't have been reported, and the BBC make the distinction between IS and mainstream Islam/Muslims (whichever it was), which I think is a good thing.
I do wish for time when there isn't such a climate of fear and of people feeling at odds with one another based on identity, that it wouldn't be important if a national broadcaster mentioned a prophe years ago having a slave bride, and it could something like a historical footnote, in the sense of 'By the way, did you kno ?'
With things as they are right now, though, I think the right decision was made.
Post edited at 23:17
In reply to Timmd:
You do realise don't you, all Muslims regard the self appointed prophet muhammed, as the greatest man who ever lived, and is to be emulated by all Muslim males?
You do realise don't you, all Muslims regard the self appointed prophet muhammed, as the greatest man who ever lived, and is to be emulated by all Muslim males?
In reply to Timmd:
So this "What I'm wondering, is, given (in some cases) the current climate of alienation and the problems posed by there being less intergration than one would want ideally , how beneficial it would be for the national broadcaster to mention that in a report about IS," was a rhetorical question. Or you thought it should have been reported but you're worried about people's reaction?
So this "What I'm wondering, is, given (in some cases) the current climate of alienation and the problems posed by there being less intergration than one would want ideally , how beneficial it would be for the national broadcaster to mention that in a report about IS," was a rhetorical question. Or you thought it should have been reported but you're worried about people's reaction?
In reply to dek:
What are you saying, that every male Muslim in the UK is *just waiting* to have a slave bride who is in their early teens, or perhaps a bit younger?
Quick, warn everybody!
> You do realise don't you, all Muslims regard the self appointed prophet muhammed, as the greatest man who ever lived, and is to be emulated by all Muslim males?
What are you saying, that every male Muslim in the UK is *just waiting* to have a slave bride who is in their early teens, or perhaps a bit younger?
Quick, warn everybody!
In reply to Timmd:
But if you think it was right to publish the story do you not accept that you're not going to like everyone's reaction?
But if you think it was right to publish the story do you not accept that you're not going to like everyone's reaction?
In reply to Timmd:
Better ask around in Rochdale, Rotherham, Cambridge etc etc etc then! Perhaps they are *just waiting* as 'You' say?
> What are you saying, that every male Muslim in the UK is *just waiting* to have a slave bride who is in their early teens, or perhaps a bit younger?
> Quick, warn everybody!
Better ask around in Rochdale, Rotherham, Cambridge etc etc etc then! Perhaps they are *just waiting* as 'You' say?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Yes of course, but the distinction was made between the barbaric nutters in IS, and your more mainstream Muslims, in mentioning the beliefs of IS being at odds with mainstrean Islam.
Dek's response is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind, but more widespread and on a society or street level.
> But if you think it was right to publish the story do you not accept that you're not going to like everyone's reaction?
Yes of course, but the distinction was made between the barbaric nutters in IS, and your more mainstream Muslims, in mentioning the beliefs of IS being at odds with mainstrean Islam.
Dek's response is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind, but more widespread and on a society or street level.
Post edited at 23:38
In reply to Martin Hore:
Did you see the BBCs poll of British muslims this week?
But 27% of the 1,000 Muslims polled by ComRes said they had some sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks...
Asked if acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can "never be justified", 68% agreed that such violence was never justifiable.
But 24% disagreed with the statement, while the rest replied "don't know" or refused to answer.
Even Barreness Warsi was moved to describe the figures as 'worrying'.
It's just misleading to think of fundamentalists as being out there somewhere else on their own, the evidence suggests there is a spectrum of views, with some very racist and closer to ISIS than we seem able to admit.
> Your post is far too critical of one religion just because at this time it contains a small proportion of fundamentalists doing appalling things.
Did you see the BBCs poll of British muslims this week?
But 27% of the 1,000 Muslims polled by ComRes said they had some sympathy for the motives behind the Paris attacks...
Asked if acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can "never be justified", 68% agreed that such violence was never justifiable.
But 24% disagreed with the statement, while the rest replied "don't know" or refused to answer.
Even Barreness Warsi was moved to describe the figures as 'worrying'.
It's just misleading to think of fundamentalists as being out there somewhere else on their own, the evidence suggests there is a spectrum of views, with some very racist and closer to ISIS than we seem able to admit.
In reply to dek:
Asians, wasn't it, and Pakistanis too?
Have you done any research on the interplay between religion and culture, and the particular beliefs of the men involved?
Or, have you decided it's because they're all Muslims?
> Better ask around in Rochdale, Rotherham, Cambridge etc etc etc then! Perhaps they are *just waiting* as 'You' say?
Asians, wasn't it, and Pakistanis too?
Have you done any research on the interplay between religion and culture, and the particular beliefs of the men involved?
Or, have you decided it's because they're all Muslims?
Post edited at 23:45
In reply to dek:
I didn't know Big Cyril was a Muslim, you learn something every day.
> Better ask around in Rochdale, Rotherham, Cambridge etc etc etc then! Perhaps they are *just waiting* as 'You' say?
I didn't know Big Cyril was a Muslim, you learn something every day.
3
In reply to Timmd:
Then I'm lost, the report was correct, it was quite clearly about IS, it correctly said the IS leaflet was referenced, you accept that the distinction was drawn between IS and mainstream Islam. Is your issue that some Muslims use their religion to justify abhorrent acts?
Then I'm lost, the report was correct, it was quite clearly about IS, it correctly said the IS leaflet was referenced, you accept that the distinction was drawn between IS and mainstream Islam. Is your issue that some Muslims use their religion to justify abhorrent acts?
In reply to The New NickB:
You also told us "every religion" has the same paedophile problems as your local muslamic community, but you omitted showing any evidence. Probably one of your frequent gobshite moments?
> I didn't know Big Cyril was a Muslim, you learn something every day.
You also told us "every religion" has the same paedophile problems as your local muslamic community, but you omitted showing any evidence. Probably one of your frequent gobshite moments?
1
1
In reply to winhill:
I saw that too.
What I'm wondering about is the best way of holding onto what cohesion there is in society in Britain. That there's a spectrum of view can't be forgotten, while eveyrything is done to challenge those which are racist/antisemitic/homophobic/whetever else.
Painting everybody from a particular group as being the same or as having the potential to be awlful lurking within them, doesn't strike me as the best way to go about things.
I saw that too.
What I'm wondering about is the best way of holding onto what cohesion there is in society in Britain. That there's a spectrum of view can't be forgotten, while eveyrything is done to challenge those which are racist/antisemitic/homophobic/whetever else.
Painting everybody from a particular group as being the same or as having the potential to be awlful lurking within them, doesn't strike me as the best way to go about things.
In reply to dek:
Did I? Post a link if you would.
"Muslamic" ?!? As in the Ray Guns?
> You also told us "every religion" has the same paedophile problems as your local muslamic community, but you omitted showing any evidence. Probably one of your frequent gobshite moments?
Did I? Post a link if you would.
"Muslamic" ?!? As in the Ray Guns?
Post edited at 23:54
4
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I was questioning tom in edinburgh saying that he thought they should have mentioned about the prophet Mohammed having a slave bride.
I didn't/don't think it would have been helpful. Hope that makes things clearer.
> Then I'm lost, the report was correct, it was quite clearly about IS, it correctly said the IS leaflet was referenced, you accept that the distinction was drawn between IS and mainstream Islam. Is your issue that some Muslims use their religion to justify abhorrent acts?
I was questioning tom in edinburgh saying that he thought they should have mentioned about the prophet Mohammed having a slave bride.
I didn't/don't think it would have been helpful. Hope that makes things clearer.
Post edited at 23:55
In reply to The New NickB:
> Did I? Post a link if you would.
Find it yourself, or do you now disagree?> "Muslamic" ?!? As in the Ray Guns?
If you like.Gentlemen, please! There does seem to be a bit of ad hominem going back and forth here. May I plead for a little moderation, not in the name of manners, but for the sake of focus? The (undisclosed) intent of my OP was to initiate a discussion about the role of sex in radical Islam. I should have specified this at the outset, but I was lazy and didn't. My bad.
In a nutshell, my view is this: Islam is big on sexual repression (women bagged up so that lustful male eyes may not rest upon them, etc) and IS on the one hand accentuate this, and on the other hand openly offer sex slaves. No need to wait for Paradise, brothers, slaughter their families and you can shag 'em now. It's an excellent strategy. Repress young men with rampaging hormones, then tell them "your anger is righteous and caused by the west", then give them an outlet for all that frustration and anger in the form of violence and abusive sex, and the presumably god-like feeling that goes along with it. They've weaponized sex. And men in their thousands have fallen for it.
Post edited at 00:31
4
In reply to Tony Naylor:
Well it's a big 'Allah hu Akbar' to that! ....though the bad news is, yer gonna burn in hellfire, for criticising Islam. ...
Well it's a big 'Allah hu Akbar' to that! ....though the bad news is, yer gonna burn in hellfire, for criticising Islam. ...
In reply to dek:
It's useful to understand exactly what I am defending, but it is hardly a radical point of view, I think even Pope Francis would agree.
Always good to put a face to a name.
youtube.com/watch?v=AIPD8qHhtVU&
A serious point to come shortly.
> Find it yourself, or do you now disagree?
It's useful to understand exactly what I am defending, but it is hardly a radical point of view, I think even Pope Francis would agree.
> If you like.
Always good to put a face to a name.
youtube.com/watch?v=AIPD8qHhtVU&
A serious point to come shortly.
1
In reply to dek:
Here is Pope Francis agreeing with me:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26989991
Now your suggestion seems to be that Muslim men are driven by their faith to rape and you have given the examples of child sexual exploitation in Rochdale, Rotherham etc.
Given that these examples are with underage girls and the example of Mohammed marrying a 6 year old has been used, so lets concentrate on paedophiles.
if you look at the figures that came out prior to recent convictions (I will let you goggle) you will see that white men are about three times more likely to be a paedophile than south asian men, based on convictions. we have seen thousands of convictions of white men who have put themselves in positions that enable them to groom and abuse children. Teachers, social workers, scout leaders, swimming instructors, priests and notable more recently celebrities and members of parliament. I see no reason to believe asian men are so much less likely to engage in paedophilic activity, but as we have seen it is likely to have another mode, based on opportunity, in Heywood (Rochdale) it was young girls hanging around takeaways coming in to contact with asian men working in the takeaways and as taxi drivers. I am sure with the various convictions that will no doubt run in to hundreds nationally the comparison between white and asian men will get much closer.
Does Islam contribute to the problem? Probably, I would argue that it has an unhealthy view on sex and relationships and is somewhat in denial about members of its community engaging in paedophilia and other sexual offences, somewhat like the Catholic Church for example.
By the way, it would be a monumentally stupid thing to see me as a defender of Islam.
Here is Pope Francis agreeing with me:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26989991
Now your suggestion seems to be that Muslim men are driven by their faith to rape and you have given the examples of child sexual exploitation in Rochdale, Rotherham etc.
Given that these examples are with underage girls and the example of Mohammed marrying a 6 year old has been used, so lets concentrate on paedophiles.
if you look at the figures that came out prior to recent convictions (I will let you goggle) you will see that white men are about three times more likely to be a paedophile than south asian men, based on convictions. we have seen thousands of convictions of white men who have put themselves in positions that enable them to groom and abuse children. Teachers, social workers, scout leaders, swimming instructors, priests and notable more recently celebrities and members of parliament. I see no reason to believe asian men are so much less likely to engage in paedophilic activity, but as we have seen it is likely to have another mode, based on opportunity, in Heywood (Rochdale) it was young girls hanging around takeaways coming in to contact with asian men working in the takeaways and as taxi drivers. I am sure with the various convictions that will no doubt run in to hundreds nationally the comparison between white and asian men will get much closer.
Does Islam contribute to the problem? Probably, I would argue that it has an unhealthy view on sex and relationships and is somewhat in denial about members of its community engaging in paedophilia and other sexual offences, somewhat like the Catholic Church for example.
By the way, it would be a monumentally stupid thing to see me as a defender of Islam.
In reply to Tony Naylor:
>. It's an excellent strategy. Repress young men with rampaging hormones, then tell them "your anger is righteous and caused by the west", then give them an outlet for all that frustration and anger in the form of violence and abusive sex, and the presumably god-like feeling that goes along with it. They've weaponized sex. And men in their thousands have fallen for it.
I think the truth is even more worrying than that. IS are not primarily making a call against the west and its not as one dimensional as purely sexual. Their worst attrocities are reserverved for lapsed (in their eyes) Muslims much closer to home.
What they are selling is some vision of a total state run on strict (as they see it) Islamic principals. What they are selling is a total society - which in its own way has very strict moral codes (oncrime and punishment, yes, but also on family and social ressponsibilities) - which are in total contrast to what is is seen as our decadence. This is why it appeals not only to 'angry young men' who are just busting for a scrap. It also has appeal to women and much less violent men who are railing against our 'decadence'. In this respect they are very different to purely terrorist organisations like Al Qaeda and need to be opposed differently too.
>. It's an excellent strategy. Repress young men with rampaging hormones, then tell them "your anger is righteous and caused by the west", then give them an outlet for all that frustration and anger in the form of violence and abusive sex, and the presumably god-like feeling that goes along with it. They've weaponized sex. And men in their thousands have fallen for it.
I think the truth is even more worrying than that. IS are not primarily making a call against the west and its not as one dimensional as purely sexual. Their worst attrocities are reserverved for lapsed (in their eyes) Muslims much closer to home.
What they are selling is some vision of a total state run on strict (as they see it) Islamic principals. What they are selling is a total society - which in its own way has very strict moral codes (oncrime and punishment, yes, but also on family and social ressponsibilities) - which are in total contrast to what is is seen as our decadence. This is why it appeals not only to 'angry young men' who are just busting for a scrap. It also has appeal to women and much less violent men who are railing against our 'decadence'. In this respect they are very different to purely terrorist organisations like Al Qaeda and need to be opposed differently too.
In reply to Timmd:
If you have a story about a bunch of chaps using their religion to justify slavery and rape it would hardly be unreasonable to point out that the religion's founder was quite a fan of slavery and rape. Educate, inform, entertain.
> I was questioning tom in edinburgh saying that he thought they should have mentioned about the prophet Mohammed having a slave bride.
> I didn't/don't think it would have been helpful. Hope that makes things clearer.
If you have a story about a bunch of chaps using their religion to justify slavery and rape it would hardly be unreasonable to point out that the religion's founder was quite a fan of slavery and rape. Educate, inform, entertain.
4
In reply to Sir Chasm:
You don't understand. If you ignore this sort of thing it just goes away. Much better to keep quiet and ignore ideas you don't like.
You don't understand. If you ignore this sort of thing it just goes away. Much better to keep quiet and ignore ideas you don't like.
3
In reply to MG:
Well, it seems like a better strategy than having the BBC basically repeat ISIS's recruitment message for them - that actually, Mohammed was pretty cool with all this stuff, that ISIS are standing up for the True Islam, and that the moderate Muslims who'd tell you otherwise are a bunch of squirming hypocrites.
Well, it seems like a better strategy than having the BBC basically repeat ISIS's recruitment message for them - that actually, Mohammed was pretty cool with all this stuff, that ISIS are standing up for the True Islam, and that the moderate Muslims who'd tell you otherwise are a bunch of squirming hypocrites.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
"Pointing out that the religion's founder was quite a fan of slavery and rape" isn't reporting what ISIS say. It's adding further information off their own bat to support a view of Islam as a violent medieval religion - a viewpoint which only really benefits the people currently trying to recruit for their violently medievalist version of Islam. And, apparently, slightly strange people who think it'd be a laugh to piss Muslims of as much as possible to see what they do next.
"Pointing out that the religion's founder was quite a fan of slavery and rape" isn't reporting what ISIS say. It's adding further information off their own bat to support a view of Islam as a violent medieval religion - a viewpoint which only really benefits the people currently trying to recruit for their violently medievalist version of Islam. And, apparently, slightly strange people who think it'd be a laugh to piss Muslims of as much as possible to see what they do next.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
That's nonsense. All the evidence suggests ISIS are using the Koran and other texts to justify their behaviour. Pretending this isn't the case is bizarre, head-in-the-sand behaviour. Doing so because it might offend some other Muslims is even worse - if they don't agree with the interpretation then why would they have a problem; if they do agree with it (and many appear to to varying degrees) they should be called on that and expected to defend their beliefs, if they are able to. What you are suggesting is self-censorship about discussing ideas because of fear about the response - appeasement.
That's nonsense. All the evidence suggests ISIS are using the Koran and other texts to justify their behaviour. Pretending this isn't the case is bizarre, head-in-the-sand behaviour. Doing so because it might offend some other Muslims is even worse - if they don't agree with the interpretation then why would they have a problem; if they do agree with it (and many appear to to varying degrees) they should be called on that and expected to defend their beliefs, if they are able to. What you are suggesting is self-censorship about discussing ideas because of fear about the response - appeasement.
Post edited at 10:22
In reply to Ramblin dave:
The BBC say that the pamphlet referred to "is a depraved and depressing document, at odds with mainstream Islam, though well-researched with Koranic verses and hadiths, or reports of what the Prophet Muhammad said or approved.", are you saying the references in the pamphlet don't show that Mo condoned slavery and rape? If Mo didn't condone slavery and rape then I'd expect the BBC to report that. But that doesn't actually appear to be the contention.
The BBC say that the pamphlet referred to "is a depraved and depressing document, at odds with mainstream Islam, though well-researched with Koranic verses and hadiths, or reports of what the Prophet Muhammad said or approved.", are you saying the references in the pamphlet don't show that Mo condoned slavery and rape? If Mo didn't condone slavery and rape then I'd expect the BBC to report that. But that doesn't actually appear to be the contention.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
I think that is back to front. The historical fact is that the founder of islam did some seriously unpleasant stuff. In order to be 'moderate' people have to distance themselves from the founder of their religion. They have to put him in context as a man acting according to the social norms of his time and make moral judgments about the acceptability of those medieval social norms. As soon as you claim Mohammed is in some way an untouchable messenger of God who is completely above criticism, logically, you have to accept those actions as sanctioned by god. Since those actions include mass executions, amputation of limbs, keeping a slave wife and a child wife that is a pretty big problem.
Pretending those actions never happened is not an option because there is no secret about them.
> "Pointing out that the religion's founder was quite a fan of slavery and rape" isn't reporting what ISIS say. It's adding further information off their own bat to support a view of Islam as a violent medieval religion - a viewpoint which only really benefits the people currently trying to recruit for their violently medievalist version of Islam.
I think that is back to front. The historical fact is that the founder of islam did some seriously unpleasant stuff. In order to be 'moderate' people have to distance themselves from the founder of their religion. They have to put him in context as a man acting according to the social norms of his time and make moral judgments about the acceptability of those medieval social norms. As soon as you claim Mohammed is in some way an untouchable messenger of God who is completely above criticism, logically, you have to accept those actions as sanctioned by god. Since those actions include mass executions, amputation of limbs, keeping a slave wife and a child wife that is a pretty big problem.
Pretending those actions never happened is not an option because there is no secret about them.
Post edited at 10:39
In reply to Tony Naylor:
"It is a depraved and depressing document, at odds with mainstream Islam, though well-researched with Koranic verses and hadiths, or reports of what the Prophet Muhammad said or approved."
Is the BBC painting itself into a corner by trying to say "mainstream Islam", whatever that is, contradicts the hadiths and what the Prophet said?
"It is a depraved and depressing document, at odds with mainstream Islam, though well-researched with Koranic verses and hadiths, or reports of what the Prophet Muhammad said or approved."
Is the BBC painting itself into a corner by trying to say "mainstream Islam", whatever that is, contradicts the hadiths and what the Prophet said?
1
In reply to GrahamD:
I agree completely. I focussed on the sexual aspect, but wasn't trying to suggest it was the only - or even the most significant - element.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
>It also has appeal to women and much less violent men who are railing against our 'decadence'.
There are two elements here: the appeal a caliphate has for women, and the 'decadence' of the west. I think the decadence issue can be dismissed fairly easily (and probably belongs in a thread of its own). The appeal, or otherwise, for women is something I was hoping this discussion would get to, so thanks for bringing it up.
I'll be simplistic in the interests of brevity, but I would expect the majority of women - Muslim or otherwise - to be horrified by the idea of living in a caliphate. Who except the ignorant, the deluded, or the mentally impaired would want to live in a system where being female automatically confers a particularly ugly form of second class citizenship? A form which barely regards you as citizen, which believes you to be, and treats you as, a filthy slut who can be stoned, or raped, or disfigured with acid for the most trivial of actions. A system in which you are the possession of a man, and subject to the 'righteous' anger of all men.
This happens now, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and other regions where IS are not in control, but an Islamic theocracy is.
> I think the truth is even more worrying than that. IS are not primarily making a call against the west and its not as one dimensional as purely sexual. Their worst attrocities are reserverved for lapsed (in their eyes) Muslims much closer to home.
I agree completely. I focussed on the sexual aspect, but wasn't trying to suggest it was the only - or even the most significant - element.
> What they are selling is some vision of a total state run on strict (as they see it) Islamic principals. What they are selling is a total society - which in its own way has very strict moral codes (oncrime and punishment, yes, but also on family and social ressponsibilities) - which are in total contrast to what is is seen as our decadence.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
>It also has appeal to women and much less violent men who are railing against our 'decadence'.
There are two elements here: the appeal a caliphate has for women, and the 'decadence' of the west. I think the decadence issue can be dismissed fairly easily (and probably belongs in a thread of its own). The appeal, or otherwise, for women is something I was hoping this discussion would get to, so thanks for bringing it up.
I'll be simplistic in the interests of brevity, but I would expect the majority of women - Muslim or otherwise - to be horrified by the idea of living in a caliphate. Who except the ignorant, the deluded, or the mentally impaired would want to live in a system where being female automatically confers a particularly ugly form of second class citizenship? A form which barely regards you as citizen, which believes you to be, and treats you as, a filthy slut who can be stoned, or raped, or disfigured with acid for the most trivial of actions. A system in which you are the possession of a man, and subject to the 'righteous' anger of all men.
This happens now, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and other regions where IS are not in control, but an Islamic theocracy is.
In reply to MG:
Yup.
> What you are suggesting is self-censorship about discussing ideas because of fear about the response - appeasement.
Yup.
Good heavens, on the 'appeal to women' issue, how did I manage to omit Female Genital Mutilation? Find yourself in the wrong kind of Islamic theocracy and you can expect to have your clitoris and labia sliced off. I feel sick.
In reply to GrahamD:
That much at least is not at odds with "mainstream" Islam.
There are a fair few islamic states (real ones) that execute people for apostasy, and others that don't but where opinion polls suggest there would be broad public support for a law introducing the death penalty for apostasy and/or "blasphemy".
> Their worst attrocities are reserverved for lapsed (in their eyes) Muslims much closer to home.
That much at least is not at odds with "mainstream" Islam.
There are a fair few islamic states (real ones) that execute people for apostasy, and others that don't but where opinion polls suggest there would be broad public support for a law introducing the death penalty for apostasy and/or "blasphemy".
In reply to Ramblin dave:
It's a little ironic, isn't it, that we often describe this form of Islam as "medieval", given that actual medieval Islam seems to have been largely rather tolerant. The various caliphates of the time lead the world in literature, mathematics, art, you name it - until they were flattened by the crusades mounted by rather less enlightened medieval christians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
> to support a view of Islam as a violent medieval religion
> for their violently medievalist version of Islam.
> for their violently medievalist version of Islam.
It's a little ironic, isn't it, that we often describe this form of Islam as "medieval", given that actual medieval Islam seems to have been largely rather tolerant. The various caliphates of the time lead the world in literature, mathematics, art, you name it - until they were flattened by the crusades mounted by rather less enlightened medieval christians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
In reply to deepsoup:
actually they were flattened by the mongols.
The tolerance tended to be more on the practical side as well since its not a good idea to piss off the majority of your subjects.
That said you are right it harks back more to dark ages Islam.
> The various caliphates of the time lead the world in literature, mathematics, art, you name it - until they were flattened by the crusades mounted by rather less enlightened medieval christians.
actually they were flattened by the mongols.
The tolerance tended to be more on the practical side as well since its not a good idea to piss off the majority of your subjects.
That said you are right it harks back more to dark ages Islam.
In reply to Tony Naylor:
Although actually the largest "contributors" for FGM are Christian or Animist African countries, not Muslim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_cou...
> Good heavens, on the 'appeal to women' issue, how did I manage to omit Female Genital Mutilation? Find yourself in the wrong kind of Islamic theocracy and you can expect to have your clitoris and labia sliced off. I feel sick.
Although actually the largest "contributors" for FGM are Christian or Animist African countries, not Muslim
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_female_genital_mutilation_by_cou...
1
"For a young man from a heavily policed, sexually repressed culture, Islamic State offered [Emwazi] the alternative of gratifying his darkest lusts......
And it gave those lusts a religious justification. If [Emwazi] or a British jihadi wanted a woman, it told them: “One should remember that enslaving the families of the kuffar and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Sharih.”
Put this together and you see that Islamic State offers foreign volunteers the chance to rape and murder. It offers them more enemies to kill than even al-Qaeda did. Its charismatic leaders offer quotes from sacred texts, which assure its fighters that their excesses are more than bestial crimes, while the movement’s successes on the battle field offer proof that Allah is on its side, and that one day – when the final victory is won – the fighters will have the eternal glory of being there at the foundation of a global caliphate: a new heaven on earth."
The ever-erudite Nick Cohen http://bit.ly/1Aifwpa
Post edited at 19:48
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Some non-Islamic regions do it more, so pointing out that some Islamic theocracies engage in FGM is prejudice? That's not really an argument. Or even a valid point.
> Yes but remember that facts can often get in the way of people's prejudices.
Some non-Islamic regions do it more, so pointing out that some Islamic theocracies engage in FGM is prejudice? That's not really an argument. Or even a valid point.
In reply to Tony Naylor:
There is only one Islamic theocracy in the world that I am aware of, it is Iran. Iran is not in Africa. Prejudice often stems from ignorance as you have just proven.
There is only one Islamic theocracy in the world that I am aware of, it is Iran. Iran is not in Africa. Prejudice often stems from ignorance as you have just proven.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Am I mistaken, or perhaps overstating, in using the word theocracy? Wikipedia (which I acknowledge as not being authoritative, but I believe will suffice here ) defines theocracy as:
"... a form of government in which clergy have official recognition as the civil ruler [citation needed] and official policy is either governed by officials regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group."
This is pretty much the definition I have been working to. So, yes, Iran would count.
I'm aware that Iran is not in Africa, but I don't see how 'in Africa/not in Africa' is relevant.
As I understand it, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia are also Islamic and also theocracies. There are probably others which, in my ignorance, I have omitted to mention.
If you have an argument, let's hear it. If all you have are personal slurs without supporting evidence (and that's all you've managed so far) then have at it, sir. Just don't expect to sound convincing.
> There is only one Islamic theocracy in the world that I am aware of, it is Iran. Iran is not in Africa. Prejudice often stems from ignorance as you have just proven.
Am I mistaken, or perhaps overstating, in using the word theocracy? Wikipedia (which I acknowledge as not being authoritative, but I believe will suffice here ) defines theocracy as:
"... a form of government in which clergy have official recognition as the civil ruler [citation needed] and official policy is either governed by officials regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group."
This is pretty much the definition I have been working to. So, yes, Iran would count.
I'm aware that Iran is not in Africa, but I don't see how 'in Africa/not in Africa' is relevant.
As I understand it, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia are also Islamic and also theocracies. There are probably others which, in my ignorance, I have omitted to mention.
If you have an argument, let's hear it. If all you have are personal slurs without supporting evidence (and that's all you've managed so far) then have at it, sir. Just don't expect to sound convincing.
In reply to Ridge:
The vast majority of Christian followers will soon, if not already, be African. They exercise a very wacky Christianity over there and I wouldn't be too surprised if it starts taking a steer less from outsider religious heads but from its own misguided views. We could be in for an interesting ride with fundamentalist Christians not just in the US but throughout Africa.
> The Catholic church might be full of kiddie fiddlers, but if you can convince the Pope this isn't acceptable then the 'followers' will come round to that way of thinking. That won't work with Islam, at least within the next 600 years.
The vast majority of Christian followers will soon, if not already, be African. They exercise a very wacky Christianity over there and I wouldn't be too surprised if it starts taking a steer less from outsider religious heads but from its own misguided views. We could be in for an interesting ride with fundamentalist Christians not just in the US but throughout Africa.
In reply to Tony Naylor:
"When you talk to god it's prayer, when god talks to you it's schizophrenia"
If we were consistent in our approach as a society, we would either put all the god-botherers on antipsychotic medication, or else give grants to all the hearers of voices to build churches to go and do it in safely. But when it comes down to it, it's a problem of numbers and logistics. Fortunately for us, most of the worst cases seem to like living in the Middle East and we have comparatively few over here.
"When you talk to god it's prayer, when god talks to you it's schizophrenia"
If we were consistent in our approach as a society, we would either put all the god-botherers on antipsychotic medication, or else give grants to all the hearers of voices to build churches to go and do it in safely. But when it comes down to it, it's a problem of numbers and logistics. Fortunately for us, most of the worst cases seem to like living in the Middle East and we have comparatively few over here.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...