If Islam is the "Religion of Peace"....

[Kadagar_AV]

So here is what I don't get.

If Islam is the Religion Of Peace... How come it is so misunderstood?

I have two nieces...

One of them is together with a muslim guy...

The other one is together with a buddhist guy...

I must honestly say I got bad vibes in the first place, and positive vibes in the latter case.






As it turns out though, this muslim guy is... Well... a ****ing awesome boyfriend-soon-to-be-husband.

He never drinks, he is totally cool, he respects me, he looks at her with the utmost love in his eyes... As my family situation is rather problematic, I have the role of the father figure to my nieces... And this muslim guy totally holds up to my standards.

Heck, I am glad they are together.




Anyway... as this muslim guy got her pregnant, it was time to take him out on a serious talk. You know the type: "I will support you 100% as long as you don't hurt her, but if you hurt her I will really really REALLY hurt you in a way you won't come back from ever".

Regardless... He more or less broke down in tears and started to talk about how hard it was for him, with his muslim friends... Because he was together with her.

They wouldn't tolerate that she was speaking out among men and shit... And he is now more or less a social outcast, because he choose to treat his girl like he does (with love).



I think my point is clear, but I will state it anyway... There is something rotten in Islam. The more I interact with people of that belief, the harder I get convinced.


That buddhist guy btw? He is shit... Smokes weed all day and will probably never get a proper job.




I guess my question is: When the hell will the west understand that Islam ISN'T just another religion... It's a fanatical sect that should be fought in each and every manner that we possibly can, for the betterment of mankind.

*I prefer to fight with knowledge and education rather than bombs though...*

[Kralizec]

Personally I don't care for labelling religions in either a positive way or a bad way.

Speaking strictly personally, I wouldn't adopt islam even if I developed a belief in a monotheistic god. I have a pretty entenched set of values that are at odds with the way islam has historically viewed things. Even so, there are people who share most of my values and who call themselves muslim because they feel cultural or historical ties with that religion. I'm perfectly fine with those people, and that's all that matters to me.

People should be judged as individuals and not by their group identities. Your buddhist example is a case in point. Furthermore I think people should generally refrain from telling adherents of a religion what their religion is all about. This covers President Obama's statement that IS is 'unislamic' and, on the other side, people who say islam is vile and that muslims are compelled to do X or Y because their holy texts command it.

A related issue is that some people who insist that islam as such is the problem, and that 'liberal muslims' are really just apostates who have pretty much abandoned their religion in all but name. It's like demanding that they chose between renouncing their religious identity or becoming fundamentalists who interpret scripture literally. Politicians are called politically correct wimps for saying comments like that are "unhelpful" but I think that pretty much nails it.

[Kadagar_AV]

Personally I don't care for labelling religions in either a positive way or a bad way.

Speaking strictly personally, I wouldn't adopt islam even if I developed a belief in a monotheistic god. I have a pretty entenched set of values that are at odds with the way islam has historically viewed things. Even so, there are people who share most of my values and who call themselves muslim because they feel cultural or historical ties with that religion. I'm perfectly fine with those people, and that's all that matters to me.

People should be judged as individuals and not by their group identities. Your buddhist example is a case in point. Furthermore I think people should generally refrain from telling adherents of a religion what their religion is all about. This covers President Obama's statement that IS is 'unislamic' and, on the other side, people who say islam is vile and that muslims are compelled to do X or Y because their holy texts command it.

A related issue is that some people who insist that islam as such is the problem, and that 'liberal muslims' are really just apostates who have pretty much abandoned their religion in all but name. It's like demanding that they chose between renouncing their religious identity or becoming fundamentalists who interpret scripture literally. Politicians are called politically correct wimps for saying comments like that are "unhelpful" but I think that pretty much nails it.

Well you'd be stupid then.

My question stands: How come that my muslim-soon-somewhat-brother-in-law get shunned for treating a Swedish woman as a woman should be treated?


Please, OH PLEASE, show me where in the Quran where this is wrong from a muslim perspective? I have this muslim guy broken up in tears, I am sure it would help him. It would help my family.

I ****in dare you to show one single tidbit.

[CrossLOPER]

So here is what I don't get.

There are retarded fuckwits in the world. Some of them are religious.

Such a mystery.

[Fragony]

Religion of pieces everywhere

[CrossLOPER]

Religion of pieces everywhere

You should do public shows.

[Fragony]

You should do public shows.

Yeah I'm good.

Answer to the original question is easy though. There is the house of peace 'dar al islam'(muslim world) and the house of war, 'dar al harb' (the rest). So islam is not peace, peace is islam, in other words, there is peace if you submit to islam.

[Crandar]

It concerns how attached someone is to his religion, not in what religion he believes.

If your niece's social and familiar environment was as devoted to christianity as his boyfriends' is to islamism, then she'd face the exact same problems.
The problem with islamism is that a rather large number of people take it too seriously compared to the other religions.

[Ironside]

Kadagar, that has a lot more to do with tribalism or clan thinking rather than religion. Basically, the clan (=extended family) unity is considered more more important than any induvidual and that type of freezing out is how to keep the clan together. I doubt most of them has even red the Quran, outside possibly being forced to do it in school or something. Certainly not well enough to base their opinions from a scholar perspective.

See that as driven by "You can't trust anyone, but family." " If you can't trust family, who can you trust?"
It's horrible for anything outside situation like that though (like a functional modern state), and I wouldn't mind if that attitude weakened or disappeared. But Islam got very little influence on that.

The Bible is horrible on women's rights as well (submit to your husband and shut up), but those parts are outright ignored by the Swedish church for example. That's the problem with thick holy books, if they're long enough and if you ignore context, then you can read almost anything into it.

To put a counter example: If Islam is a fanatical sect, why have they been more culturally open, more technologically advanced and richer than Europe historically? That part of the world certainly got major issues today, but if Islam was the red thread in that development, the peak for that part of the world wouldn't happen after centuries of Islam.
Those "supersmart" Far East asians like the Chinese also succeded in ending up stagnant and regressive. Without influence from Islam.

[Greyblades]

The problem with islamism is that a rather large number of people take it too seriously compared to the other religions.

I agree with this up to the part where it is compared to the other religions, I would argue that it is completely proportional to most other religions. The issue is that of exposure.

Through multiple factors, both inside and out of the islamic populations, the overzealous or crazy members are being exposed to the rest of the world in a degree greater than of those other religions.

Indeed, I have no doubt people would be saying the same of American protestants* if it were not for the the more secular and sane majority of the country being visible enough to make negative generalisations hard to defend.

*thier methods of political sabotage while less obvious to the outsider than islam's makes thier bodycount no less obscene.

[Fragony]

What does it have with tribalism here? There are no tribes here. Just a question, as islamic immigrants are more ilke colonists if they import their issues instead off leaving them behind in the place they came from. Leftists are even more confusing, they absolutily adore conservative islam but mock normal christians who never wrong anyone, how does that resonate?

[rory_20_uk]

It concerns how attached someone is to his religion, not in what religion he believes.

If your niece's social and familiar environment was as devoted to christianity as his boyfriends' is to islamism, then she'd face the exact same problems.
The problem with islamism is that a rather large number of people take it too seriously compared to the other religions.

Quakers? I can't imagine them acting in this way. Even pretty committed CoE practitioners are friendly and the most extreme might send a pretty stern letter or two - not suicide bomb those who are different.

I do think that most of this is cultural rather than anything else - women of all religions tend to cover their head in the Middle East and probably did before Islam / Christianity were around.

[Hax]

OP's post is anecdotal evidence, but okay.

What does it have with tribalism here? There are no tribes here.

That's a bit naive: in the Netherlands, the majority of Moroccans that live here originate from the same villages in Morocco.

Regardless... He more or less broke down in tears and started to talk about how hard it was for him, with his muslim friends... Because he was together with her.

He has dicks for friends.

As much as I dislike contemporary Islam (for different reasons), I think that this issue really doesn't have too much to do with religion. The reason why his "friends" responded the way they did is probably out of spite or jealousy or something else that can be explained perfectly well within a more social-economic context. You can criticise mass immigration, which would make more sense, because I don't really think it has too much to do with Islam here. Unless you consider all acts of all Muslims at any moment as Islam, of course.

I guess my question is: When the hell will the west understand that Islam ISN'T just another religion... It's a fanatical sect that should be fought in each and every manner that we possibly can, for the betterment of mankind.

Okay but..like, is your sister's boyfriend a fanatic sectarian? This kind of criticism towards Islam (which is totally understandable) often degrades to "no true Scotsman" when confronted with (orthodox) Muslims that do not behave along the expected pattern (i.e. they don't want to kill everyone who isn't them).

As for your quote, look towards Ibn Arabi, f.ex.:

O Marvel! a garden amidst the flames.
My heart has become capable of every form:
it is a pasture for gazelles and a convent for Christian monks,
and a temple for idols and the pilgrim's Kaa'ba,
and the tables of the Torah and the book of the Quran.
I follow the religion of Love: whatever way Love's camels take,
that is my religion and my faith.

[Ironside]

What does it have with tribalism here? There are no tribes here. Just a question, as islamic immigrants are more ilke colonists if they import their issues instead off leaving them behind in the place they came from. Leftists are even more confusing, they absolutily adore conservative islam but mock normal christians who never wrong anyone, how does that resonate?

I take it you're sarcastic? Full integration is a generational process. And that's depends on the person but are quite universial. I've met Americans that doesn't call themselves Swedes despite working and living here for 30+ years.
And I think you're mixing up people on the leftists. The ones mocking normal christians who never wrong anyone are aggressive atheists and don't like muslims either (the christian who do wrong people have a larger mocking group). The ones defending conservative islam are usually conflicted between cultural domination and human rights and linger more on cultural domination being wrong.
Then you have the people who get suspicious about hate groups forming, due to simplifications of complex issues and are by themselves creating more issues.

[Fragony]

No sorry, I am dead serious. Leftist people will have to choose between respect for islam and western humanistic values.

[Greyblades]

Respecting something you are not is physically impossible, apparently.

[Fragony]

poof post is gone

[CrossLOPER]

No sorry, I am dead serious. Leftist people will have to choose between respect for islam and western humanistic values.

You really should move to Russia. There are ton of people there that I know will welcome your views.

[Fragony]

You really should move to Russia. There are ton of people there that I know will welcome your views.

100.000? I should probably stay in the Netherlands as millions share my views here

[CrossLOPER]

100.000? I should probably stay in the Netherlands as millions share my views here

I am not even sure what you are referring to.

[Fragony]

I am not even sure what you are referring to.

likewise, what are the views you talk about

[Kadagar_AV]

There are verses in the Quaran about when to beat your wife and stuff...

I agree that my nieces guy probably have more problem with tribalistic thinking, as they come from a country that is, well, barbaric in my eyes...

However, let's not forget or forgive WHAT EXACTLY THEIR HOLY BOOK SAY.

Again, can someone point out why it WOULD be wrong to beat your wife, or let her have her say around men, according to the Quran??


The words are all there.

Could, say, Buddhist main texts lead a man to treat his woman badly physically and mentally? I still claim there is something very ****ing rotten in and of Islam itself.

[Husar]

Meh.

http://biblehub.com/proverbs/23-14.htm

13Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die. 14You shall strike him with the rod And rescue his soul from Sheol.

The bible says you should beat your child with a rod. Let's not forgive or forget what those Christians' holy book says!!!!111

Can anyone point out where the bible supports gender equality? Shouldn't we ban christian parties like Merkel's CDU from politics because obviously their holy book says horrible things?

THE WORDS ARE ALL THERE!!!!!

[Kadagar_AV]

Meh.

http://biblehub.com/proverbs/23-14.htm


The bible says you should beat your child with a rod. Let's not forgive or forget what those Christians' holy book says!!!!111

Can anyone point out where the bible supports gender equality? Shouldn't we ban christian parties like Merkel's CDU from politics because obviously their holy book says horrible things?

THE WORDS ARE ALL THERE!!!!!

I am not defending Christianity in any way. It has absolutely vile texts in it as well...





Your logic still seem utterly off though... Do you argue that a lesser evil makes a bigger evil ok? Or what?

[Fragony]

Always the same, BUT TEH BIBLE!!!1!

Completily irrelevant argument as the bible is written in passed present and the quran in imperative.

bible:did this. quran:do this.

[Husar]

Your logic still seem utterly off though...

I copied your logic for the most part...

Always the same, BUT TEH BIBLE!!!1!

Completily irrelevant argument as the bible is written in passed present and the quran in imperative.

bible:did this. quran:do this.

The part I quoted is very "do this", wouldn't you say?

[Fragony]

Of course there some imperatives, but it's cherrypicking them out. You just can't compare the bible with the quran when it comes to what it's followers must do. Just because there are a few imperatives doesn't mean it's full of them. The bible is also a violent book, no doubt. But kiiiiiinda less violent no.

Also, christians the new testament overrules the old. That is the same islam, newer verses overrule the old, so the peacefull parts don't mean anything.

[Husar]

Of course there some imperatives, but it's cherrypicking them out. You just can't compare the bible with the quran when it comes to what it's followers must do. Just because there are a few imperatives doesn't mean it's full of them. The bible is also a violent book, no doubt. But kiiiiiinda less violent no.

Maybe. And maybe most religions nowadays cherry pick.

Also, christians the new testament overrules the old. That is the same islam, newer verses overrule the old, so the peacefull parts don't mean anything.

That's funny because the same argument is often used to arrive at the opposite conclusion, that the violent parts don't mean anything.
And if the new testament is what turns Christianity from evil to good, does that mean jews are really evil then because they reject the new testament?

[Fragony]

Not sure about the last part, you are christian you probably know better. As far as I know that isn't in the bible but I could be wrong there. Be my limited knowledge they are supossedly doomed for rejecting christ, but there is no active imperative to hunt them down as far as I know.

[Husar]

Not sure about the last part, you are christian you probably know better. As far as I know that isn't in the bible but I could be wrong there. Be my limited knowledge they are supossedly doomed for rejecting christ, but there is no active imperative to hunt them down as far as I know.

A lot of Christians support them because they are still somehow seen as God's chosen people, but I have no idea why.
There is no real imperative to hunt anything down but sin itself in the new testament if I'm not mistaken.

But the point is, if someone says we cannot live together with Muslims because their religion has evil words in its holy book, why should that apply only to muslims? Should we judge people based on the amount of evil words in their holy book or based on what they do with it and how they actually behave? We keep blaming them for having medieval morals and then advocate a solution that sounds incredibly medieval. Now I'm aware that this thread isn't about any solutions, but maybe I should just ignore threads that only point out obvious sub-issues for no apparent reason.