The Local is not responsible for content posted by users.
5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »    Reply to this topic

Islam the religion of peace and tolerance

threatens death to woman imam in Berlin

Gjeebes
post 11.Jul.2017, 03:17 PM
Post #1
Joined: 20.Feb.2012

Maybe this will finally show the PG morons what Islam is all about.

https://www.thenational.ae/world/death-thre...-mosque-1.92077

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/02/germany-...liberal-mosque/

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10629/ge...y-liberal-islam

http://www.dw.com/en/berlin-woman-risks-li...que/av-39544119
Go to the top of the page
+
Bsmith
post 11.Jul.2017, 07:44 PM
Post #2
Joined: 25.Jun.2009

All those "co-exist" libs out there who think Islam is just like any other religion have no idea how backward the religion truly is.
Go to the top of the page
+
intrepidfox
post 11.Jul.2017, 07:48 PM
Post #3
Location: Gothenburg
Joined: 18.Jul.2012

Don´t forget Mohammed was a pedophile having his disgusting way with Aisha when she was 9. These morons follow his teachings. No wonder there are so many rapes
Go to the top of the page
+
Gjeebes
post 12.Jul.2017, 07:20 AM
Post #4
Joined: 20.Feb.2012

One of my mentors is Catholic. He prays, he attends church, and in fact, he is in charge of UNICEF for a rather large swath of country.

Does anyone know this? NO! This is because he is not in your face telling you how "virtuous" and "good" he is etc etc. He does not preach. He doesn't need "your" validation, "your" acceptance. It is for him, personal, private, and he is, most impressively of all, not even subtly "smug", about anything. I have found out these things over 20 years, and none of it because he was "virtue bragging" or "looking down his nose", as many "religious people" tend to do.

In my mind, this is how it should be as far as any religion is concerned. Do it for yourself, and keep it to yourself. It should not be used as some platform to judge others.

I also have an ex-colleague whom became a Minister/Priest, a nice guy, and very "down-to-earth". He told me, his biggest problem, is his ageing congregation and their bad habit of snubbing anyone who doesn't do as they do - come to think of it, socially, atheist Sweden behaves in exactly the same way - its just that their religion is "the Do-Gooder Cult" instead of "Christianity".

Islam, has many many "flavours", just like Christianity. Islam, is not "unified" to such an extent that "Christianity" with all its "flavours" would appear, relatively, to be rather unified by comparison.

I know "Muslim" guys, who in my mind, do it "right". They don't care if you know they are, or, are not. They do not push their views on anyone. They simply exist and follow what they think is their true way, just like my mentor, at least, this is my view. One in particular is from Peshawar, one of the most dangerous cities in the world, and he is not a refugee (came here to study, which he has done, and is now working), what he is, is a nice guy, trying to get away from all the "shit at home". He obeys for example no drugs, no drink and fasts during Ramadan, but he also doesn't care what you do, Islam is for him, and he very much tolerates others who don't do as he does.

As for the stories told, there are also unflattering things in Christianity, right? Wasn't Mary rumoured to be a "whore" for example? I do not mean this in a distasteful manner (believe it or not) but just to indicate that Islam, with all its faults, shares some "negatives" with Christianity, at least in some ways.

I don't agree with "Snake-handlers", Mormons, Jahovah's Witnesses or many other "flavours" of Christianity (and boy there are many), very much. I also don't know much about Islam, but it has as many if not more flavours.

Does a "Snake-handler" speak for all of Christianity? Do Mormons? In the same way, I don't think ISIS version of Islam, in any way shape or form, speaks for ALL of Islam.

Wahhabists and Salfists are not "the Islam" any more than a Snake-handler would say it represents all of Christianity. There are "ultra-conservative" sects of Christianity and Islam, and likely any other religion. ANY COUNTRY DOING BUSINESS WITH SAUDI ARABIA, FOR 1 EXAMPLE ONLY, IS ESSENTIALLY TURNING A BLIND EYE TO ITS VERY "NON-SECRET" WORLD-WIDE PROMOTION OF WAHHABI ISLAM!!!!

Don't get me wrong either. I am trying to tolerate philosophically "Islam", but more in the sense I tolerate (for lack of a better word) Catholics (for example since they tend to be in the runnings for "ultra-conservative", at least go to Ireland if you want to know this).

I don't want all the problems Islam seems to bring with it. Definitely not. And I will be happy when I stop hearing what ISIS is doing, as well as their idiot brain-washed terror "sheep". But I also don't want all the problems of Palestine and Israel either.
Go to the top of the page
+
Bsmith
post 12.Jul.2017, 11:52 AM
Post #5
Joined: 25.Jun.2009

You have to separate the person from the religion. Muslims are people, some good, some bad. Christians are people, some good, some bad. Jews are people...etc. Most people follow the religion of their parents/homeland. If I had been born in the ME, most likely I would be a Muslim.

Consequently, I don't have a problem with Muslims per se but I think that Islam is not the religion of peace that it pretends to be. It is often backward, intolerant and violent. As we see in the article that you have posted, reforms are not easily tolerated. Perhaps, down the road, Islam can become a force for good but in its present state, I have to agree with the Japanese who feel it is a destabilizing force and do not allow it to flourish in their country.
Go to the top of the page
+
BhuBhuKaZoo
post 12.Jul.2017, 01:46 PM
Post #6
Location: Uppsala
Joined: 29.Jun.2017

QUOTE (Bsmith @ 12.Jul.2017, 12:52 PM) *
You have to separate the person from the religion. Muslims are people, some good, some bad. Christians are people, some good, some bad. Jews are people...etc. Most people ... (show full quote)



Come on Bsmith.

Islam is highly prevalent in Asia. But, like you said - its important to differentiate between the religion and the people. But to say the faith is intolerant. No. That is wrong.

The faith, like any faith on this planet stems from a book. The book only provides away to find peace and enlightenment. It doesn't act as laws. This is frequently where people get confused. Yes, Sharia law is there, but this is no more laws than the ten commandments. They have different processes but fundamentally they are the same.

It's important also to realise that with Islam, it is a faith practisced mainly in the Emerging and Frontier markets. These are generally the poorest nations and it is there where you will find the least educated. Here - I will use India for example, there are old man in villages are effectively the judicial system for an entire state. They dish out punishments such as stoning for infidelity. This is not to do with Islam (India is largely Hindu and even in a Village in North India, there are Sikh men doing exactly the same things) but a lack of education and a stagnant culture.

We in the west can see it is barbaric as we are educated to see that negatives of this action. We have grown and seen how backwards it is. But a man who is 70 from a village that has never met a foreigner only see's someone from a different world. India (which is largely Hindu) has major issues with this. Similarly, large swaths of Africa experience that same (with some adhering to Islam and others to Christianity).

As these cultures develop, the actions and ideals that many in the West see as directly linked to the Islam, will change. The internet has given women a voice in these countries. The young who are growing up in this countries are seeing that the culture needs to change.

The question that you have is therefore not about Islam changing, but those countries developing into more socially progressive societies where race, class and gender are not pre-judged.

Religion is used frequently to justify these practices but it is age-old culture that is the real reason.
Go to the top of the page
+
Gamla Hälsingebock
post 12.Jul.2017, 03:25 PM
Post #7
Joined: 21.Dec.2006

The mention of India and it's religions is a prime example of people not getting along...After the British left and India was independent it split along religious lines because the religion of peace did not want to live among Hindus...

Pakistan was born and millions of Muslims came from Hindu regions to it and in the new Pakistan millions of Hindus fled to India...They had to!!!

It was the largest migration of people in the history of the world...

Quite peaceful, yes???
Go to the top of the page
+
Bsmith
post 12.Jul.2017, 03:53 PM
Post #8
Joined: 25.Jun.2009

QUOTE (BhuBhuKaZoo @ 12.Jul.2017, 12:46 PM) *
Come on Bsmith. . But to say the faith is intolerant. No. That is wrong.. The faith, like any faith on this planet stems from a book.



I hear what you are saying and I am not trying to get into a religious pissing contest. However, the reason that I feel that Islam is intolerant is because of how it treats other religions:

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-...tion-terrorism/


As you say, Islamic faith stems from a book, the Koran, which has very specific rules on how to deal with non-Muslims.


https://www.politicalislam.com/sharia-law-f...er-5-the-kafir/
Go to the top of the page
+
Gjeebes
post 13.Jul.2017, 07:59 AM
Post #9
Joined: 20.Feb.2012

Yes, while there are people who just happen to be Muslim (who are not a problem), there is "political Islam" and "Muslim Brotherhood" that IS a problem, even without ISIS.

What the "West" doesn't seem to realise due to a fashionable "idiot-progressiveness" is that neither belong in the West.

Somehow, practising Muslims (at least, a majority of them, it would seem) think it is their right, to have, everything Islamic, just as they had in their home countries. And somehow (deceptive Muslim Brotherhood), they are organised, and quite cleverly "use" Western openness as a weapon against itself (deceptive Muslim Brotherhood's sole agenda). That is a problem.

Weak-minded countries like Sweden seem to bow to this (Muslim Brotherhood well established yet Swedes claim they are not in Sweden, a claim usually perpetuated by Swedish politicians and academics who are directly connected to the Muslim Brotherhood), as it is thought to be one of the ultimate gestures to collect big "virtue-signalling" reward points. Artificial, and narrow-minded? [rhetorical]

We have marches in Sweden to mark Krystal Nacht, without inviting that group whom suffered as a result of it.[arrogant] We have the mistaken "racism" when someone isn't down with the "religious" programme being forced. [uneducated]

The guys I was mentioning, and there are surely more of them, have no apparent interest in changing the political and religious landscape of their new found homes, and are in fact, quite disgusted by ISIS and many more. These aren't troublemakers. And they cannot tolerate anything the Muslim Brotherhood represents. [home countries ruined by Muslim Brotherhood control]

But there are many troublemakers, who rely on use of the victim card, in the context of Western democracy, who very craftily, start to wriggle their way into religious issues, politics and "charter-rights" issues (for countries that have one).

This is dangerous, and it has begun. 20 years ago, problems related to Islam were dominating some distant land, people were aware, but not really affected. Now, hardly a day goes by without the mention of Islam, either as victims being "persecuted" in their new lands, or, as terrorists.

And on the last note, something I read was asking the question that if the Islamist terror acts of today, should not be depicted as an "Islamic problem" (as many Western governments are idiotically trying to convince us), then why are Islamic communities not denouncing it, as other communities do?

It is an interesting question.

In another piece, "political Islamist" movements were compared with the rise of other "problematic" ideologies, with post-war Soviet philosophy being a good example.

As with "post-war Soviet philosophy", there should be studies taking place "now" to understand what "political Islam" is, and what it can be expected to do, and how we can expect to "combat it".

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/24/canad...islamist-agenda (replace Canada for "Western democracies):

"Back in 1946, George Kennan, an American foreign service officer based in Moscow, submitted what’s now known as the Long Telegram to the State Department.

It was an 8,000 word document that detailed the post-war Soviet philosophy, how they planned to export that philosophy across the world and what the U.S. should do to combat it."

"Without such a unifying policy driving the West’s response to the USSR, the Cold War and the 20th century’s experiment with Communism could have turned out very differently."

"“Our first step must be to apprehend, and recognize for what it is, the nature of the movement with which we are dealing,” Kennan writes in the memo. “We must study it with the same courage, detachment, objectivity, and same determination not to be emotionally provoked or unseated by it, with which a doctor studies an unruly and unreasonable individual.”"

Why is this not being done for political Islam, the (extremely deceptive) Muslim Brotherhood and their "philosophies", and the rise of all of them, in the West?
Go to the top of the page
+
BhuBhuKaZoo
post 13.Jul.2017, 09:03 AM
Post #10
Location: Uppsala
Joined: 29.Jun.2017

QUOTE (Gamla Hälsingebock @ 12.Jul.2017, 04:25 PM) *
The mention of India and it's religions is a prime example of people not getting along...After the British left and India was independent it split along religious lines be ... (show full quote)


I should probably point out that I am Sikh. And I fully understand the repercussions of the decision to split India into what it is now. Punjab (the state that is the spiritual home of Sikhism) suffered at the hands of it and Sikh's more so.

And in actual fact, although India gained it's independence, the Pakistan and India border that was drawn up was not without input from the British. You have to understand the history. Hindu's, Sikhs, Gujarati and several other religions (India is one of the most religiously diverse countries in the world) wanted their independence from each other. And Muslims were looked down upon and wanted the opportunity to govern themselves (most of them resided in what is known now as Pakistan.

When the division occurred, Hindu's and Sikhs carried out atrocities against each other. It was just muslims. The inherent distrust was between Hindu's, Sikh's and Muslims (which if you meet them, the "elders" will always quote that you "can't trust a muslim") is because there was a silent agreement never to attack a holy place...and then there was an attack on a temple in North India. It was condemned but some Hindu's and Sikhs then took it upon themselves to hunt down Muslims in India and murder them.

Neither is right. The war is ongoing and things are still not peaceful there. But there are issues with both sides - and I am Indian.

Like I said before, it's easy to blame Muslims, but they are only part to blame. India's are equally culpable.

Look at what Hindu's (a traditionally peaceful religion) did to Sikh's after Indira Ghandi was assassinated. Doesn't matter what religion it is - the people who perpetuate the crime are still people.

The religion only provides an excuse.

QUOTE (Bsmith @ 12.Jul.2017, 04:53 PM) *
I hear what you are saying and I am not trying to get into a religious pissing contest. However, the reason that I feel that Islam is intolerant is because of how it treats o ... (show full quote)


This is not necessarily correct. Islam actually does teach tolerance. And in a lot of ways, it teaches much the same tolerances as the other books of Abraham (Judaism and Christianity).

And it doesn't have specific "rules" - in fact is has this actually written in the Qur'an:

“O you who do not believe! I worship not what you worship, and you are not worshipping what I worship; nor am 1 worshipping what you wor­ship; neither -art you worshipping what I worship. Therefore, to you your religion; and to me my religion!” (chap. 109)

A bit more history:

“(And as for My messenger,) there is no (obligation) on him except to deliver (the. message). God knows what yon expose and what conceal”. (5:99).

Once the people of Mecca said to Prophet Muhammad that if god did not want them to worship idols then why He does not forcefully prevent them from doing so. Then God sent the following message:

“(O Muhammad) This is not a new excuse; those who weft before, them made, the same excuses. Is there anything upon the messengers except the dear conveying of the message”. (16: 35).

So we see that from the Qur'anic point of view, the mission of the prophets and messengers of God was not to forcefully impose their teachings on the people but to guide them and ask them to accept God with their own will, in one revelation, God says to Prophet Muhammad:

"But if the people turn away (then do not be sad because) We did ma sent you to be a guardian over them. It is for you only to deliver the mes­sage." (42:43).

The Qur’an clearly says that reli­gion cannot be forced on anyone. It says,

"There is no compulsion in (accept­ing) the religion (of Islam)…”

This is a clear and correct interpretation of Islam. It can be convoluted by an evil and deranged mind just like anything (remember a few years ago video games were believed to be inspiring killings by young people?)!

Look, I am Sikh. I believe in tolerance of other religions. That is what the "Khalsa" teaches me and I believe the majority of Sikhs. But some people will convolute this in what ever way they wish. Does it make it right no, but is it the religions fault...of cause not.

The reason I get quite involved in this things is because where does it stop? You persecute one religious scripture, what stops you from persecuting another, and another? As a Sikh man, many people like me were often compared and thought to be Muslim after 7/7 in the UK. It's not a nice feeling. People telling you to go home and etc. All you see is persecution of a book - I see persecution of the people as a consequence.

The book is not the reason the hatred spreads. It is the people who believe in not adapting to the modern world, in a fair and equal way that are the issue. And in that, Islam is not the only issue. There are many who have beliefs that do not align with what we would consider morally right in the Western World.
Go to the top of the page
+
Bsmith
post 13.Jul.2017, 11:01 AM
Post #11
Joined: 25.Jun.2009

QUOTE (Gjeebes @ 13.Jul.2017, 06:59 AM) *
Yes, while there are people who just happen to be Muslim (who are not a problem), there is "political Islam" and "Muslim Brotherhood" that IS a problem, ev ... (show full quote)


The problem is that the politics of Islam and the religion are interwoven and cannot be separated.
Go to the top of the page
+
Bsmith
post 13.Jul.2017, 11:08 AM
Post #12
Joined: 25.Jun.2009

QUOTE (BhuBhuKaZoo @ 13.Jul.2017, 08:03 AM) *
This is not necessarily correct. Islam actually does teach tolerance. And in a lot of ways, it teaches much the same tolerances as the other books of Abraham (Judaism and Christianity).


The beginning of the Koran teaches and preaches tolerance, the last part of the Koran does not. People cherry pick what they want to and use the verses that agree with their own feelings.

As you can see by current events that there are many Muslims that choose a peaceful route but there are others who choose jihad.
Go to the top of the page
+
BhuBhuKaZoo
post 13.Jul.2017, 11:34 AM
Post #13
Location: Uppsala
Joined: 29.Jun.2017

QUOTE (Bsmith @ 13.Jul.2017, 12:08 PM) *
The beginning of the Koran teaches and preaches tolerance, the last part of the Koran does not. People cherry pick what they want to and use the verses that agree with their ... (show full quote)



That is fair. I won't deny that but its only through education that this can change. But it's all interpretation. I wouldn't say that the last part of the Qu'ran teaches intolerance. I would encourage rather than just reading the book - talking to clerics. Talking to religious people about what you have read and how they have interpreted it. You may see something horrible but perspective comes from actually meeting people who believe in it and how they interpret it. This is a massive issue right now. People do cherry pick and generalise lines they read, but fail to actually talk to religious people about those same lines for perspective and their thoughts!

And similarly - in terms of politics and religion - you could potentially say the same about the U.S? A lot of the laws such as LGBT and those against gay marriage are down to religious beliefs. So this is no different to the west.

However, we in the west have moved past religion. Developing and poorer countries have it interwoven as it is a more intrinsic belief in the system. That will change as the world and those countries develop.
Go to the top of the page
+
Gjeebes
post 13.Jul.2017, 12:14 PM
Post #14
Joined: 20.Feb.2012

"People do cherry pick and generalise lines they read, but fail to actually talk to religious people about those same lines for perspective and their thoughts!"

Not so sure about that these days especially. Imams pay big time lip-service to tell a narrative that is predictably expected of them. This is often to keep the generosity of the non-Islamic host state flowing into their mosques. In essence, (some) Muslims have no problems lying about their real intentions, and there are plenty of interviews (see youtube) where the host nails this, and the person being interviewed can barely hold back yet does for convenience. Most of the "Islamic societies/institutions/clubs what have you, which are in effect just tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood, will never admit it (proven).

"Developing and poorer countries have it interwoven as it is a more intrinsic belief in the system."

Really? So, the "holy cow" of Hindu persuasion...a "holy" directive for practitioners, or, a directive from those representing government (in the time of its origins), preventing slaughter of cattle (for good reason, but not for "holy" reasons), which instead of being eaten, served more purpose as beasts of burden on farms, thereby keeping food production at required levels.

"However, we in the west have moved past religion."

You certainly like your sweeping generalisations. This is absolutely not the case. Is your idea of "West" purely based on experiences in Sweden? Come on man!
Go to the top of the page
+
BhuBhuKaZoo
post 13.Jul.2017, 12:57 PM
Post #15
Location: Uppsala
Joined: 29.Jun.2017

QUOTE (Gjeebes @ 13.Jul.2017, 01:14 PM) *
"People do cherry pick and generalise lines they read, but fail to actually talk to religious people about those same lines for perspective and their thoughts!"N ... (show full quote)



The first point is conjecture to me - my opinion obviously. But yeah, I don't truly believe that.

Second point - this was a law based on the fact that Cow's provided for the family and shouldn't be killed out of respect. There is basis in religion with that. Wasn't a logical reason as such. Its the same as Cow's having more respect than people in some places. Partly to do with there reverie in holy books.

Third point - you got me there hahaha! This is fair. I have grown up in the west and so that's what my experiences are based on (born in the U.K.) and having family and visiting India several times and working and volunteering in Africa when I was younger. That's were I base my generalisations on. But yes, I give you that they are generalisations.

Fundamentally, I don't agree that Islam is an evil religion as it is simply a belief system. I believe it is the person who should be judged for their actionS - not the belief system they adhere too. Similarly, if a person were a white supremacist, however much I don't agree with that belief system, it is a question of why people belief in that and making sure that person practices there beliefs without impinging on my freedoms (tough I know!)! It is not place to force my beliefs onto that person (as that is their freedom of thought) - all we can do as people is provide that person with information and debate those views.

If they change them, great - but if not. Then fine. You can't just shout at everyone who doesn't believe in what you do. Human nature makes people less likely to understand another point of view if they are attacked for it. Generally, you reaffirm that persons beliefs!
Go to the top of the page
+

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topic
7 User(s) are reading this topic (7 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: