The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[kosis]

Well I'm not lying or twisting anything. I merely posted verses from the Quran itself.

Well let's see... you posted incomplete verses to project messages that were not there. So either you are truly clueless as to what the actual verses are in completion and context and just copied the first random thing you saw, or you edited them to fit your liking.

It also seems like the passages you posted that proceed the verses I quoted don't really say anything in regards to the violent rhetoric spewed just before it.

Am I missing something? I don't understand the context. To the ignorant, like myself, it looks like an ultimatum. "If you don't do this or you don't believe this, then beware. If you come around to my way of thinking, then we're cool."

This doesn't make any sense to me. I thought it was pretty clear that the verses (in completion) that I quoted for you were clear in illustrating that the violence was in regards to enemies of Islam oppressing and attacking Muslims first. It explicitely says not to fight when the enemy is not fighting. Not to transgress. To stop oppression of faith. How is that not clear?

Not trying to incite, just curious because one doesn't have anything to do with the other unless you really try to twist things into some subjective view. If that's the case, why not just... not say anything like that at all in the first place? I'd like to see your explanation of each verse and it's following verbage to see where you're coming from.

I did post the context. It's there. If you're asking why the text even mentions war/violence at all, then I don't know what to tell you. You are well within your right to denounce or avoid anything that includes mention of violence. No problem with that whatsoever. But don't pretend that you turn to page 1 and find a declaration of war against non-believers.

I'd also like to point out that those were only 8 paragraphs of the 109 that I found. I'd like to see what you have to say about each one if you have the time. I'm always trying to learn.

And I'll point out that I started with your first quoted passage, clearly showed that it was edited, incomplete and out of context. Why I would walk you threw 100's of instances just to point out the same is puzzling to me. I didn't add my own language to explain the verses... I just posted them in their entirety. It's all there. You don't have to translate from Arabic. If you're eager to learn, as you claim, then maybe start with the source material?

 

[Soda]

So, do we have a running list of posters who've been dubbed racist? Gotta be getting lengthy at this point.

On a side note, the phrases JSS ID'd in it makes it sound like the Qur'an was written by someone who had blue balls at the time.

Really, though, it makes you realize how hostile things were back then when distinct groups of folks didn't have international laws hindering invasion/attacks.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Again, we can both go on ad infinitum citing scripture to point out which religion is philosophically more inclined to violence than the other. I think that's an uninteresting conversation that's based more on personal perceptions than reality.

Okay. And I'll add this -- with the (relative) exception of the Catholic Church, which has a formal, universally recognized head of doctrine and teaching (although that's obviously only true of Catholics, not all Christians), there is no single, universally accepted gatekeeper who defines what a religion "is". So I think all we can do when discussing what defines a religion is to look at the teachings of its current religious leaders, as decentralized as that might be, see how influential the disparate views are, etc.. If a particular view only has a couple of hundred adherents, then it's probably fair to say that's not really part of the religion. The more religious leaders who endorse such views, and the more adherents those vies have, the more fair it is to characterize those views as part of the religion.

What has been referred to as "radical Islam" is that it is not just a "Heaven's Gate" level of nutbags. You've got a significant number of Muslim religious leaders -- especially Wahabbis and Salafists, -- with large numbers of adherents espousing views that the rest of us consider very radical, and unacceptable. And there are other views -- less radical but still unacceptable to many of us in the West -- that seem to enjoy very high levels of support in Muslim majority nations.

Instead, I think it's more constructive to talk about the geopolitical situations in these countries and how the differences between secular Islamic nations like Turkey, somewhat "moderate" Islamic nations like Malaysia, and more fundamentalist Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia and how these differences can account for the variances in public opinions towards fundamentalism, radicalism, and terrorism.

But this argument seems somewhat circular to me. "Secular" is the opposite of "religious", so if you're saying that "more secular" Muslim majority nations are more tolerant, that's another way of saying that "less religious" Muslim nations are more tolerant. Which seems to be a tacit admission that religion is part of the problem. Likewise, the opinion you expressed previously about wishing doctrinal communism had gotten a stronger hold in the region because of its secularism also seem to acknowledge the role religion i(as opposed to deterministic geo-political analysis) has played there.

I agree that geopolitical factors play some role. But I'd also say that religious beliefs can have a major effect on how people react to those geopolitical factors. They can amplify or discourage violence, induce introspection or outward aggression, etc. The nature of those beliefs matters.

Why is radicalism more likely to take root in Pakistan than Indonesia?
Why is radicalism less likely to take root in Mindanao than in Morocco?
Why is radicalism less apparent in countries like Egypt and Tunisia and more so in countries like Saudi Arabia?

Islam is a decentralized religion. How popular certain views become may depend on a whole variety of factors, including the personal charisma and persuasiveness of the religious leaders that may arise in any particular area. Most religions began that way, after all. You seem to be adopting a more deterministic analysis, and while I agree that geopolitical factors play some role, that doesn't explain all the variation we see.

One last point that I think is critical. What you refer to as "moderate" Islam still includes practices and beliefs that many in the West find highly objectionable, and that sometimes are the same underlying religious rationale -- though not the methods -- being used by the terrorists.

 

[The Oi]

To the extent Jews are represented disproportionately in banking, why does that matter?

I mean, if all Jews took their orders directly from Tel Aviv, and were part of some gigantic plot, then I could see the point. But Jewish people (like Gentiles and everyone else) are generally looking out for the interests of themselves and their families. They're not monolithic. We see the same in law, with jewish people disproportionately represented among lawyers. And you know what? It doesn't make a damn bit of difference. They'll bargain/fight/argue against each other just as hard, and put their interests first. Just like everyone else.

Yeah, it was a joke.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Gour responded to this, but I honestly don't understand why there's a question about Western puppet strings in the ME... had no idea this was a thing to be debated. *shrugs*

Sure there are/were some "western" puppet strings in the ME, just as there were in other parts of the world that haven't gone jihad on us.

But you made the point that the U.S. should just get the hell out of there as if 1) that was the only cause of the problems in that region, and therefore 2) getting out would make things better. So, I addressed that argument by pointing out the comparatively small role we've actually played there historically (compared to some other nations) to refute the first part of your argument.

If we got out right now, and stopped all military support, I believe it would be a very bad thing for the people of that region.

 

[The Oi]

And sidenote, we'd be so much better off if there was no such thing as religion. Just compile the good, peaceful aspects of each religion and move the fuck on.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Yeah, it was a joke.

No, I get that you meant it as a joke. It still raised a decent point because a lot of people don't think that's a joke, but rather a real issue about which we should all be concerned.

It reminded me about a comment one of my Jewish lawyer buddies made. He said something to the effect of "we're so competitive that if Hitler went on trial, you'd see a bunch of us lining up to prove we could get him off."

 

[The Oi]

No, I get that you meant it as a joke. It still raised a decent point because a lot of people don't think that's a joke, but rather a real issue about which we should all be concerned.

It reminded me about a comment one of my Jewish lawyer buddies made. He said something to the effect of "we're so competitive that if Hitler went on trial, you'd see a bunch of us lining up to prove we could get him off."

Jews love the law and money. And matzo.

But they hate themselves.

 

[gourimoko]

I'm pretty confident in my ability to sniff out the bullshit. Hell, done it twice now to your views on Trayvon and Brown.

Amazing how these two guys' deaths made you jump for joy.

You act like I just decided one day you were racist. I went back through my posts, just out of curiosity. In the Trayvon thread(s), the Zimmerman thread, the Ferguson thread, the French Terror Attack thread, the ISIS thread, there is bound to be JSS making an irrational argument. And there is no question as to where you're going to be on any given issue.

I told you in 2012, basically that I was doing everything but calling you a racist because I didn't know if you were and wasn't prepared to label you as such. But I couldn't really determine what other reason it was that you were so irrational about what was going on. But you've made these same posts time and time again, all based in irrationality (like Muslims being 8% of the population, and being the primary contributor to hate crimes?) That's not racist?

So a few weeks ago, yes, I just tired of the pretense, let's just call it how it is.

You are a racist, and I could give two shits if some people don't like to hear it. Others have called you as such, publicly and privately. Some folks in this thread just don't like the term (as was posted by some posters), but I don't give a fuck.

Your posts speak for themselves and I'm calling you out as a racist just as @Cashius X did in another thread. You are a racist, and I'm sick of it.

You obviously have a problem with Blacks, and obviously have a problem with Muslims (especially given your last totally nonsensical post in the Terror Attack thread).

I think it's pathetic.

You defend Islam, you defend thieves, you defend assaulter's. It ain't about race bro. Well it is... according to you.

Islam, thieves, assaulters.

Islam ~ thieves ~ assaulters?

But "it ain't about race 'bro'?"

Right.

 

[gourimoko]

I can not understand how anyone can keep a straight face while saying that Islam is not a part of the problem.

You mean how the President just did and has been doing all week?

Islam isn't the problem anymore than Christianity was the problem during American Slavery, a far worse tragedy than what is happening today in the Middle East yet that was routinely justified by millions of Christian Americans as being representative of the divine order of things.

That's Obama's and mine, and @kosis , and many others' point. It isn't the religion that's the problem, it's the people who distort it to fit their needs.

 

[gourimoko]

So, do we have a running list of posters who've been dubbed racist? Gotta be getting lengthy at this point.

Nope it's just two or three people, AFAIK. Nice try though.

And besides, think about it; of all the people posting in this thread, you don't think 2 or 3 would likely be, statistically speaking, closet racists?

I'm done with it for the sake of the thread.

 

[The Oi]

Nope it's just two or three people, AFAIK. Nice try though.
And besides, think about it; of all the people posting in this thread, you don't think 2 or 3 would likely be, statistically speaking, closet racists?

I'm done with it for the sake of the thread.

Who are the other 1-2?

Don't be some kind of Jew about this and ignore the question, gouri...

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The President is wrong about Islam. He is so concerned about criticizing Islam and infringing on freedom of religion that he's ignoring that mainstream Islam itself does not support freedom of religion.

We in the West generally believe that religious beliefs and practices are a matter of personal conscience, and that neither government nor other individuals have a right to suppress that. But there are substantial numbers of supposedly moderate Muslims who do not believe that. That statement is supported factually by the results of the Pew survey on attitudes towards religion in the Muslim-majority world, and by the fact that is illegal in almost all Muslim majority nations for people to commit apostasy (conversion from Islam as an adult), blasphemy, or to proselytize on behalf of other religions. You can quibble over the percentages, but those are not the views of only a fringe minority.

That is not consistent with religious freedom. More jmportantly, the principle that other people have the right to dictate your compliance with their purely religious beliefs is the ideological/religious core of what these extremists are doing. Wonder how the extremists justify killing other Muslims? Well, they just have a strict view of what it means to be Muslim. And if are not practicing Islam correctly, you are no longer a Muslim, and therefore an apostate, which is forbidden even by mainstream Islam. Blasphemy? Yeah, that's forbidden as well, even when committed by non-believers in other nations. And if you're a Christian or follower of some other religion, and you're not sufficiently submissive, you're violating the prohibition against proselytizing. The extremists are going to greater lengths than other Muslims support in terms of enforcement, but the principle that religious belief/practice is not just a matter of individual conscience is a mainstream belief of Islam.

The President should not refrain from pointing out that. To the extent Islam or any other religion does not recognize that religion should be a matter of individual conscience, it is susceptible to being taken to extremes that threaten the safety, well-being, and freedom of other people. He should say publicly that adherents of any religion should have the right to change their belief without threat of harm. People should have the right to criticize other religions, and they should have the right to speak about their religion openly to convince others. Instead, he gives us "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam". WTF????

I've heard reform-minded Muslims make these same points. Everything from the horrible treatment of some women, these murders, etc.., are all premised on the notion that religious beliefs should not just be a matter of individual choice, but is a legitimate (and legal) concern of the body politic as whole. If that mindset can be overcome, then peaceful coexistence becomes much more likely. But if we're too afraid to actually state the truth, it makes it that much less likely that the problem will be addressed.

Here's some recent fun stuff from "moderate" Egypt"

Copt Convicted of ‘Blasphemy’ in Egypt for ‘Liking’ Facebook Page

ISTANBUL, Turkey (Morning Star News) – A young Christian man in Upper Egypt accused of blaspheming Islam for “liking” a Facebook page was sentenced Tuesday (June 24) to six years in prison, shocking the Coptic community and other Facebook users.

Judge Hazim Hany of Armant Criminal Court found Kerolos Shouky Attallah, 29, of Al-Mahamid village near Luxor, guilty of violating two articles of the Egyptian Penal Code – Article 98F, defaming a divinely revealed religion, and Article 176, inciting sectarian violence.

http://morningstarnews.org/2014/06/copt-convicted-of-blasphemy-in-egypt-for-liking-facebook-page/

Egypt: 3-Year Sentence for Atheist

(New York) – An Egyptian minor offenses court on January 10, 2015, sentenced a student accused of writing Facebook posts that insulted Islam to three years in prison. The sentence, one of several handed down on blasphemy charges in recent years, came amid a coordinated government crackdown on perceived atheists.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2015/01/13/egypt-3-year-sentence-atheist

 

[Soda]

Nope it's just two or three people, AFAIK. Nice try though.

It's an evolving list. Changes based upon mood, so I can see how the number stays low.

And besides, think about it; of all the people posting in this thread, you don't think 2 or 3 would likely be, statistically speaking, closet racists?

Probably more.

 

[Maximus]

Probably more.

Probably all...