any books that portray Islam as the rational and peaceful ideology that it really is?
>>7888014
lol
>>7888014
Lets believe all this crazy shit a batshit insane person said after he had a hallucination inside a cave.
Lets also kill everyone who doesn't believe him.
Rational.
>>7888014
Not even the Koran, buddy
>>7888021
THE EDGE IS A TRIPWIRE MEIN FREUND
more islam memes
>>7888030
Your post is more edgy than my post.
Also everything you say after this post is automatically edgy x100000
I win
>>7888014
>any books that portray Islam as the rational and peaceful ideology
not to my knowledge. bump b/c i would be interested to know of any as well.
>that it really is
lol, what informs this belief? clips of 'islamic studies' professors claiming this on CNN that you watched in your facebook feed?
>>7888023
kek. yes, this is true. (and yes, i've readan english translation)
>>7888036
2nd
>thinking religious texts can be understood by solely reading them, and not the traditions surrounding them
Holy fuck, is this why you idiots read the Bible cover to cover in your bedrooms alone like it's a goddamn novel?
>>7888579
>cover to cover
it isn't even that long.
>not the traditions surrounding them
are you implying people are looking at it in a fucking vacuum? nice strawman.
there was a vaguely rational muslim character in Charles Stross' Accelerando.
mind you, that book starts off with the protagonist being tied up by his ex-wife, with a buttplug up his hole. so, who knows.
oddly, there was a buttplug scene in Stross' "Rule 34", too.
>>7888021
>Lets believe all this crazy shit a batshit insane person said after he had a hallucination inside a cave.
I suppose you also ridicule the Christian faith for believing in a "cosmic Jewish zombie"
>456 posts and 145 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
The space medic in Heinlein's "Stranger In a Strange Land" was both Muslim and rational.
Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive despite what New Atheists would have you think and I say this as a nonbeliever.
>>7888579
>this book, is a holy book, which contains the words of God
>make sure u look at it in its proper context tho and do NOt apply it to the modern world as is
>Internet racism
>Over 15
Wewty wew
>>7888879
>Islam is a race
Retard.
>>7888825
>Some old farmer smoked some weed (burned a bush), and tripped so hard. He stole all the slaves from Pharaoh and made them all starve to death in the desert for four decades.
Its not Islam specifically. All religions are retarded.
>>7888014
bomb yourself, troll
It's the fastest growing religion don't believe everything the media says pal
>>7888851
he was a remarkably Americanized muslim. he even drank the filthy alcohols and converted to the Martian church as soon as he could.
>>7888014
Mohammedanism is dead in 632 AD when Mohammed was dead and book quran get finish.
>that it really is
>any
if it really is peaceful then why aren't there more books describing it as such? unless there aren't more books written about islam (which ultimately would also describe its flaws) because of violent retaliation?
i heard a writer who was fucking Voltaire, forgot her name right now, wrote a line by line refutation/debunking/mocking of the bible: is there something similar done to the Quran?
>>7889408
Emilie Du Chatelet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KkGU5R9QVY
>>7888579
Salafism wouldn't agree with that.
Tradition is seen as the very thing that 'degenerated' islam from all poweful to peripheral.
And it is the rising tendency among muslims nowadays.
Only you idiots seem to not notice it.
>>7889408
Of course not.
Every muslim you'll talk to will say shit like "this has nothing to do with Islam" when faced with terrorism or any other kind of atrocity that got the "allahu akbhar" intro shout.
They'll always say the problem is not with Islam, but with people, bla bla bla.
Even 'moderates' will say this.
And they don't say this because they're being nuanced, like our leftists purport to be, but because Islam is perfect to them.
>>7889624
But Islam asks for similar things and Muhammad did that kind of stuff. What they think is that there's nothing wrong with that kind of thing but don't want to be honest about it.
>>7888014
>>7888825
No, Jesus seems like a decent guy for his time. He never resurrected though. Or turned water into wine.
Anybody who describes themselves as a rational human being, then immediately turns to his church and puts lofty faith in the countless amount of spooky bullshit is a hypocrite and can't be taken seriously as a person.
>>7889811
>in this moment I am euphoric
>Islam
>Rational
Pick one.
>>7889849
The euphoric fedora meme is so convenient isn't it?
Retards finally have a modern word to discourage all discussion and make people afraid of being judged for not believing in flat out superstition.
You win I guess, I am automatically a neckbeard.
>>7889811
So 2/3 of the staple rationalists weren't rational?
>>7889959
Many of those rationalists existed in a time where denying god or the church you might as well just be committing suicide. I am not talking about historical figures, I am talking about people living now.
Religion was still so embedded in the human psyche back then that it was very much apart of reality. I grew up in an area where religion was so strong that criticizing the rationality of their belief system was as close to psychologically stabbing them with a knife as you could get. I have had people literally tell me they have spoken to their god before, and burst into tears for no discernible reason. I don't take religion lightly, I know how deeply interwoven it is in many people. It's really scary to be honest.
But we live in times where education, scientific understanding, and knowledge lie at our fingertips. What excuse do you have to believe in the snake, the apple, the locusts, the ark. Why base your moral ideologies on myths obviously constructed to put fear into the minds of people?
Where is the rationality in pure faith?
What are essential Islamic texts in English? A study Koran, and supplementary material would be helpful.
>>7889898
>make people afraid of being judged for not believing in flat out superstition
*tips fedora*
>>7889616
Can you explain this further
>>7888014
Anything and everything by SH Nasr
>>7889624
>>>/facebook/
>>>/imgur/
>>>/funnyjunk/
>>7890025
Nice thought terminating cliche you got there. Be a shame if anything...happened to it.
>>7889994
I'll just tip you my fedora, don't feel like arguing with a retard who mommy forced to go to church
>>7890019
if you can't fucking Google your way into some good texts, then you're just not cut out to embark on self-studying Islam, sorry
and to be less of a cunt, start with Nasr's "Islam: Religion, History and Civilization." Then you'll need The Study Quran and a book of selected Hadith.
>>7890122
Thanks faggot
>>7888014
Any work by Averos who is Muslim Aquinas
where are the fucking redpills
christ
>>7889641
There is nothing wrong with a Muslim disagreeing with the authority of the random jihadi groups and corrupt governments causing so much of this shit. any sane human would. Matters of war and peace are supposed to be handled by a just caliph and the result of jihad is supposed to be for the Ummah as a whole, why are people upset when Muslims don't consider shitty factions as legitimate, if anything that says more about their morality in a positive light than not, even if still they would approve of jihad in a more "official" manner.
>>7890025
>>7889033
>Its not Islam specifically. All religions are retarded.
not ALL religions.
>>7892369
Not that person but the issue is not about whether individual Muslims agree with ISIS or not, the issue is that Muhammad more or less condoned the violence and killing of non-muslims and told his followers it was okay to kill, rape, enslave etc non-muslims. Sure he may have attached some humanitarian conditions to it but there is still enough leeway that anyone can easily find justification for the stuff that ISIS or similar groups do in the Quran.
Combined with the fact that in the Arab world its a big no-no to suggest that the Quran is not completely infallible and not 100% the word of god and you've got a situation where the religion and its culture is responsible for causing and contributing to violence and killing.
To some extent the problem lies at the foot of the Saudis who have spend billions funding the spread of the more intolerant Wahhabi branch of Islam and who have changed countries that were previously very tolerant and non-Wahhabi to very intolerant and Wahhabi. However its not just them, its also the serious flaws in the Quran and Islamic culture that even allowed that to take place and its also the fact that Muhammad set a poor example by essentially being a bandit warlord.
>>7892430
All hail BOB.
How about that time Muhammad tortured the treasurer of a jewish tribe to death over a fire in order to try and find the location of the tribe's treasure,after having defeated the tribe in battle and so killed all the men and enslaved all the women and children afterwards, then took the widow of the man he had tortured to death that same day and fucked her in his tent and declared her his wife.
What a beautiful example to mankind.
Clearly ghenghis khan and idi amin were simply following in the great prophet's footsteps.
>>7892467
wow, what a privileged shitlord
All this pure hatred and disinfo only strengthen my belief. Keep talking the big talk, kuffar, we are coming and its inevitable. I can sense the fear in your harsh words and it is delicious.
>>7892478
>>7892552
in western countries it is considered better to be insane than a fabulist hypocrite; they were being charitable
>>7892564
I highly doubt the first sentence, but it doesn't matter. My point is, when judging historical figures, we should at least try to be materialist and objective.
Muhammad is not an unknown figure like Jesus or other early religious figures, there is no need for speculations. We can eliminate the Islamic ideology surrounding him and reach Muhammad himself, and leave out Muhammad (pbuh) or Muhammad (satan's servant).
>>7892467
>How about that time Muhammad tortured the treasurer of a jewish tribe to death over a fire in order to try and find the location of the tribe's treasure,after having defeated the tribe in battle and so killed all the men and enslaved all the women and children afterwards, then took the widow of the man he had tortured to death that same day and fucked her in his tent and declared her his wife.
>What a beautiful example to mankind.
Yeah he was a shit but then again the Old Testament is no better, but then again again Christians aren't blowing themselves up all over my fucking continent so there's that.
>>7892695
there are rather fewer verses in the bible saying "live your life like king David or King Solomon who are the greatest examples to humanity" unlike Islam which repeatedly says that you should live your life like muhammad.
on the other hand rigidly following jesus' example doesn't steer you far wrong from living a moral life, and the new testament basically abrogates the old testment. new covenant and whatnot.
>islam
>rational
>>7892742
Of the old testament is so bad why aren't Jews fucking people up all the time?
>>7892846
Because they got all that slaughtering out of their system back when they were a tribe of Israelites.
>>7889994
Do you think it's a good idea to base some of your scientific beliefs on Einstein's thought experiments? Or your morals on trolley problems?
>>7893000
nice trips
>>7892441
Everytime I see that artist's work, it reminds me of Anasheya's hentai shit.
>>7893000
I wasn't implying morality should derive from science itself, but obviously our contemporary ideologies should be influenced from the scientific understanding of the universe. The fact that we are so small, the fact that our world is a little tiny blot of dust, the fact that in the great expanse of time and the universe all of our suffering caused by wars, greed, hatred, power-lust looks vain and primitive.
Science isn't a religion, it's merely a tool. And like any tool, without proper morals it can lead to destruction.
But imagine if we gave our best scientists to our most fanatically religious countries. I wonder what would happen, you think they would use science for progress? Or do you think they would put all their resources into smiting heathens.
If you want to believe in a holy being in the sky, so be it, nobody should force you from that belief. But keep your religions out of our morality discussions, because all morals should be based on rational thinking. And the traditional essence of all religions is rooted in many thing that are clearly very irrational propaganda.
capt nemo from the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
iunno if it followed the comic, but that shitty movie portrayed Nemo as a siek or something who was wise and rational
>>7893409
>siek or something
>islam
k den
ngf kuffar fool offensive pls remove
>>7893420
iunno any of those brown people religions, man. shits a relic from a time humans were afraid of the fucking moon and we thought water flowed rapidly because angry spirits n shit. It has nothing to do with my life so why care
>>7888014
If you want to understand militant Islam then read Milestones by Sayyid Qutb, which inspired the modern Jihadi movements, in particular al Qaeda.
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjIys6d7PrLAhUGOQ8KHd2nB1AQFggnMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmajalla.org%2Fbooks%2F2005%2Fqutb-nilestone.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEHP8EQrn7lp14ZQ__Vmcsz5-OBDw&bvm=bv.118817766,bs.2,d.ZWU
pic related is an excerpt that explains the reasoning for Jihad, right from the mouth (or pen rather) of the father of modern jihadi ideology, which you seem to be interested by.
>>7893552
>>7888020
>>7888021
>>7888023
>>7889041
>>7889624
>>7889852
this thread is sad. so many people have fallen victim to irrational islamophobia and bigotry. I guess it is easy to fall into that trap when one lacks the knowledge of the historical context in which things occur.
> Consider a world W in which almost everyone wears red caps
> Consider a place P in W
> At a place P live people, like you and me.
> The only difference is that most of them wear blue caps instead of red caps
> A different place, say A decides to slaughter people from P to gain control of a commodity found only at P. Let that thing be called O.
> It fosters an environment of hatred and causes a few people of P to lash out and commit some acts in retaliation
>People of A create bogeyman of P and blame it on them wearing blu caps.
>Autists on an image board C wonder if wearing a blu cap (or belonging to a place called P) can be considered rational or not.
Anyone with a reasonable intelligence should be able to figure this out. but not autists in this thread.
>>7893379
You didn't answer my question.
>>7893639
> irrational islamophobia and bigotry
Not irrational, it wasn't so long ago we couldn't build churches and gave blood thies to filthy muslim swine. And Islam is not some abstract twist it either way religion, it's pretty clear on the violent, expanstionist nature of it.
>>7893639
W never came back into the analogy, what was the point of having it?
>>7893774
He very clearly did.
>>7893639
the history is irrelevant at this point
how do we move forward?
i'm not a guilt-ridden man
>>7893639
Your P should be called M to keep the trend.
And your analogy doesn't make sense, wearing blue caps doesn't include an ideology that was kickstarted by a book that very clearly incites violence in some instances. I don't hate Muslims or Islam as many people here do, but saying it is a religion of peace is very clearly a stretch.
>>7889033
>>7889898
>>7889811
excuse me
*clears throat*
it has come to my attention
*adjusts gaming XL shirt*
that some people on my meme board
*pushes glasses up with cheeto stained fingers*
unironically believe in God
*sneers quite jewishly*
and I am here to say
*tolerates islam*
that God
*upvotes Bernie Sanders post on reddit*
Does not exist
*removes fedora from hat rack*
And that I am smarter than every person who has ever believed in anything other than materialism
*Teleports behind you*
As you can see by my "Science rules!" pin on my shirt
*Drops out of STEM course two months in*
Now you'll see the true power of Marxism!
*burns philosophy book while whistling some song used in a Tarantino flick*
Heheheh......
*removes twin katanas*
DAIKO GAIJIN YAIIII!
*decapitates everyone in room*
Nothin personnel...
*disproves fallacy*
Thank Dawkins I didn't get here any later....
*walks through bloody carnage with trench coat on as Linkin Park plays*
But for me, it was Tuesday....
*gives final respectful whiteknight tip to a nearby proud feminist as I get into my mom's sedan and drive off*
>>7889811
>No, Jesus seems like a decent guy for his time. He never resurrected though. Or turned water into wine.
Yes this is correct, see you're one step closer into becoming a muslim, my brothren
>muh religion of peace
we need only look at the history of this cultural blight
here's the empire that mohammad and his successors amassed. now, I don't know how many people among you have studied a lot of history, but to amass that much land that quickly you have to kill a LOT of people
>>7895163
Islam is a religion of peace because of it's promise, not it's ways. The promise is that, if all mankind came under Islamic rule, there would be no more war and peace would be established.
Westerners misunderstand this, and some muslims as well, and think Islam promises no war ever, which is simply wrong. Infact it "encourages war to bring eternal peace", in a way.
>>7888014
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>7895131
>how do we move forward?
through pragmatism and dispelling irrational bigotry
>>7895163
>>7893786
(see: >>7895522)
Also, people develop this hatred for islam as if it's scriptures are a direct cause of the violence. When someone goes on a shooting spree do you blame the videogames he played? Do you think that videogames with violence incite violence? and that crime is a direct consequence of those videogames?
similarly religion is tied with multiple other factors and most of which are the dominant cause for the violence that ensues. christianity has severe restrictions and is quite brutal in some sense. yet people don't bitch about it because they know the extent to which it has an influence doesn't fuck up the world.
similarly, you're overestimating the influence that islam itself has on the cause of the violence that you see and attribute to it.
read the slightest bit of history of the geographical area where you see islamic insurgency and you will understand that people just don't read a book and decide to murder everyone. they are mostly influence by their history and the circumstances which influence them.
it is a damn shame that a literature board can not understand that. maybe all our heads are so far up dfw's ass that we've lost the ability to think rationally about real life political and religious conflicts.
>>7895607
>video game
Bad analogy, muslim extremists that go on a shooting spree do it for islam itself, it is never advocated(nor is it true) that anyone that played violent video games would do it for the game itself and to defend its content and to follow its tenets, those who fight for islam do.
That's all I wanted to say.
>>7895616
>do it for islam itself
i don't entirely agree that.
That said i realize that the analogy with videogames was a bit stretched and not ideal for what i was trying to convey.
>>7892846
because their religion is dead and corrupted.
In order for an abrahamic religion to be fit for civilised society it needs to sacrifice intellectual integrity and be subverted away from what is actually in the holy scripture.
When enough of islam does this and can admit it then islam will be fit for civilised society like christianity and judaism.
Islam probably has a lot more to undermine and corrupt than judaism and christianity though
>>7895624
why do you not entirely agree with that?
When christian pro-life terrorists murder an abortion doctor would you say that they are not doing it because of their christian beliefs?
When muslims decide to murder a person for changing their religion from Islam to something else are they not doing that because of their islamic beliefs? what other belief motivates tehm?
Or when several hundred afghan men in kabul murdered a woman accused of burning a koran, were they not murdering her because of their islamic beliefs?
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/new-video-afghan-woman-barbarically-lynched-after-being-falsely-accused
>>7895522
I know about the Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harab rhetoric and I'm surprised and frankly quite angry that you'd bring this up to argue about Islam being "a religion of peace".
Bringing war to other people (particularly already peaceful people) to force your worldview on them for the off-chance that somehow this will lead to peace (even though we know it won't, because even right now there's a major conflict, called a cold war by some, between Iran and Saudi Arabia, both Islamic nations) is NOT peaceful.
>>7895607
My problem with Islam is not that it encourages violence (though it's very hard to argue that it doesn't). I do take issue with people trying to say Islam is peaceful, but if people recognize it's a violent religion from a violent time and specifically seek to ignore the violent parts (like it is done nowadays with pretty much every religion that ever encouraged violence) I see no problem.
The real problem I have with Islam is the ultra-traditionalism and fanaticism associated with it. Making a riot because someone burns a Koran or depicts Muhammad in some way is not okay and should not be catered to, yet Muslims from all over the world believe that there's nothing wrong with expecting the whole world to adhere to their code of conduct whether they believe in Islam or not.
Let me ask this, is it OK to just think that Islam is a bit creepy? I don't think its evil or that all its followers are Terrorists in waiting, I just think the whole think is weird and off putting.
>The real problem I have with Islam is the ultra-traditionalism and fanaticism associated with it.
almost any religion you take will have a period of time during which fanatics fuck shit up. you should see the kind of shit some fanatics do in the name of hinduism. does that mean that hinduism promotes violence? NO. it just means that people are retarded and misinterpret religion through a limited and incorrect understanding to justify their shitty actions.
christianity has seen a bloody history, hinduism has seen a bloody history and so have other religions. violence is more a function of fanatacism than of the religion itself.
how does everyone conveniently forget christianity's past when bringing up bullshit arguments like these against islam? just because the violence associated with christianity occurred in the past absolves it of any blame yet somehow islam is to blame for modern violence?
-----------------------------------------------
PS: come over to india and try to burn the bhagvadgita or some religious book here. literally ordinary men and women going about their everyday lives will tear you apart limb by limb and gouge your eyes out for doing that. they'll see it as an affront to their religion without having a single clue about what hinduism actually even is.
>>7896264
Because it's a lazy argument? It's like when a kid is being told off and says 'Yeah well Steven did this!' It doesn't matter what Steven did, this conversation is about what you did wrong. Avoiding the issue by saying Steven did something just as bad accomplishes nothing
>>7896264
>almost any religion you take will have a period of time during which fanatics fuck shit up.
Yes, but it's the current narrative to "tolerate" fanatical Islam nowadays, which is most certainly not the way you do away with such fanaticism.
>does that mean that hinduism promotes violence?
I already told you, the "Islam promotes violence!" thing doesn't bother me as much as the regressive parts of the religion. In fact, I do have such a problem with Hinduism too (many modern Hinduists are going the regressive route too), but Hindus seem a little more thick-skinned (read: less sensible/delicate about criticism) than the average Muslim, so they have slightly more points in my book.
>how does everyone conveniently forget christianity's past when bringing up bullshit arguments like these against islam?
I haven't done such thing, I also dislike Christian fanatics. I don't think, however, that this "no u" argument is going to lead us somewhere.
>come over to india and try to burn the bhagvadgita or some religious book here. literally ordinary men and women going about their everyday lives will tear you apart limb by limb and gouge your eyes out for doing that. they'll see it as an affront to their religion without having a single clue about what hinduism actually even is.
That's disappointing if it's true, but at the very least I know I can do it over the Internet and not fear that Western embassies in India are going to be attacked.
By the way, are you a Muslim in India? I've always wondered if Muslims in India prefer to write in Hindi or in Urdu.
>>7896281
i merely wanted to give examples (christianity, hinduism) to demonstrate how violence can be perpetuated by people who claim to understand that religion and what it stands for. and that violence is the product of those people being affected by their circumstances and culture rather than the religion itself. FOR EXAMPLE, the godhra riots in india were caused by "hindu" randicals who in the name of hinduism. there is such a massive misunderstanding of what hinduism is here that it's fucking depressing. now, is that a fault of hinduism? would you call hinduism irrational or violent? or the morons who claim to understand it?
>>7896289
no one is asking you to tolerate fanaticism. one is only asking you to have a broader understanding of a religion and not blame the religion itself for the acts of fanatics and radicals that do not understand it. (similar to how i don't blame hinduism for the riots that some radicals caused here)
> at the very least I know I can do it over the Internet and not fear that Western embassies in India are going to be attacked.
do you think that terrorist attacks from islam occur because everyday people in the middle east saw a dude insult islam on the internet and they just decided to buy some weapons and bomb embassies?
you're really naive and misguided about how terrorism arose and where its roots lie if you think so. someone in syria watching a youtube critique of islam doesn't just order some ak-47s and decide to blow shit up. when you're country is being devastated by strikes and invaded by a military that is killing civilians left right and center, and the country which invaded you not only fucked your economy, it also fucked your culture, history and meanwhile caused your family to be raped and killed in an invasion and you see rebels that brainwash you by misinterpreting some religious text into joining a movement that can help you do something to fight back, it's then that you become a radical. my entire point is that EVERYONE here is completely ignoring the fact that political, cultural and historical factors are predominant causes of fanaticism.
>By the way, are you a Muslim in India?
no. born and raised into a staunchly orthodox hindu family but gradually lost faith and don't care much about religion now.
> I've always wondered if Muslims in India prefer to write in Hindi or in Urdu.
depends. there are 180 million muslims here. their preferences vary from urdu to hindi to english amid other local languages.
>>7896345
>no one is asking you to tolerate fanaticism.
The regressive left is.
>do you think that terrorist attacks from islam occur because everyday people in the middle east saw a dude insult islam on the internet and they just decided to buy some weapons and bomb embassies?
That literally happened, though. Well, not bombing embassies (they obviously require more planning), but western shops were destroyed because of stuff like the Muhammad cartoons or an American priest burning a Koran. You don't need AK-47s and C4s to destroy a shop, you can do it with a few iron bars and rocks.
In any case, I know nothing exists in a vacuum, and trying to divorce Islam from the cultural and political context is pointless. However, the fact that most Muslims, regardless of nationality, agree with stuff like "non-believers shouldn't be allowed to depict the Prophet" goes on to show some fundamental problems with the religion. By contrast, when it comes to Hinduism, there's one Indian American (I think his name is Rajan Zed) who always gets his panties in a bunch when a Hindu deity appears in videogames, while most Hindus are usually happy to get videogames about their culture.
>their preferences vary from urdu to hindi to english amid other local languages.
Are there places where Urdu is taught in school alongside Hindu?
On an unrelated note, I've been interested recently in learning Hindustani (basically Hindi, but I already know the Perso-Arabic script so learning Urdu too shouldn't be too much extra work), but it seems like a lot of commitment so I'm hesitating.
>>7896345
>now, is that a fault of hinduism? would you call hinduism irrational or violent?
possibly. I'm not familiar enough with hinduism.
Islam literally says that it is permissible for men to beat their wives if they continue to bicker, and that polytheists should be killed.
So there is no "claim to understand it". the koran is a book of clear instructions (this verse is said multiple times in koran). muslims who do these things understand the koran perfectly well.
So yes, Islam is violent.
> fanatics and radicals that do not understand it.
But they do understand it.
one of the fundamentals of Islam is following the example of the prophet, who was a caravan raiding , enslaving, pedophilic war lord and who abrogated his earlier messages of peaceful coexistence and instea spend the latter part of his life calling for polytheists to be killed and other non-muslims to be conquered and subjugated.
here is a good talk. You only need to watch the first speaker who directly quotes the koran.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKH-sInknQM
>>7896403
>the regressive left is
fuck the apologist regressive left. everyone realizes the extent to which extreme political correctness has left people with an inability to comprehend things objectively.
>However, the fact that most Muslims, regardless of nationality, agree with stuff like "non-believers shouldn't be allowed to depict the Prophet" goes on to show some fundamental problems with the religion.
I kind of agree here a bit. Some of the values that islamic moderates hold certainly are not in tandem with left liberal or egalitarian values that most of modern west has adopted. but i still wouldn't dismiss their entire religion as irrational or irrelevant. because i think that there is some progress and that with improved education and growth in their cultures, this attitude would change through maturity.
>>7896472
>but i still wouldn't dismiss their entire religion as irrational or irrelevant
I thought the debate here was about whether Islam is peaceful or not.
Please be aware that I consider every organized religion to be irrational to an extent, and don't consider "irrational" an insult nor rationality a must-have for spiritual beliefs.
I also don't think anybody who's not an ignorant idiot would call Islam "irrelevant".
In any case, I'm glad we mostly agree on these issues.
>>7896432
the bible says a whole lot of things too, why isn't christianity considered violent?
also why is there virtually no violence within the southeast asian muslim community?
>>7896544
>Please be aware that I consider every organized religion to be irrational to an extent, and don't consider "irrational" an insult nor rationality a must-have for spiritual beliefs.
This is what I've come to after reading Dostoevsky too. It's a very interesting way of looking at things.
>>7896613
>why is there no violence withing the south east Asian Muslims
I really hope you are baiting
>the Bible says a lot of violent things too
And ticks most of punishments as "inmoral" in the new testament, not to mention Jesus is a cuck Lord that would gives mercy to everyone independent of their sins. And it is not based on dominance like Is*am
>>7896613
>why isn't christianity considered violent?
because >>7892742 and >>7895996 .
Islam in southeast asia isn't actually that benign in comparison to middle eastern islam. They still widely believe things like that a husband is entitled to beat his wife if she keeps bickering and in the punishment of people who convert away from islam (seePEW polls). And it will be a long time before their religion is corrupted like christianity and judaism are. It is a bit more benign, but the main reason we think it is so benign is because they make better immigrants (i.e. they obey the law of their host country instead of trying to change thier host country) and don't have as much war and instability.
>>7896641
>baiting
what a shit response. tell me why the level of violence is significantly lower in SEA muslims than in middle eastern muslims.
if islam was really as messed up as you would like to portray it it should be terrorist central in indonesia which has the largest muslim population in the world.
>jesus is a cucklord etc
crusades totally never happened
>>7896651
>They still widely believe things like that a husband is entitled to beat his wife
and a large part of the undeveloped world and poor people still beat their wives.
indonesia is a shithole, just imagine mexico except more undeveloped. primitive thinking exists in shitholes, to say islam itself is the problem is to be completely ignorant of the context in which it is being practiced.
you don't see an educated american muslim with a decent paying job and a family expressing those beliefs. radicals are the exception not the rule.
Le peaceful religion of rationality and friendship strikes again!
kys please.
>>7896195
I am not trying to say it would actually be peaceful, i don't know where you got that. Must have assumed me as a muslim I think.
Anyway, it is the claim of Islam, and in thought it could actually bring "peace", so long as those people accept Islam, or at least the rule of Islam.
Also, KSA and Iran don't even consider each other as muslims, and at the origin of Islam there was no (and was supposed to be no) division. So your only makes sense from an outsider perspective.
>>7896901
Nvm you belong to Swedish reddit, you contradicted yourself btw
>>7896901
Search the statistics investigated by pew research before you say anything
Your post is cringy as fuck Ahmed
>>7889811
>reading the bible literally
>>7896901
>you don't see an educated american muslim with a decent paying job and a family expressing those beliefs.
Not true. To believe things from the koran and sharia law, like that people who convert away from islam should be put to death, or that husbands have the right to beat their wives if they bicker does not require you to be radical.
These are not a tiny fringe. Conservative muslim views like this are the majority in muslim countries , and even in western countries you will find a large minority of muslims hold these views.
To say that it is simply being poor that does it and that there aren't large numbers of conservative muslims in western countries is very ignorant.
Furthermore you equate beating your wife with the widely accepted elief that it is ok to eat your wife.
In the Ukraine for example domestic abuse is likely quite common , but it's still frowned upon. The islamic belief that it is fine for a husband to beat his wife if she is bickering goes much beyond that.
>>7895122
He did not. The point is that abstractions (maybe "myths" if you like) can be an aid to genuine thought, not a hindrance. Modern science and morality thinking recognize this - why is it particularly a criticism of religion?
>>7897196
>believing the bible was written to be taken figuratively
>>7897488
Those are all technicalities. Cut some slack, bigot.
>>7897488
I can refute the shit out of that stupid chart but it would take me at least 10 pages.
There are two broad categories of critique: Basically there are severe problems with the way disparate statistical analyses were combined and certain survey assumptions made (this chart is aggregated from several surveys published in a Pew study, the chart itself does not occur in their work. The way they've combined different regions is done extremely sloppily).
The second broad category has to do with massive cultural misunderstandings between the Christian/secular west and Islam. The idea of Sharia law, for example, is unnecessarily charged with negativity and skepticism among westerners. They fail to realize that Islam has always been a religion with political and legal dimensions, and that it always will be, that these dimensions can nonetheless supply foundations for standards of justice that come quite close to western humanist ideals on the most critical issues (a just war theory, an inherent notion of human dignity, a system of guaranteed "rights" under marriage contracts and a potential template for a pluralistic system along the lines of the Ottoman Millet system).
The notion that the Islamic world needs to secularize, become secular in its government, or adopt western ideals about politics and rights, is as hopeless as it is stupid: standards of justice exist outside of cultural and ideological boundaries, the whole point is to discover how Islam and a system of norms like liberal humanism can exist side by side while minimizing conflict and assertions of cultural superiority.
>>7897853
> The idea of Sharia law, for example, is unnecessarily charged with negativity and skepticism among westerners. [blah blah blah waffly, vague apologism for a holy doctrine that prescribes it as OK to beat your wife when she bickers , Requires that people who change their religion away from Islam be put to death, states that the legal testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man, prescribed death to polytheists, etc.]
These are all examples of Islamic barbarism and violence.
>>7897853
And western culture is superior to Arab Islamic culture just as Arab Islamic culture is superior to Darfur's culture.
Your culture is as far below ours as theirs is below yours.
East Asians are respectable equals but Arab Islamic culture is patently backwards and contemptible and not really fit for civilised society.
>>7897589
That has nothing to do with what you asked.
>>7898019
You do not understand the point of why I asked that.
>>7897968
You seem to have made up your mind that apologetic arguments follow the same tired template. This is not the case. There are lots of bad defenses of Islam that are hastily thrown together and rely on prior assumptions of a multiculturalist ethic of tolerance within a secular humanist paradigm which presumes at the outset that, while Islam is totally invalid and false as a belief system, it can be made innocuous through various degrees of assimilation to western norms.
This is not the argument I intend to make and it's one we should all find unacceptable.
To clarify the matter, one must first grasp where they stand in the sea of human ideas corresponding to all civilizations and times. Most likely you're some variant of post-Enlightenment humanist, you subscribe to certain ideas about the relationship between state and government, and you believe religion is basically ridiculous, dangerous and should be gelded and watered down to a culturally interesting system functioning beneath and within an overall secular order.
It's extremely boring to simply use your view, then input alternate views and spit out the
obvious rebuttals.
It is much more interesting to investigate a philosophy about how views and claims can relate in a manner that is (more) universally just without assuming at the outset that your views and claims are valid (ie without assuming your views and claims constitute the universal standard by which justice can be evaluated).
>>7897977
Sorry, I'm not interested in your 19th century ideology and its stupid positivist assumptions about history and cultural hierarchy.
Nor am I interested in a 21st century application of the liberal ideal of tolerance which pretends to view cultures equally but doesn't.
>>7898247
Why should we view cultures equally? Some are better than others.
>>7888014
NAH
>>7898269
If a culture is said to be better than another, let's grant that the argument is made objectively. Then there is a set of objective criteria about culture X which one can test for empirically and then conclude, in a comparative analysis, whether it is better or worse than culture Y. It follows that any finite set of cultures can be arranged from "worst" to "best."
The problem lies in the fact that, almost as a rule, the supposedly objective criteria will be a reflection of the culture which authors it (or at least will reflect the author's notions about what a best society is).
Thus, to argue for one culture being better than another, is essentially to argue for a form of best or most ideal society. My own thinking suggests that this probably doesn't exist and we probably aren't able to articulate it.
More importantly, our view of what a best society/culture is, cannot be separated from the fact of our belonging to a particular society/culture. We enter the fray belonging to a class of interests and ideas. The entire point of intercultural philosophizing (for lack of a better phrase) is to try and explore the possibilities for justice without simply asserting a particular view of justice which is culturally conditioned.
tl;dr: what one sees as constituting the ideal culture (and thus the objective criteria used to rank order cultures) is actually an outgrowth of the culture one identifies with.
Yeah. Read something written by any of the modern Islamic thinker like Ali Shariati, Ali Ezzat Begovic or Abdel Wahab El-Messiri. less jihadist and anti-infidel preaching and a lot more post-colonialism, alternative modernity and hermeneutics.
Or you could just make do with the /pol/-tier opinions in this thread.
Anybody read The Sealed Nectar by Safiur-Rahman, Al-Mubarakpuri?
>>7897176
>nvm im an idiot so reddit meme
k
>>7897189
the statistics don't mean that much and if you actually used your tiny brain to understand the world from a wider point of view other than sam harris / white exceptionalist pseuds youtube videos you'd know why.
>>7897488
>In the Ukraine for example domestic abuse is likely quite common , but it's still frowned upon.
so you accept that domestic abuse is common in various parts of the world but only have a problem with it when specific sections of a religion decide to justify their shitty actions with religion?
how do ukrainians justify it do you think? they probably say something like "she was mouthing off, she needed a good beating." or maybe he's an alcoholic and beat the shit out of her via intoxication, maybe that guy needs islam in his life.
to say a man hits his wife BECAUSE of religion is completely naive and suggests an armchair academic approach to the reality of how the world works.
/pol/:
>races are genetically different from each other
>each race has its own culture
>cultures are influenced by genetics and race
>so each race has a culture that best fits itself
>????
>therefore western culture must be imposed on others
>>7898302
Nothing is more boring than relativism.
Its like playing tennis with someone, and then when you proceed to score an ace they say the lines on the ground are just a social construct.
The inane viewpoint you hold could be applied to all matters open to debate about the inherent value and/or superiority of anything, and is therefore completely vapid and makes all debate about anything inherently meaningless.
>>7899491
not that guy but nah it's more like you claiming tennis is objectively the most superior racket-related sport while the other guy is saying maybe badminton isn't so bad then you say but the former uses a ball balls are superior objects to hit because they bounce.
in short you're an idiot.
>>7899491
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPAVmZFgwW0
>Scottish women: Why do you do this? You're freaks.
>Afar women: We realize this is strange to you but you're strange to us.
Explain to me objectively why female circumcision is wrong.
Many bioethicists more recently are calling for a revision on international standards regarding the practice to allow lesser clitoredectomies.
I think I replied to this before, but I'm not sure, because my post is missing. Anyway
>Islam
>rational and peaceful
I wouldn't call the people who blindly believes that all Christians and Jews are evil people without actually meeting one to be either peaceful or rational.
>>7899507
Except that my tennis metaphor was about relativism as a concept and not his argument so you are way off the mark.
>>7899512
You are just proving my point how intellectually vapid and inherently meaningless relativism makes any form of argument and debate about anything, since everything is relative.
Your type of argumentation could just as well be used for any other type of scenario: a. Explain to me objectively why child labor is wrong? b. Explain to me objectively why slavery is wrong? c. Explain to me objectively why racism is bad. etc.
As someone who works in health, I could easily answer your question about why female circumcision is objectively wrong :
1. Complications caused by this procedure are common and can lead to death
2. The subject experiences intense pain during the procedure and can lead to Hemorrhaging
3. Hemorrhaging can lead to anemia
4. Different type of wound infections
5. Damage to adjoining organs
6. Possible blockage of the Urethra
7. Abnormal menstruation
8. Recurrent urinary tact infections
9. Increased maternal and child morbidity
10. Possible infertility
Just to give you 10 pertinent examples.
Then again you will probably counter this by making some snarky comment about how we can't objectively prove that a life is worth anything either way and what cultural imperialists we are by trying to dictate how other cultures treat their children or other phil 101 drivel.
>>7899575
Those aren't good enough reasons considering we have several surgical and cosmetic procedures that can worse effects.
Most women who are circumcised are fine and want their daughters to be circumcised because it's their culture.
>>7899579
>Those aren't good enough reasons considering we have several surgical and cosmetic procedures that can worse effects.
One thing being wrong doesn't make another one right.
>Most women who are circumcised are fine and want their daughters to be circumcised because it's their culture.
Still not right
>>7899579
"And you are lynching negroes..."
When we are talking about the problem of the rampant spread of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa pointing out the rampant alcoholism in Russia is mere obfuscation of the actual topic at hand.
The whole "its their culture" argument is exactly the type of dimwitted intellectual position that underlies the thought process of most relativists in the western world so that they can intellectually justify the barbaric practices of other civilizations that belong in the dustbin of history.
>>7899605
But leftist relativism is the next big ideological thing m8
nerd
>>7895172
>*tolerates islam*
But he/she never did such a thing...
>>7899606
I hardly think that the point of the 68 revolution was for their intellectual children to purport that wearing a burqa is a feminist statement and that the practice of FGM is just a cultural norm that needs to be accepted. First as tragedy, second as farce, Marx would be rolling around in his grave seeing what the left is about nowadays.
>>7899575
but his argument is relativist? you were blatantly using the poor tennis metaphor in an attempt to discredit his relativist statement don't pretend it's just sad m8
>>7888014
Try reading the sufi poets. Though they dont talk about anything rational ( they are far from rational), they express their love in a way which hasn't been witnessed, not by me at least.
>>7899641
Yes, his argument is a basic summa summarum of cultural relativism.
>>7892846
>implying they're not fucking you up through global banking, promoting cultural Marxism and white guilt throughout public education, passing anti-European laws through the EU, and controlling the media to promote social ills
>>7899649
Mutasavvıfs (sufis for you whiteboys) aren't even muslim by definition.
>>7899491
That most certainly was not an argument for relativism. It's somewhat along the lines of a distributive justice argument.
