Islam and Western Society

[Lumber]

I presume that rather than "one of the issues in Islam today is the knowledge base of the believers" you meant to say that this was an issue with "radicalized Islamists", and not Muslims in general. If so, here's an article that supports that position:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/isis-deliberately-preys-on-recruits-ignorant-to-islam-to-impose-its-own-twisted-version_uk_57b2e5c1e4b02fb3274ba23a?utm_hp_ref=uk

:cheers:

Well I don't know what the exact reality is, I bet that it is far from what people in Western society asssume, myself included.

When I think of the Muslim world, I immediately assume that everyone is a devout and well-versed Muslim. I know that this isn't true, but it's the image that comes to mind. I challenge it regularly, but its difficult.

Do they have the same false assumption about us in Western society? Do they assume that we are all devout Christians who read our bibles and say our confessions? Because I'm not close friends with a single person who goes to Church, I know only a few who go to church from among my family and acquaintances, and I know for a fact that, despite my being an Atheist, I know way more about Christianity that most of the people I know who claim to be "Christians".

 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I can't recall who said this first but:

"If you're going to read only one book in your life, make sure you pick a good one."

 

[YZT580]

The folks who flew the aircraft on 9-11 were not uneducated.  The gentleman who attempted the bombing in Scotland was a medical professional as have been a number of other radicalized terrorists in England.  The argument re: education does not apply.

Iran during the Shaw's reign was relatively liberal with multiple faiths being permitted and a relatively permissive attitude towards women's rights etc.  During the last two decades Shariah has become the dominant movement in most Muslim states.  Even countries which welcomed those of other faiths such as the Philippines and even Pakistan have become hardened and intolerant. Read the news from Turkey, Nigeria, South Sudan, Egypt,to name but a few. All of these countries at one time supported a fairly robust Christian presence but have systematically driven them either underground or out of the country entirely.  It requires one to partake of some pretty sophisticated drugs to continue to mouth the lies that Islam is a religion of peace.  Maybe in theory but certainly not as practiced in the majority of Islamic states.   

 

[CougarKing]

Even countries which welcomed those of other faiths such as the Philippines and even Pakistan have become hardened and intolerant.

Just a slight correction to what you said about the Philippines.

They're a predominantly Catholic country (95%) and the Muslim minority is largely confined to the southernmost island of Mindanao and nearby smaller islands.

Roman Catholicism is firmly rooted there because it was a Spanish colony for over 300 years, though the brief US colonization from 1898-1946 also brought some Evangelicals and other Protestant missionaries who still have a following there today. Though mostly Catholic, the Philippines is quite tolerant of all faiths.

The largest Islamic separatist group, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF*), are currently having peace talks with the Philippine government. The other group called Abu Sayyaf, which beheaded 2 Canadian tourists earlier this year, are nothing more than bandits who constantly kidnap foreigners more for ransom than any real separatist cause.

*I hope people don't get any funny ideas with this acronym, especially with the last thread that mentioned this acronym in its title.    ;D

I couldn't help but picture a pissed off soccer-mom with a bazooka.
Midget

 

[Lumber]

It requires one to partake of some pretty sophisticated drugs to continue to mouth the lies that Islam is a religion of peace.  Maybe in theory but certainly not as practiced in the majority of Islamic states. 

You can't argue and fight for the truth unless you accept the truth. That's incumbent upon us all.

So if you really do believe that Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace, but that it is failing to be practiced at such, than please don't call it a "lie" that Islam is a religion of piece. Be honest, and help others, especially the ignorant, quick to judge types, to see that it is not the fault of the religion itself, but of human nature and people just being giant dicks.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I presume that rather than "one of the issues in Islam today is the knowledge base of the believers" you meant to say that this was an issue with "radicalized Islamists", and not Muslims in general. If so, here's an article that supports that position:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/isis-deliberately-preys-on-recruits-ignorant-to-islam-to-impose-its-own-twisted-version_uk_57b2e5c1e4b02fb3274ba23a?utm_hp_ref=uk

:cheers:

No I meant in general, the majority of the Sunni Muslim population is not well educated and not well versed in Islam. They generally only know that which is taught in their regional area. Both the governments and the Imams in most of those regions do not encourage people to study widely and ask pointed questions. At best it's a battle between a devout fundamentalist belief and a hardcore Salfi interpretation. Much of the non-whabbist based beliefs have been suppressed by the Gulf State/KSA funding of fundamentalist Islam, I seen that in Malaysia where the laid back Islamic practices they had have been pretty much wiped out. People I have talked to says that much the same has gone on in Indonesia, but due to the size and the government, it's not as pervasive. I hear that places in the Balkans are feeling the radical heat as well. 

 

[Kirkhill]

So, if I understand Colin correctly, he seems to be suggesting that the Muslim community is at roughly the same place the West was up until the 1930s when "Hockey Night in Canada" replaced the local priest.

We went through the transition from squabbling priests (Rome vs Constantinople vs Alexandria vs Jerusalem vs Antioch) to squabbling monks (Dominican vs Franciscans) to squabbling priests (Romans vs Lutherans vs Anglicans vs Gallicans) to more squabbling monks (Jesuits vs Recollets vs Sulpiciens vs SME) to the "pox-on-all-their-houses-I'll-do-it-myself" brigade appointing their own "priests".  By the time the CN Railway started broadcasting hockey games in 1931 the "debate" was amongst people like Bill Aberhart, Amy Semple McPherson and Charles Coughlin.  All of whom were supplanted by the likes of Stanley Burke, Lloyd Robertson and Walter Cronkite. 

I suggest that the Muslims are somewhere between Coughlin and Cronkite just now with a seasoning of Facebook. 

Unlike many in the west - they are still hoping that there are people that know something.

 

[AbdullahD]

The folks who flew the aircraft on 9-11 were not uneducated.  The gentleman who attempted the bombing in Scotland was a medical professional as have been a number of other radicalized terrorists in England.  The argument re: education does not apply.

I believe the argument that was being used was not that they were ignorant in secular studies but that they were ignorant in the religious sense.

A read on why westerners are attracted to extremism;
http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/radicalization-why-do-western-youth-join-extremist-groups

Universities breeding grounds of radicalism;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8560409/Universities-The-breeding-grounds-of-terror.html

These two links were to show what attracts western educated and/or westerners to radical groups. I tried googling for Islamic education levels the only one I could find is this one which I think I am replicating from an above post (thanks)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-documents-leak-reveals-profile-of-average-militant-as-young-well-educated-but-with-only-basic-a6995111.html

Aside from this I have my personal experiences, from the Scholars I know personally, or know of, they almost all say unanimously that the vast majority of radicals are not educated in Islam above a rudimentary sense. (Ill also reach back to Colin P's compliment he gave me, which I appreciated a lot, but even my understanding of Islam is not that in depth. I just have more experience with certain topics, due to dealing with them more. On a lot of other topics though im woefully ignorant)

Iran during the Shaw's reign was relatively liberal with multiple faiths being permitted and a relatively permissive attitude towards women's rights etc.

I think any country that forces women to do something is disgusting and any person forcing women to do something is too.

Random links showing the reduction of womens rights exists outside the Islamic world.. just cause.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/full-body-burkini-swimwear-bans-expand-in-france-1.3721370

So now I actually do think women should have equal rights. You know, after they finish cooking dinner and cleaning the house, of course... (it is a joke... or is it? 0.o)

See I am a big believer that "forcing" people to do 'xyz' is always a temporary fix because once they find a way around it, around they will go. People need to know the reason on why to do something and the benefit in it in order to want to do it. So forcing half the population to do things, seems counter intuitive, especially when establishing educational programs could obtain the same goal. But even then if a person decides not to do a certain thing, we have no right to force them.

Now I am not very well educated on Iran, at all. So I can not comment specifically on policies that were passed and I don't have time to research it. Sorry. But contraceptives are allowed, burkas and niqabs are not obligatory, women are not sex slaves etc etc I hope that covers it

 

During the last two decades Shariah has become the dominant movement in most Muslim states.

I would have given you a pass if you had said Salafi Islam, wahabism, Islamists etc, not sharia. If it is a Muslim state, then it is already, technically, albeit potentially loosely, a sharia state.

How the first caliph ran his state
http://www.alim.org/library/biography/khalifa/content/KAB/15/1

The second
http://www.alim.org/library/biography/khalifa/content/KUM/15/7

Then a wiki link that if you read shows that Islam and democracy are potential bedmates (pay attention the 'shura' section), also the link should show or hint at the fact the political side of Islam can evolve according to the times. Which is a neat discussion for another time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_aspects_of_Islam

See my 'sharia' holds many western aspects and innovations in it, democracy holds a place in my 'sharia' so I am playing semantics here, but the point is 'sharia' is a boogey word used to rile up the crowd. But it should not be, if you say wahabism has been the dominate movement for the last 20 years, I likely would have agreed and moved on. I highly suspect many, most or all of you would be 'ok' or 'content' living under my version of 'sharia' (just think libertarian for the most part, or individual right to protection and the state has no rights to tell you what to do in your own home as long as you are not violating other peoples rights), so depending on what interpretations are used the sharia can be one thing or something completely else... because certain groups have twisted it to make it into something it is not.

 

Even countries which welcomed those of other faiths such as the Philippines and even Pakistan have become hardened and intolerant. 

In a specific sense, I can agree with you, the extremist brand of Islam that terrorists teach is not Islam and does not follow the even most rudimentary basics of how Muslims should be in many cases.

Treatment of non Muslims
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/207/viewall/tolerance-of-prophet-towards-other-religions/

Non Muslim tax (take the gist here, this chap seems to believe Slavery is still allowed when it has been clearly abrogated so I don't trust him 100% but the gist of the article seems 'okay')
http://www.answering-christianity.com/jizyah.htm

Now as always my argument isn't what Muslims are doing, it is what Islam teaches. I won't deny anti semitism and other disgusting ideologies are infiltrating Islam, but it is fairly clear it is not what Islam teaches with some research. The Prophet peace be upon him suffered all kinds of injustices and didn't do what these whack jobs did, so how can we say murdering innocent people or burning down holy buildings or texts is Islamic of the prophet and the 4 righteous caliphs didn't act like that.

Read the news from Turkey, Nigeria, South Sudan, Egypt,to name but a few. All of these countries at one time supported a fairly robust Christian presence but have systematically driven them either underground or out of the country entirely.

Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. Sadly, agreed. But these respective and respectable minorities existed under previous Muslim leaders correct? So if previous Muslim leaders had a sharia that allowed them exist and prosper peacefully, then would it not be the twisted version or versions of Islam more extreme groups use be the issue not the religion itself? All extreme groups only take a small percent of the full teachings of the ideology or religious beliefs to corrupt it into a tool for brainwashing their followers. Which will lead to my next point...

 

It requires one to partake of some pretty sophisticated drugs to continue to mouth the lies that Islam is a religion of peace.  Maybe in theory but certainly not as practiced in the majority of Islamic states.  

You can't argue and fight for the truth unless you accept the truth. That's incumbent upon us all.

So if you really do believe that Islam is supposed to be a religion of peace, but that it is failing to be practiced at such, than please don't call it a "lie" that Islam is a religion of piece. Be honest, and help others, especially the ignorant, quick to judge types, to see that it is not the fault of the religion itself, but of human nature and people just being giant dicks.

Lets just look at the size of Islamic source texts

I believe there is over 20,000 Sahih Hadiths;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hadith_collections

Then add in the lesser strength authenticity hadiths and fabricated hadiths you literally get hundreds of thousands of hadiths to pick and choose from... which most Muslims wont know the difference between, unless they have studied a lot.

Such as these hadiths and see if you can understand why fabricated hadiths could he used to twist Islam.

https://standup4islam.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/100-fabricated-hadiths/

Now even Sahih Hadith texts have abrogated hadiths in them that need to be taken in context and as a whole. So if a person just wants to take one piece of the puzzle, it does not make him right because that person has to look at all relevant hadiths before making judgements.

Sorry I got distracted with hadiths. Back to the point.

Islam has a insanely huge amount of Hadiths, Tafsirs and the one Quran. It becomes very easy to just pick pieces out and use those particular pieces to suit your agenda, but it does not change the religion.

You could say extremist groups are 'Piecers' ie they only use one piece of Islam, but that does not make Islam a religion of 'piece'. Any religion or ideology  can be twisted if you only take pieces of it, so to attack Islam on this specifically is interesting at best... and if we used this same rule for all religions then all religions get the same insult.

I truly believe all religions are meant to be religions of peace, not something truly unique to Islam. All religions are meant to put a person at peace with his life, with the cards he has been dealt and what he has experienced. But if we only take pieces of religions then we do not do justice to what they are meant to do.

So we must look at the whole and see if what extremists groups do reflect the whole religion. Which in almost all cases, what extremists group do never reflects the accepted versions of the religion. So we can label the extremists deviants, but not insult the religion. You can call extremists any name you wish, I'd just ask for distinction between extremists and true Muslims.

Im not sure how to tie off my rambling this time, but I hope you guys get the gist of it.

Abdullah

 

[tomahawk6]

Might as well throw the sentencing of radical preacher Anjem Choudary for supporting IS.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37098751

One of the UK's most notorious radical clerics has been convicted of inviting others to support the so-called Islamic State, it can now be reported.

Police said Anjem Choudary, 49, had stayed "just within the law" for years, but was arrested in 2014 after pledging allegiance to the militant group.

Many people tried for serious terror offences were influenced by his lectures and speeches, police said.

Choudary was convicted alongside confidant Mohammed Mizanur Rahman.

Counter-terrorism chiefs have spent almost 20 years trying to bring Choudary, a father of five, to trial, blaming him, and the proscribed organisations which he helped to run, for radicalising young men and women.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

When you look at the Islamic terrorist, you see in general 3 levels. The bottom level (3rd) is one I have mentioned, poorly educated in both secular and Islamic education, generally foot soldiers and suicide bombers. 2nd level can have a decent-good secular education with either a good or rudimentary Islamic knowledge. These guys are generally field commanders, technical guys and used for more important suicide/terror operations and can work fairly independently. Useful as they can often travel internationally without being painfully obvious. 1st level are people generally with a secular degree, military background at the officer level and either a passable or excellent knowledge of Islam. These are the real leaders and planners and are critical to the organizations. From what I have seen, AQ was mostly interested in the upper 2 levels, where ISIS will happily recruit all 3. In some places you be likely to find a 4th level that fits into the 1st level or between 1-2 and they are people with regional importance such as tribal leaders, Mullahs, whose education can vary widely, but their power and authority comes from who they command. 

I compare the 2nd level people who are generally young and dissatisfied with the typical Liberal/progressive here looking to promote various stuff like LGBT/PETA/Safe spaces/radical environmentalism/etc. Both are upset the world is not meeting their black and white interpretations of how it should be and upset that their role in life will be minor. In the west, these people are allowed a lot of different outlets where they can blow off steam and not become a problem. However in many countries these people have no way to truly vent and it builds up become a self-perpetuating state. For these people and for some disillusioned young westerners, radical Islam present a very simple, tidy and empowering black and white explanation. It also means that if they submit to the will of Allah, then in their minds they will “win” no matter what the outcome is and they will have an effect on the world, no matter how briefly.     

 

[mariomike]

August 24, 2016

National Post

France doubles down on burkini ban as images appear to show cops forcing woman to remove swimwear
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/france-doubles-down-on-burkini-ban-as-images-appear-to-show-cops-forcing-woman-to-remove-swimwear
Photos appearing to show French police forcing a woman on a Nice beach to remove parts of her “burkini” — a body-covering swimsuit favoured by some Muslim women — have ignited outrage over social media.

People have responded by posting pics of nuns on the beach 
https://twitter.com/lizzzbrown/status/768407801295056896
"In France nuns frolic along the beach with no fear while brown, pious, religious women are under assault"

 

[Jarnhamar]

People have responded by posting pics of nuns on the beach 
https://twitter.com/lizzzbrown/status/768407801295056896
"In France nuns frolic along the beach with no fear while brown, pious, religious women are under assault"

You gotta admit that's a great point and observation. Nuns are allowed to keep their religious attire while Muslim women aren't. Doesn't really seem fair. 

Then again when Christians start shooting up disco's in France murdering (and apparently mutilating) 130 people at a time, critically wounding close to 400 more or murdering 87 people with a truck and injuring 300 others in a single act those nuns will have to take their attire off too.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I have read comment, however, that is of the opinion folks like this woman in the burkini are not the fucking terrorist types that need to be hunted down and exterminated.  Those bastards are not likely to be sharing a beach with the infidels.  I tend to agree that the beards don't go to the beach in birkinis.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... when Christians start shooting up disco's in France murdering (and apparently mutilating) 130 people at a time, critically wounding close to 400 more or murdering 87 people with a truck and injuring 300 others in a single act those nuns will have to take their attire off too.

1)  <sarcasm>And once that last burkini's off the beaches of France, hearts and minds everywhere will be won, and there will be no more terrorism - that'll learn 'em!</sarcasm>
2)  Do we know where the photo of the nuns was taken?  Was it at a beach with a religious clothing ban on, or was it someplace else, in which case it doesn't even make sense.  After all, the photo was posted by an Italian imam who wanted to spark some debate, and that it certainly did.  In fact, he appears to have just posted a photo on FB, and waited for the comments (and media coverage) to roooll in.  And we get those who like the idea all cranked up and hating Muslims more, and those who oppose the idea all cranked up and hating the West more -- interesting info-op case study, no?  Or are we going to read about this on globalresearch.ca as a black flag op? 

My :2c: :  Banning the burkinis is just local governments doing something right f'n now because it doesn't look like anything's happening right f'n now if they do the right, but longer-to-kick-in stuff (better int/policing, deradicalization, keeping a grip on internet/other ways vulnerable folk are being radicalized, taking the fight to the bad guys further afield, etc.).

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

You gotta admit that's a great point and observation. Nuns are allowed to keep their religious attire while Muslim women aren't. Doesn't really seem fair. 

Then again when Christians start shooting up disco's in France murdering (and apparently mutilating) 130 people at a time, critically wounding close to 400 more or murdering 87 people with a truck and injuring 300 others in a single act those nuns will have to take their attire off too.

Timothy McVeigh was pretty Christian and white and he killed 168 and wounded another 650. The IRA were pretty christian and white and they killed people. Ditto for the Basques.

The problem with the Burqua laws are that they just feed into what the terrorists/ISIS tell disillusioned youth to get them to commit these acts. So by implementing these laws the west simply disenfranchises more young muslims, tells them they aren't a part of their own society, and keeps the circle going.

We, the west, are supposed to be better than this. That's perhaps what's most disappointing. If we can tell muslims they're not allowed to live the way they want than what's to stop the government from continuing down the same road?

 

[George Wallace]

We, the west, are supposed to be better than this. That's perhaps what's most disappointing. If we can tell muslims they're not allowed to live the way they want than what's to stop the government from continuing down the same road?

WHOA!

You can say we are supposed to better than this all you want, but there has to be an end to all of this PC BS or we give up all that we know and hold dear.  Sorry, but if they do not want to integrate into our society and culture, then why are they coming here?  Stay where you find your social and cultural practices acceptable.  Don't go to a strange and foreign culture and society and expect them to change for you. 

Your attitude on this is very generous towards a foreign culture, but does not acknowledge that the same is not reciprocated by that culture towards outsiders such as Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and all other religions back where they came from. 

Someone has to put their foot down.  There is a saying we are all familiar with: "If you don't like it here; LEAVE."  That is addressed to those who come here and do not want to integrate and not contribute to our culture and society, but want all of us to bend to their ways.  Eventually there will be a backlash if the 'Law' (figuratively) is not set down and followed. 

 

[McG]

Not forcing people to dress as you want is "generous"?

Sorry, but if they do not want to integrate into our society and culture, then why are they coming here? 

Sorry to challenge your bigoted view here but many of "they" were born Canadian.  "They" did not come here any more than you came here and imposed with your European ways. 

Should the Dene or Iroquois invite you to assimilate or leave?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't care what anyone wears, so long as I can read their facial reactions when I'm talking to them.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

WHOA!

You can say we are supposed to better than this all you want, but there has to be an end to all of this PC BS or we give up all that we know and hold dear.  Sorry, but if they do not want to integrate into our society and culture, then why are they coming here?  Stay where you find your social and cultural practices acceptable.  Don't go to a strange and foreign culture and society and expect them to change for you. 

Your attitude on this is very generous towards a foreign culture, but does not acknowledge that the same is not reciprocated by that culture towards outsiders such as Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and all other religions back where they came from. 

Someone has to put their foot down.  There is a saying we are all familiar with: "If you don't like it here; LEAVE."  That is addressed to those who come here and do not want to integrate and not contribute to our culture and society, but want all of us to bend to their ways.  Eventually there will be a backlash if the 'Law' (figuratively) is not set down and followed.

So, what is "our"? French and British only? Do Ukrainians count too, as long as they're not too Ukrainian? Like, with the dancing and perogies and stuff? What about Italians? Can we loop natives into "our" too since it was their land to start with or are they too weird to be "us"?

Taking a look at our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it states:

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

So, our own charter says that we're supposed to be better than this (and acknowledged the event was in France, not Canada). The charter doesn't stipulate that the rights only count if they fit into someones definition of "our".

As for your argument about reciprocation, who cares? Perhaps, just perhaps, these people, like our European ancestors (who did fun things like burned protestants/catholics/jews/etc, threw them from windows and, in the case of France, killed thousands in holy wars) came to Canada to escape such things. Perhaps, just perhaps, we shouldn't paint all muslims with the same brush more than we do any other religion or race or ethnicity. I, as a part of the "our" I suspect you speak of (white, first generation Canadian), take pride in the fact that in Canada we treat people better than, say, Iran. I take pride that we allow different views to be spoken. I take pride that we protect people's freedoms of religion where other's dont. I also take pride that we have law and order and will punish those who actually do violate our laws.

The "Burkini" was never going to hurt anyone, but the reaction of people who are willing to look away from basic freedoms we give in the name of whatever it is they are going for (punishment? Xenophobia? fashion?) can, and does. I think Nietzsche best summed it up:

 

[mariomike]

Burkinis? What about Speedos? ( aka "Budgie Smugglers" ) 

After the burkini ban, people are asking if France can outlaw fat men in Speedos too
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/after-the-burkini-ban-people-are-asking-if-france-can-outlaw-fat-men-in-speedos-too--bJxCDWodJdb