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

[12ga.]

The gravest threat we face from terrorism is from secular fundamentalists who propagate the bigoted, hateful caricatures of observant Muslims.... thought 800,000 or so indiscriminately killed last 20 years would make that obvious. Guess not. Let me drill it more home. See WW2.

 

[12ga.]

It all depends on how fundamental you are. There are a lot of Muslims that simply believe Mohammed was a messenger of God and try to live a good life. Then there are unfortunately a large number that want to live under Sharia Law and for Islam to rule the Earth. The latter is not compatible with Western or free societies.

My hope is as time goes on, Muslims as a whole become less convservative like the Christians have. I want everyone to be free to practice whatever religion they want but I have no tolerance for intolerance and wanting to subjugate the world with your religion or beliefs.

As time goes on, the great imponderable, is how the west's post modern secular views will hold sway with the amazing decline in fecundity. I have a BS in business (accounting) not Islamic studies. But doesnt take much maths to realize 1.3 children is unsustainable.

 

[aries]

Islam is wholly incompatible. Muslims can fit in if they don't take their book too seriously or cherry pick what they believe in (like Christians and Jews do).

This is what moderate Muslims already do. Extremes of any religion don't go well with liberal societies.

 

[MacGregor]

The only people who should have 'islamophobia' are the girls in Muslim countries who haven't had their clitoris cut off and their vagina sewn shut yet.

 

[Ramon Antonio]

This is what moderate Muslims already do. Extremes of any religion don't go well with liberal societies.

I don't agree with the term 'moderate Muslims' though. They're just cherry picking Muslims. It's weird to call people who follow their religion closely 'extremists'.

It's like calling a vegan an 'extremist' for not eating meat once in a while. In reality the 'moderate vegan' is just not a vegan at all.

 

[aries]

I don't agree with the term 'moderate Muslims' though. They're just cherry picking Muslims. It's weird to call people who follow their religion closely 'extremists'.

It's like calling a vegan an 'extremist' for not eating meat once in a while. In reality the 'moderate vegan' is just not a vegan at all.

So there aren't Christian extremists who are really fucking extreme? And no moderate Muslims follow their religion closely but they interpret things differently. Just like many Christians do with the many interpretations of the bible. Show me a passage from the Quran which says all gays should be killed for instance? There are quite a few passages in the Bible used to condemn gays. Are gay-friendly Christians not following the bible closely enough?

Religions often change with time, that's happening with Islam too, just as it happened with Christianity.

 

[Ramon Antonio]

So there aren't Christian extremists who are really fucking extreme? And no moderate Muslims follow their religion closely but they interpret things differently. Just like many Christians do with the many interpretations of the bible. Show me a passage from the Quran which says all gays should be killed for instance? There are quite a few passages in the Bible used to condemn gays. Are gay-friendly Christians not following the bible closely enough?

Religions often change with time, that's happening with Islam too, just as it happened with Christianity.

Extreme "believers" of any faith don't make sense to me. Religion is not a buffet from which you should pick whatever you like and dismiss what you don't. It's ridiculous to call the people who do that 'moderates' and people who don't cherry pick 'extremists'.

I never said Islam says all gays should be killed. Why do you mention this very specific claim? It is however very clear that homosexuality is considered a sin in both Christianity and Islam. So any Muslim or Christian who says they support gay marriage / homosexuality is a cherry picking hypocrite.

It is clearly stated in the Holy Quran: “And (remember) Lut (Lot), when he said to his people: ‘Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceding you has committed in the ‘Aalameen (mankind and jinn)? Verily, you practise your lusts on men instead of women. Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds (by committing great sins)’” [al-A’raaf 7:80-81] It is very clearly mentioned in this verse that the people of Lut were engaging in homosexuality and it was a manifest sin. Many other verses imply the same meaning and verdict without any disagreement or discrepancy on the matter. From the Sunnah (The Prophetic Tradition) we find: It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: “The Prophet (peace and blessings upon him) said “cursed is the one who does the action of the people of Lut.” (Narrated by Ahmad, 1878.). Once again, the Hadith is very explicit and comprehensible in its meaning and many more similar Hadiths can be found to support this ruling. The consensus of the scholars: From the time of the Prophet until now, all scholars of every time and era, have agreed that the practice of homosexuality is a forbidden act and a sin in Islam.

Islams-Clear-Position-on-Homosexuality.pdf (anic.org.au)

Edit: 'And religion changes with time' makes no fucking sense at all. Islam is supposed to be for 'all of humanity'. Why would it change over time? Is how Muhammad acted suddenly not 'good enough' anymore? Are you morally superior to him?

That's the entire problem. Islam is not changing at all. It's only people taking it less seriously. The doctrine itself hasn't changed a bit.

 

[aries]

Extreme "believers" of any faith don't make sense to me. Religion is not a buffet from which you should pick whatever you like and dismiss what you don't. It's ridiculous to call the people who do that 'moderates' and people who don't cherry pick 'extremists'.

I never said Islam says all gays should be killed. Why do you mention this very specific claim? It is however very clear that homosexuality is considered a sin in both Christianity and Islam. So any Muslim or Christian who says they support gay marriage / homosexuality is a cherry picking hypocrite.


Islams-Clear-Position-on-Homosexuality.pdf (anic.org.au)

Edit: 'And religion changes with time' makes no fucking sense at all. Islam is supposed to be for 'all of humanity'. Why would it change over time? Is how Muhammad acted suddenly not 'good enough' anymore? Are you morally superior to him?

That's the entire problem. Islam is not changing at all. It's only people taking it less seriously. The doctrine itself hasn't changed a bit.

No Islam does not specifically say homosexuality is a sin, it says that sex outside of marriage is a sin. So theoretically 2 men could marry and it wouldn't be a sin.

People have been cherry-picking religion for millennia. Nothing you say will change that. Or do you really think that Christianity 1000 years ago is the same as modern Christianity? lol

Books like the Bible and the Quran are open to different interpretations. If you can't get that simple concept then nothing I will say will convince you.

 

[Denter]

Which parts make sense?

You are really reaching here. There is no religious person in the world that would be unaffected by the apostasy of a close family member; Christians are also disappointed and angry when things like this happen, as are many people. People even get ostracized by former friends for changing political views; personal associations and feelings really aren't the gotcha you are looking for. There are many churches now which will expel a member and expect the congregation to treat them as "a gentile and a tax collector" if they openly go against church teachings. This is not bad.

The parts that make sense are corporal punishments for certain crimes (which we used to do as well); swift executions for more serious crimes (which we used to do as well), and various laws intended to retain Islamic values as the center of a society. Any society must do the same if it wishes to protect its values; as we are now learning, even liberal states are organically implementing this.

During the height of the Enlightenment, a man could be hung for stealing something valued at 8 pence or more. There is nothing un-Western about laws and norms like that; ask the recusants of the 1600s about that.

 

[tastaylvr]

Extreme "believers" of any faith don't make sense to me. Religion is not a buffet from which you should pick whatever you like and dismiss what you don't. It's ridiculous to call the people who do that 'moderates' and people who don't cherry pick 'extremists'.

I never said Islam says all gays should be killed. Why do you mention this very specific claim? It is however very clear that homosexuality is considered a sin in both Christianity and Islam. So any Muslim or Christian who says they support gay marriage / homosexuality is a cherry picking hypocrite.


Islams-Clear-Position-on-Homosexuality.pdf (anic.org.au)

Edit: 'And religion changes with time' makes no fucking sense at all. Islam is supposed to be for 'all of humanity'. Why would it change over time? Is how Muhammad acted suddenly not 'good enough' anymore? Are you morally superior to him?

That's the entire problem. Islam is not changing at all. It's only people taking it less seriously. The doctrine itself hasn't changed a bit.

This is why I have more respect for "extremists" than "moderates". Only one of them actually believes in the writings and has enough conviction to follow through.

I know some Muslims who drink and smoke but then do Friday prayer. I find that retarded. If you believe that God is going to give you eternal suffering in hell for not following his book then why the fuck are you not following it? It makes no fucking sense

You are either stupid or don't believe

 

[Islam Imamate]

Ok so that's fine, although does dissapointed mean that's all and it stops there? Would you ostracize your sister for marrying a non Muslim and renouncing Islam?

Well I don't have a sister but if I did I would be a bit disappointed if she married outside the faith though the extent to which I'd be disappointed would depend on the man himself. If he is of otherwise decent character then that would go a long ways to blunting said disappointment.

Do you support the fundamental human right of people to make educated life decisions including freedom to choose their religion which is also a secular right in the West?

Sure.

I understand your views about homosexuals keeping closeted. But what if a gay family member was not closeted, do you think that more should be done in Islamic countries about the issue to stop these type of incidents? Muslims fear other Muslims including family members, more than the state a lot of times.

https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...-killed-family-days-seeking/story?id=77690474

If he wasn't closeted then that would be disappointing and embarrassing but again my feelings would depend a lot on my specific relationship tot his person and their character or lack thereof.

Ultimately I am not sure what you're trying to get at here, seems like you want us to have some bare minimum right to practice our religion but we should generally feel shame if we live in a Western society and more or less allow our faith communities and values to dissolve overtime. I understand why secular people feel that way but I don't understand how they're blind to why this isn't less than ideal for Muslims or other people of faith. Certainly I doubt you'd feel very comfortable if your family and friends started converting to Islam and lived socially conservative lives.

You are really reaching here. There is no religious person in the world that would be unaffected by the apostasy of a close family member; Christians are also disappointed and angry when things like this happen, as are many people. People even get ostracized by former friends for changing political views; personal associations and feelings really aren't the gotcha you are looking for. There are many churches now which will expel a member and expect the congregation to treat them as "a gentile and a tax collector" if they openly go against church teachings. This is not bad.

The parts that make sense are corporal punishments for certain crimes (which we used to do as well); swift executions for more serious crimes (which we used to do as well), and various laws intended to retain Islamic values as the center of a society. Any society must do the same if it wishes to protect its values; as we are now learning, even liberal states are organically implementing this.

During the height of the Enlightenment, a man could be hung for stealing something valued at 8 pence or more. There is nothing un-Western about laws and norms like that; ask the recusants of the 1600s about that.

Its the mentality of people who feel that they are not only entitled to freedom from all unchosen bonds but also that their given idiosyncratic lifestyles and beliefs must be celebrated. From my POV hes basically asking the Muslims to act like that dog in the famous comic

Hey don't be a bigot and react the the hollowing out of your community and its traditions, you must accept this or else you're an "extremist"

 

[Denter]

Its the mentality of people who feel that they are not only entitled to freedom from all unchosen bonds but also that their given idiosyncratic lifestyles and beliefs must be celebrated. From my POV hes basically asking the Muslims to act like that dog in the famous comic

Hey don't be a bigot and react the the hollowing out of your community and its traditions, you must accept this or else you're an "extremist"

This hits the nail on the head; autonomy is the core value of liberalism, which turns out to be basically incoherent, because it turns out unchosen bonds are the most socially rich and maturing experiences we have as humans. This also presumes an unmoved, detached Chooser, who can carefully select their "fulfilling life choices" from some sort of menu or something, completely ignoring the process of how we come to value certain goods over others in the first place. The whole premise is wrong from the beginning. Identity is socially negotiated and formed; society has claims on you, and you on it; meeting your unchosen obligations and participating in society is the process that both matures and nourishes the human being, and without these, the human quickly hollows out into something very dark.

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." was not actually talking about the neighbors.

 

[dragonsfly]

It's not about accepting gay marriage or extreme leftist ideologies, personally I'm against persecuting anyone for who they are and I supported civil unions for gays but I didn't support calling gay civil unions 'marriage' and giving it the same standing as actual marriage between men and women.

But the larger issue is the West supports freedoms and secularism which are not found in other cultures. Although originally predominantly Christian, you are allowed to openly practice Islam here and they even let you have a mosque constructed.

In most Muslim countries you would be arrested for just wearing a cross and certainly no church or temple allowed.
So you can appreciate the Western values in this way.

This is not true.. In Islams history since 1500 years ago the only religion that promotes freedom of religion is Islam and there is no such law in Islam and never was.. This is the problem with people who don't read history or know about peoples laws and rules.

Muslims ruled Iberian peninsula for nearly 800 years they never changed the population demographics or religion except these who freely joined because in Islam it is unapologetically practiced and believed that tthere is no compulsion in religion and it is followed to a dot.. Locals were allowed to continue their day lives as usual and worship whatever they wanted... Even South france came under Muslim rule at one point.

Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldva, Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, Croatia, Hungry, Slovenia, Crimea, Italy Sicily, Georgia, Austra, Russia etc etc all these people were under muslim rule for centuries but the muslims didn't change the demographics, population numbers or anything of their religion because they were bound by law to perserve freedom of religion and human rights (Yes Human rights Islam is also the only religion that has human right laws).. Do you know what Christians did once they conquered an area? That is right they killled everyone even women and children specifically the crusaders history testifies to this..

Islam prohibits the spilling of any human being blood it doesn't matter whatever faith he follows and says that the blood of mankind is holy and it can't be spilled and whoever does that gets death penalty and the only way killing can be allowed is in war and conflict while killing non-combatants is not allowed the same goes to children, women etc etc the only civilization who truly kept their words and played by the laws they had were the muslims and one of the reason they were so successful was due to being without hypocrisy because it was in a time of berberians and they were actually the only humane civilization in the world without hypocrisy because if their books gave them such laws they followed it blindly and keeping these values.. Racism was even forbidden 1500 years ago..

Following the values of the laws and guidelines by heart goes against hypocrisy and leads to greater good because you live by these principles there is alot of good in these principles unlike the Christians who did not practice what they said they were practicing and if you read history you will understand that there was no difference between the crusaders or the vikings who were self-professed berbarians no values.. History testifies to the horror the crusaders left behind them in the systemic killings of irrelevant villagers, kids, women and everyone of non-combatants males this would have never occured with the muslims taking these villages the difference is in hypocrisy and the different laws one has human rights laws and rules while the other doesn't have it..

There was open racism just here in the 70s in the US and people got their freedom recently so don't get shocked when you hear the east saying these people are jahiils (Backward) and surprisingly there is alot of truth to it. Because they exited all of that garbage centuries ago in their laws and rules

 

[SanchoMF]

This is not true.. In Islams history since 1500 years ago the only religion that promotes freedom of religion is Islam and there is no such law in Islam and never was.. This is the problem with people who don't read history or know about peoples laws and rules.

Muslims ruled Iberian peninsula for nearly 800 years they never changed the population demographics or religion except these who freely joined because in Islam it is unapologetically practiced and believed that tthere is no compulsion in religion and it is followed to a dot.. Locals were allowed to continue their day lives as usual and worship whatever they wanted... Even South france came under Muslim rule at one point.

Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldva, Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, Croatia, Hungry, Slovenia, Crimea, Italy Sicily, Georgia, Austra, Russia etc etc all these people were under muslim rule for centuries but the muslims didn't change the demographics, population numbers or anything of their religion because they were bound by law to perserve freedom of religion and human rights (Yes Human rights Islam is also the only religion that has human right laws).. Do you know what Christians did once they conquered an area? That is right they killled everyone even women and children specifically the crusaders history testifies to this..

Islam prohibits the spilling of any human being blood it doesn't matter whatever faith he follows and says that the blood of mankind is holy and it can't be spilled and whoever does that gets death penalty and the only way killing can be allowed is in war and conflict while killing non-combatants is not allowed the same goes to children, women etc etc the only civilization who truly kept their words and played by the laws they had were the muslims and one of the reason they were so successful was due to being without hypocrisy because it was in a time of berberians and they were actually the only humane civilization in the world without hypocrisy because if their books gave them such laws they followed it blindly and keeping these values.. Racism was even forbidden 1500 years ago..

Following the values of the laws and guidelines by heart goes against hypocrisy and leads to greater good because you live by these principles there is alot of good in these principles unlike the Christians who did not practice what they said they were practicing and if you read history you will understand that there was no difference between the crusaders or the vikings who were self-professed berbarians no values.. History testifies to the horror the crusaders left behind them in the systemic killings of irrelevant villagers, kids, women and everyone of non-combatants males this would have never occured with the muslims taking these villages the difference is in hypocrisy and the different laws one has human rights laws and rules while the other doesn't have it..

There was open racism just here in the 70s in the US and people got their freedom recently so don't get shocked when you hear the east saying these people are jahiils (Backward) and surprisingly there is alot of truth to it. Because they exited all of that garbage centuries ago in their laws and rules

Your post is unfortunately extremely biased and selective in terms of narrative and references that it comes off as a troll-job.
You are swiftly brushing aside any real world actions and practices and instead just go ahead with the riffing on the ‘dogma’ when it comes human rights violations or treatment of others/non-religious/apostates.
The wrongdoing and brutality in the name of religion continues.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Your post is unfortunately extremely biased and selective in terms of narrative and references that it comes off as a troll-job.
You are swiftly brushing aside any real world actions and practices and instead just go ahead with the riffing on the ‘dogma’ when it comes human rights violations or treatment of others/non-religious/apostates.
The wrongdoing and brutality in the name of religion continues.

His take is definitely slanted but its actually much better than what gets vomited out by the low IQ, low effort Islam critics left in this forsaken wasteland of a forum.

 

[French Canadian]

Extreme "believers" of any faith don't make sense to me. Religion is not a buffet from which you should pick whatever you like and dismiss what you don't. It's ridiculous to call the people who do that 'moderates' and people who don't cherry pick 'extremists'.

I never said Islam says all gays should be killed. Why do you mention this very specific claim? It is however very clear that homosexuality is considered a sin in both Christianity and Islam. So any Muslim or Christian who says they support gay marriage / homosexuality is a cherry picking hypocrite.


Islams-Clear-Position-on-Homosexuality.pdf (anic.org.au)

Edit: 'And religion changes with time' makes no fucking sense at all. Islam is supposed to be for 'all of humanity'. Why would it change over time? Is how Muhammad acted suddenly not 'good enough' anymore? Are you morally superior to him?

That's the entire problem. Islam is not changing at all. It's only people taking it less seriously. The doctrine itself hasn't changed a bit.

For the extremism part, I believe that the last Prophet in which muslim believe said that : ''Verily, the religion is easy and no one burdens himself in religion but that it overwhelms him. Follow the right course, seek closeness to Allah, give glad tidings, and seek help for worship in the morning and evening and a part of the night'' (that's a sahih Bukhari). It thus seems to me like he recommends to following everything to a T.

As for the changing part, I believe you should inform yourself better of how things work in islamic theology and fiqh. There are different schools that give different weight to different things. There are some who are very litteralist and other are more rationalist. For exemple, a Mu'tazilite like Mohammed Abduh puts a lot more weight on what reason can discover (and believes that the Qu'ran prescribes the use of reason to discover things) and he puts great weight on maslaha (the common interest), which the Qu'ran, according to him, prescribes that we promote, and so he deduced principles of action by their relation to the good they generated to the people that are concerned with the laws right here and right now (which makes for a dynamic system of laws). There are also jurists who put a lot of emphasis on ijma' (consensus of jurists), while other put more emphasis on ijtihad (individual effort at understanding the text). Most don't like taqlid (blind imitation of precedent rulings) and some (like Jamal Al-Din Al-Aghani) strongly condemn those who do not want to continually renew ijtihad, (as every society and every epoch has different exigencies, one should always revisit the text and reinterpret it in this new light) and accuse them of jumud (stagnation). I could also talk a bit about the role of regional customs and the principle of analogy (qiyas) in interpreting the Qu'ran, but I guess that's enough for today.

I'm not muslim, so I don't know what the current state of affairs is in the high institution of Al-Azhar is. But these little things is what I've gathered from some courses at University. If you want to inform yourself better, I recommend Albert Hourani's ''Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age 1798-1939'' for an overview of how modern Islam came about (it's a little dated, but it's still a classic) and Ahmed Shamsy's ''The Canonization of Islamic Law'' for the basic historical narrative of how Islam is interpreted and what are the basic principle guiding its interpretation.

 

[amok attitude]

True believers of any religion are not compatible with Western culture.

For example, the King James bible allows one to take the child of a defeated enemy as a slave.

Thats forbidden nowadays ? Damn

 

[SanchoMF]

His take is definitely slanted but its actually much better than what gets vomited out by the low IQ, low effort Islam critics left in this forsaken wasteland of a forum.

Each to their own I guess.

 

[Ramon Antonio]

For the extremism part, I believe that the last Prophet in which muslim believe said that : ''Verily, the religion is easy and no one burdens himself in religion but that it overwhelms him. Follow the right course, seek closeness to Allah, give glad tidings, and seek help for worship in the morning and evening and a part of the night'' (that's a sahih Bukhari). It thus seems to me like he recommends to following everything to a T.

As for the changing part, I believe you should inform yourself better of how things work in islamic theology and fiqh. There are different schools that give different weight to different things. There are some who are very litteralist and other are more rationalist. For exemple, a Mu'tazilite like Mohammed Abduh puts a lot more weight on what reason can discover (and believes that the Qu'ran prescribes the use of reason to discover things) and he puts great weight on maslaha (the common interest), which the Qu'ran, according to him, prescribes that we promote, and so he deduced principles of action by their relation to the good they generated to the people that are concerned with the laws right here and right now (which makes for a dynamic system of laws). There are also jurists who put a lot of emphasis on ijma' (consensus of jurists), while other put more emphasis on ijtihad (individual effort at understanding the text). Most don't like taqlid (blind imitation of precedent rulings) and some (like Jamal Al-Din Al-Aghani) strongly condemn those who do not want to continually renew ijtihad, (as every society and every epoch has different exigencies, one should always revisit the text and reinterpret it in this new light) and accuse them of jumud (stagnation). I could also talk a bit about the role of regional customs and the principle of analogy (qiyas) in interpreting the Qu'ran, but I guess that's enough for today.

I'm not muslim, so I don't know what the current state of affairs is in the high institution of Al-Azhar is. But these little things is what I've gathered from some courses at University. If you want to inform yourself better, I recommend Albert Hourani's ''Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age 1798-1939'' for an overview of how modern Islam came about (it's a little dated, but it's still a classic) and Ahmed Shamsy's ''The Canonization of Islamic Law'' for the basic historical narrative of how Islam is interpreted and what are the basic principle guiding its interpretation.

The Quran is still the same now as it was 1400 years ago as Muslims so proudly claim all the time. You can change the interpretation, but if you're interpreting the text differently from how your prophet interpreted it, that's just going back to cherry picking again. Fiqh also doesn't affect Sharia law. It's the practice of deriving rules / judgments of topics not specifically mentioned in Sharia law. I know there are also multiple interpretations of Sharia law but that doesn't make sense either. That means that God's 'simple' instruction manual for all of mankind is written quite poorly. If homosexuality was wrong in the time of the prophet, who are we to say it's okay now?

The static nature of the source material also means that the further we get into the future, the further you get from the context in which the Quran was written and thus the more people have to derive for themselves. That seems like a really bad game of 'Chinese whispers'. Can you imagine when we discover alien life and we're still going by a book written in 600?

 

[Ramon Antonio]

No Islam does not specifically say homosexuality is a sin, it says that sex outside of marriage is a sin. So theoretically 2 men could marry and it wouldn't be a sin.

People have been cherry-picking religion for millennia. Nothing you say will change that. Or do you really think that Christianity 1000 years ago is the same as modern Christianity? lol

Books like the Bible and the Quran are open to different interpretations. If you can't get that simple concept then nothing I will say will convince you.

Yeah guess what, I'm also not a fan of the Bible. Books that you can interpret in 1000 different ways don't make for great instruction manuals. Why are people so adamant about their beliefs then if there's no way to know whether your interpretation is even remotely correct?