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
'Pray five times a day or be beheaded'
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
How medieval.
The savagery of Islamism in the 21st century and the sheer backwardness of it is truly depressing.
The savagery of Islamism in the 21st century and the sheer backwardness of it is truly depressing.
0
Comments
Apparently there has been a back lash by, for want of a better phrase 'hardcore' Islamics against this.
ooh I SAY.
I have a very good friend who is a muslim. I can't remember him ever suggesting such a thing to me, our friends or his family. Funny that. Him being a follower of Islam and all... :rolleyes:
I just feel sorry for all of the normal, good muslim people who end up getting lumped in with this, because I'm sure as hell that that isn't the type of "islam" that they practice.
OWNED!
seeing as no hands go up. I declare this debate pointless and suggest we all go get drunk!
Rather so myself.
I'll tell you who is savage - these Religious extremists of ANY religion, such as Christians who try to kill people who do life saving medical research and get the theory of Intelligent Design taught to Children, as fact.
Any Religious extremist is dangerous and savage imho. Christian, Islamic, whatever. I don't give a shit, they are all bastards. Relgion, yeah, ok, have your views. Don't enforce them, don't try to preach them to me, just keep 'em to yourself and be open to debate. They aren't, most of the time.
Here's where it has been, and where it can head:
Disillusioned makes a post about a backwards law made by some religious extremists. Then makes a comment (perhaps to initiate a debate?) that the group responsible for the law are barbaric. Several things can come of this.
1) People make the natural assumption that Disillusioneds’ comment about islam being barbaric was only a reference to specific extreme groups in Islam. People then go on to discus how that is a stupid law made by stupid extremists, a conversation which has little point to it since I don't think there are any people here who see decapitation for not praying as a good thing. This conversation also has nothing to do with the original message that Islam is barbaric which makes the whole conversation off topic
2) People make the natural assumption that Disillusioned's comment was about Islam in general but figure it's just get a rise out of everyone so they ignore it. People then go on to discus how that is a stupid law made by stupid extremists, a conversation which has little point to it since I don't think there are any people who see decapitation for not praying as a good thing. This conversation also has nothing to do with the original message that Islam is barbaric which makes the whole conversation off topic.
3) People take Disillusioned literally and assume that he's a racist, demand he apologize/is banned and then make reference to various barbarous acts committed by other religions which leads to a general denunciation of extremism. Disillusioned then chuckles as he doesn't apologize and isn't banned, process is repeated later in the week.
4) People take Disillusioned literally and assume he is ill-informed. Then make obvious reference to all the muslims out there who don't believe in decapitating people. Disillusioned chuckles, process is repeated later in the week.
5) Repeat option 3 and 4 only Disillusioned is banned for being a racist or a troll, which seems unlikely because (in my amateur opinion) he is neither.
Honestly now, who didn't see that coming?
Heh, I know it's a bit off topic, just a trend in society I've been noticing recently. Everyone supports people's 'freedom' but then a lot of people seem to think people who are religious are crazed fanatics who hate gays and thus aren't uber liberal and thus are fascists or something. People are so stupid sometimes
Maybe that's because his religious views would not be defined as Islamist. If you bothered to properly read the original post you'd see I was talking about a specific extreme branch of Islam and not Islam in general. But you're too lazy for that.
If a Christian sect was still practicing the religiously inspired violence seen in medieval times I would expect loud condemnation from the overwhelming majority of peaceful Christians. It would be sadly unrealistic if I said I expected the same from the Muslim community. This latest story finds no mention on MCB or MPACUK – if they campaigned against extremism with the kind of zeal they campaign against Israel, maybe some parts of the world affected by Islamism would have more in common with the 21st century than the Dark Ages. But, then I wouldn't call MCB or MPACUK moderate despite both being supposedly mainstream.
who wants to go get drunk?
wait...blackcurrant and lemonades all round
Actually, you didn't.
You stated
That is a fairly wide-ranging remark.
Not all Islamism is bad. While Islamism is a set of political ideologies that hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state according to its interpretation of Islamic Law, it also depends on what length that ideology goes to.
I can't say I'm surprised that Irish News Online couldn't get a major Muslim leader to offer a quote to a story about some nutcases in an obscure town in the south of Somalia. Look at terrorism in general and there is condemnation pretty much across the board from Muslims.
good name for a crazed despotic sadist!
It is if you're gay, a woman or not a Muslim - or if you happen to believe gay people, women and non-Muslims should be treated equally.
Another sweeping statement. There are liberal Muslims out there. What about the fundamentalist Christians in the US that want to run the country - and don't want to afford the same rights to minorities just as the extreme Islamists do?
I can't think of any Christian country that treats women in any way comparable to Islamist regimes.
There are no Christian fundamentalist regimes in the world that execute people because they're homosexual, force women to cover their entire faces or execute people for failing to observe Christianity.
Not at all. An Islamist regime means inequality (and often misery) for women that wanted to be treated like human beings, gay people and non-Muslims.
And what has that got to do with my criticism of Islamist regimes? :rolleyes:
And what has that got to do with my criticism of Islamist regimes? :rolleyes:
Fundamentalist Christians in the Midwest are not going to repeal the Bill of Rights, remove freedoms codified in the Constitution, upheld by the Supreme Court and turn the US into a fundamentalist Christian state. What a pointless hypothetical impossibility. Instead of inventing bizarre future possible injustices how about criticising present ones? (Which include Islamists hanging gay people in Iran and talking of beheading people for not praying five times a day).
They do but it's indisputable that Muslim fundamentalists pose a great danger. Fundamentalist fruitcakes in the Midwest aren't blowing up planes and beheading gay people so it's pointless bringing them into a discussion about Muslim fundamentalists doing those exact things.
That is not the 'only reason' at all. There are some big theological considerations and differences.
Various reformed branches of Christianity and the influence of the dual revolutions in Europe have had a pretty big impact on Christian societies.
Er, does it? I've never heard of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus or Sikhs calling for people who miss prayers to be beheaded. I've never heard of any Hindu or Sikh leader in India, any Christian in Ireland or any Buddhist in Thailand demanding gays be hanged in public. Unfortunately where Islamism rules it's a different story. In Iran, gays have been hanged in public. And now in Somalia not praying five times a day might get you beheaded.
To suggest that Islamism is a problem not a result of Islam is bizarre. Islamism derives from Islam. Islamism also happens to be a fanatic and dangerous kind of religious extremism which poses a greater threat to civilised liberal democracy than other forms of religious belief. Whilst moderate Islam itself is certainly compatible with civilised democracy when considering the cartoons controversy and Salman Rushdie it is absolutely clear that Islamism is not.
What about the Oklahoma bombings?
What about it?
There is always going to be a danger from odd nutters like Timothy McVeigh. However, that's a different kind of danger to organised Islamism; the effects of which have been seen in New York, Bali, Madrid and London. Both can kill, the former has always happened in some form, the latter is a recent phenomenon. Some would also say whereas the likes of Timothy McVeigh and Harold Shipman are just lone madmen with no movement and unified religious ideology the Islamists that struck on 9/11 and 7/7 are united by ideological religious fanaticism.
Come on dis, you'll have to do better than that. Do you think that Islamists in Somalia and the regime in Iran have a unified religious ideology? Look at Iraq - you can see full well that being a muslim and fighting or trying to take power does not mean you're on the same side...
What people are taking issue with here is that you are implying that Islam is inherently violent/dangerous whereas other religions (primarily Christianity) are not. Thats clearly ridiculous, because we have many, many examples of Christian movements doing the same thing, throughout history (see the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch-hunts etc etc ad nauseum) and today (see the KKK, Christian Identity, God's Army in Burma, many rebel factions in West Africa, etc etc). The difference is very clearly that Islamism is more predominant in war-torn, undeveloped, and chaotic countries today. They thus have a greater oppurtunity to be dangerous and enact barbaric practises. See your initial example of Somalia, probably the most chaotic, dangerous, and unstable country in the world: a place where there is increasing support for Islamicist governance because it has the potential to restore some semblence of law and order (and already some success).
There are many Christians in the USA (and around the world) today, who, if they were not living in a stable, prosperous nation with a codified constitution, would be happy to bring back stoning, hanging adulterers, or imprisoning women who have abortions.
Well both are cases of people holding religious beliefs that in practice prove incompatible in any civilised democracy.
I've distinguished between Islam and Islamism. And it is entirely accurate to say that the latter is more predisposed to violence in the 21st century than almost all strands of Christianity.
And indeed there is some similarity between Islamism and aspects of Christianity in medieval times.
The KKK...today? The KKK have effectively disbanded and no longer exists to paraphrase the ADL. They barely have several thousand members and are almost entirely confined to the internet these days. Christian Identity have some disgusting views but I'm unconvinced that their numbers are in any way comparable to adherents to extreme forms of Islam. (Even in Britain the number of Muslims protesting against free speech outside the Danish Embassy or demanding Salman Rushdie's death was worrying. Have Christian Identity ever managed anything more than a handful of people for one of their rallies?)
Bad things have and continue to be done in the name of Christianity. I've never claimed extremism is absent in Christianity, however, I can accept that Islamism poses a far greater danger to democracy and basic freedoms. Some people evidently cannot.
More pointless - and baseless hypothetical impossibilities.
The idea that Islamism with all the horrible things it encompasses can have somehow derived from Islam is too hard to accept for some people. Hence this fantasy that Christians if they had the opportunity would be behaving in exactly like the Islamists. Come on carlito, you'll have to do better than that...
Bet you're at SOAS.
score 1 for me.
score 2 for me.
score 3 for me.
score 4 for me. And on a side note, Disillusioned totaly just contradicted an earlier post where he claimed that he wasn't talking about Islam in general.
score 5 for me.
aaandd score 6 for me.
I could keep this up but I have class soon.
I'm game, but we better do it fast before I get banned to trolling;)