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

I don't think fundamentalist Islam is compatible with any Western society. Thankfully most Muslims seem to be far more moderate in their views.

I would be far more in favour of religion being kept in the home or place of worship and left entirely out of the public sphere. All religion.

Also tax them.
 
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.

Lol at including India, Israel, Uk laughable these are irrelevant.. All these nations you mentioned even if they were to band together they will not undo us. We have numbers, technology this is not the 1920s in first world war one..it will be massive clash WW3 and high casualties but we will not be undone.. You will eat alot of warheads in return and vaporization.. Try me
 
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?

this is just laughable lol. I will address this using a one dimensional approach too cause you are obviously here to push an agenda. Maybe due to getting cucked by a guy named Islam or someone that looked like a Muslim. Did they have a turban on while doing it?

Anyway US? We left Afghanistan of all places without a clear mission accomplished lol

Russia couldn’t even beat Afghanistan when Afghans had was horses and swords lol

India has for 50+ years not been able to take over its arch rival, 7-8 times smaller in population and multiple times poorer and very backwards neighbour Pakistan down.

Israel is the single worst abuser of human rights violations in modern history and if they could, they would have wiped Islam/arbs out by now. It’s infact in the agenda of all their political mainstream leaders. But They are busy fighting stone throwers and fireworks tossing groups.

China? Lol genocide loving China is only good for beating the shit out of the earlier mentioned very weak Indian army in hand to hand combat. In reality against other they haven’t even been able to do much. Couldn’t even take control of Taiwan or HK fully.

These guys are capable of vaporizing Muslim nations in a few hours? Lol if they were they would have already.

If anyone of them was able to they would have. Our own political and religious agendas make vaporizing Muslim nations (and others) our goal yet we haven’t, neither has anyone else. I wonder why? Oh yeah cause we actually can’t and none of the others could either. The technological, weaponization and overall might advantage is a fallacy and overstated to please our own citizens. We don’t have such power, nor does NATO, nor the communist nations nor do countries only famous for colognes or scam callers.

Get a reality check. Islam has existed for centuries, Christianity even longer and Judaism even longer. And they will continue to last. Western societies like all societies before won’t be able to make them fully compromise and blend in. The biggest threat to these religions will be AI and tech era not your western, eastern, southern , northern or invaders from Mars cultures
 
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.

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.

This is a good post overall, although I will address some of the individual points.

Firstly in a more globalized world where everyone is connected it does become more relevant. Erdogen is just an example of a hypocracy we see not uncommonly among Muslims.

He is speaking the apparent voice of liberalism in the west and calling for the rights of Muslims to wear their religious attire anywhere, yet has the total opposite view in dealing with Islamic countries and wouldn't raise for a second the idea of similar rights to non-muslims. So I am calling out this two faced hypocrisy not just from him but any Western Muslim.

Secondly, often there is a connection between Western Muslims where they travel to and have family in Islamic countries.
The comment by a recent killing of a Muslim woman in Pakistan raising the issue of women rights there is an example of how we cannot totally separate them as far as Muslim communities go.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/530724-mukadam-murder-misogyny-feminism/

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.

Their not really comparable. The Ten commandments of Christianity and Dharma in Buddhism are more like ethical guides for the individual. It is does not get involved with state legislature in the same way Sharia attempts to.

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.
Ok that's good but how common are these views in the wider Western Muslim community? Would your family members be ok with openly speaking or writing about their atheism or converting to other religions without concern about threats from other muslims? That is one of the pillars of secular democracy.

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.
Agreed.

Anyway US? We left Afghanistan of all places without a clear mission accomplished lol

Russia couldn’t even beat Afghanistan when Afghans had was horses and swords lol

India has for 50+ years not been able to take over its arch rival, 7-8 times smaller in population and multiple times poorer and very backwards neighbour Pakistan down.

Israel is the single worst abuser of human rights violations in modern history and if they could, they would have wiped Islam/arbs out by now. It’s infact in the agenda of all their political mainstream leaders. But They are busy fighting stone throwers and fireworks tossing groups.

China? Lol genocide loving China is only good for beating the shit out of the earlier mentioned very weak Indian army in hand to hand combat. In reality against other they haven’t even been able to do much. Couldn’t even take control of Taiwan or HK fully.

These guys are capable of vaporizing Muslim nations in a few hours? Lol if they were they would have already.

If anyone of them was able to they would have. Our own political and religious agendas make vaporizing Muslim nations (and others) our goal yet we haven’t, neither has anyone else. I wonder why? Oh yeah cause we actually can’t and none of the others could either. The technological, weaponization and overall might advantage is a fallacy and overstated to please our own citizens. We don’t have such power, nor does NATO, nor the communist nations nor do countries only famous for colognes or scam callers.

I'm not interested in getting into this as it is a separate discussion and tangential to the thread but what I said is fundamentally accurate.

These nations all have overwhelming technological and military superiority such that no kind of real war is considered at this point, certainly no attack by any Muslim nation would even be considered, they're not suicidal.
The days of Islamic counties being an existential threat have been over since the collapse of the Ottoman empire and they won't return.

Its not really your fault, I think you're just totally desensitized and basically kept in the dark to how overwhelmingly powerful the US has been since the end of the second world war when Europe destroyed itself and the US inherited the mantle, Russia also and NATO also which is a US proxy.
China has also got a massively expanded military and India as well in recent years which will only get more powerful as their economies continue to grow.

But the overwhelming power has been and continues to be the US military.

"As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize—or do not want to recognize—that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet."

Chalmers Johnson,former CIA consultant.

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/explained-the-us-military-s-global-footprint-45029

The US also has military bases in several middle eastern countries, UAE, Lebanon, Oman, Yemen, Kuwait and previously even Sauia Arabia which they diplomatically left due to 'unbelievers' literally having military installations in the holiest Muslim country which incidently, is also a US proxy state now.

I will just leave a quote from a Noam Chomsky article:

"Ever since the end of the Cold War, the overwhelming power of the US military has been the central fact of international politics.” This is particularly crucial in three regions: East Asia, where “the US Navy has become used to treating the Pacific as an ‘American lake'”; Europe, where NATO — meaning the United States, which “accounts for a staggering three-quarters of NATO’s military spending” — “guarantees the territorial integrity of its member states”; and the Middle East, where giant US naval and air bases “exist to reassure friends and to intimidate rivals.”

"The problem of world order today, Rachman continues, is that “these security orders are now under challenge in all three regions” because of Russian intervention in Ukraine and Syria, and because of China turning its nearby seas from an American lake to “clearly contested water.” The fundamental question of international relations, then, is whether the United States should “accept that other major powers should have some kind of zone of influence in their own neighborhoods.”

https://truthout.org/articles/us-power-under-challenge-masters-of-mankind/
 
This is a good post overall, although I will address some of the individual points.

Firstly in a more globalized world where everyone is connected it does become more relevant. Erdogen is just an example of a hypocracy we see not uncommonly among Muslims.

He is speaking the apparent voice of liberalism in the west and calling for the rights of Muslims to wear their religious attire anywhere, yet has the total opposite view in dealing with Islamic countries and wouldn't raise for a second the idea of similar rights to non-muslims. So I am calling out this two faced hypocrisy not just from him but any Western Muslim.

Secondly, often there is a connection between Western Muslims where they travel to and have family in Islamic countries.
The comment by a recent killing of a Muslim woman in Pakistan raising the issue of women rights there is an example of how we cannot totally separate them as far as Muslim communities go.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/530724-mukadam-murder-misogyny-feminism/



Their not really comparable. The Ten commandments of Christianity and Dharma in Buddhism are more like ethical guides for the individual. It is does not get involved with state legislature in the same way Sharia attempts to.


Ok that's good but how common are these views in the wider Western Muslim community? Would your family members be ok with openly speaking or writing about their atheism or converting to other religions without concern about threats from other muslims? That is one of the pillars of secular democracy.


Agreed.



I'm not interested in getting into this as it is a separate discussion and tangential to the thread but what I said is fundamentally accurate.

These nations all have overwhelming technological and military superiority such that no kind of real war is considered at this point, certainly no attack by any Muslim nation would even be considered, they're not suicidal.
The days of Islamic counties being an existential threat have been over since the collapse of the Ottoman empire and they won't return.

Its not really your fault, I think you're just totally desensitized and basically kept in the dark to how overwhelmingly powerful the US has been since the end of the second world war when Europe destroyed itself and the US inherited the mantle, Russia also and NATO also which is a US proxy.
China has also got a massively expanded military and India as well in recent years which will only get more powerful as their economies continue to grow.

But the overwhelming power has been and continues to be the US military.

"As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize—or do not want to recognize—that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet."

Chalmers Johnson,former CIA consultant.

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/explained-the-us-military-s-global-footprint-45029

The US also has military bases in several middle eastern countries, UAE, Lebanon, Oman, Yemen, Kuwait and previously even Sauia Arabia which they diplomatically left due to 'unbelievers' literally having military installations in the holiest Muslim country which incidently, is also a US proxy state now.

I will just leave a quote from a Noam Chomsky article:

"Ever since the end of the Cold War, the overwhelming power of the US military has been the central fact of international politics.” This is particularly crucial in three regions: East Asia, where “the US Navy has become used to treating the Pacific as an ‘American lake'”; Europe, where NATO — meaning the United States, which “accounts for a staggering three-quarters of NATO’s military spending” — “guarantees the territorial integrity of its member states”; and the Middle East, where giant US naval and air bases “exist to reassure friends and to intimidate rivals.”

"The problem of world order today, Rachman continues, is that “these security orders are now under challenge in all three regions” because of Russian intervention in Ukraine and Syria, and because of China turning its nearby seas from an American lake to “clearly contested water.” The fundamental question of international relations, then, is whether the United States should “accept that other major powers should have some kind of zone of influence in their own neighborhoods.”

https://truthout.org/articles/us-power-under-challenge-masters-of-mankind/
Your entire premise is based on a CIA consultant who if true would be violating his non disclosure agreement which the super strong world conquering military controlling CIA wouldn’t have allowed. Hell our boys stationed across the world would have blown to pieces the printing press before this got published. or Maybe just drone bombed him like we did Sulleimani before these so called experts gave away our state secrets and blueprint for global domination.
Do you realize how stupid that sounds good sir or are you just fascinated by things like this? Do you also believe in the ex military and contractors opinions on UFOs in Area 51 type?

There is an audience for this stuff and they are just feeding people like you with exaggerated tales, opinions and fallacies like that.

The muslim nations are not a war threat to us even if they unite, neither are the Jewish nation or our fellow Christian nations or the other worshiping nations or atheist nations. War is not something we will seek and every time we have gone into one it’s usually been a calculated risk that was only made after some sort of coup had happened. A coup that we did using our political and foreign relations not our military might alone like you are saying.

While those stone aged muslim nations don’t possess our weapons they do possess some weapons. For example why didn’t Iraq launch a million scud missles at us or at least our regional bases or even Israel when we attacked them? Cause we had already staged a coup against sadam.

There are weapons out there in our possession and the possession of others too. Hell Russia even decades ago had enough nukes to kill every man and woman on earth 7 times over. But they couldn’t beat the mujahideen and taliban we armed with mortars and assault rifles. Similarly what exactly did we achieve in Afghanistan (a poor Islamic nation) with all our military might? The entity we went in to exterminate (taliban) have pretty much seized power even after two decades of us being there and you said we can vaporize the entire Islamic world in a matter of minutes or something! Lol do you not realize how hard to believe that sounds?
 
This is a good post overall, although I will address some of the individual points.

Firstly in a more globalized world where everyone is connected it does become more relevant. Erdogen is just an example of a hypocracy we see not uncommonly among Muslims.

He is speaking the apparent voice of liberalism in the west and calling for the rights of Muslims to wear their religious attire anywhere, yet has the total opposite view in dealing with Islamic countries and wouldn't raise for a second the idea of similar rights to non-muslims. So I am calling out this two faced hypocrisy not just from him but any Western Muslim.

Hypocrisy is a human trait that extends to nearly every human being regardless of what religion they belong to.

The difference here is that you are specifically pointing out hypocrisy among Muslims as though that is somehow unique to everyone else's hypocrisy - when it is not.

Yes Erdogen is a hypocrite - calling out for rights of Muslims but not calling out for those same rights in countries like Saudi Arabia where if you are a Christian you do not have the freedom to practice your faith. Most people - muslim and non muslim alike get that.

The reason he does it is to play to his political base in Turkey - like I said before many repressive governments (with muslim majoirty populations) talk the "Islamic rhetoric" in public but not in practice because the masses tend to be religious (usually poor working class or farmers) - it's almost a prerequisite to stay in power.

People can disagree or voice objection to something privately. Being silent does not necessarily mean that they support xyz or condone it. Note I said people here and not Muslims - because this is a common trait all humans have.

From personal experience I don't know any Muslim here in the UK that hasn't been critical about the vast majority of Muslim countries.

Loads of people here in the UK aren't vocal about drone strikes in other countries while professing secular enlightened values and the right to life & pursuit of happiness. BLM got more traction than drone strikes killing innocent people in Afghanistan or Pakistan did. That doesn't make me think that people in the UK are indifferent though or hypocrites because I understand that people can privately object to it - many people only really riot or take action when their livelihoods are affected. It's a sad truth.

I think that you obviously have your biases like anyone but I'd encourage you too be a bit fair with your criticism.

Everyone knows Erdogen is a tool. But I'm well aware that he isn't the only tool about.



Secondly, often there is a connection between Western Muslims where they travel to and have family in Islamic countries.
The comment by a recent killing of a Muslim woman in Pakistan raising the issue of women rights there is an example of how we cannot totally separate them as far as Muslim communities go.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/530724-mukadam-murder-misogyny-feminism/

The connection between Western Muslims and their parents countries of origin can be a thing or not.

I know people for example who've never been to where their parents came from and can't speak a lick of the parents mother tongue.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.

I think most western Muslims know that the countries their parents come from are significantly less freer and less tolerant.

But I'd add that don't make the mistake of assuming that most Pakistanis are ok with women being murdered like in the above link and that is a natural response to women in that scenario - it's simply not. It's precisely the public's reaction to these cases that forces corrupt courts/police/legal system to do U turns and actually get justice for victims. Attitudes in these countries may be more conservative for sure but not to the point that most would harm spouses, mothers, daughters etc.

Like the public outcry regarding Zainab Ansari's murder.


Their not really comparable. The Ten commandments of Christianity and Dharma in Buddhism are more like ethical guides for the individual. It is does not get involved with state legislature in the same way Sharia attempts to.

Sharia is just a body of opinion on xyz issue in Islamic ethics. It can be state legislated or not - there is no requirement for it to be one way or another.

You can mandate laws that are based on dharma or mosaic law is my point - you just don't see it happen because most of these countries are staunchly secular. Most Muslim countries are not secular - most are authoritarian so you are more likely to see sharia being implemented on a state level than you would if these countries were secular. People in these countries have very little say on how their laws are made and have very little contribution to the direction of politics - hence the Arab spring and a protests for change - that never usually happens because it's violently put down.

Most Muslims in the UK live perfectly fine according to their sharia (ethical guides for the individual) without it needing to be state legislated - this is why I'm saying Sharia is really no different from any other religious jurisprudence.

The only people that want state legislation for sharia are nutjobs like Anjem Choudhary. I wouldn't base your interpretation of sharia on that dipshit.



Ok that's good but how common are these views in the wider Western Muslim community? Would your family members be ok with openly speaking or writing about their atheism or converting to other religions without concern about threats from other muslims? That is one of the pillars of secular democracy.

I can only speak about the UK muslim community - it's not an issue. People may disagree with your atheism or your conversion to another religion but no one is going to threaten you over it. That's not a common response. Some family members openly speak about not believing in a God or criticism they have with Muslims - that's their choice. I think every Muslim family has somebody who is an agnostic, athiest or not a practising Muslim (just participates in the celebratory stuff but nothing else). Muslims have a pretty laissez faire attitude to it. The conversion to another faith or being gay might be less laissez faire because it's a more divergent lifestyle choice but even attitudes to this are becoming more relaxed. Muslims may strongly disagree with these lifestyle choices but they aren't going to persecute you or threaten you over it.
 
Hypocrisy is a human trait that extends to nearly every human being regardless of what religion they belong to.

The difference here is that you are specifically pointing out hypocrisy among Muslims as though that is somehow unique to everyone else's hypocrisy - when it is not.

Yes Erdogen is a hypocrite - calling out for rights of Muslims but not calling out for those same rights in countries like Saudi Arabia where if you are a Christian you do not have the freedom to practice your faith. Most people - muslim and non muslim alike get that.

The reason he does it is to play to his political base in Turkey - like I said before many repressive governments (with muslim majoirty populations) talk the "Islamic rhetoric" in public but not in practice because the masses tend to be religious (usually poor working class or farmers) - it's almost a prerequisite to stay in power.

People can disagree or voice objection to something privately. Being silent does not necessarily mean that they support xyz or condone it. Note I said people here and not Muslims - because this is a common trait all humans have.

From personal experience I don't know any Muslim here in the UK that hasn't been critical about the vast majority of Muslim countries.

Loads of people here in the UK aren't vocal about drone strikes in other countries while professing secular enlightened values and the right to life & pursuit of happiness. BLM got more traction than drone strikes killing innocent people in Afghanistan or Pakistan did. That doesn't make me think that people in the UK are indifferent though or hypocrites because I understand that people can privately object to it - many people only really riot or take action when their livelihoods are affected. It's a sad truth.

I think that you obviously have your biases like anyone but I'd encourage you too be a bit fair with your criticism.

Everyone knows Erdogen is a tool. But I'm well aware that he isn't the only tool about.





The connection between Western Muslims and their parents countries of origin can be a thing or not.

I know people for example who've never been to where their parents came from and can't speak a lick of the parents mother tongue.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.

I think most western Muslims know that the countries their parents come from are significantly less freer and less tolerant.

But I'd add that don't make the mistake of assuming that most Pakistanis are ok with women being murdered like in the above link and that is a natural response to women in that scenario - it's simply not. It's precisely the public's reaction to these cases that forces corrupt courts/police/legal system to do U turns and actually get justice for victims. Attitudes in these countries may be more conservative for sure but not to the point that most would harm spouses, mothers, daughters etc.

Like the public outcry regarding Zainab Ansari's murder.




Sharia is just a body of opinion on xyz issue in Islamic ethics. It can be state legislated or not - there is no requirement for it to be one way or another.

You can mandate laws that are based on dharma or mosaic law is my point - you just don't see it happen because most of these countries are staunchly secular. Most Muslim countries are not secular - most are authoritarian so you are more likely to see sharia being implemented on a state level than you would if these countries were secular. People in these countries have very little say on how their laws are made and have very little contribution to the direction of politics - hence the Arab spring and a protests for change - that never usually happens because it's violently put down.

Most Muslims in the UK live perfectly fine according to their sharia (ethical guides for the individual) without it needing to be state legislated - this is why I'm saying Sharia is really no different from any other religious jurisprudence.

The only people that want state legislation for sharia are nutjobs like Anjem Choudhary. I wouldn't base your interpretation of sharia on that dipshit.





I can only speak about the UK muslim community - it's not an issue. People may disagree with your atheism or your conversion to another religion but no one is going to threaten you over it. That's not a common response. Some family members openly speak about not believing in a God or criticism they have with Muslims - that's their choice. I think every Muslim family has somebody who is an agnostic, athiest or not a practising Muslim (just participates in the celebratory stuff but nothing else). Muslims have a pretty laissez faire attitude to it. The conversion to another faith or being gay might be less laissez faire because it's a more divergent lifestyle choice but even attitudes to this are becoming more relaxed. Muslims may strongly disagree with these lifestyle choices but they aren't going to persecute you or threaten you over it.
Quite a dramatic difference from:
An investigation for the BBC has found evidence of young people suffering threats, intimidation, being ostracised by their communities and, in some cases, encountering serious physical abuse when they told their families they were no longer Muslims.
The ex-Muslim Britons who are persecuted for being atheists - BBC News
 

I don't doubt some ex-Muslims have these experiences but it's not the norm and to try to paint it out like it's an endemic issue is despicable which the article tries to imply.

But I've come to expect this from most news outlets including the BBC. I like how they conflate apostasy and grooming gangs also - nice touch.

Funny that no factual information or sources are cited anywhere in this article they only mentioned evidence of "some" - an awfully vague word.
 
I don't doubt some ex-Muslims have these experiences but it's not the norm and to try to paint it out like it's an endemic issue is despicable which the article tries to imply.

But I've come to expect this from most news outlets including the BBC. I like how they conflate apostasy and grooming gangs also - nice touch.

Funny that no factual information or sources are cited anywhere in this article they only mentioned evidence of "some" - an awfully vague word.
But who's to say that your experience is the 'norm' or more factual?
 
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.

There’s no god you simpleton.
Also, reading and started laughing at India. A country without toilets, where people openly shit in streets and live in abject poverty can’t be too blessed by the gods. Vast majority of citizens from Russia and China are dirt poor and live in hell. Israel is a bit better but is still a dump and would be in big trouble without begging and crying victim for aid, same goes for the other gulf states we fund and keep alive with proxies and dictatorships. Once we pull the plug they’ll all drown into obscurity before the last barrel of oil is filled.
The only countries with real power are the US and UK. And we aren’t Christian countries, thankfully we follow the god of capitalism and imperialism.
 
I don't doubt some ex-Muslims have these experiences but it's not the norm and to try to paint it out like it's an endemic issue is despicable which the article tries to imply.

But I've come to expect this from most news outlets including the BBC. I like how they conflate apostasy and grooming gangs also - nice touch.

Funny that no factual information or sources are cited anywhere in this article they only mentioned evidence of "some" - an awfully vague word.
What if I’d tell you that the threats for apostasy or atheism apply to ex-Muslims in other countries as well?
 
What if I’d tell you that the threats for apostasy or atheism apply to ex-Muslims in other countries as well?

In a system where allegiance also does- or used to- imply military service as a requirement of membership, the death penalty for apostasy makes sense- it is like desertion.
 
In a system where allegiance also does- or used to- imply military service as a requirement of membership, the death penalty for apostasy makes sense- it is like desertion.
Let's assume it's so : the person born into that has no right to choose another path, unless they want to die?
 
Let's assume it's so : the person born into that has no right to choose another path, unless they want to die?

Yes. Your society has claims on you, and you on it. Your "unchosen" obligations are more important than the ones you choose. I could choose quite a few things right now that would lead to my death; the difference is that our society's values place a different emphasis on what we consider death worthy than theirs.

But to value autonomy for autonomy's sake is hollow; you can't answer why that is superior set of goods without going into how people obtain their values in the first place (it's not off a menu).
 
Consider this: we consider death generally to be the worst punishment. But many cultures consider death to be a lesser sentence than dishonor, like in feudal Japan. In order to make some sort of statement like "Well, the samurai should have the choice to not disembowel himself to avoid dishonor", we simply gloss over a massive amount of value differences, such that the statement is basically incoherent unless the person you are speaking with shares your values.
 
Yes. Your society has claims on you, and you on it. Your "unchosen" obligations are more important than the ones you choose. I could choose quite a few things right now that would lead to my death; the difference is that our society's values place a different emphasis on what we consider death worthy than theirs.

But to value autonomy for autonomy's sake is hollow; you can't answer why that is superior set of goods without going into how people obtain their values in the first place (it's not off a menu).



Death in every culture (except the few extreme examples that you can count with the fingers of your hand) is a taboo and the ultimate form of punishment : Nothin even remotely immoral in life-threatening repercussions for simply not believing in something? I understand that the argument can be made of cultural differences but 'rationalising' a religious death-penalty only raises more severe questions about the compatibility (or the real lack of it really).

Autonomy for autonomy's sake is actually the only reason you (or I) are currently typing what we're typing, having been able to benefit from the moulded values and cumulated freedoms of expression, speech, orientation of interest.

EDIT :
Understanding, contextualising and relativising any behaviour takes very little effort : You do know that the stance you're taking towards death due apostasy can be applied to pretty much any criminal activity or just pretty much any activity for that matter? I'm not going to put any examples here but I'm sure you can think of a few good ones.
If your point is that Islam isn't compatible with the West based on this topic alone, I have to agree with you.
 
Last edited:
Consider this: we consider death generally to be the worst punishment. But many cultures consider death to be a lesser sentence than dishonor, like in feudal Japan. In order to make some sort of statement like "Well, the samurai should have the choice to not disembowel himself to avoid dishonor", we simply gloss over a massive amount of value differences, such that the statement is basically incoherent unless the person you are speaking with shares your values.
A "noble death" chosen by the person, not a person signing off from a religion and getting stoned or ripped apart by an angry mob.
 
Of course it can, but same rules must apply for everyone.
 
It isn't a matter of if Islamic principles are compatible with western society. To an extent they are because there's tons of Muslim's in the U.S. and western society. The question is are Muslim's compatible with western society? The answer is unequivocally yes, as evidenced by....millions of Muslim's.
 
This is incriminating evidence and in the west where our president is a claimed Catholic we will not tolerate this!!! No way Muslim can exist in the western culture based on this bbc article.

But oh wait Biden’s Catholics raped and forced conversions of native North American kids and those who didn’t convert the church killed!

Maybe your skewed idea of Islam is more suited for the west than it is for Saudia lol
 
Back
Top