New Zealand shootings.

drlodge

bompington wrote:

TBF, that's the interpretation of a small minority of Muslims.

Agreed. Although I wonder how you define small. Its certainly not all of them.

bompington wrote:

The point I was trying to make, mind you, is that you have to indulge in some major exegetical gymnastics to interpret that out of the Koran; whereas you have to work pretty hard to twist anything in the bible into the Crusades, even if many have tried.

Again, just no. The behaviour of ISIS is consistent with a very plausible reading of the religious texts. Treatment of women, gays, apostates etc its all in there.

The Islamic extremists take a complete and literal interpretation of the texts. More "normal" Muslims cherry pick parts of the texts, to a greater or less extent.

rick_chasey

Mate, you honestly don’t know wtf you’re talking about if you think that.

That is just plainly and factually wrong.

rick_chasey

If you honestly believe that it’s pointless having an argument as facts are not the constant around which the discussion can be had.

I have a sense you’re looking for confirmation of your own prejudices.

Maybe you disagree, but maybe have a think about how I’ve arrived at that conclusion from what you’ve written...

After all, in a thread about when innocent Muslims get shot dead for being Muslim you’re banging on about how terrible the Koran is.

rjsterry

bompington wrote:

drlodge wrote:

You should go read the Dabiq Magazine, which is ISIS's magazine http://www.oswego.edu/~delancey/314_DIR ... ateYou.pdf

1. We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you.

TBF, that's the interpretation of a small minority of Muslims.

The point I was trying to make, mind you, is that you have to indulge in some major exegetical gymnastics to interpret that out of the Koran; whereas you have to work pretty hard to twist anything in the bible into the Crusades, even if many have tried.

The Crusades started with the idea of reclaiming Jerusalem for Christianity but that's about as far as the religious side of it went. They were mostly about far more mercenary objectives.

rjsterry

drlodge wrote:

bompington wrote:

TBF, that's the interpretation of a small minority of Muslims.

Agreed. Although I wonder how you define small. Its certainly not all of them.

bompington wrote:

The point I was trying to make, mind you, is that you have to indulge in some major exegetical gymnastics to interpret that out of the Koran; whereas you have to work pretty hard to twist anything in the bible into the Crusades, even if many have tried.

Again, just no. The behaviour of ISIS is consistent with a very plausible reading of the religious texts. Treatment of women, gays, apostates etc its all in there.

The Islamic extremists take a complete and literal interpretation of the texts. More "normal" Muslims cherry pick parts of the texts, to a greater or less extent.

Perhaps you could point us to something to back up your claim. Something a little less compromised than an ISIS magazine.

Alejandrosdog

rjsterry wrote:

drlodge wrote:

bompington wrote:

TBF, that's the interpretation of a small minority of Muslims.

Agreed. Although I wonder how you define small. Its certainly not all of them.

bompington wrote:

The point I was trying to make, mind you, is that you have to indulge in some major exegetical gymnastics to interpret that out of the Koran; whereas you have to work pretty hard to twist anything in the bible into the Crusades, even if many have tried.

Again, just no. The behaviour of ISIS is consistent with a very plausible reading of the religious texts. Treatment of women, gays, apostates etc its all in there.

The Islamic extremists take a complete and literal interpretation of the texts. More "normal" Muslims cherry pick parts of the texts, to a greater or less extent.

Perhaps you could point us to something to back up your claim. Something a little less compromised than an ISIS magazine.

I wasnt expecting to hear that response from you, perhaps you could show us exactly which of the many mainstream newspapers detailing exactly this, the reports of the race relations board and the muslim council of Britain are not telling the truth.

Dont be lazy google it. I never checked myself and i wasnt spoon fed material i was prepared to accept is a cop out. Unless you expect properly referenced scientific research of course.

Alejandrosdog

What muslims really think.... this was great it got the liberals looking for reasons why the survey was wrong, biased and not quite pc enough here are the excerpts

The 615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. Moreover, only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with jihadists.

[W]e have to adopt a far more muscular approach to integration than ever, replacing the failed policy of multiculturalism... Britain's liberal Muslims are crying out for this challenge to be confronted. ... There is a life-and-death struggle for the soul of British Islam -- and this is not a battle that the rest of us can afford to sit out. We need to take sides... We have 'understood' too much, and challenged too little -- and in doing so are in danger of sacrificing a generation of young British people to values that are antithetical to the beliefs of most of us, including many Muslims." — Trevor Phillips, former head of Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The survey does show that 88% of British Muslims believe Britain is a good place for Muslims to live. According to Philips, this is because the tolerance they enjoy in Britain allows them to do whatever they want.

HOWEVER....

In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations.

On social issues, 52% of the Muslims surveyed said they believe homosexuality should be illegal, compared to 22% of non-Muslim Britons. Nearly half believe it is unacceptable for a gay or lesbian to teach their children. At the same time, almost a third (31%) of British Muslims think polygamy should be legalized. Among 18-to-24-year-olds, 35% think it is acceptable to have more than one wife.

Thirty-nine percent of Muslims surveyed believe women should always obey their husbands, compared to 5% for non-Muslims. One in three British Muslims refuse completely to condemn the stoning of women accused of adultery.

The poll also found that a fifth of British Muslims have not entered the home of a non-Muslim in the past year.

Of the British Muslims surveyed, 35% believe Jewish people have too much power in the UK, compared to 8% of non-Muslims.

you can google it if you like, the Guardian will give you good pc opinion to refute the facts of the survey

kingstongraham

drlodge wrote:

I don't see how those questions are at all relevant to the topic.

Try looking at what the topic is, then decide if what you are posting is relevant to it.

robert88

drlodge wrote:

bompington wrote:

TBF, that's the interpretation of a small minority of Muslims.

Agreed. Although I wonder how you define small. Its certainly not all of them.

bompington wrote:

The point I was trying to make, mind you, is that you have to indulge in some major exegetical gymnastics to interpret that out of the Koran; whereas you have to work pretty hard to twist anything in the bible into the Crusades, even if many have tried.

Again, just no. The behaviour of ISIS is consistent with a very plausible reading of the religious texts. Treatment of women, gays, apostates etc its all in there.

The Islamic extremists take a complete and literal interpretation of the texts. More "normal" Muslims cherry pick parts of the texts, to a greater or less extent.

Just like Christians.

Why don't you just accept that human beings do evil things, good things and things in the middle? Is it because you can't face that and have to pin the blame on a particular group so it makes you feel better?

drlodge

Robert88 wrote:

Just like Christians.

Why don't you just accept that human beings do evil things, good things and things in the middle? Is it because you can't face that and have to pin the blame on a particular group so it makes you feel better?

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.

shirley_basso

drlodge wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Just like Christians.

Why don't you just accept that human beings do evil things, good things and things in the middle? Is it because you can't face that and have to pin the blame on a particular group so it makes you feel better?

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.

i don't think fascist white supremacy driven by religion? For good people to do evil it takes indoctrination.

rick_chasey

drlodge wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Just like Christians.

Why don't you just accept that human beings do evil things, good things and things in the middle? Is it because you can't face that and have to pin the blame on a particular group so it makes you feel better?

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.

I’m sure the folk in atheist communist Russia were glad of that fact.

I mean, you are doing a very good impression of an islamophobe.

bompington

Solzhenitsyn got it right:

Solzhenitsyn - who saw a lot more evil closer up than most of us ever will - wrote:

The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either - but right through every human heart

- given the context he was immersed in (atheist communism) this quote doesn't mention religion, but it surely applies there too.

rjsterry

drlodge wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Just like Christians.

Why don't you just accept that human beings do evil things, good things and things in the middle? Is it because you can't face that and have to pin the blame on a particular group so it makes you feel better?

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.

All of which is based on the view that people can be divided neatly into good and bad. There are just people. We are all capable of great acts of kindness and unspeakable cruelty. It's just a question of circumstances.

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, you are doing a very good impression of an islamophobe.

This is one of the biggest problems in the whole debate - it is now standard practice for any questioning at all of a "protected group" to be labelled a phobia, no matter how mild, reasonable or reasoned.

drlodge

Rick Chasey wrote:

I’m sure the folk in atheist communist Russia were glad of that fact.

I mean, you are doing a very good impression of an islamophobe.

Communist Russia was a result of a Marxist ideology, so not religion but an ideology none the less. Religion is also an ideology.

"islamophobe" is a non word. Are you referring to anti-muslim bigotry or criticism of Islam? I'm doing the latter which is 100% fine and to be encouraged.

drlodge

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, you are doing a very good impression of an islamophobe.

This is one of the biggest problems in the whole debate - it is now standard practice for any questioning at all of a "protected group" to be labelled a phobia, no matter how mild, reasonable or reasoned.

Yep typical left wing response. Rather than argue on the issue, just start name calling.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, you are doing a very good impression of an islamophobe.

This is one of the biggest problems in the whole debate - it is now standard practice for any questioning at all of a "protected group" to be labelled a phobia, no matter how mild, reasonable or reasoned.

I don’t think it is reasonable, mild, or reasoned, hence the suggestion.

rick_chasey

drlodge wrote:

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, you are doing a very good impression of an islamophobe.

This is one of the biggest problems in the whole debate - it is now standard practice for any questioning at all of a "protected group" to be labelled a phobia, no matter how mild, reasonable or reasoned.

Yep typical left wing response. Rather than argue on the issue, just start name calling.

So what have I done in all the previous posts?

I asked a question and you evaded the answer, and I have since suggested why it’s worth considering my questions.

If you are right and I am wrong you ought to be able to defend yourself quite easily.

I suggest instead you are hiding behind “oh name calling, how bad” yet youre happy to label one of he most popular faiths in the world.

drlodge

Rick Chasey wrote:

So what have I done in all the previous posts?

You called me an Islamophobe, that's name calling.

rjsterry

drlodge wrote:

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, you are doing a very good impression of an islamophobe.

This is one of the biggest problems in the whole debate - it is now standard practice for any questioning at all of a "protected group" to be labelled a phobia, no matter how mild, reasonable or reasoned.

Yep typical left wing response. Rather than argue on the issue, just start name calling.

And so, what, name calling right back? Pretty sure we have been arguing on the issue for about 4 pages now. As far as I can see you started off claiming there was a unique tendency toward violence enshrined in Islamic beliefs. Then you widened that to religions in general and now it's just ideology. If your insight is that people use ideology to justify barbarity, I suppose that is at least relevant to the original thread topic.

drlodge

rjsterry wrote:

If your insight is that people use ideology to justify barbarity, I suppose that is at least relevant to the original thread topic.

This is much closer to the real issue now, but I'm not saying that people use ideology to justify barbarity, rather ideology is one of the causes of the barbarity. You can kill all the ISIS people you want, but unless you kill the ideology you won't have won the war.

And how do we resolve the growing right wing extremism? One good thing to do is to identify and call out their ideology so society at large rejects it. Putting right wing extremists behind bars or shooting them dead will do very little.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, you are doing a very good impression of an islamophobe.

This is one of the biggest problems in the whole debate - it is now standard practice for any questioning at all of a "protected group" to be labelled a phobia, no matter how mild, reasonable or reasoned.

People ought to recognise their own prejudices.

It’s not about protected groups.

In the context of the shootings it ought to be obvious what Dr is doing.

rick_chasey

drlodge wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

If your insight is that people use ideology to justify barbarity, I suppose that is at least relevant to the original thread topic.

This is much closer to the real issue now, but I'm not saying that people use ideology to justify barbarity, rather ideology is one of the causes of the barbarity. You can kill all the ISIS people you want, but unless you kill the ideology you won't have won the war.

And how do we resolve the growing right wing extremism? One good thing to do is to identify and call out their ideology so society at large rejects it. Putting right wing extremists behind bars or shooting them dead will do very little.

So why do people do such awful things for such a variety of ideologies?

Earlier you were suggesting it was something specific to Islam because of the Koran. So which is it?

Alejandrosdog

rjsterry wrote:

drlodge wrote:

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I mean, you are doing a very good impression of an islamophobe.

This is one of the biggest problems in the whole debate - it is now standard practice for any questioning at all of a "protected group" to be labelled a phobia, no matter how mild, reasonable or reasoned.

Yep typical left wing response. Rather than argue on the issue, just start name calling.

And so, what, name calling right back? Pretty sure we have been arguing on the issue for about 4 pages now. As far as I can see you started off claiming there was a unique tendency toward violence enshrined in Islamic beliefs. Then you widened that to religions in general and now it's just ideology. If your insight is that people use ideology to justify barbarity, I suppose that is at least relevant to the original thread topic.

I think that 1/3 of all british muslims dont condone stoning a woman for adultery indicates that the islamic community has embraced the enshrined violence.

drlodge

Rick Chasey wrote:

So why do people do such awful things for such a variety of ideologies?

Earlier you were suggesting it was something specific to Islam because of the Koran. So which is it?

Islam is a religion, which is an ideology. Its a set of ideas. And there are consequences for a person's behaviour depending on what they truly believe.

If you truly believe in Martyrdom, that if you sacrifice yourself in the name of fighting for your religion/ideology and you will go to heaven which really exists, you'll have no qualms about blowing yourself up.

rick_chasey

drlodge wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So why do people do such awful things for such a variety of ideologies?

Earlier you were suggesting it was something specific to Islam because of the Koran. So which is it?

Islam is a religion, which is an ideology. Its a set of ideas. And there are consequences for a person's behaviour depending on what they truly believe.

If you truly believe in Martyrdom, that if you sacrifice yourself in the name of fighting for your religion/ideology and you will go to heaven which really exists, you'll have no qualms about blowing yourself up.

But why did you single Muslims out and why did you suggest that Isis ideology is not entirely unrepresentative of all Muslims, despite being absolutely extreme and a tiny minority of a vast population?

Alejandrosdog

the office for national statistics provides census data showing that the last time around there were 3,372,966 people who identified as muslim.

Only 34% of those would report to police if they knew someone close to them who had become involved with Jihadists.

i.e. 64% would at the very least provide shelter that is 2,158,698 terrorist supporting muslims. in the uk alone.

23% think sharia law should replace british law in areas with large muslim populations. thats over 775,000 british muslims wanting to follow the directions literal or otherwise of the Koran. note they dont just believe muslims should be ruled by it but non muslims too in areas designated as largely muslim.

it just doesnt hold true that the islamic terrorism is only about a few people.

Alejandrosdog

Rick Chasey wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So why do people do such awful things for such a variety of ideologies?

Earlier you were suggesting it was something specific to Islam because of the Koran. So which is it?

Islam is a religion, which is an ideology. Its a set of ideas. And there are consequences for a person's behaviour depending on what they truly believe.

If you truly believe in Martyrdom, that if you sacrifice yourself in the name of fighting for your religion/ideology and you will go to heaven which really exists, you'll have no qualms about blowing yourself up.

But why did you single Muslims out and why did you suggest that Isis ideology is not entirely unrepresentative of all Muslims, despite being absolutely extreme and a tiny minority of a vast population?

You need to add some facts Rick, your suggestion that islamic terrorism is only about a very small percentage of the population is wrong

drlodge

I haven't singled Muslims out, I haven't even mention Muslims. I've been talking about Islam. One is a people, the other is a set of ideas. Ideas lead to beliefs that lead to behaviours.