Social Political correctness vs Islamophobia - is there compatibility of Islamic and Western values?

Kinda annoying that you guys feel so entitled to interrogate me, going through my posts line by line and extracting uncharitable interpretations, but when I turn that approach back at you, you guys clutch your pearls and act dumbfounded.

<Lmaoo>

This is fucking hilarious coming from you.
 
<Lmaoo>

This is fucking hilarious coming from you.
The snake in the grass
rears his foul head yet again,
but to no avail
 
Last edited:
Why do you keep bringing up unrelated matters? Our entire conversation is a giant whataboutism fallacy. Even if Western society found 1000,000,000 justified reasons to kill someone, if we don't agree with doing it in the name of blasphemy or apostacy because we have separation of religion and state and are secular it still makes Islam incompatible with the West. Furthermore, nobody claims that Western law is perfect either.

Islam however does claim to be the infallible religion sent for ALL of mankind. It simply cannot handle criticism very well. Make a film like 'Life of Brian' about Muhammad and you'd easily see the consequences. If you don't want to spend all your energy making a movie, simply draw a cartoon about him and publish it. You'll see how 'compatible' the West and 'peaceful' Islam really are. Even the 'moderate' Muslims.
Why is freedom of speech so important, and how far are you willing to extend that?
 
Back in my day (not even that far back) beatings were common for a lot less than apostasy. Usually it was deserved (for being naughty).

The issue I have with the scenario you're painting is that it's specific and from what I know not particularly common. Like you said you get a mix with Muslims and you do get strict/conservative families but many of these families would not act to the point of physically attacking or threatening violence for a son/daughter that no longer wants to be Muslim. Their responses might range from disapproving to ostracization. Physical abuse imo is rare.

Should families ostracize a family member because of their personal choice? It's not really my place to tell them what to do or insert my morality/views into it. Everyone is an adult and entitled to react/respond the way they want (exception being violence).

Personally would I ostracize a family member - no. But I might not approve of their lifestyle choices (depending on what they are) and whether I would want what I deem a negative influence around my kids (I think every parent is entitled to do this).

In regards to people that I know that have been ostracized for being non-practicing - I know no one who's had that happen to them. The only thing I have really heard/seen is someone being "excommunicated" from the family by marrying someone their parents disapprove of (both boy & girl).

I do agree most don't bother telling their families about not believing in it - but because they don't want to deal with their parents hassling them or trying to encourage them to "get back on the path" so to speak. It's not because they fear beaten abused - I'm sure a few might but the majority probably don't want to deal with the aggro.





Yeah thats the thing - it's the vocal minority of dipshits that pressure or aggro these ex-Muslims and hassle them. Usually they have extremist leanings. In an ideal world they need to be told to stfu and keep their opinions to themselves - especially when no one is asking you what you think.





Human unity since we're all human beings.

Not sure about you but I have friends from all different walks of life: different ethnicities, backgrounds, religions etc.

We have way more in common with one another than not.

Unity against people who spread discord/enmity between people for their own motives.

A little bit of compassion, tolerance and patience would go a long way in solving many of these divisive problems that culminate from selfish greedy evil human beings - unfortunately we have a lot of those people in positions of power.
Yes, we have a lot in common in that we walk on two legs, eat, sleep and talk, and that's about it. This feel good nonsense is meaningless.
 
Yes, we have a lot in common in that we walk on two legs, eat, sleep and talk, and that's about it.

Hear, hear.

Ultimately, it all boils down to what one perceives as essential. The lower the life-form, the more emphasis it will put on basic needs and functions.
 
Why is freedom of speech so important, and how far are you willing to extend that?
Freedom of speech is a critical pillar of a free democratic Western society. I'm willing to extend it extremely far. The less regulations there are, the better. Obviously there are subjects like direct calls to violence, threats of violence and revealing personal info etc. and other grey areas that are unavoidable to regulate in some way.

In a free society you'll be confronted with opinions and viewpoints that are offensive to you. However, what's offensive to a person is extremely subjective. I find many things religious people say offensive, but they find what I say offensive. So in practice people in a free society should develop a thicker skin to deal with these situations, but nothing should be above criticism and ridicule. Whenever you have things that are above ridicule / criticism you get scary shit.

Practically there's also the question of who you trust enough to regulate what can be said and what cannot be said. I wouldn't be comfortable with anyone holding that type of power.
 
I have friends that are moderate Muslims and they seem pretty compatible with our society!
 
Kinda annoying that you guys feel so entitled to interrogate me, going through my posts line by line and extracting uncharitable interpretations, but when I turn that approach back at you, you guys clutch your pearls and act dumbfounded.

The disconnect between what you guys seem to think Shariah courts were for and what they were actually historically used for is just so wide that its hard to have a clear conversation about what the historical record actually tells us about Shariah. You guys are constantly complaining about death penalty for this or that but when you actually read scholarship that pours over Shariah court records you find that these courts were mostly used for arbitrating marriage, divorce, and inheritance as well as being used to manage charitable endowments with, as far as I have read, virtually no record of any consistent application of Hudud punishments. I have read more specifically about the Eastern Mediterranean in the early modern period and I can't say I have ever read of Hudud being applied in that time period by some official Shariah court. Here's a clip from the wiki article on Hudud

Its most likely the case that more people have been subjected to Hudud since 1979 than in the entire period beforehand. So maybe ask yourself why there is virtually no record of a consistent Hudud regime in premodern times but after the onset of modernity in the Islamic world and the adoption of the Western nation-state model and all the institutions and social practices that come with we somehow see Hudud come out of nowhere.

Why do you think that is?
No one is interrogating you or anyone else :
The topic of this thread is weather or not Islam is compatible with western values.
You are a Muslim so I’m interested in your personal opinion on the aspects that seem the least compatible with today’s western values and where do you personally stand in all of this.
 
Yes, we have a lot in common in that we walk on two legs, eat, sleep and talk, and that's about it. This feel good nonsense is meaningless.

I think that's a very simple way of looking at things. Values, beliefs, morality, relationships etc etc - no degree of commonality here?

Really?

Even religions share many commonalities with one another.

It seems like you want to believe that there is no commonality between people other than walking, eating, sleeping and talking.

Do you have any reading of history? A serious question?

Reason I ask is because commonality between different groups is quite evident when you read through history - you can evidently see how we influence one another and how we behave in similar waves (not rocket science since we're all humans).

From Greek philosophy influencing earlier Islamic philosophers and they in turn influencing renaissance philosophers is one example of many.

Of course I could be wrong and you could be a flying unicorn that shits gold which would mean that you are indeed different to everybody....
 
The snake in the grass
rears his foul head yet again,
but to no avail
Cute.

The guy who spent time combing through thousands of my contributions only to find a handful of questionable posts crying about being interrogated implying I'm a snake. Talk about uncharitable discourse. o_O
 
Cute.

The guy who spent time combing through thousands of my contributions only to find a handful of questionable posts crying about being interrogated implying I'm a snake. Talk about uncharitable discourse. o_O
Oh you got a lot to say today now that you're sniping from the sidelines, funny how quiet you get when its time to actually have any kind of real discussion though. Expected of you at this point, little more than a cheerleader in these threads these days.
 
Oh you got a lot to say today now that you're sniping from the sidelines, funny how quiet you get when its time to actually have any kind of real discussion though. Expected of you at this point, little more than a cheerleader in these threads these days.
I could always comment on the topic of apostasy in Islam, but thought I'd let that dog lie.

We've had our real discussions, for years now, and you've shown your dishonesty enough for anyone paying attention. What else is there to say? You deflect and accuse and I roll my eyes. So now I just sit back and laugh at your hypocrisy.
 
I could always comment on the topic of apostasy in Islam, but thought I'd let that dog lie.

We've had our real discussions, for years now, and you've shown your dishonesty enough for anyone paying attention. What else is there to say? You deflect and accuse and I roll my eyes. So now I just sit back and laugh at your hypocrisy.
That's one way to remember it I guess.

The way I remember it, any time we start to get to the meat and potatoes of the discussion you drop some snarky comment and bail. Well not exactly, you definitely stick around to play cheerleader for other posters.
 
I think that's a very simple way of looking at things. Values, beliefs, morality, relationships etc etc - no degree of commonality here?

Really?

Even religions share many commonalities with one another.

It seems like you want to believe that there is no commonality between people other than walking, eating, sleeping and talking.

Do you have any reading of history? A serious question?

Reason I ask is because commonality between different groups is quite evident when you read through history - you can evidently see how we influence one another and how we behave in similar waves (not rocket science since we're all humans).

From Greek philosophy influencing earlier Islamic philosophers and they in turn influencing renaissance philosophers is one example of many.

Of course I could be wrong and you could be a flying unicorn that shits gold which would mean that you are indeed different to everybody....
Any reading of history shows that different people and different societies react differently to similar phenomenon. If we were all so similar, we'd have identical cultures, governments and art, but we don't. The things we have in common are the most base- our noble qualities, the most different. I'm not interested in the fact that everyone loves their mother- that's the root, not the part of the plant that reaches up to the sun.
 
Right, so basically the exact context that the Muslims were in in their formative period when it was essentially tribal warfare where manpower was critical. So in other words, if that was indeed the context then you agree that death for apostasy was legitimate then right?

I'm not a scholar so I can't tell you the "correct" interpretation. I can say that even if death is the penalty of apostasy in peace time its not something that's supposed to be carried out by vigilantes, its meant to be applied after a trial with sufficient witnesses and with a chance for the accused to repent and avoid the penalty and that rarely happened in premodern times. This is why historically speaking all these things that non-Muslims like you clutch their pearls at were barely, if at all, relevant or common in premodern Muslim societies.

Btw the idea that the West hasn't executed people for their beliefs is just not true, fascist sympathizers in the aftermath of WWII were convicted of treason and in some cases executed just for their intellectual sympathies with fascism and that's just decades ago. What you seem to misunderstand is that unchosen duties to the community and punishment, including death, for transgressing them is not unique to Islam and not unheard of in the West. The difference is simply which community demands allegiance, one's confessional community or one's national community. And of course even the former has precedent in the West.
About 80,000 French rightist were murdered in 1944-45 by vigilantes, according to US Army records. That's why France had to have Nouvelle Droit- all the old right were dead. Robert Brasilach was executed for writing positive things about the Germans, lol.

I think some posters here honestly believe that if our society was under significant strain we'd not do that, but it's just not true. Our history during Independence was full of that. To sit in judgment of premodern military/social arrangements, when defeat meant slavery or worse, is just extreme normalcy bias.
 
How am I downplaying political violence exactly?
By saying that war, WW2 and fascism are the most harshly judged topics in the West? In which way am I brushing off anything with this statement..?
I'm not downplaying death-sentences being dished out during war, I'm stating the obvious which is that they're used on only in war-related 'crimes', anything similar to that was reeked out from the laws in the West. I couldn't be happier about that this is the case.

I must admit that I'm not well-versed in the hadiths, but I won't let such detail get on my way really.
I'm merely asking the question that if death for apostasy was merely created for war (as you also stated) is it not absolutely obsolete? What else is there that's obsolete, given that this stuff was written up a long time ago?

You can not answer straight because you consider yourself inadequate to answer and it all goes out to window when people start interpreting old scripture as they see fit in which case it doesn't matter which branch they represent : there is dogma and there's agenda, of 'their interpretation' being the only real one.

What's your personal opinion about someone being sentenced to death from apostasy?
You honestly believe only "war crimes" were punished with death in the ww2 era? That's just false. People were executed for exercising what we would call freedom of speech.
 
You honestly believe only "war crimes" were punished with death in the ww2 era? That's just false. People were executed for exercising what we would call freedom of speech.
Huh? War-related, not war crimes.
 
Back
Top