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

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.
This is a great post, definitely a lot more informed than most smooth brain takes on this issue.
 
In my opinion, all important religious books, but especially the most important ones for each religion, should be ridden of the parts that call for violence on non-believers and other f*cked up stuff.
I think religious authorities (like the pope is for christians) have the authority (in the eyes of the people having that religion) to declare that.

With that, the amount of people who're assholes or even worse in the name of their religion would go down and people could believe in what they want and still tolerate each other, like the majority mostly does.
 
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.
Why, because this forum questions the double standards, hypocricy and blatant transgressions that so many muslim communities regularly engage in, let alone in countries where Islam has taken root?
The takes here have raised important issues aside from the typical 'they are all terrorists' type of talk which we haven't seen which is good.
You can't boil it down to one thing but part of the problem is that Muslim communities in the West have a uniquely problematic manifestation of the feral male problem. Society is okay with feral males so long as they are chemically and/or electronically sedated incels. This of course generates dysfunctional demographics down the line but that's a time frame that our quarter-to-quarter and election-to-election political economy is not equipped to deal with. Some of these feral males aren't so harmless, like the mass shooter or the much more common petty career criminal. Among the Muslims these latter types are more likely to engage in voluntary collective action, either on their own accord or at the bidding of some charismatic leader, and that magnifies the damage they can do.
You perspective here comes across distastefully, almost a backhanded insult toward males who don't commit some
kind of aggressions by describing them as 'chemically or electronically induced incels'.

So is the according to you non-incel Muslim male a better alternative for manifesting the ferral male as you put it?

Note that the Western countries nowadays are all broadly multicultural. People of any background and religion, atheists, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Sikhs, Jews etc are all living in significant numbers in many Western countries.

Yet time and again, we see representatives of one group who display a disproportionate amount of degenerate behaviour especially sexual.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogers...ildren-political-correctness/?sh=5a42e346754a

https://drrichswier.com/2017/02/20/...re-committed-by-the-2-muslim-male-population/

What is your explanation that of all the various religious communities, it is disproportionately Muslims who commit higher rates of these offences, and this is backed up by the stats?

Do you agree there is a link to the widespread attitude of hostility and inferiority muslims hold towards 'unbelievers', as evident in how Islamic countries legally treat non-muslims but also in how some muslim communities behave overseas which is also supported by Sharia ideas?
 
Last edited:
Why, because this forum questions the double standards, hypocricy and blatant transgressions that so many muslim communities regularly engage in, let alone in countries where Islam has taken root?
The takes here have raised important issues aside from the typical 'they are all terrorists' type of talk which we haven't seen which is good.

You perspective here comes across distastefully, almost a backhanded insult toward males who don't commit some
kind of aggressions by describing them as 'chemically or electronically induced incels'.

So is the according to you non-incel Muslim male a better alternative for manifesting the ferral male as you put it?

Note that the Western countries nowadays are all broadly multicultural. People of any background and religion, atheists, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Sikhs, Jews etc are all living in significant numbers in many Western countries.

Yet time and again, we see representatives of one group who display a disproportionate amount of degenerate behaviour especially sexual.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogers...ildren-political-correctness/?sh=5a42e346754a

https://drrichswier.com/2017/02/20/...re-committed-by-the-2-muslim-male-population/

What is your explanation that of all the various religious communities, it is disproportionately Muslims who commit higher rates of these offences, and this is backed up by the stats?

Do you agree there is a link to the widespread attitude of hostility and inferiority muslims hold towards 'unbelievers', as evident in how Islamic countries legally treat non-muslims but also in how some muslim communities behave overseas which is also supported by Sharia ideas?
2014-09-19-1062sea.png

^That's how you come off.

Anyway, you not only misunderstood my point but did so in a really uncharitable way so I don't think I care to hash this out with you. You're basically interrogating me here, what kind of civil discourse is this? Neither of those posts were even directed at you. Please go away.
 
2014-09-19-1062sea.png

^That's how you come off.

Anyway, you not only misunderstood my point but did so in a really uncharitable way so I don't think I care to hash this out with you. You're basically interrogating me here, what kind of civil discourse is this? Neither of those posts were even directed at you. Please go away.
I think here you are reacting not to me, but to prejudice you may have faced and expect. You are trying to fit me into some kind of category so that you can dismiss these questions. I would say to resist this urge as I have found your input valuable and I think good can come from this conversation.

I agree that the previous questions maybe came across as interrogational which was unfortunate but I am genuinely curious as I think many are on Muslims views on these issues. Since the media paints sometimes a skewed picture so often and ignorant people also have skewed thinking don't you think it is a great opportunity to clarify some of these issues here where you have a chance to give your input directly?

With regards the ferral males issue, the stats would indicate that disproportionate amounts of muslim males are involved in these kinds of incidents, and it's in more than one country.
So the question I am asking not just for you but in general is whether there is an explanation for this phenomenon and whether it is either cultural or has got to do with doctrinal and attitudes that seep their way into the muslim cultures. If I'm off about these perspectives I'm open to be corrected.

Especially since in the Rotherham abuse cases, some of the victims have explicitly made this connection.

"They made it clear that because I was a non-Muslim, and not a virgin, and because I didn’t dress “modestly”, that they believed I deserved to be “punished”. They said I had to “obey” or be beaten."

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...s-religious-extremism-terrorism-a8261831.html

I know it's an unpleasant topic to discuss but where else can it be addressed and avoiding the issue if there is a real problem there, seems to be a way of allowing it to perpetuate.

So putting aside whatever your thoughts are on my views it would be beneficial to get some understanding of this.
 
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


Lets not go crazy with the revisionism, there were plenty of massacres but the demographics of the Outremer didn't change much.
 
I think here you are reacting not to me, but to prejudice you may have faced and expect. You are trying to fit me into some kind of category so that you can dismiss these questions. I would say to resist this urge as I have found your input valuable and I think good can come from this conversation.

I agree that the previous questions maybe came across as interrogational which was unfortunate but I am genuinely curious as I think many are on Muslims views on these issues. Since the media paints sometimes a skewed picture so often and ignorant people also have skewed thinking don't you think it is a great opportunity to clarify some of these issues here where you have a chance to give your input directly?

With regards the ferral males issue, the stats would indicate that disproportionate amounts of muslim males are involved in these kinds of incidents, and it's in more than one country.
So the question I am asking not just for you but in general is whether there is an explanation for this phenomenon and whether it is either cultural or has got to do with doctrinal and attitudes that seep their way into the muslim cultures. If I'm off about these perspectives I'm open to be corrected.

Especially since in the Rotherham abuse cases, some of the victims have explicitly made this connection.

"They made it clear that because I was a non-Muslim, and not a virgin, and because I didn’t dress “modestly”, that they believed I deserved to be “punished”. They said I had to “obey” or be beaten."

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...s-religious-extremism-terrorism-a8261831.html

I know it's an unpleasant topic to discuss but where else can it be addressed and avoiding the issue if there is a real problem there, seems to be a way of allowing it to perpetuate.

So putting aside whatever your thoughts are on my views it would be beneficial to get some understanding of this.

Outgroup violence is traditionally ubiquitous everywhere. Muslims are no exception.

I think its not very interesting to discuss how Islam or Islamic cultures separate "us from them", tribalization if you will- but its much more interesting to discuss why Western countries don't, how this came about, and if this is coming undone.
 
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.

My understanding is that reasoning by analogy was pretty strongly condemned in the middle ages.
 
I think here you are reacting not to me, but to prejudice you may have faced and expect. You are trying to fit me into some kind of category so that you can dismiss these questions. I would say to resist this urge as I have found your input valuable and I think good can come from this conversation.
This may surprise you but irl I have never faced overt Islamophobia and I can recall perhaps one or two people who I suspect were bigoted towards me for being Muslim who I interacted with about a year or two after 9/11. But they are by far and away a tiny, tiny minority of the folks I have interacted with.

However, here on Sherdog its rampant and if I am being honest you definitely come off as the type based on the way you've been incredibly uncharitable with me ITT and the way you framed the OP. As far as I can tell you see me as your enemy. So know that I don't expect some kind of civil discourse with you here given how uncivil you've been with me.
I agree that the previous questions maybe came across as interrogational which was unfortunate but I am genuinely curious as I think many are on Muslims views on these issues. Since the media paints sometimes a skewed picture so often and ignorant people also have skewed thinking don't you think it is a great opportunity to clarify some of these issues here where you have a chance to give your input directly?

With regards the ferral males issue, the stats would indicate that disproportionate amounts of muslim males are involved in these kinds of incidents, and it's in more than one country.
So the question I am asking not just for you but in general is whether there is an explanation for this phenomenon and whether it is either cultural or has got to do with doctrinal and attitudes that seep their way into the muslim cultures. If I'm off about these perspectives I'm open to be corrected.

Especially since in the Rotherham abuse cases, some of the victims have explicitly made this connection.

"They made it clear that because I was a non-Muslim, and not a virgin, and because I didn’t dress “modestly”, that they believed I deserved to be “punished”. They said I had to “obey” or be beaten."

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...s-religious-extremism-terrorism-a8261831.html

I know it's an unpleasant topic to discuss but where else can it be addressed and avoiding the issue if there is a real problem there, seems to be a way of allowing it to perpetuate.

So putting aside whatever your thoughts are on my views it would be beneficial to get some understanding of this.
Its a complex phenomenon but I actually answered this earlier. You missed it because you were so intent on misreading my posts and extracting some uncharitable interpretation to harangue me over that the point flew over your head.
Again I think you hit the nail on the head here. Its a complex problem but really the scripture is the least of our concerns.

You can't boil it down to one thing but part of the problem is that Muslim communities in the West have a uniquely problematic manifestation of the feral male problem. Society is okay with feral males so long as they are chemically and/or electronically sedated incels. This of course generates dysfunctional demographics down the line but that's a time frame that our quarter-to-quarter and election-to-election political economy is not equipped to deal with. Some of these feral males aren't so harmless, like the mass shooter or the much more common petty career criminal. Among the Muslims these latter types are more likely to engage in voluntary collective action, either on their own accord or at the bidding of some charismatic leader, and that magnifies the damage they can do.
That's not entirely unique to Muslims of course, you something similar in the context of street gangs or organized crime among certain immigrant groups like the Italians or Irish, but I do think it manifests in a unique way among certain majority Muslim immigrant groups.

A key factor here is trust and whether a given group comes from a low trust or high trust society. Lots of these problematic Muslim immigrant groups come from low trust societies and in the case of South Asia they are also a lot more agrarian when compared to other parts of the Muslim world. But of course Muslim societies are not the only low trust ones, Italy is perhaps the best example given the prominence of the Sicilian mafia.

There are more urban, cosmopolitan, and higher trust areas of the Muslim world and I would expect that immigrants from those societies would be less problematic.
 
I think here you are reacting not to me, but to prejudice you may have faced and expect. You are trying to fit me into some kind of category so that you can dismiss these questions. I would say to resist this urge as I have found your input valuable and I think good can come from this conversation.

I agree that the previous questions maybe came across as interrogational which was unfortunate but I am genuinely curious as I think many are on Muslims views on these issues. Since the media paints sometimes a skewed picture so often and ignorant people also have skewed thinking don't you think it is a great opportunity to clarify some of these issues here where you have a chance to give your input directly?

With regards the ferral males issue, the stats would indicate that disproportionate amounts of muslim males are involved in these kinds of incidents, and it's in more than one country.
So the question I am asking not just for you but in general is whether there is an explanation for this phenomenon and whether it is either cultural or has got to do with doctrinal and attitudes that seep their way into the muslim cultures. If I'm off about these perspectives I'm open to be corrected.

Especially since in the Rotherham abuse cases, some of the victims have explicitly made this connection.

"They made it clear that because I was a non-Muslim, and not a virgin, and because I didn’t dress “modestly”, that they believed I deserved to be “punished”. They said I had to “obey” or be beaten."

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...s-religious-extremism-terrorism-a8261831.html

I know it's an unpleasant topic to discuss but where else can it be addressed and avoiding the issue if there is a real problem there, seems to be a way of allowing it to perpetuate.

So putting aside whatever your thoughts are on my views it would be beneficial to get some understanding of this.

Yes in a sense. Statistics do show that the foreign-born in Sweden, as in most European countries, do have a higher rate of criminal charges than the native-born, in everything from shoplifting to murder (though not enough to affect the crime rate by more than a tiny margin). The opposite is true in North America, where immigrants have lower-than-average crime rates.

Why the difference? Because people who go to Sweden are poorer, and crime rates are mostly a product not of ethnicity but of class. In a 2013 analysis of 63,000 Swedish residents, Prof. Sarnecki and his colleagues found that 75 per cent of the difference in foreign-born crime is accounted for by income and neighborhood, both indicators of poverty. Among the Swedish-born children of immigrants, the crime rate falls in half (and is almost entirely concentrated in lesser property crimes) and is 100-per-cent attributable to class – they are no more likely to commit crimes, including rape, than ethnic Swedes of the same family income.

https://web.archive.org/web/2017021...the-absurd-muslim-rape-myth-once-and-for-all/
 
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.

I was not being biased at all but being very frank with you here and all these things were historical accounts.. The problem is that Islam is the most lied about religion where you could see people tweeting or saying things that are completely ridiculous.. I am technically not against someone who dislikes islam as it is but what gets under my skin is the lying part.. You can dislike as much as you like I support you in that but know about my rules, laws and beliefs first get to know me because I am unknown to you and complete stranger just going by the comments I come by..

Without being biased or anything.. If you were to make a movie out of the last 10.000 years into a 2 hours movie the hero of the movie would by default become the muslims? You may ask why? Because they were the only people who lived by a code of conduct and actully kept their words and the only legitimate non-berbarian civilization to ever rise since written history..

There was in many occasions where it was easy for the muslims to just ransack an area example like India which was under muslim rule for around 1000 years and they could have achieved without hassle but refrained from it and the question is why despite being the easier choice because they were bound by law and rule and what did the Iberians do once they got to the Americas? That is right eliminate the entire local population the difference is like day and night and the same thing occured in Australia that is what happens when a barberian takes over.. This is a practice that didn't occur with the muslims and they viewed that as evil and against their values and who they were. The blood of the civilians were protected from them so instead they set up admins that just ended up benefiting the civilian population because it perserves everyones property rights, farms, livestock etc etc and if someone steals from someone the court deals with them.. They brought to these people the meaning of true justice because before that they were under corrupt kings and power was with few people where justice was not given and was something foreign to them... While the muslims unapologetically and without hypocrisy gave justice to the common man on the street regardless of his faith example if a rich man was to steal from a poor guy or take his life the muslims didn't care for status but honor the rule and give the killer death penalty by bringing justice.. These people started to flourish because they understood for the first time what it meant to have safety in your property and they were not use to this type of legal system that tackles the wrongdoer without excuses because they were use to alot of theft due to worse economical conditions.. One thing Islam highlights is honoring of the private property so each man and his family domain is secure because before that cattle theft, farm theft and even kidnapping of women illegally and sold to slavery etc etc in remote areas was out-spread thru out Europe but the islamic system tackles this kind of problems and takes them serious due to it's laws and very effective against crime and mostly reduce it to 2% when it was previously 30% to 40% because they have creative punishments for such things and it becomes not worth the risk for the thief or criminal hence the civilization starts to flourish in harmony and also there was big issues with road-robbers which Islam also tackles harshly and spends alot of energy going after and cracks down on them..

The muslims of today have gone away from the true following and code of conduct themselves and I would say majority of them are just cultural muslims and muslims by hertige but not really practical like the ancient who were without hypocrisy and followed the guidelines with great zeal.. What you see today is just cultural muslims everywhere and you will hardly meet a practical muslims they have become more rare than native indians..

They aren't /thread

I completely agree with you here all tho there is alot of common things nowadays compared to 50 years ago since the western world has made huge progress in the human rights department which was lacking previously but still the western world has more ground to cover before it becomes compatable with Islam all tho in Human rights and other areas such as freedom of religion etc etc is getting close but in short there are other areas where they will never become compatable such as the same sex marriages etc etc that is viewed as deranged and absolutely vile.. So technically Islam is seeking a moderate lifestyle and middling they don't wanna become deranged like the people of Sodom and Gomorroh nor do they seek extremism meaning access to tourism opening the world to everyone, human rights, charity etc etc these are grounds they will always find agreeing on.. Also the populists using islamophobia could be outlawed in the future
 
Last edited:
We're coming to a point where I don't think any genuine spiritual/moral foundation or philosophy of conviction is compatible with the West.
Much like Christianity, Islam can stay as long as it stops being what it is.

I'm not at all pro-Islam. But many of its adherents have undeniable conviction. And the West is not the place for people of strong conviction.
Strong belief in fictional characters.
 
Why do people quoting religious text? Why does that matter? You guys act like religious people follow their respective books to a tee lol

How many muslims do you know that drink ,smoke and fuck outside of wedlock? they are everywhere

these guys knowingly break their books rules believing that they will go to hell

Humans struggle to stick to a diet let alone follow a book to the tee

humans are weird creatures
 
The whole thing strikes me as a doomed relationship still in the honeymoon phase wherein both parties continue to kick ahead the cans that will inevitably rip them apart
You can't really be a leftist or even a liberal and be okay with the doctrine of Islam. The thing is (far) leftists are so obsessed with their ex, the 50's America, they can't see that they're running from old problems right into new ones.
 
The whole thing strikes me as a doomed relationship still in the honeymoon phase wherein both parties continue to kick ahead the cans that will inevitably rip them apart
You can't really be a leftist or even a liberal and be okay with the doctrine of Islam. The thing is (far) leftists are so obsessed with their ex, the 50's America, they can't see that they're running from old problems right into new ones.
Most liberals are just defending the age old value of freedom of religion in regards to Muslims and resisting what they see as bullying of a minority. They're often not wrong, most anti-Islam discourse is pretty low brow and usually a thin veneer for anti-immigrant sentiment and the discourse that goes on in this forum is a good case study of that.

Hardcore progressives are indeed critical of Islam and willing to subjugate it and in some countries, like France, that's a pretty mainstream position. But the pathological anti-clericalism of the French Revolution doesn't define the entirety of the Western tradition thankfully so countries like the US and UK are more hospitable to Muslims.
 
I was not being biased at all but being very frank with you here and all these things were historical accounts.. The problem is that Islam is the most lied about religion where you could see people tweeting or saying things that are completely ridiculous.. I am technically not against someone who dislikes islam as it is but what gets under my skin is the lying part.. You can dislike as much as you like I support you in that but know about my rules, laws and beliefs first get to know me because I am unknown to you and complete stranger just going by the comments I come by..

Without being biased or anything.. If you were to make a movie out of the last 10.000 years into a 2 hours movie the hero of the movie would by default become the muslims? You may ask why? Because they were the only people who lived by a code of conduct and actully kept their words and the only legitimate non-berbarian civilization to ever rise since written history..

There was in many occasions where it was easy for the muslims to just ransack an area example like India which was under muslim rule for around 1000 years and they could have achieved without hassle but refrained from it and the question is why despite being the easier choice because they were bound by law and rule and what did the Iberians do once they got to the Americas? That is right eliminate the entire local population the difference is like day and night and the same thing occured in Australia that is what happens when a barberian takes over.. This is a practice that didn't occur with the muslims and they viewed that as evil and against their values and who they were. The blood of the civilians were protected from them so instead they set up admins that just ended up benefiting the civilian population because it perserves everyones property rights, farms, livestock etc etc and if someone steals from someone the court deals with them.. They brought to these people the meaning of true justice because before that they were under corrupt kings and power was with few people where justice was not given and was something foreign to them... While the muslims unapologetically and without hypocrisy gave justice to the common man on the street regardless of his faith example if a rich man was to steal from a poor guy or take his life the muslims didn't care for status but honor the rule and give the killer death penalty by bringing justice.. These people started to flourish because they understood for the first time what it meant to have safety in your property and they were not use to this type of legal system that tackles the wrongdoer without excuses because they were use to alot of theft due to worse economical conditions.. One thing Islam highlights is honoring of the private property so each man and his family domain is secure because before that cattle theft, farm theft and even kidnapping of women illegally and sold to slavery etc etc in remote areas was out-spread thru out Europe but the islamic system tackles this kind of problems and takes them serious due to it's laws and very effective against crime and mostly reduce it to 2% when it was previously 30% to 40% because they have creative punishments for such things and it becomes not worth the risk for the thief or criminal hence the civilization starts to flourish in harmony and also there was big issues with road-robbers which Islam also tackles harshly and spends alot of energy going after and cracks down on them..

The muslims of today have gone away from the true following and code of conduct themselves and I would say majority of them are just cultural muslims and muslims by hertige but not really practical like the ancient who were without hypocrisy and followed the guidelines with great zeal.. What you see today is just cultural muslims everywhere and you will hardly meet a practical muslims they have become more rare than native indians..



I completely agree with you here all tho there is alot of common things nowadays compared to 50 years ago since the western world has made huge progress in the human rights department which was lacking previously but still the western world has more ground to cover before it becomes compatable with Islam all tho in Human rights and other areas such as freedom of religion etc etc is getting close but in short there are other areas where they will never become compatable such as the same sex marriages etc etc that is viewed as deranged and absolutely vile.. So technically Islam is seeking a moderate lifestyle and middling they don't wanna become deranged like the people of Sodom and Gomorroh nor do they seek extremism meaning access to tourism opening the world to everyone, human rights, charity etc etc these are grounds they will always find agreeing on.. Also the populists using islamophobia could be outlawed in the future
One of the most nonsense posts I've read in a long time, with fantasies of history and delusional levels of idealism of Islam.

Sorry but when your community is producing this level of warped delusion and it's not even a troll job and you lack awareness to realise how far off it is, it doesn't help your case.

Just for fun I will entertain this silly line of thinking. Since you keep talking about historic conquests and supposed restraint of muslims (actually it was frequently the reverse), you can consider that If you believe in God he made the predominant non-muslim countries the US, Russia, France, Israel , India, China , UK now several orders of magnitude more powerful than any Muslim nation, and all capable of vaporizing any Islamic nation at will within a few hours.

Still they don't conquer and colonise the middle East despite terrorism, and despite these nation's conquering and killing regions of their countries historically. (Many though would argue the US has colonized Iraq and Yemen though) So by your 'logic' this shows the heroism of these countries no?

An example of flawed thinking. And we know for a fact if it was the other way around and the Muslim nation's had this overwhelming military superiority it would be a veritable hell for all of these countries and non-Muslims in comparison to now.
Thankfully it isn't, and secular nation's are by far the most powerful and you are allowed to practice Islam here alongside other religions.
 
Last edited:
Most liberals are just defending the age old value of freedom of religion in regards to Muslims and resisting what they see as bullying of a minority. They're often not wrong, most anti-Islam discourse is pretty low brow and usually a thin veneer for anti-immigrant sentiment and the discourse that goes on in this forum is a good case study of that.

Hardcore progressives are indeed critical of Islam and willing to subjugate it and in some countries, like France, that's a pretty mainstream position. But the pathological anti-clericalism of the French Revolution doesn't define the entirety of the Western tradition thankfully so countries like the US and UK are more hospitable to Muslims.

I want to believe this. There's no cynicism in that. I think most liberals in this forum are like that, but I am very skeptical about the ones I'm seeing on TV.
 
How compatable are Islamic beliefs and values with Western society?

It seems that there is always either a simplified view of Islamic extremism in the media, or a reactionary 'Islamophobia' labels thrown around but little actual examination of the fundamental tenets of the faith and doctrines they live by.

So hopefully there can be some civil discourse about these issues from both perspectives.

An example of gross double standards about this here.
The ban of religious attire in work places recently by the EU, which was criticized heavily by Erdogen as 'Islamophobic'.

https://www.rt.com/viral/529526-turkey-eu-headscarf-ruling/

Yet it seems he does not want to apply anything like the same standards of criticism to muslim communities both at home and abroad and any legal systems they try to enforce.

A Czeck politition had given a strongly phrased talk on it but in my view she is basically accurate in the description of the fundamental issues here and why there will always be some conflict, worth reading.

https://motls.blogspot.com/2016/05/klara-samkovas-talk-should-we-be-afraid.html?m=1

So I'm going to tackle this as a British Muslim - born and bred in London.

I don't think this question is as applicable for Muslims not born and brought up in this area of the world - because Islamic beliefs and western values/society is pretty much a experience we do not share with Muslims who do not live in western societies. It's something Muslims born in the West can really only answer - since we are here and have first hand experience of it.

Wanted to get that out of the way first.

I will clarify as well that I am a practising Muslim - I pray five times a day, fast, give charity and all of that other stuff. I will preface this with saying that I only really started praying regularly/consistently around 2 years ago after the loss of a loved one made me re-evaluate a lot of things in my life.

I wouldn't recommend any Western country to look at Erdogen and try to compare his authoritarian rule and conflate that with the way ordinary Turkish Muslims live day to day. Sure some may be conservative and others more liberal. It's not black and white.

I also wouldn't recommend using Erdogen as a means or measure of how we should behave on this side of the world - aka we do xyz and he doesn't.

Erdogen isn't exactly a great example to follow. The only reason some Muslims like him is because despite having many faults - being authoritarian among them - he points out double standards of countries over here - rightly so - he however is as much a hypocrite as those he accuses of xyz.


"Islam....is primarily a totalitarian system of governance in which God only plays a substitutive role because the main content of Islam is nothing else than the arrangement of the state matters. As opposed to Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or Shintoism, the heart of Islam is the law, namely the Islamic Sharia law."

"It wants to be protected according to our tradition which it exploits in this way, while it is not willing to behave reciprocally."

"From the viewpoint of Islam, the concept of religion as a private, intimate matter of an individual is absolutely unacceptable...Islam rejects the individual conception of faith in God and in a totalitarian way, it forbids all doubts about itself."


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

https://exmuslims.org/

I agree and disagree with this part.

Islam does delve into a system of governance because the early Muslim community became an entity "state" of its own as a result of what happened during the early years of the faith - however it is not the only faith unique in this aspect. The Jewish faith also has its own set of personal laws (hakkalah) to live by. Christians also have mosaic law (10 commandments). This is hardly unique to Muslims.

Even Buddhism has the dharma - so does Hinduism.

I feel like this speaker probably has a very poor grasp of world religions by making that statement.

I wouldn't describe Islam as a totalitarian system of governance because that would be a counter to the essence of having the free will and the choice of believing or not and the ability to make mistakes and seek forgiveness from God (from a Muslim's perspective).

The speaker here is conflating authoritarian governments/dictatorships with religion - by combining the two erroneously imo. History quite simply proves how invalid this point is. For recent history - see the formation of the baathist party across the Middle East.

In regards to apostasy - this is why there are many scholars and many Muslims reject the line of thinking that says death is an acceptable punishment for leaving the faith - because it is a retarded idea and rightly should be criticized by all - muslim and non muslim alike. It's also not borne out of logical interpretation of Islamic theology/law to top it off.

I have members of my family that are athiest, agnostic, cultural Muslims and some practicing - like is the case with many Muslim families. I don't think any one of us would be ok with execution for apostasy.


For example in Saudi Arabia religious freedom is almost non existent.

"the public practice of any other religion than Islam is illegal and even private worship is severely restricted. Mosques are the only public places of worship and the construction of non-Muslim places of worship is outlawed. Non-citizens are required to carry identity cards, which classify them into “Muslims” and “non-Muslims” and non-citizens applying for naturalisation must convert to Islam prior to the procedure."

http://www.hscentre.org/middle-east-and-north-africa/saudi-arabia-affront-religious-freedom/

So we have a well know Muslim leader calling an EU ruling 'fascist' simply because they block the overt display of any religious attire like the veil in workplaces. Yet he will keep his mouth totally shut regarding religious persecution and lack of rights of atheists and non Muslims in Muslim nation's which would by the same standard be far far worse.

We find similar repression of non muslims in many Muslim countries, and total silence about this from those who throw the Islamaphobia label around.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2018-report-on-international-religious-freedom/morocco/

Saudi Arabia has bigger problems than religious freedom. Add corruption, women's right, treatment of minorities (muslim and non-muslim alike), selective application of the law (if you are a Saudi prince) and illegally locking up dissidents/activists both Muslim and non-Muslim who are critical of the Saudi authorities.

It's not only human rights activists that get locked up in Saudi - Imams also get locked up or fall foul of the authorities if they say anything that is against the government. Many Imams simply cower to the Saudi line (don't bite the hand that feeds you) and those Imams with backbone/principles simply get locked up, put on house arrest or if they are very lucky get censored only.

A famous case of this is in 2018 when Shuraim - one of the Mufti/Imams of the Grand Mosque in Mecca was censored and his twitter account deleted by the Saudi authorities after he criticized them. This is the equivalent of one of the leaders of prayer at the Vatican being censored by Papal authorities for making legitimate criticisms of them.

The difference is we only ever hear of women's right or human right's activists getting into trouble because it fits the narrative we are fed over here. They won't talk about all the Imams that have fallen foul of the Saudi authorities.

Again what is with the comparison.

You should be able to condemn both Islamophobia and the treatment of non Muslims and atheist in Muslim countries. It's not a reciprocal type situation where we don't acknowledge our own issues because xyz country doesn't acknowledge theirs?

I hope we here in the west would want to maintain a higher standard for ourselves than Erdogen - this is why I don't understand the comparisons with a dictator.

Saying that Muslim women should have the right to wear what they want and non-Muslims should have the right to freely practice their faith in Muslim countries - can be said in the same sentence.

Our societies here imo are significantly more freer and more tolerant than over there. It's not that people there are a problem - it's repressive governments that talk the "Islamic rhetoric" in public but not in practice. Erdogen and MBS are classic examples of this and why many Muslims think of them as hypocrites.



So to what degree can Islam ever be truly reconciled with Western secular values? And can these same standards be applied all around when evaluating these issues?

I'd say that for many Muslims born and brought up here that these values have already reconciled with one another - we're living proof of it. They aren't though with people who have an issue with Islam, Muslims, immigrants, minorities or those that have a certain political outlook - it's easier to think that these two things cannot be reconciled because they can carry on believing in their political outlook without having to look at actual evidence because if they did - they'd have to re-evaluate what they think.

Many people aren't prepared to change thoughts/beliefs that are borne out of prejudice or are not perceivable in data. Easier to live in ignorance than having to work on yourself and change your outlook. I know Muslims and non-Muslims like that.

The only people that don't think Islam can be reconciled with secular values are jihadis/extremists and people with fringe like political outlooks. The fact that both ends of the spectrum share the same outlook should be worrying for anyone with a brain.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top