Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread ٢

[Alsheb]

Of course not, Christianity has a good 600+ years on Islam. Religions seem to have stages of development. Islam is still in it's mid stages, but there is some question as to whether it will enter late stages.

Is this the "Christianity had a Dark Ages so Islam must in be in its 'Dark Ages' now cause it's younger" argument? Because that's incredibly stupid to be frank.

Islam isn't in a "dark age" because they're somehow fated to be so. There are real and practical reasons for the turbulence in modern Islam: One being the West's support for Saudi Arabia, who is supporting and propagating more literalist and extremist Islam throughout the Islamic World through its influence, Secondly, I would argue that the lack of an Islamic leader in the form of a Caliph is causing some issues, and thirdly, because of civil instability in Middle Eastern states allowing extremists like ISIS and others to rapidly gain power.

Christianity's issues in the "dark ages" were completely different (although, most Professors and Religious historians I've heard from reject the term "dark ages" for that period).

The term Dark Ages is quite ridiculous from an historiographical perspective. The Renaissance and Early Modern Era were arguably a darker time for Europe than the Early Medieval time ever was.

[Napkiraly]

Is this the "Christianity had a Dark Ages so Islam must in be in its 'Dark Ages' now cause it's younger" argument? Because that's incredibly stupid to be frank.

Islam isn't in a "dark age" because they're somehow fated to be so. There are real and practical reasons for the turbulence in modern Islam: One being the West's support for Saudi Arabia, who is supporting and propagating more literalist and extremist Islam throughout the Islamic World through its influence, Secondly, I would argue that the lack of an Islamic leader in the form of a Caliph is causing some issues, and thirdly, because of civil instability in Middle Eastern states allowing extremists like ISIS and others to rapidly gain power.

Christianity's issues in the "dark ages" were completely different (although, most Professors and Religious historians I've heard from reject the term "dark ages" for that period).

The term Dark Ages is quite ridiculous from an historiographical perspective. The Renaissance and Early Modern Era were arguably a darker time for Europe than the Early Medieval time ever was.

Not really.

[Napkiraly]

Tbf that's also because anti-Zionism often does get close to it, especially in rhetoric. Not to mention focusing so much on Israel and many people going "I'm against it because I'm against nationalism!" yet in favour of Palestinian nationalism and other nationalist causes.

Because that's pretty much what Zionism is, Jewish nationalism. It's basically saying you don't think Jews deserve a nation-state of their own. I'm sure you can understand why this may cause alarm bells to ring for some people.

Fair enough, and in a way I get the entire "Jews deserve a nation-state" argument.
But then again, I fail to see how nationstates necessarily should be founded upon religion rather than national identity. As much as some Jews love to mention time and again, Judaism is not a national identity, an ethnicity or a race. Even in Israel itself you have racial division in political parties, with Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews often sticking to their own. And that's not even mentioning the Ethiopian Jews and other ethnic minorities.
Even most so-called islamic republics aren't founded solely on the premise of religion in the way Israel attempts to. Pretty much all countries in the world nowadays are founded upon a idea of common national identity, be it civic or ethnic.

Be that as it may, even if one would accept the idea that a commun Jewish religion would be an acceptable basis for the foundation of a nation-state, which I could actually still go along with, than we are still faced with the biggest problem of the establishment of Israel: the fact that is was founded in a territory inhabited almost exclusively by a population that ethnically and religiously had nothing to do with Judaism, and was alsot nearly completely blameless for the reasons that led to the zionist demand for a Jewish state (namely centuries of antisemitic persecution in Europe that ultimately resulted in the Shoah). And of course the fact that Israel was only able to exist through a policy of ethnic cleansing, displacement of an entire race of people and the use of terrorism and mass murder (Haganah and Irgun being most notable examples).

That's thing, no one is entirely sure just how to properly classify Judaism. After all, we have atheist Jews which removes the "it's solely a religion argument". A number of zionists were atheist and socialists, iirc Ben-Gurion was an atheist or at the least very secular and not really in favour of having to agree to the Chief Rabbinate.

Israel has been founded upon the idea of a common identity, that of Judaism. So that point is moot.

I believe actually by the time Israel was founded, something like 30% of the population was Jewish. Either way it was chosen since Judaism obviously has a lot of connections to the place and they did not want to be sandwiched between the likes of Germany, Poland or Russia which at the time weren't the greatest places for them.

[Senegalboy]

i respect that jews need a home land i think the borders should be like this .
but my family do not like israel. my grandfather fought in 1948 in the arab legion. But he left Jordan in 1950 to senegal to have some peace and came back in 1964.

[Napkiraly]

The old solution is completely and utterly unrealistic, even more so than asking to go to the pre-67 borders.

[Senegalboy]

that is true

[Senegalboy]

who here knows fluent arabic or just have a good understanding

[Greater Tezdrian]

I've decided to undertake an in-depth reading of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's more notable or essential published works; to see if he can persuade me to revert.

Yeah, about that post you made earlier. You do seem like having an interesting backstory there
Care to explain further what made you leave the faith and what exactly you mean when you said you were deeply dissatisfied?

Long story short, I reverted to Islam from Catholicism last year (and was for a time quite active in the I/MDT Mk I) and was Muslim for a few months before the tension between liberal modernity and fundamental Islamic principles, as I then saw them, got to me. Since then I've flirted with a variety of different religions and remain deeply unsatisfied with my untethered, constant state of religious wandering. I also have a deep fondness for the Ahmadiyya Jama'at.

[Socialist Czechia]

but my family do not like israel. my grandfather fought in 1948 in the arab legion. But he left Jordan in 1950 to senegal to have some peace and came back in 1964.

it doesn't really matter if muslims agree with concept of Israel or not.

they have nukes. hundreds of nukes. bombers, ICBMs.

end of line.

[The Alma Mater]

but my family do not like israel. my grandfather fought in 1948 in the arab legion. But he left Jordan in 1950 to senegal to have some peace and came back in 1964.

it doesn't really matter if muslims agree with concept of Israel or not.

they have nukes. hundreds of nukes. bombers, ICBMs.

end of line.

IIRC, muslims do actually not have a problem with the concept of Israel. In the future. When Jesus and Mohammed have come back, there has been lots of judging etc. etc.

They merely have a problem with Israel existing "prematurely".

[Socialist Czechia]

it doesn't really matter if muslims agree with concept of Israel or not.

they have nukes. hundreds of nukes. bombers, ICBMs.

end of line.

IIRC, muslims do actually not have a problem with the concept of Israel. In the future. When Jesus and Mohammed have come back, there has been lots of judging etc. etc.

They merely have a problem with Israel existing "prematurely".

I am curious what muslims will say, after Israel will destroy these mosques on their holy hill, building Third Temple

[The Alma Mater]

IIRC, muslims do actually not have a problem with the concept of Israel. In the future. When Jesus and Mohammed have come back, there has been lots of judging etc. etc.

They merely have a problem with Israel existing "prematurely".

I am curious what muslims will say, after Israel will destroy these mosques on their holy hill, building Third Temple

Well, technically the Jews should agree with them. The current existence of Israel is a sin in Judaism as well

[Mahdistan]

It doesn't make it right to insult a religion, even if you have the legal right to do so,

Why? Why is religion such a sacred cow that it can't ever be mocked or criticized?

and getting mad about it doesn't mean that I should leave the country.

You're mad about a fundamental tenet of Western society, I'd say that makes you pretty incompatible. Perhaps you would prefer a hugbox where criticism or mockery isn't allowed? Lots of places where mockery of islam is illegal. Maybe you'd fit in better, Ghurby definitely would.

He's repeatedly had the points he was making disregarded because of his religious beliefs,

It's because his points are fucking ridiculous, often conspiracy theories, and bigoted. It doesn't help that he's a wahhabi and an Al Qaeda supporter, and outright dismisses anyone who disagrees with him. Again, why should he get special treatment?

and just last page people were calling to ignore him.

Probably because of the aforementioned disgusting qualities. Doesn't really make people like him.

Mocking only generates anger and fuels biases, deepening divides between groups and generally poisoning constructive atmosphere.

Sounds like more apologist hogwash. If someone's response to getting mocked is to get angry and threaten violence, which is overwhelmingly what chafingly conservative muslims often do, then they need to grow up a thicker skin and put on their big kid pants. It's nobody else's job to cater to their pwecious, fwagile feefees. Besides, muslims radicalize and attack us no matter what. Rich muslims, poor muslims, they radicalize regardless of class, cultural, or ethnic backgrounds. Which tells me it's a cultural and religious problem on the part of the muslim world.

I try to treat everyone with some respect, whether or not I disagree with them, and even if I outright hate them.

Not all people are worthy of respect, nor are all beliefs.

I don't see why it should be our problem if a westerner doesn't want to take the time to understand differences between Muslims.

"People should like and respect us no matter what! Who cares if we put no effort into it! Death to critics! Better not draw Mohammad or criticize us or you might get killed!"

We shouldn't have to conform to their ideals because there are people like us who are doing bad things.

"Muslims shouldn't have to integrate into their host societies at all, but should still totally never be criticized, mocked, or disliked ever."

And if they want to pick a fight on us all, then they'll get a fight with us all, but I'm talking about if they criticize us all, then we have a right to, unitedly, defend ourselves verbally.

I'd hope you were talking about verbally, because if it came to blows, the muslim world would bleed white long before the West did. Hell, the US itself is so vastly overpowered economically and militarily it could flatten Mecca and Medina, and there's fuck all anyone could do about it. But yeah, sure, defend yourself verbally. Apologetics never gets old.

I think that should be the case for every religious group, not just Islam.

Then you need to break down and reform the muslim world, because that is not the case there. This is as opposed to the West, where everyone has equal rights.

Laws can't protect everyone.

Hoo boy, more terrorist apologism.

Sure, it's illegal to make threats or hurt, but it's still going to happen, and that doesn't mean that I have to feel sorry for someone that gets hurt because they said something stupid to the wrong person.

"Hey fuck you infidel, yeah you had your rights violated, but you hurt that muslim's feelings. That's so much worse!"

Plus, honestly, I've seen and heard far more people skewing what the so-called 'apologists' are saying than actual people who believe that.

Sure.

I also doubt that anyone would be out holding signs of condolence for a racist who got shot, or that we'd dedicate weeks of media coverage dissecting every moment of what happened.

Depends on how it happened, I'd imagine. If it was another islamic terror attack, for example on cartoonists or satirists), it'd probably be all over the news. Or if some christian pro-life type bombed an abortion clinic. Or really any sufficiently brutal form of violence, really.

One guy dies in Germany from an Islamic terrorist attack and it's still international news.

Probably because muslims, who make up a tiny minority of Europe's population but commit the lion's share of terror attacks, are flooding into Europe like pus from a lanced boil, overwhelmingly hold bigoted and extremist beliefs, commit crime, and refuse to work. When migrants flood in carrying a culture that ruins everywhere it gains some weight in, especially when that culture is so fundamentally alien to the native one, and starts bringing in mass amounts of terror and violence, it's going to make the news. Sorry to say buddy, but it's the muslim world's fault, not ours.

A double murder occured a few blocks away from where I live, and it got a 30 second segment on the local news. Why is Islamic terrorism in Europe a tragedy, and homicide on a multitudes-larger scale globally considered 'normal'?

Are you seriously asking why brutal, sudden attacks against masses of civilians by a tiny, insular community alien to the native one, gets more coverage that crime that has existed for as long as nations have?

I said people who insult other people shouldn't be surprised when crazy people from the group they insulted does something stupid.

Yeah, that's trying to excuse extremist idiocy.

I say one shouldn't mock religion because it can be dangerous, though I'm not justifying the responses the violent have. It also has the same polarizing effect that Muslims committing terrorist attacks has, causing the uneducated to feel the need to generalize. I'm not criticizing the system, but I am criticizing those who incite people to want to attack.

But to not stretch this out further and avoid an endless wall-text debate, the bottom line is that I don't like the hostility in this thread. It makes people who otherwise might have different views avoid the place, and we lose out on potential newcomers. This series of threads has already earned itself a bad reputation for its tendency towards a toxic nature, but most of the time we get along alright. So please, just lay off the guy; there's nothing preventing a honest, clear debate.

[Greater Tezdrian]

I, for one, would actually prefer a Muslim space where Salafism isn't a norm.

[Acarn]

I, for one, would actually prefer a Muslim space where Salafism isn't a norm.

As would I, but as long as the US and Europe continues to back SA, nothing is gonna change. Not to say that I am not trying my best.

[Greater Tezdrian]

I, for one, would actually prefer a Muslim space where Salafism isn't a norm.

As would I, but as long as the US and Europe continues to back SA, nothing is gonna change. Not to say that I am not trying my best.

I was more referring to this thread, and the OP's inexplicable insistence that Salafists not be argued with.

[Communist Xomaniax]

I, for one, would actually prefer a Muslim space where Salafism isn't a norm.

As would I, but as long as the US and Europe continues to back SA, nothing is gonna change. Not to say that I am not trying my best.

Let's not pretend that the muslim community at large wouldn't continue to be punishingly conservative, tribal, and chock full of religious extremists and primitive wahhabis, even if Saudi Arabia ceased to exist tomorrow.

[Greater Tezdrian]

As would I, but as long as the US and Europe continues to back SA, nothing is gonna change. Not to say that I am not trying my best.

Let's not pretend that the muslim community at large wouldn't continue to be punishingly conservative, tribal, and chock full of religious extremists and primitive wahhabis, even if Saudi Arabia ceased to exist tomorrow.

But Salafism would lose no mean amount of funding ^^

[Communist Xomaniax]

Let's not pretend that the muslim community at large wouldn't continue to be punishingly conservative, tribal, and chock full of religious extremists and primitive wahhabis, even if Saudi Arabia ceased to exist tomorrow.

But Salafism would lose no mean amount of funding ^^

Which is a good thing, admittedly, since it would mean a lessened supply of extremism amongst the Western world's muslims. I wish the US could just wall off that entire country (or cleanse its government with fire, and turn it over to be governed by a non-partisan UN commission), but for some reason we're rather fond of supporting a country we don't get oil or any benefits besides bases from. At least Israel has the benefit of being the Midle East's only stable, strong, prosperous liberal democracy. Saudi Arabia is basically a greasy pustule on Uncle Sam's ass.

[Alsheb]

IIRC, muslims do actually not have a problem with the concept of Israel. In the future. When Jesus and Mohammed have come back, there has been lots of judging etc. etc.

They merely have a problem with Israel existing "prematurely".

I am curious what muslims will say, after Israel will destroy these mosques on their holy hill, building Third Temple

Jews arent' even allowed on the Temple Mount since they might tread on the Holy of Holies, which is forbidden terrain for ordinary Jews according to scripture.

[Alsheb]

As would I, but as long as the US and Europe continues to back SA, nothing is gonna change. Not to say that I am not trying my best.

Let's not pretend that the muslim community at large wouldn't continue to be punishingly conservative, tribal, and chock full of religious extremists and primitive wahhabis, even if Saudi Arabia ceased to exist tomorrow.

Since salafism has basically only spread because of Saudi influence, the end of the kingdom would definetely help.

[United Territories and States]

Maybe the Israel-Palestine conflict can be resolved through a Union between the two?

[Germanic Scyths]

As would I, but as long as the US and Europe continues to back SA, nothing is gonna change. Not to say that I am not trying my best.

Let's not pretend that the muslim community at large wouldn't continue to be punishingly conservative, tribal, and chock full of religious extremists and primitive wahhabis, even if Saudi Arabia ceased to exist tomorrow.

That's not his point, his point is change. Once the SA goes bankrupt the Wahahbis will loose income.

Yeah, about that post you made earlier. You do seem like having an interesting backstory there
Care to explain further what made you leave the faith and what exactly you mean when you said you were deeply dissatisfied?

Long story short, I reverted to Islam from Catholicism last year (and was for a time quite active in the I/MDT Mk I) and was Muslim for a few months before the tension between liberal modernity and fundamental Islamic principles, as I then saw them, got to me. Since then I've flirted with a variety of different religions and remain deeply unsatisfied with my untethered, constant state of religious wandering. I also have a deep fondness for the Ahmadiyya Jama'at.

I understand your struggle. Remember that searching for spirituality is a lifelong journey. Not everyone finds what they seek immediately.

[Napkiraly]

Maybe the Israel-Palestine conflict can be resolved through a Union between the two?

Hahahahahahaha

[Senegalboy]

israel and palestine would not go into a union fact