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
Mr. Christ himself validating the old testament.
And again, to claim that the concept of hell isn't violent because it causes no physical harm is ridiculous.
But anyway:
Jesus validating the commandment that a child should be put to death for not honouring their father and mother and criticising a family who didn't.
But this is a bit off topic, so I'll leave it there.
There you go then, there's your hate and violence.
But this is in the AFTERLIFE - not violence against people for being non-belivers. This is a big difference.
That was taken out of context. The previous verses state :
15Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2‘Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands before they eat.’ 3He answered them, ‘And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said,* “Honour your father and your mother,” and, “Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.” 5But you say that whoever tells father or mother, “Whatever support you might have had from me is given to God”,* then that person need not honour the father.* 6So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word* of God.
Here he was rebuking them for picking and choosing what laws they wished for the sake of their 'tradition'. There is NO validation of putting a child to death at all!
I am sure that you are not THAT stupid to think that obeying someone is tantamount to hate and violence? Explain.
Are you so completely mad, brainwashed with a dose of mental illness thrown in there a dash fairy dust and a pinch of a god's love, that you cannot see how that passage endorses slavery, which is hateful and violent?
Do you know what EDORSE means? It doesn't ENDORSE slavery at all. It simply says that Christian slaves and servants must obey their masters. A big difference. The point is that slavery existed nontheless and by being good slaves and servants, they would inspire their owners/masters in their Christain behaviour.
Fair enough about the other quote, but I notice you didn't touch the one where Jesus clearly instructs people to follow the rules set down by god in the old testament. Which is precisely why the old testament is part of the bible, and hasn't been thrown away.
Hmm, telling slaves to obey their masters, along with zero condemnation of the slave masters is effectively endorsing slavery.
The law in the old testament was there because if people wanted to approach God, they had to be spotless of sin. By adhering to the law 100%, people would be in a position to approach God.
However, noone can observe the law 100% and therefore could never be spotless of sin.
Which is why Christ died - so that people did not have to beholden to the law. They could approach the Father simply accepting Jesus into their lives because his sacrifice made them clean to approach the Father directly.
The law of the Old Testament is therefore defunct. It is still referred to for context and history but the laws no longer apply.
No it isnt and you know that.
I respect your right to your view 100%.
What I don't understand about the point you were trying to make is how by obeying ones master, this is an indication of hate and violence. You havent cleared that up for me and so I am confused.
Because the New Testament does not specifically condemn slavery, does not mean it is an endorsement. It doesnt condemns incest or animal sex either.
However, in the context of the New Testament, anyone who loves Jesus would not WANT to own a slave anyway.
What matters is that Muslim extremists are but a very tiny minority and that it is wrong to suggest the majority of Muslims would parttake in violent acts or even support them.
And the leopard begins to show its spots.
As a matter of fact homosexuals in many areas of the world are experiencing discrimination, hatred and sometimes even violence as a direct result of certain versicles in the Old Testament, so I'd say it still matters a lot of some Christians.
Let me say it again: this is not some gratuitous attack on Christianity. I am simply highlighting the fact that those who attempt to denounce Islam as a violent religion should include the other two main faiths as well instead of demonising and picking on a single faith, often done because of ulterior motives.
Are you familiar with the term ad hominem attack?
I would have preferred Aladdin to answer that question, but seeing as you have responded "yes" for everyone in the thread, I will respond to you.
I am surprised, because I usually find that people who are clued up enough to know what it means are also too clued up to stoop to it.
I gave an honest, gut reation to my feelings about the general tone of this thread, and the individual posts made in it. I only did so because Aladdin felt some wierd need to apologise for the thread. In response to that I get told that its a "text book response". Well, am sorry Aladdin, I don't care how many textbooks you think you read that response in, I was only being honest. I am not about to falsify my feelings just to distract your attention from your text books.
Then, I get an ad hominem, and a very snide and cliched one at that. "The leopard finally shows its spots"... in other words Aladdin is contending that I have been somehow masquerading under false pretences in every post before that one. Without spelling out how - which would at least have given me a chance to defend myself - I am then told that I have revealed some scurrilous spots.
Do you think it is too much to ask if Aladdin could spell out in plain english what kind of leopard he/she is accusing me of being, and what kind of spots he/she thinks I have? I mean, FFS. I don't care how many people disagree with me, that is anybody's prerogative, but I do object to sly ad hominems, especially when the person responsible doesn't even spell out what they mean. That is completely below the belt.
That isn't to say I think that's what your doing but these boards do have a long history of posts that concern issues such as religion or race where members of other communities such as Stormfront, or BNP supporters sign up simply to put forward extreme right wing views, pretty much on everything from IQ tests, border controls, the war in iraq, terrorist attacks and many others.
Usually those posters will being by posting in a completely valid way and then over the course of a thread will being to slip in posts that increasing become more and more unacceptable under the registration rules.
I don't agree with him here - but if you want to know what he meant, it was that. Given the number of times it's happened you'll have to excuse people for being wary (and you can see the same thing in other posters doubts about whether Sanitize was a muslim and so on). One of those unfortunate things about having a high google results I'm afraid.
Now let's examine some of your previous comments.
So you did expect the thread to turn out in some way or other. I find that rather peculiar to be honest. Did you have any particular hopes or desires for the thread?
This one is a gem in itself. What people are they (thread starter one of them, presumably)? How 'is it' about Islamic ideology?
How many people is that? What people in the West are you talking about?
Ah, the old multiculturalism. You just couldn't resist not dropping it in could you?
What do you mean by that anyway? What on earth has multiculturalism got to do with anything?
Why shouldn't they? Any more than they let other religions off the hook?
Perhaps is that they see a concerted attack from quarters that quite frankly couldn't give a toss about persecution, religious freedom or women's rights.
ETA: To add to Jim V's comments above, yes, forgive me for being cynical and sceptical when every time a certain subject is brought up, the new member arrival rate shoots up quite above average, often with people who come out of nowhere and who appear to have a very strong opinion about the said subject and nothing else.
It is certainly not my intention to make anyone unwelcome but unfortunately I have too often seen such posters pop up- posters who invariably have a rather unpleasant agenda- whenever a number of key subjects are discussed. Anyway, I await with great expectation your explanation about the relevance of multiculturalism in the goods and ills of Islam.
and remember, play nice people
Your historical bad experiences are really no excuse to greet any and every newbie who disagrees with your opinion as if they are part of the vomit inducing Stormfront, or the bandwagon-jumping fascists of the BNP. I am sorry, but they are just not. People are entitled to their own opinions without being dismissed just because cynical b*stards like Nick Griffin poisoned our well.
Multiculturalism, for example, deserves constructive criticism. It is not a bad ideology, but it is not flawless. At its best it leads to a diverse, and egalitarian culture, in which everybody has the liberty to be themselves and expect, (and give), mutual respect.
At its worst it is used as a polite mask for the racism of low expectations, the elevation of tribal rights over individual rights, and anti-Semitism. A clear example of the first of those charges on my list is your reaction to a British man of Pakistani descent who has chosen to express his right to free speech and criticise his childhood faith. People accused him of lying... would any of you levy the same accusation at a young, ex-Christian who came here to criticise the Bible?
If not, why not? Is it perhaps because, behind your PC masks you think secularism is a "western" philosophy?
I'm not sure what you mean by any of this either. You seem to have a very rich vein of sly, guarded insults to use. I prefer to speak my mind.
The rest of your above post is divided between carrying on in the same snide insinuation tone, and asking questions about multiculturalism that I have answered above.
Yes, good point. It was only one, and you did explain it, but please read my post carefully enough to see that I used that as one example of the racism of low expactations, which unfortunately is a common phenonemon. If you read the article posted by Sanitized you will see what I mean.
And yes, let's return to the original topic.
It is afterall glaringly obvious.
And this unfortunately is the reason why Islam is under the spotlight more than any other religion... and so it should be.
Please refer back to some of my previous posts:
This thread is turning out far better than I expected it would when I joined in For myself, I have a desire to see that this thread reaches through the intellectual defenses of some people. Maybe you won't go with any of what we are saying so I must ask: Did you have any particular hopes or desires for the thread? I ask that because nobody posts on a thread simply because they have no hopes for it. :no:
Quote:
The people who are willing to tell it like it is about Islamic ideology[...] The people he is referring to are ex-Muslims and many others who have been the victims of Islamic violence in the past (myself included) as well as academics who have seen their careers ruined (and worse) just for speaking out the awful truth about Islam. Many of them live clandestinely and have real reasons for staying underground. The 'is it' about Islamic ideology is that it is a system of thought control that can be easily explained even by using Chomsky's propaganda model explained in MANUFACTURING CONSENT. The counter-intuitive aspect of all this is that Chomsky has been himself duped for decades about the core doctrines within Islam. The people he has surrounded himself with (Tariq Ali and the rest of the stable of zmag writers) have deliberately obstructed any real research into Islam, which is, in itself an ideology that fully utilizes terror so that it's followers obey.
This system of thought control is best studied by going further than the Q'uran and exploring the other texts such the hadiths, sirat, etc. As one studies Islam further a glossary of Islamic terms is needed to make sense of Islamic writings. Something that most leftists and liberals don't seem to have the courage to do. Or as I sense on many occasions a smug satisfaction with the explanations preferred in mainstream media. This seems strange to see leftists believing the view of Islam by mainstream media but that's what has happened. Why so few have noticed this is another question altogether.
Much of the Left (and others) have gone with the extremely faulty take on Orientalism by the likes of Edward Said. It's sad but it's also deadly. Many of the people that Said influenced were (and many still are) responsible for painting the wrong portrait of Islam and leading foreign policy in the US and many other nations astray. Edwards said has been debunked extensively but as usual much of the Left deliberately ignores this.
Cheeta: and the way that manifests itself in the treatment of people in both muslim countries and the west
Give it a ballpark figure of about 1.2 billion. The "people in the West" cheetah is referring to are both Muslims and non-Muslims. Many non-Muslims have been attacked physically by jihadis but thought that they were just angry people from the Middle East. The honor killings in the West are also greatly underreported. I predict that this trend will continue until it explodes. There are already quite a few teenagers who are secret infidels and more who will run away from their dysfunctional families and community. And not because it's the "trendy" thing to do but because it will be absolutely necessary in order to continue being alive. This is going to multiply exponentially into the millions and we at faithfreedom.org know it.
Cheetah: outnumbers those who try to spread their criticisms with so much multiculturalism
I don't know if you are being honest here. First, you state: "Ah, the old multiculturalism. You just couldn't resist not dropping it in could you?":D
Which should tell any reader that you have heard this line of reasoning before and consider it to be insufficient. But then you state: What do you mean by that anyway? What on earth has multiculturalism got to do with anything? Which tells me that either your writing off-the-cuff without much foresight or that you already have a strong argument as to why the issue of multiculturalism is irrelevant to any discussion about Islam. If the latter is the case then please explain to us why this is so.
Cheetah: that they effectively let Islam off the hook.
This is a tu quocque argument but I'll take it on. Anybody who wants to be knowledgeable about religion had better understand the core doctrines of religions. For decades Islam was mentioned in a textbook fashion that mainly covered the 5 pillars. Just go to any bookstore or library in North America or Europe and very often what one will find in regards to Islam on the bookshelves are propaganda pieces that whitewash Islam. If one were to research Islamic texts in-depth then one can see that this is a camouflage as well as a diversion for believers to get their lives ritually entangled in a fine mesh net. There is a real shortage of published criticisms of Islam going back way before 9-11 and the media blackout really kicked in after 9-11.
Ever wonder why the Aisha Controversy isn't mentioned on mainstream media outlets? It's because there is pressure and it is intense pressure coming from Western politicians who have interests in the oil industry, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and it's petrodollars and religious industry as well as (to their everlasting shame) "leftish" academics who (since the 1960's) have taken control of departments in universities. Their influence in Religious or Islamic Studies, Middle East Studies, and Communications Studies -these three in particular- turned back the clock when it came to educating the West about Islam. That's right. Left intellectuals such as Chomsky, Said, Tariq Ali, and others were instrumental in creating a culture industry that flourishes in a way that leftists of a previous generation (esp. Horkheimer and Adorno) would easily recognize and (I daresay) condemn. Islam was relegated to being studied with a focus on intricate tilework, cool calligraphy and an eye to cultivating a self-loathing of one's own culture and society if you were from the West. All the while they suppressed any real efforts to study Islamic texts. Do I expect any of them to confess to these blatant efforts? Not hardly but the silence is deafening from their side.
This is exactly the sentiment that is cultivated within the Muslim community (ummah). In fact, this is how they've been viewing the outside (non-Muslim) world for 1400 years. Much of their claims are erroneous and one example are the Crusades. It should come as no surprise that Muslims societies are dominated by a mass media that caters to catering to this never ending demand for hate propaganda. Here's a website to contemplate:
http://www.memri.org
You can counter that this is from a "Zionist" entity but can you tell me that the translations are wrong also? There's enough language translation software available to verify it. As far as faithfreedom.org goes I would say that we can be portrayed easily as extremists but what is at the heart of the matter is that we see what is at the root (derived from the Latin radix) of this ideology. This system of thought control which is programmed via the Q'uran has NOT changed (despite the R.O.P. campaign). It is still an enclosure system and has a lot more in common with other cults that will habitually escalate the rhetoric of self-victimization and hence projecting their collective Shadows on the Other. In this case, the Other, are all non-Muslims (infidels, kufars) who by Islamic definition filthy (najis). Their drumbeats are pounding harder but they are facing something that no other Muslims of any other time have ever encountered before - Infidels who know their religion better than they do. In other words, we are the informed victims and we are not going to take the neo-Nazi labeling sitting down. In fact, many of the jihadis that leftists support have deep connections to the BNP as well as other neo-Nazi organizations. Just peruse some issues of SEARCHLIGHT magazine from the 1990's and see for yourself. It's not on their website archives but the again they need to harp on about Islamophobia uncritically.
The Q'uran and hadiths are full of instructions on how to deal with non-Muslims and deception is sanctioned. There is no way around that. As well as the issue of their Prophet's pedophilia the doctrine of taqiyya (lying to advance Islam) and kitman (lying by omission) are things I had suspected for years in my dealings with Muslims. Then along came the Internet to show the texts that support such behavior.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/011-taqiyya.htm
I can give other examples but the problem is that Islam is such a wide subject that studying it objectively requires that one is capable of viewing this ideology and its effects on a multidimensional level. In short the case against Islam is bound by concision. As you can see Chomsky described this state of affairs quite well but he is a big part of the culture industry that whitewashed Islam. The notion that "all religions are equal" has it's roots in the Enlightenment and is related to the ideal that "men are created equal". Even if Marx didn't give a damn about equality and he didn't. To him the ideal of equality was "bourgeois" thought but paradoxically, most of his self-proclaimed descendants adhere to this notion of "all religions being equal" (i.e; the same). Even more paradoxically (and laughably at that) they applied it with dogmatic zeal when it came to academic studies and research. As time has gone on these defenses have proven to be ridiculous. Just look at the accusations of "racism" that individuals endured if they dared speak out against Islam in academic circles here in the West. It still happens but more and more people are seeing how transparently dishonest that accusation is and I say good riddance.