If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The "Islam Is Peace" campaign...
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Islam Three biggest sins: Partnering with Allah (Even though they mention Muhammad's name beside Allah throughout their prayers and daily lives), Murder (the illegal killing of a muslim) and Adultery (includes pre-marital sex).
When you equate what consenting people do behind closed door with murder, then 'honor killing' is the unfortunate externality you get out of islam. And when many other societies outgrew 'honor killing', islamic societies keep getting entrenched in this filthy habit.
:rolleyes:
I wonder if you describe Christians who don't kill people who work on the Sabbath or sell their daughters to slavery as non-bible followers as well.
FFS :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
So in other words a drop in the ocean (as far as percentage of honour killings per 1,000 people is concerned), not an every day occurrance as some people could perhaps be led to believe from reading your previous posts.
Glad we cleared that one up.
Sure. But the point remains that the decision not to impose more severe punishment on the authors of honour killings was completely out of the population of Jordan, who had bugger all say on the matter.
It's a fascinating thread, albeit a long one. The OP statement is valid, examples were given. Until a conclusion is reached why should the thread end? Because someone threw a *yawn* in? Irrelevent to the thread yet agreed with by a mod who wants to see the thread progress?
If counter evidence cannot be provided then we have to conclude that the OP is correct in his/her assertion.
Biting at the (un)intentional red herrings i'm confused why Christianity and Islamic sects have entered into the debate.
Are Christians Muslims? NO.
Do Islamic sects adhere to the quran? YES. So by definition they are Muslims.
Am I wrong?
I've popped in now and again, but hardly anything interesting's being said, just long chunks of various scripture.
Still I'd keep it open, because rightly or wrongly, to do otherwise looks like censorship.
That said if Baal, Cheetah et al want to be taken seriously rather than just as trolls they need to post about different things and different threads, otherwise they look like they've come in with an agenda.
I do post on forums as 'myself' discussing other normal things like music, my social life, work, current affairs, where I'm from, what I like, movies etc... but I can't divulge too much information about myself when discussing religious issues.
Having said that, I can see your point about having an 'agenda' and I will hopefully venture into other threads too... (not that I need to, but it would just be nice to).
Again, not as black and white as that. You should try to understand the wider issue, the reasons why some people have thought necessary to create the campaign, the reasons why this has happened today, and the general atmosphere and political situation in Britain and elsewhere.
It has not dawn yet on several posters on this thread that although the campaign might be technically incorrect pretty much everyone here is choosing to look at the wider picture and are not particularly incensed by the the fact that the advertising campaign is not the honest truth. What advertising campaign ever is anyway?
And so this thread will continue until some people get tired or until it gets closed.
The most interesting thing for me know is whether one or two new posters will stay on the boards once this thread has passed away and debate or other issues, or will choose to discover pastures new instead.
Why don't you just focus on what these two new posters have to say? Attack the argument, not the arguer.
You can't just brush this aside by saying... "What advertising campaign ever is anyway?"
This campaign isn't advertising Kellogs Cornflakes or the new Fiat Punto or anything.
This is Islamic propaganda in full swing and it's a bit more serious than that.
They didn't confront or denounce any of the teachings which give rise to terrorism, intolerance, misogyny, etc... and they didn't condemn any of the Imams or Scholars who correctly preach these teachings.
Instead, they decided to deceive the gullible Westerners and put a fake gloss over this religion by lying and mistranslating verses.
You are the one who is missing the wider issue.
Islam is not a peaceful religion unless the entire world is an Islamic one, only then can there ever be any peace, only then could the campaign be truthful (and that's overlooking the sects and their own religious wars).
I agree with your 2nd paragraph. I think this is just a dishonest propaganda campaign designed to deflect perfectly legitimate criticisms of their religion.
However, I don't know too many people who would be sucked in by something so blatantly dishonest. You'll always have the gullible types, but I think this campaign will be preaching to the converted, at best. Looking at the contents of their website, I think they may even de-convert a few of those - nobody likes being lied to.
In their eyes it would be peaceful.
They bat no eyelids at gays being killed, to them that MAINTAINS peace, the are not concerned that adultery carries the death sentence, as it MAINTAINS peace.
If the whole world was Islamic it would be peaceful to muslims.
Oman & Yemen have the worst track records for failing to pass down the oil money to the rest of their populations.
If only Shell and BP were so kind as to pass down the combined £20bn annual profit they make to the rest of us!
Sorry but what gave you the impression that the majority of muslims in todays day and age were bothered about stoning adulterers, or lashing fornicators or killing homosexuals?
Au contraire, it is a majority held belief.
It is, rejecting it is rejecting the sunnah, ergo not allowed.
22% of muslims that claim to want sharia law is a small minority? And that's in this country.
Meh, that's just capitalism for you. Nothing specifically religious about that.
Hello Aladdin, again you are making a hasty generalization. All it takes is a bunch of kills per year and to make it worse, that the killers get very lightly punished. That will justify Millions of acts of violence. And it will justify a state of complete Fear among every single women and every single family who does not want to engage in honor(less) killing.
A Father: "What if I marry my daughter to this family that one day might kill her or kill my grand-daughter? I can not trust them and I will never trust them."
I wouldn't say that. I would say phrases like "Islamaphobia" certainly are on the other hand. I personally suffer from naziphobia, catholiphobia, conservaphobia and homophobiaphobia.
I would just like to refer you to this page, based on your comment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
forgive the validity of the source, but it's fairly rounded and concise explanation.
We should avoid comparisons to Nazism because it's often used as an extreme example to 'shock' in an argument, and may take away it's legitimate use. (I.e. nobody is going to defend a Nazi, but it's not 'won' any argument, simply shocked people into not defending Nazism)
Although I would say, given your suggestion - that the difference may be in the implementation. Nazism was an ideology founded on hate to be used as a political tool to oppress and scapegoat people of other faiths or races.
It could be argued that not everyone who lived in a Nazi regime - even if they voted for the Nazi party (which began as a socialist workers party I believe) - believe in the extreme measures of violence and hatred, but that it was used as a tool in many cases to excuse personal responsibility, or provide justification for these acts.
In some ways Islam can be considered similar in this respect, although in a much reduced form. Since the majority of practicing Muslims do not hide behind their religion to perform murder or other hateful acts, because Islam itself was not constructed as Nazism was, to be used for this act.
Therefore I find the comparison invalid as they are two different cases, though I would argue that Christianity, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or the other main monolithic religions would be an appropriate comparison as they were born from similar circumstances. We can see then that all these religions have histories of it's practitioners hiding behind the words of the books to perform acts of violence or hate, and at times even these were widely acknowledged as acceptable (violence against non Christians in the dark ages Europe, for example).
What we see today is a similar case that in the Muslim world some may use their religion as a shield behind which they attack others, but it should not be Islam that is condemned but the people who use it for their own ends. Because in this respect they don't differ from any of the other monolithic religions. My suggestion is then that your criticism is with all the main religions, that have outdated texts that can be interpreted in a way to endorse violence and hate.
As others have said, singling out Islam is I feel unfair and unjustified because it's 'no worse', and I would argue is a form of prejudice / bias.
I don't need to, they are told all the time by other muslims.