First  Prev  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next  Last
Post Reply Your opinions on Islam and Muslims in General?
16473 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 8/8/13
All religions look the same to me.
9397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Land of Ooo
Offline
Posted 8/13/13

Hokage_4 wrote:

Well... My question is simple but for some people its really hard to answer.

What are your impressions on Muslims?
Did those impressions come through media or actual research?
What do you know about Islam?
What do you know about the connection of Islam with Christianity and Judaism?

The reason I started this thread is because a lot of people have very negative views about Muslims and Islam in general. Mostly Americans (No offense) . I am a Muslim for those who are wondering and I want to know your opinion because in Canada I haven't really seen any religious .

One thing to keep in mind. Please think before you give me your answer. I would like to hear a logically well explained answer if you want to give one.

You can also state whatever you like. You are entitled to you opinion.

BTW Mod if this is a thread that is not to be made... Please do delete it as I do not want to cause a verbal riot :)


I don't particularly have a problem with anyone. I might not like them because of conflicting personalities or what not, but I generally won't "hate" someone just because we don't think the same.

That being said, it is to my knowledge that there are different "denominations", if you will, of Muslim/Islamic beliefs much like there are different denominations that interpret the Bible different in Christianity. My only problems are the radical extremists. The terrorists. I know the Quran doesn't explicitly say "kill all infidels". The "verse of violence", as it were, it written in the context of the persecutors first attacking Muhammad.

What I don't agree with is the radical groups that are still at war with their own people and have twisted it to mean something else.

As long as you're not a nutcase, I couldn't care less what you believe in, exactly. That's a personal matter.
1185 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Iowa
Offline
Posted 8/17/13
I really don't see it as a whole lot different than Christianity. I'm atheist so I don't really believe in any of the ideals of any religion but I'll listen to what they have to say and offer a logical rebuttal. It's not the whole religion that is bad, it's the individuals in every religion that make it stupid.
3367 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 11/28/13 , edited 11/28/13
And once again, islam proves how progressive, awesome and totally not barbaric it is... /sarcasm.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/26/iran-lawmakers-men-wed-adopted-daughters
Posted 11/29/13 , edited 11/29/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:

And once again, islam proves how progressive, awesome and totally not barbaric it is... /sarcasm.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/26/iran-lawmakers-men-wed-adopted-daughters


I feel nauseous. But it's worth noting that the bill is driven more by self-interest than a religion.


"With this bill, you can be a paedophile and get your bait in the pretext of adopting children," Sadr said. Some experts believe the new bill is contradictory to Islamic beliefs and would not pass the Guardian Council.

An initial draft of the bill, which had completely banned marriage with adopted children, was not approved by the council and it is feared that MPs introduced the condition for marriage to satisfy the jurists and clergymen. This is why Sadr fears it can pass the council this time.
3367 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 11/29/13 , edited 11/29/13

-tion wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

And once again, islam proves how progressive, awesome and totally not barbaric it is... /sarcasm.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/26/iran-lawmakers-men-wed-adopted-daughters


I feel nauseous. But it's worth noting that the bill is driven more by self-interest than a religion.


I think the two are quite nicely intertwined.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/329317


"We must regard 9 as being the appropriate age for a girl to have reached puberty and qualified to get married. To do otherwise would be to contradict and challenge Islamic Sharia law."

"Before the revolution girls under 16 were not allowed to marry. Parents determined to get around the law would often tamper with their daughter's birth certificate. Under the previous constitution, people were legally regarded as adults when they were 18. After the revolution the age at which children were regarded as going through puberty was lowered to 9 for girls and 15 for boys."
Posted 11/29/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:


"We must regard 9 as being the appropriate age for a girl to have reached puberty and qualified to get married. To do otherwise would be to contradict and challenge Islamic Sharia law."

"Before the revolution girls under 16 were not allowed to marry. Parents determined to get around the law would often tamper with their daughter's birth certificate. Under the previous constitution, people were legally regarded as adults when they were 18. After the revolution the age at which children were regarded as going through puberty was lowered to 9 for girls and 15 for boys."


Being allowed to marry and being forced to marry are two different things. The problem here is to do with culture and driven by sexism and subjugation of women and girls.
3367 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 11/29/13 , edited 11/29/13

-tion wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


"We must regard 9 as being the appropriate age for a girl to have reached puberty and qualified to get married. To do otherwise would be to contradict and challenge Islamic Sharia law."

"Before the revolution girls under 16 were not allowed to marry. Parents determined to get around the law would often tamper with their daughter's birth certificate. Under the previous constitution, people were legally regarded as adults when they were 18. After the revolution the age at which children were regarded as going through puberty was lowered to 9 for girls and 15 for boys."


Being allowed to marry and being forced to marry are two different things. The problem here is to do with culture and driven by sexism and subjugation of women and girls.


In the case with girl this young, it is in practice the exact same thing.
Need I remind you that this also means they can have sex?

And yes. It is indeed a cultural problem. A culture that stems from and is largely based on islam.
Posted 11/29/13 , edited 11/29/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:


-tion wrote:

Being allowed to marry and being forced to marry are two different things. The problem here is to do with culture and driven by sexism and subjugation of women and girls.


In the case with girl this young, it is in practice the exact same thing.
Need I remind you that this also means they can have sex?

And yes. It is indeed a cultural problem. A culture that stems from and is largely based on islam.


Paedophilia itself is very large because of the limit in the freedom of choice in those poverty stricken places and in much of the developing word.
Your disaproval is not enough to change anything. For many parts of the world, this is normal practice.

Victims won't speak out because it's their own family that betray or coerce them and they (the victims) can fully understand the desperaton that leads their family to sell out their women and kids like that.

How can the government help these people? Should be the question.

Everyone can agree on the factors that come to play in the developing world are poverty, greed, power, lack of education and lack of individualism. The biggest losers are usually women and kids who are driven into a corner.

Pedophilia is wrong and there should definitely be a law that divides the line not on the age of marriage necessarily (since kids have sex too even in the developed world) but the age difference and limitation on how big the gap should be for those that form relations.

I think that people easily get caught up in finding answers and questioning religion and forget that the problems are really corruption. What are we proving? That a religion is bad? To what end?

This is the last I'm writing on this. I don't like to be caught up in limitations. Culture has roots but power has thorns.

The bad people are educated, have money and I definitely would not believe their bullshit if they said that their religion tells them that something harmful to another human who does not deserve it, is okay to do.
3367 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 11/29/13 , edited 11/29/13

-tion
Paedophilia itself is very large because of the limit in the freedom of choice in those poverty stricken places and in much of the developing word.
Your disaproval is not enough to change anything. For many parts of the world, this is normal practice.


Indeed. My disapproval alone will not change anything. However, the collective disapproval of an ever increasingly educated population, WILL.
And that is why we are in fact morally obligated to expose and combat such barbaric practices and beliefs.



-tion
How can the government help these people? Should be the question.


Indeed. But we should ALSO ask WHY it happens, so that we can fight the problem at its sources.



-tion
Everyone can agree on the factors that come to play in the developing world are poverty, greed, power, lack of education and lack of individualism. The biggest losers are usually women and kids who are driven into a corner.


Which is a result of many things. Ignorance through the passing on of primitive reasoning in many ways, but religion is often also a big part of it, as religion teaches that women are, at their core, inferior to men.



-tion
Pedophilia is wrong and there should definitely be a law that divides the line not on the age of marriage necessarily (since kids have sex too even in the developed world) but the age difference and limitation on how big the gap should be for those that form relations.


Japan has this. As far as I understand, kids between 12 - 15 years old are allowed to engage in sexual intercourse, but ONLY with others who are in that same age-range.
And on one hand, I understand the reasoning. After all, like you said, many children are indeed going to experiment with sexuality.
But of course there is also the issue of pregnancy. And that IS an issue, even for girls that are as young as that.
So I'm kind of divided on it. Though I do think that despite the fact that kids will do what kids do, with it not being allowed would discourage many 15 year old boys from having intercourse with 12 year old girls.
Which is why I cannot really stand behind such laws.


Child marriage on the other hand, is not okay in any form. And here, there's not even room for ambiguity. There should be a strict age limit on it. If you're less than (insert proper age here) then you can't get married. Period.
For one because it's a legal institution, which means they have to go through state to do it. And thus can be spotted without a doubt, so there is not the same issue of "can't stop it" as it is with sexual intercourse between minors.


But also because marriage is a far more binding thing than sexual experimentation generally is. And it carries with it a lot more commitment and responsibility. And kids are generally not able to comprehend even the surface of what most of these things include. Not to mention that they haven't even developed their own identities, which is something that is inherently necessary to find a life partner that suits you.




-tion
I think that people easily get caught up in finding answers and questioning religion and forget that the problems are really corruption. What are we proving? That a religion is bad? To what end?


To the end of decreasing the degree of ignorance among the population. Both in regards to scientific knowledge, but also in terms of being free thinkers. As most religious people are in fact victims of various brainwashing techniques and social pressure which limits their ability to be true individuals, both in thought and in expression, and in stead makes them conform to the teachings of their preachers, and which also makes it hard for them to change their opinions, because their indoctrinated beliefs run so deep that it will not allow them to admit even the possibility of error.


For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBXxJJfX3Nk (I highly recommend checking out the "Psychology of Belief" series on the same channel. Very interesting series on the psychological aspects of religion. Both in terms of how it manifest, and how it effects its believers).
Sheep mentality is a dangerous thing for our species, and it's inherently important that we remove it as much as possible.


Another negative aspect of religion is the fact that the scriptures are not only scientificly inaccurate, but they also are quite barbaric in many regards. Take sharia law for instance, which demands not only that people be able to marry and abuse children, like previously shown, but also to kill apostates (those who abandon the faith), to kill someone for being raped based on the "kill those who commit adultary" demand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atefah_Sahaaleh), impose dress codes, telling you what you can and cannot do in terms of hobbies and career choices, telling you who you can and cannot fall in love with, and a crapton of other ways to restrict personal freedom and basicly create a society of slaves.


And it's not at all something that is exclusive to islam either. Take for instance the persecution of homosexuals from christians in the western world. Arguably one of the most despicable examples of how religion creates pain and suffering, even in our relatively highly developed and modern part of the world.
This sort of barbaric acts of idiocy and cruelty is something that should've died out long ago. And yet it still persists. Why? Because of religion.


You may also have noticed that a lot of these demands involve killing, which is a result of religion also being not only incredibly biased towards its own position of fixed beliefs, but also incredibly hostile towards all and everyone that does not conform to its specific doctrines.
Which is even demonstrated in the scriptures. in the old testament for instance. Where god demands genocide upon hundreds of thousands, if not even millions of people, simply because they worshiped other gods.
Religion is inherently divisive. It's like street gangs. The ones in the same gang have a tight bond, but their relationship to other gangs is violent and toxic.
And I think all agree that the world would be better without street gangs.


And as if THAT wasn't enough, religion also gives a false sense of security. For instance, scientists are getting increasingly closer to achieving the concept of human immortality. Either via biological immortality (I.E. the elimination of aging) or via cyborg technology, or various other means.
Religion on the other hand, says that there is no point in such things, because people has an immortal soul that will live for eternity in heaven. And since every religious person believes that they are righteous, they all believe that they will get into heaven, and thus have nothing to fear in regards to death.


Another example is how it impacts the environment. We all know of global warming and how we affect the eco-system. And many people are working towards solving the problem.
Religion on the other hand, says that God will eventually turn up and fix everything magically. This results in an attitude of basicly "we don't have to work or do anything to make this situation better or to combat the eventual consequences, because God will fix it for us".
And I know this because I am a former religious person, and practicly EVERYONE in my congregation, and the ones I met elsewhere shared this sort of outlook.


And then it turns out that "oops". God's not real. And where will we be left then? We'll be sitting there, still under the infliction of mortality, and with global natural problems that we cannot reverse. Things we COULD have fixed, had we united ourselves in the pursuit of objective knowledge and progress, knowing that we are on our own and have to figure this shit out ourselves.
But which we didn't, because so many were under the illusion that there was some magical sky wizard that was watching over us and would make sure everything would turn out okay, and/or were restricted by idiotic moral beliefs that serve no actual purpose in reality.


Oh and then there's also the tiny, minute problem that religion claims absolute certainty.
But eh. That's not such a big problem, right?
Posted 11/29/13 , edited 11/29/13




I'm pretty sure a religious person who is open minded can stop you in your tracks about some of the stuff you've wrote with conviction. And well, it's not like I haven't thought of all this. The only thing I am against is self-entitlement. Intelligent people have the responsibility (if they want to take on) to teach but not to dictate. You sound just as self-righteous. The intelligence you mention is also highly driven by influence. It's all influence. Only some influence is good and bad. In their perspective the influence that affects them negatively and positively they know. Doesn't matter how bad their religion or how good their religion is, people generally have a good sense of what their experience means to them. The problem is that the ones with voices are generally the ones with significant power and feel self-entitled to do as they see fit to their needs.


Like Aristotle said, "fear is the pain arising from the anticipation of evil". If you go back to my first post you'll understand that this bill has let your mind run wild. Since there is a large amount of speculation involved. The bill, many seem to e against as the article said but the ones who will pass it have the ear of those with significant influence.

Once we stop getting pleasure from demonizing people's lifestyle we can start to actually think that people are generally not stupid and their lives don't need to be dictated. The majority like the 20:80 rule, don't have a choice but to be told what to do, how to think etc... this is wrong. We are not entitled to control others. We are not entitled to generalize people, we are not entitled to use people.

So where do we start? Stop being disgusted for starters because that just lends itself to frustration and thoughts of eradication when it's at its extreme state.

And thanks, I'll check the videos out. Overall, you have the right idea but I think moderation is best. I don't have to be on a side but pick the good and what I agree with from all sides.
17711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / wherever my work...
Offline
Posted 11/29/13
Islam is a religion started way back when in the Middle East based off what is considered the last Holy Book written.
3367 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 11/29/13

-tion
I'm pretty sure a religious person who is open minded can stop you in your tracks about some of the stuff you've wrote with conviction.


We'll see if someone does...



-tion
And well, it's not like I haven't thought of all this. The only thing I am against is self-entitlement. Intelligent people have the responsibility (if they want to take on) to teach but not to dictate. You sound just as self-righteous.


Yeah well I can totally understand that. That's the price of contempt I guess.
Though it's not as if my contempt is not justified. It totally is.




-tion
The intelligence you mention is also highly driven by influence. It's all influence. Only some influence is good and bad. In their perspective the influence that affects them negatively and positively they know.


Of course. Which is why we must work to eliminate as much negative influence as possible. And a lot of that just so happen to lie within religion.




-tion
Doesn't matter how bad their religion or how good their religion is, people generally have a good sense of what their experience means to them. The problem is that the ones with voices are generally the ones with significant power and feel self-entitled to do as they see fit to their needs.


That is indeed true. And it is a serious problem.
However, for them to actually HAVE influence, they need tools that enable them to both obtain power, and to keep that power.
Once again, religion is such a tool. And a very powerful one at that.




-tion
Like Aristotle said, "fear is the pain arising from the anticipation of evil". If you go back to my first post you'll understand that this bill has let your mind run wild.


I can see why you would think that. However, you must know that this is not the first time. Nor the second time. Nor the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, etc. time.
This is just the latest in a long line of cases, that has added up on a stockpile. Or many drops in a glass if you will.
Which is the reason why I have grown such an intense contempt for religion as a whole, and islam in particular.




-tion
Since there is a large amount of speculation involved. The bill, many seem to be against as the article said but the ones who will pass it have the ear of those with significant influence.


But then the question rise: what is their motivation for those who intend to pass it for doing so? And what will they use as a justification?
My estimation, based on countless other cases of similar things... well, you probably know where I'm going with it.
I do admit, I could be wrong on that. But by the way things seem, and when comparing it to past similar cases, it seems the most likely by far.




-tion
Once we stop getting pleasure from demonizing people's lifestyle we can start to actually think that people are generally not stupid and their lives don't need to be dictated. The majority like the 20:80 rule, don't have a choice but to be told what to do, how to think etc... this is wrong. We are not entitled to control others. We are not entitled to generalize people, we are not entitled to use people.



I do not gain pleasure from demonizing other people's lifestyle. If a muslim is a good person, then I will be more than happy to let him/her continue to be a muslim. I will continue to have contempt for the religion they belong to, as it has provided no reason what so ever to do otherwise and massive amounts for doing so, but I will not chastise the life-choice of that individual person. It's important to be able to seperate the individual from their religion.

And yes. We are indeed not entitled to control others. Which is just one of the many reasons we must scrutinize religion and combat its influence on society, as religion is a powerful tool for doing just that -- controlling people.




-tion
So where do we start? Stop being disgusted for starters because that just lends itself to frustration and thoughts of eradication when it's at its extreme state.
And thanks, I'll check the videos out. Overall, you have the right idea but I think moderation is best. I don't have to be on a side but pick the good and what I agree with from all sides.


Eradication can come in different forms. It can come in the form of active, forceful and violent eradication, comparable to things such as ethnic cleansing. That, I am obviously against. It conflicts with human rights. The right for every person to believe in what they choose to believe in.

But in the case of religion, it can also come in the form of not only a refusal to let its barbaric teachings have any power or influence on society, but also through enlightenment and education, to the point where it becomes as obsolete a belief as geocentrism or the belief that thunder is created by Thor throwing his hammer.
Which in all honesty, it should be by now. But we'll get there, eventually.
And THAT sort of eradication, I whole-hartedly support.
Posted 11/29/13
My view of Muslims used to be the same as my view of Christians and Jews. The Abrahamic trio. I used to say that I was ok with it as long if they kept it to themselves. And I was under the delusion that there was a difference between moderate and radical muslims. I've had it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpeIS25jhK4. Whether they're Christian, Muslim or Jewish, I don't care anymore, I want the Abrahamic faith to disappear. All of it. Gone. I'm also particularly annoyed with the fact that these ******** are now trying to claim an entire county in Norway for themselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uT9sfIswoY. I want to deport all of them and their kids back to the middle east, even if there's full out wars going on down there, I just don't care anymore. I just, no. They've reached the end of my tolerance and I'm not going to listen to anymore rationalization.
39202 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / End of Nowhere
Offline
Posted 11/29/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:

And once again, islam proves how progressive, awesome and totally not barbaric it is... /sarcasm.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/26/iran-lawmakers-men-wed-adopted-daughters


I would argue it shows how progressive, awesome and totally not barbaric .../sarcasm Iran is.

Not necessarily Islam or Muslims in general.

Sharia Law is to Islam what Conservative Literalistic interpretations of the Bible are to Christianity. However, just like there is more than one way to interpret and look at the Bible, there are many ways to interpret the Quron. I am fairly sure if you grabbed a random Muslim off the streets in the US or Europe, they would not have the same reaction as say one from Iran. Or even Egypt.

The main difference between Christianity and Islam is that Islam happens to get the news because most countries that practice Islam on any large scale are generally run by Muslims in a theocratic society. Much as how I imagine a lot of Christians would like the US to be ruled. Hence why it is one reason reverse separation between Church and State is a good thing.

The average Muslim and / or practitioner of Islam is much the same as any other average human. Some are good, some are bad, many are average. It is very dangerous to make sweeping statements based off of the acts of a few and try to say that this proves the depravity of many others. It could be, but it might not be too.

I would think, considering the bad rap Christianity gets in some places of the world because of things done in the past, we would be more careful in how we interpret other religions and people.

And note, I am not saying that particular law is not bad. From my point of view it is. But right now I do not even know how the majority of Muslims in Iran think about it. So I can say I think the law is bad, and the lawmakers who passed it need to get their heads screwed on again, but I would not say Islam or Muslims in general are at fault.
First  Prev  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.