Heartland

As peaceful as Christianism, it's all up to the believers...

The Islam is inherently a misogynous religion. Their women are devoid of most basic human rights - And I'm not just talking about the extreme edges like the Taliban, but ALL. That what puts me off first and foremost.

Obviousman wrote:As peaceful as Christianism, it's all up to the believers...

The whole lot are bronze-age superstitions that the human race would be better off without.

sultan2075 wrote:http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

*sniffle* Makes me all nostalgic for the days of the British Empire.

I'm off to watch Carry On Up The Khyber.

sultan2075 wrote:There are enormous differences between Islam and the other Abrahamic faiths, the chief of which is that the Koran does NOT claim to be divinely inspired (as the Hebrew and Christian Bibles do) but to actually be the literal word of God. There's a hell of a lot less room for interpretation there, because the Koran claims to be unmediated--it's not divinely inspired, it's divine. It's the literal word of God, and as the Fremen say: one cannot go against God. The second distinction is that of the relation betweeen secular and religious spheres--for Islam, they are not seperate. The earthly regime is legitimate only if it enforces the divine law revealed in the Koran

I think this more or less sums up the core of the problem, but I would like to qualify the point about interpretation. It is true that because the Koran is supposed to constitute Allah's words communicated directly to Mohammed, Muslims should follow the Koran unfailingly. The book is pretty clear on this, and a lot of space is given over to explaining what nasty things will happen to you if you transgress. However, when I read the Koran, I found it vague on many issues, leaving the exact meaning of some of the text open to interpretation. It's pretty dangerous when you have words that must be followed to the letter, but which are also in some cases not very clear. The potential for extremism is all too obvious.

I do think that Islam as set out in the Koran (apart from the hateful and endlessly repeated passages regarding hell) is an essentially peaceful religion - see EvilBastard's post. But there is a lot of space taken up by questions of self-defence and the limits allowed in this regard. This is where interpretations come in to play. Interpretations that must then be followed zealously.

canon docre wrote:The Islam is inherently a misogynous religion. Their women are devoid of most basic human rights - And I'm not just talking about the extreme edges like the Taliban, but ALL. That what puts me off first and foremost.

You should read the Old Testament if you want misogyny.

And I agree with Mark. I can think of much better religions if people "just can't live without the faith", such as Buddhism.

nick the stripper wrote: And I agree with Mark. I can think of much better religions if people "just can't live without the faith", such as Buddhism.

Absolutely agree.

nick the stripper wrote:

canon docre wrote:The Islam is inherently a misogynous religion. Their women are devoid of most basic human rights - And I'm not just talking about the extreme edges like the Taliban, but ALL. That what puts me off first and foremost.

You should read the Old Testament if you want misogyny.

The main difference is that Christianity moved foreward since the times of the Old Testament. No one is stoning women in Christian countrys for being unfaithful nowadys, whereas just recently in Saudi Arabia.....
For reasons already mentioned by Sultan2075, the Koran is taken literary and no adjustment have been made ever since.
Another main difference is that the Islam isnt accepting a secular governement, just the word of God is the law. In fact, any secular form of ruling such as democracy is considered blasphemy.

The Muslim misogyny gets apparent every day, when you see Muslimas wearing veils and walking three steps behind their husbands. Can you see an equivalent amongst Christians? Go Figure.


P.S. I think I can live fine without Floorshow being included in the live set, whereas I would be happy to hear Lights again live.

canon docre wrote:the Koran is taken literary and no adjustment have been made ever since.

At least, so muslims would have you believe...

No text is secure from copying errors, especially a text written in an alphabet as ambiguous as Arabic. And that's without mentioning the suppressed variants.

canon docre wrote:The Islam is inherently a misogynous religion. Their women are devoid of most basic human rights - And I'm not just talking about the extreme edges like the Taliban, but ALL. That what puts me off first and foremost.

All Islamic women are devoid of most basic human rights? What on earth are you talking about? Food, shelter....political assembly? These are the kind of misconceptions that give neo cons a mandate to invade certain countries.

Yes I certainly agree that this occurs in some communities around the globe, but extremely insignificantly in western communities. To use the term "ALL" in this context is extremely dangerous.

I believe that most veils are worn as a reaction against a society that they don't feel part of. In most cases these are worn without being forced by spouses or family members.

lazarus corporation wrote:The Bible exhorts believers to stone certain people to death but I'm fairly certain the vicar at the church down the road doesn't do that

Yeah but Christianity has modernised. They've seen that some of the things in their holy book don't apply to todays world and have weeded out the trash. The Muslim religion hasn't been around as long as the Christian religion, so it's gonna take them another 600 years to evolve (look at some of the things Christians were doing 600 years ago in the name of religion). Unfortunately while they're evolving it has repercussions on the rest of the world. Now if we could just build a big wall around the middle east...

Rafster wrote:I believe that most veils are worn as a reaction against a society that they don't feel part of. In most cases these are worn without being forced by spouses or family members.

The veil can hardly help in terms of social inclusion though can it? You feel you're "not a part of society" so you wear something that sets you even further apart?

The larger question must be why muslims feel that they're not a part of society in the Western countries they live in -- frequently the second- and third-generation seem more alienated than their parents and granparents who immigrated in the first place.

Is there something specific about Islam that is a barrier to integration?

Once again, hear f**king hear to wot Paul said.

Is the fact that Christianity has evolved out of such blatant misogyny as we sometimes see displayed in the name of Islam not due in a larger part to the parts of the world in which it is practised, rather than an inherent tendency away from such backward ideas within the religion?

Shocking examples of misogyny exist in almost all undeveloped countries and continents, as they did in our countries when we were at the same stage of development. Female 'circumcision' still takes place in some Christian communities in Africa, as well as in Islamic societies. And the records of governments throughout the developing world for dealing with issues like rape, domestic violence and so on are apalling.

Misogyny is not a malaise which solely afflicts the Islamic world. Rather, it is a feature of societies which have yet to develop politically and economically. The spotlight is on the abuses of human rights and women's rights in this particular part of the world at the moment and the problems elsewhere (the emphasis on which doesn't really serve the government any purpose in shoring up public opinion on any policy) are being left as a footnote. We assume that the scale of the problems are reflected by the amount of attention our politicians and media give them - therefore, that the Islamic world is uniquely - and not only uniquely but inherently - barbaric towards women.

I'd agree, some Islamic countries are existing in "The Dark Ages", if we want to use that kind of term. But not simply in terms of, or because of, religion. I do not think Islam is any more inherently violent or dangerous than any other religion or belief system. And I think anyone who makes a statement as loaded with implications as this has to present a solution to the problem which this presents us with, i.e - How do we deal with this dangerous faith?

I suggest that before you start heading down this road you undertake some study of Sufism, the mystic tradition of Islam (and a peace-loving tradition which has great respect for women at that) and compare it to the equivalent traditions of Christianity in particular, but all other religions if you like. At this level the similarities - at times complete unity - of all these faiths start to become apparent.

DarkAngel wrote:

nick the stripper wrote:

Wars are never fought over religion.

What about those 'good Christians' who thought the Crusades was about religion and not money? They were fighting over religion. True, it wasn't the actual reason for the Crusades, but they certainly thought it was.

You both have a point. It is human nature to take any good idea or "religion" and use it for personal gain. Unlike other religions which have evolved out of violent acts, Islamic extremists still saw off people's heads in the name of God - quite dark ages really.

"There is in the religion of Islam itself the historical, inexorable and driving force behind what the entire non-Muslim world is now experiencing as jihad terror. Whether most Muslims wouldn't hurt a fly is an increasingly irrelevant footnote to the hostile aggression of other Muslims who, in a very short time, have actually transformed civilization as we used to know it.

If the will to resist allows us to manage the threat of violence, the will to connect the dots would compel us to eliminate it. How? By carefully examining and, I would hope, reconsidering and reversing, through foreign, domestic and immigration initiatives, what should now be seen, gimlet-eyed, as the Islamization of the non-Islamic world. Such an assessment, however, is all too vulnerable to catcall-attacks of "bigotry," even "Nazism" -- a deceptively inverted assault given the doctrinal bigotry and similarities to Nazism historically promulgated by the Islamic creed. "
-Diana West

For that matter: war in the middle east is NOT about money (or: oil, if you wish) but about fighting terrorism

Dan wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:The Bible exhorts believers to stone certain people to death but I'm fairly certain the vicar at the church down the road doesn't do that

Yeah but Christianity has modernised. They've seen that some of the things in their holy book don't apply to todays world and have weeded out the trash. The Muslim religion hasn't been around as long as the Christian religion, so it's gonna take them another 600 years to evolve (look at some of the things Christians were doing 600 years ago in the name of religion). Unfortunately while they're evolving it has repercussions on the rest of the world. Now if we could just build a big wall around the middle east...

For me the pope is a massmurderer. No anticonception allowed by faith = mass murderer ...

On a more personal level: some ideas of the muslims look appealing to me...

No WOMEN behind the steering wheel seems like a fairly good idea to me

Actually, I couldn't care less for al this religions and comparisons. I believe in myself and my ability to judge what is right or wrong.
And anyone who doesn't agree may fear my personal fatwa

Well, not necessarily mass-murderer... but he does condemn billions of his followers to a life of poverty and malnutrition if they follow his church's teachings on contraception.

Although technically the Church has the out that "they didn't have to have sex if they didn't want the kids."

What is it about God that makes people believe He's so interested in people's sex-lives?

Anyway, an interesting opinion piece from Richard Dawkins, written shortly after "nine-eleven"*: Clicky

* 9-11 always seems to me that it should be the 9th of November, but still.

markfiend wrote:

canon docre wrote:the Koran is taken literary and no adjustment have been made ever since.

At least, so muslims would have you believe...

No text is secure from copying errors, especially a text written in an alphabet as ambiguous as Arabic. And that's without mentioning the suppressed variants.

It doesn't help that people who try to discuss such things get met with threats of violence. There's a German scholar who did a sort of genealogy on the Koran based on some ancient texts found in Yemen who has gone into hiding. This illustrates the problem rather well. Does anyone recall his name?

Rafster wrote:

canon docre wrote:The Islam is inherently a misogynous religion. Their women are devoid of most basic human rights - And I'm not just talking about the extreme edges like the Taliban, but ALL. That what puts me off first and foremost.

All Islamic women are devoid of most basic human rights? What on earth are you talking about? Food, shelter....political assembly?

Please check the Human Rights here. I can see 6 out of 7 blatantly violated or non-existant for most women living in Islamic countries.

Rafster wrote: These are the kind of misconceptions that give neo cons a mandate to invade certain countries.

Fear not, dear Rafster, no war was ever fought about women rights.

Rafster wrote:Yes I certainly agree that this occurs in some communities around the globe, but extremely insignificantly in western communities. To use the term "ALL" in this context is extremely dangerous.

I'm currently researching for a film project about Muslimas in Germany. (together with Sibel Kekili, some of you might remember her from the movie "Allen Gegen die Wand, which prominentely features "Temple of Love" ), so I’m actually deeply involved in that subject. The Muslim communities in Europe are way more restrictive and conservative than f.ex in Turkey (where there's a strict segregation between church and governement.)

Rafster wrote:I believe that most veils are worn as a reaction against a society that they don't feel part of. In most cases these are worn without being forced by spouses or family members.

It is the first time I’ve heard this silly theory. No comment necessary I think.
The veil is a religious issue. The women per se is regarded as seductive and sexually dangerous and poses therefore a threat to male community members. (what a logic!) Therefore they have to be veiled and locked up. The chastity of the daughter is a Muslim familys highest value. It has to be defended against all odds. Even to the cost of the life of the daughter (f.ex. recent honour killings in Berlin.

boudicca wrote: I suggest that before you start heading down this road you undertake some study of Sufism, the mystic tradition of Islam (and a peace-loving tradition which has great respect for women at that) and compare it to the equivalent traditions of Christianity in particular, but all other religions if you like. At this level the similarities - at times complete unity - of all these faiths start to become apparent.

Sufism isn't exactly mainstream Islam these days, and tends to be viewed with a great deal of suspicion because it emphasizes an esoteric teaching. Many teachers considered authoritative in the Islamic tradition--such as Ibn Tamiya--have rejected Sufism and its attendant mysticism as un-Islamic, as have the Salafists and the Wahabists.

lazarus corporation wrote:
For a discussion forum dedicated to contemporary politics/current political events that would probably be true,

For a discussion forum dedicated to the Sisters of Mercy, the fundamental issue for the near (and far) future is whether there will ever be a new album.

Ah, but there's a subforum for that, isn't there? This is a general bull-s**t area.

lazarus corporation wrote: Creating thread-after-thread about this same political issue on a contemporary politics forum would probably be normal. Doing the same on a forum about a rock band smells funny. You know this. I know this.

While political issues get talked about here, having one person constantly post about one single political issue is highly suspect. Coming out in support with a tirade of out-of-the-box anti-left-wing insults when that posting habit is questioned doesn't help that one bit.

Now let's never talk about this again.

Simmer down, grasshopper, simmer down. I haven't taken a comprehensive record of who posts on what topic, how often and when, thus I couldn't consult it. I'll be more careful in the future. And, by the way, I didn't insult the left wing as a whole. I simply said that some representatives thereof behaved poorly, and that the majority of the political discussions on here, when disagreements occur, tend to devolve into insults. I may have come across stronger than intended, sorry if that caused any offense.

HisWimmNess wrote: For me the pope is a massmurderer. No anticonception allowed by faith = mass murderer ...

Be careful. You know what those Christian fundamentalists say : abortion is murder all the same (even more in their opinion). Abortionists are mass murderers of "unborn children".

The mass murderer argument is really a two-edged sword.

My modest contribution to a debate that, I'm afraid, is going nowhere. Paul said it all.

smiscandlon wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

*sniffle* Makes me all nostalgic for the days of the British Empire.

I'm off to watch Carry On Up The Khyber.

I am increasingly of the opinion that the demise of the British Empire has been a Very Bad Thing for the world as a whole.

sultan2075 wrote:It doesn't help that people who try to discuss such things get met with threats of violence. There's a German scholar who did a sort of genealogy on the Koran based on some ancient texts found in Yemen who has gone into hiding. This illustrates the problem rather well. Does anyone recall his name?

I think I do know who you mean but can't recall the name. Is this the same scholar that hypothesised that no historical Mohammed ever existed? Text-critical methods seem to suggest that a large proportion of the Koran is derived from older Judaeo-Christian materials. But I digress...

sultan2075 wrote:the majority of the political discussions on here, when disagreements occur, tend to devolve into insults.

Unfortunately this can frequently be the case.

Given this, deliberately starting repeated related topics could be construed as flamebait or even trolling. I tend to look on it more charitably though; repeated discussion of similar topics from different angles might help form some sort of consensus. I'm not holding my breath though

sultan2075 wrote:

boudicca wrote: I suggest that before you start heading down this road you undertake some study of Sufism, the mystic tradition of Islam (and a peace-loving tradition which has great respect for women at that) and compare it to the equivalent traditions of Christianity in particular, but all other religions if you like. At this level the similarities - at times complete unity - of all these faiths start to become apparent.

Sufism isn't exactly mainstream Islam these days, and tends to be viewed with a great deal of suspicion because it emphasizes an esoteric teaching. Many teachers considered authoritative in the Islamic tradition--such as Ibn Tamiya--have rejected Sufism and its attendant mysticism as un-Islamic, as have the Salafists and the Wahabists.

But even this takes place within all religions - and Sufism if anything has suffered from this less than Christian mysticism. I dare say it is more mainstream, and influential on mainstram Islamic thought than Gnosticism or Rosicrucianism!

Even if we take this as a moot point, looking at the esoteric traditions of all the world religions does tend to illustrate the parallels between them. I would contend that all religion, aside from the functions it performs as a tool to structure and control human societies, is fundementally a facet, like science and philosophy, of mankind's attempt to understand the reality in which we find ourselves. The drive and desire to evolve mentally and "spiritually" - to attain greater intelligence and wisdom than we already have - is common to all of humanity. Therefore I think examining the threads which bind all these systems of thought together gives us a clearer indication of the level of understanding the human race, as a whole, has reached.

If we are suggesting that one religion is - at it's most basic and fundemental level - inferior to the others, then we run the risk of insinuating that the people who created it and follow it have an inferior understanding and consciousness to the rest of us, who are more enlightened.

I think the implications of that kind of idea could be very dangerous indeed. A spiritual untermensch, if you will.