http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7112929.stm
Have you ever heard of anything more ridiculous? Any sensible Muslims (if that is not an oxymoron) need to speak up against these kind of ludicrous stories.
It doesn't get any more ridiculous than this...
- Thread starter MikeUpNorth
- Start date
Have you ever heard of anything more ridiculous? Any sensible Muslims (if that is not an oxymoron) need to speak up against these kind of ludicrous stories.
Wonder if Muslims have a problem that I nick-named my cock that too
I love religion I do.
"Insult to Islam"
feck off
feck off
Wonder if Muslims have a problem that I nick-named my cock that too
I guess it's similar to calling your cock 'Je#*s' and then wondering if Christians will have a problem with that...
Yes, there's nothing like religious fundamentalists overreacting. I think there's a new documentary out about 'Jesus Camp' in the States; the leader kept banging on about how Harry Potter was written by Satan. Admittedly, it is bad, but Satan? Well, probably...
It seems some in authority are not happy about a Christian school and using this and the on going tax issue as an excuse/stick to bring down the school.
Crazy...
Crazy...
My wife said "Jesus!" when she first saw my cock.
she was that disappointed?
Which in all honesty, I doubt many Christians would even bat an eye about
yes, "turning the other cheek" comes to mind....
Shes facing 40 lashes for this apparently....
Kinell... up till now I've been impressed by your posts in the CE Mike, but that's pretty obnoxious stuff, both the bigoted aside, and the main sentiment.
Tell me, do you feel it incumbent upon you to publicly condemn any 'ludicrous stories' concerning Englishmen, or Northerners, or people called Mike?
Do you know any actual, real-life Muslims? Cos the ones I know would find the notion that they're expected to 'speak up against' or in any way apologise for any idiocies that particular co-religionists of theirs might come up with, pretty fecking idiotic itself.
Whilst I share your sentiments in the main, Plech, I do want to point out that most muslims are quite happy to say that Islam is a peaceful religion, and has been twisted by certain groups of people, whilst other muslims buy into the "New Islam" as not dictated in the Qur'an.
If anyone is going to stop the spread of this hateful sub-division of Islam, then it's other muslims. They're quite happy to distance themselves from it, but they often still defend it all the same.
You're right, though. Islam, when practiced properly, is a fairly benevolent religion. As far as I can tell it's far less oppressive (particularly to women) than many other religions.
Well, there's various different traditions of Islam, none of which I'm an expert on, so I won't comment on the treatment of women issue, except to say that some traditions, which certainly consider themselves to be Islam 'practiced properly', treat women appallingly. See the Saudi thread next door for instance...
As far as I'm concerned all religious philosophies have some pretty despicable content... and yes that includes Buddhism.
Nevertheless, making sweeping statements about what "moderate Muslims" need to do or their failings, just strike me as ignorant group profiling. Most "moderate Muslims" are just getting on with their lives like anyone else. Why should my next-door neighbour, who's got a job and kids and debts like everyone else, have to take time out to stand up and condemn anything just cos some twats in Sudan have decided to be more than usually retarded?
He worded it poorly, I agree. In fact, very poorly. But I think what he was trying to say was that he wanted muslims who believe it to be fair to argue their point.
Those moderate muslims who live next door to you probably find this treatment fairly deplorable, too.
I also think it's fairly normal to be defensive when you feel under attack. As it happens there's loads of debate and discussion and disagreement within Islam in the UK and eslewhere, on just these issues. But there may be a tendency to close ranks, when they feel, quite rightly, that they're being asked not only to condemn things which they do disagree with, but to basically declare whether they're "with us or against us".
Fecking hell, there's currently 5 car-loads of Arabs beeping their horns outside my flat... they do this every other night, whenever there's a wedding... stop at the traffic lights, honking their horns and dancing, then all leap back in when it goes green and burn off at top speed. I genuinely wish some moderate Muslims would condemn this tradition...
There is no-one strong enough in the Islamic world to speak up against such issues
I accept my phrasing was deliberately provocative but I stand by the sentiment behind it. The provocation was intended to see if there were any Muslims willing to defend themselves as 'sensible' and condemn the various parts of their faith (the ones actually written in the Qur'an) which are immoral and incompatible with modern civilised society.
The difference with the propositions contained within your second paragraph is that being English or Northern or named Mike is NOT a belief system; Islam IS a belief system. If you are part of a belief system you should be able to defend or condemn parts of it, and I think a certain responsibility DOES fall on members of any belief system to speak out when other members commit immoral acts.
One of my good friends is actually an ex-Muslim and he has no issue with speaking up in support or condemnation of aspects of the faith. I think some of us need to take a slight step back from all this 'respect' for faith that is talked about, and actually question beliefs (not just Islam by any means). Do you know the teachings which are contained within the Qur'an or the Bible or other religious scriptures? Do you think they are defensible? Do you think these teachings can be held up as 'moral' by some people, and that these people can simultaneously be called 'sensible'? Do we need to help the people who have been indoctrinated into a faith, or who do not even know the contents of their own faith, to better understand it? Or escape it? These are not rhetorical questions, they do need some serious consideration.
It's not as simple as that, Islam's not just a religion, it's a culture. Your friend may consider himself 'ex-Muslim', but plenty more might consider themselves atheist Muslims. A lot of sophisticated Berlin Jews in the forties considered themselves 'ex-Jews' because of their atheism, the Nazis disagreed. Admittedly it's a bit different with Jews because it's a race/ethnicity as well as a religion/culture, but there is some overlap... most British Muslims are Asian, so fears about negative perceptions of their religion/culture easily segue into fears about perceptions of their race.
Personally I don't feel relgious liturgy is deserving of respect as a belief system (though much of it is as a literary creation), and I have no qualms about saying so. But that's no reason to hold individuals responsible for the stupidities of particular members of the same group.
The English/Northern thing, while obviously different in some respects, is a fair analogy. There is a reasonable argument that if you're going to have national pride, you have to admit to national shame. I think that's fair enough. On the other hand, I don't feel I personally need to condemn or apologise when any particular Englishman does something shameful. I do feel the shame, albeit in a pretty blunt way. And in some cases it may be admirable to stand up and declare it - an example might be a Stop the War march. But just as I don't think people should be castigated for not going on such marches, I don't think individual Muslims should be castigated for not declaring their positions on the misdeeds of particular Muslims worldwide. Nor do I think they should be pressured into so doing. People have different ways of responding to events, some people are private, some are public, who are we to tell them what to proclaim to the world?
What I suspect is that the constant call for 'moderate' or 'sensible' Muslims to nail their colours to the mast on Islamist terrorism or Sudanese barbarities, is really something different, and uglier.
Personally I don't feel relgious liturgy is deserving of respect as a belief system (though much of it is as a literary creation), and I have no qualms about saying so. But that's no reason to hold individuals responsible for the stupidities of particular members of the same group.
The English/Northern thing, while obviously different in some respects, is a fair analogy. There is a reasonable argument that if you're going to have national pride, you have to admit to national shame. I think that's fair enough. On the other hand, I don't feel I personally need to condemn or apologise when any particular Englishman does something shameful. I do feel the shame, albeit in a pretty blunt way. And in some cases it may be admirable to stand up and declare it - an example might be a Stop the War march. But just as I don't think people should be castigated for not going on such marches, I don't think individual Muslims should be castigated for not declaring their positions on the misdeeds of particular Muslims worldwide. Nor do I think they should be pressured into so doing. People have different ways of responding to events, some people are private, some are public, who are we to tell them what to proclaim to the world?
What I suspect is that the constant call for 'moderate' or 'sensible' Muslims to nail their colours to the mast on Islamist terrorism or Sudanese barbarities, is really something different, and uglier.
There is. But they end up leaving the Islamic world pretty quickly after speaking up, an awakening I would call it.
It is a tragedy that people who do speak up have to live their lives under the threat of violence and murder and need armed guards to protect them, Ayaan Hirsi Ali being a prime example.
Islam is only a culture because they make it a culture, there is no Muslim race. You are not born Muslim, or Christian, or whatever, your religion is enforced upon you.
There was a case in the 1950’s where two identical twins in Germany were separated at birth. One was raised by a Jewish family and suffered in the concentration camps. The other was raised by a German family and he was a Hitler Youth member. They met up in the 50’s and became close despite having hated each other’s ‘race’ in the previous years. Neither was born a Jew or a bigot, things are enforced upon people.
There was a case in the 1950’s where two identical twins in Germany were separated at birth. One was raised by a Jewish family and suffered in the concentration camps. The other was raised by a German family and he was a Hitler Youth member. They met up in the 50’s and became close despite having hated each other’s ‘race’ in the previous years. Neither was born a Jew or a bigot, things are enforced upon people.
Only her, a woman or Salman Rushdie in the last thirty years out of a billion muslims on the planet......
If you listen to what she has to say, then it might be clear why there are not many people from Muslim backgrounds willing to speak up.
I know why, they beat, kill, maim etc these people, not just the women, but my theory, and it is just that, not the truth, is that there are many Muslims who believe things should change within their archaic societies but do not wish to be the first to speak out in fear of ridicule and/or worse, ie; prosecution or death.
No. Islam is a religion, there are many different cultures contained across the world in 'Muslim' countries.
May I suggest that if they do find things contained in their faith immoral, then speaking up about them may be a good way to create a positive image of their 'race'.
I do not hold individuals responsible for the actions of others, but I do hold individuals responsible for their own beliefs (although I am considerate to the dangers of indoctrination). The question was always of people's own beliefs, and whether they consider them.
I am concerned that there are very few people who speak out against these actions though. I can understand this in the 'real world' due to the pressures of family and risk of repercussions. Thankfully there are a few individuals who are willing to put themselves in risk to speak out. However, the anonymity and ease of the internet should allow many more people to express their outrage in safety, if this is what they feel.
What is your implication?
Yes, culture is made, but once it's made it's there and people are brought up in it and identify with it. No less so for British culture or football culture.
Jewishness is a bit different as it is actually an ethnic group, we've been basically marrying within the group for centuries, millenia even. There's obviously been a fair amount of non-Jewish blood brought in over the years, but that's the case with any racial group. For instance, there's a disease, Tay Sachs, that affects Jews much more than other ethnic groups - you can't pin that on culture, that's a genetic propensity.
The case of the German Jew you mention means little, obviously because most Jews are white, you can be brought up not realising you're Jewish. But plenty of others who thought they weren't Jewish realised otherwise when the Nazis looked at their papers and decided they were.
Life would be easy of course if everything were simple, and you could say, as Dawkins does, "Judaism is a relgion, therefore a child cannot be born a Jew, only indoctrinated into it." But it's not actually true. It's an ethnic group, a culture, a religion, and according to its own lights a nation. Personally speaking, I don't believe in God and I think the religious liturgy, excepting some beautiful poetry and storytelling, is largely guff. But if you tell me I'm not Jewish, I'll tell you you're talking bollocks... and if you saw my nose you'd agree...
I think its important to separate the Jewish faith (religion / belief system), from the Jewish ethnicity and heritage (culture). Just because the word 'Jew' is common to both things, it does not mean they aren't separable.
As you say you can be proud of your heritage as an ethnic Jew and its heritage, but still reject the Jewish faith (religion) if you so chose. At least I would like to think this is the case. I would also like to say you are free to 'believe' the old testament without being an ethnic Jew.
But Jews were from the middle-east and have remarkably similar physical attributes to Arabs, ie; the noses that you speak of and the dark hair. The fact that Jews have these genes is becasue yes, they've been marrying into each other's flaws or whatever for millenia, there are blonde Jews and fair skinned Jews because a lot of them in modern day Israel descend from European Jews who interbred with non-Jews who in turn descended from those from modern day Palestine and the middle-east, it's easy to distinguish why this is mate. And British people aren't all into football, it's a hugley popular culture, but then again there are different levels of this, ie; the yobs, the fnataics, the casual fans, the armchair etc. All ahve different beliefs on what's what, unlike religious fanatics and even normal resident sof radical countries who are all inclined to be of the same belief
There are indeed, but human culture is a complicated thing, there is Arab culture, Turkish culture, Kurdish culture etc., and then there is Islamic culture, contained in a thousand years' worth of art, storytelling, jokes, philosophy, to some extent music, and yes religion, wich forms another culture shared by many of the above and cutting across them. Likewise, there's British culture, English culture, Northern culture, Mancunian culture, Man United culture.
Like it or not culture is messy, and like it or not religion is a part of culture, however much we atheists would like to draw it out from under the protective umbrella the word "culture" seems to ensure things, the better to expose it.
You may, and I agree with you, don't get me wrong I would be delighted if Muslims, and Jews and Christians for that matter, stood up more against the idiocies and evils of orthodoxy. Just as I think it would largely be a good thing if more British people spoke out against things the nation does which they disagree with or feel ashamed of. But it's not my place to tell them to do so, or cast aspersions of extremism against them if they don't.
Why does being responsible for your own beliefs mean you have to speak out against those who hold different ones?
Hopefully it will. Many, though, will prefer to feel private shame, or pretend it's not happening, or think about Wayne Rooney's ankle instead, and who's to say them nay? Most of us are politically apathetic, why's it Muslims who get the flak for this?
That some - I didn't mean you, even though I was surprised by your language given the reasonableness and coherence of the views I've seen you express on here before - are issuing less a call for condemnation than a condemnation of their own. Something like, "You're either with us or against us, and if you stay silent, we'll assume you're against us." That's one of the most dangerous political sentiments you can get.
There's a difference between being jewish and being semitic. A semite is an ethnic group (and lets not get into ethnic groups being inherently racist), a jew is a religion.
One thousand years ago most christians were white. It doesn't mean that the two are one and the same. Non-whites can be christian, and non-christians can be white.
Semites can be jewish, or they can not. A prime example was Marx. He was perhaps one of the most anti-theist people in recent history, and yet he was a semite. But he wasn't a jew.
Arabs can be arabs without being muslim. Suggesting that the two are almost inextricably linked almost borders on bigotry, in my opinion. Is Nicholas Anelka arabic? Was Malcolm X?
Religion might well be associated with a race purely because hundreds of years ago when these things arose, race was what defined, to a large extent, the culture one belonged in, and the culture defined the religion. But that is not the case nowadays. To say that an arab is muslim, or a semite is jewish is no better than saying a poor man is black, or a stupid man is Irish.
But now I suspect you'll have some wonderful explanation of why I'm totally wrong.
You can separate them, but not cleanly... that's life. Fact is, there are elements of the religion that are also part of the culture. For instance, I don't believe in God or the literal truth of the old testament, but I can read Hebrew and still consider, say, the Song of Solomon, or Psalm 23, very much part of my culture, they're stupendous poems whether you believe them or not. Jewish food's generally Eastern-European and not derived from liturgy, but the food you eat on Passover is intimately connected with the Pasover narrative...it's complicated.
I appreciate I'm being as bit of a pain in the arse here, but that is our traditional role...
Yes, you can convert, although it's bloody tough, you have to learn Hebrew and then pass a test in front of a bunch of rabbis... not much fun. Because Judaism's not a proselytising religion, conversions are fairly rare.
I don't really know what your point is. But yes, there are two main strands of Jewry. It's quite complicated though - I'm Ashkenazi, ie Eastern European stock, but like many of them I'm darkish-skinned and dark-haired...yet some Ashkenazis are blond or red-haired. The (slight) majority of original Israelis were actually from middle-eastern background, so look like Arabs, but in the last few years loads more Russians have emigrated there.
Supposedly we're all originally from Palestine, but you have to suspect that at some stage (probably the Khazar empire of the 9th-12th centuries, a load of Slavic and other middle-European blood got in). For one thing, it used to be the case that Jewishness was considered to pass through the paternal line, but this was apparently changed because so many women got raped by Cossacks and the like that paternity became impossible to determine in many cases...)
Anyway, the point is, you can quibble about the definition of a 'race', but there's no doubt that Jews constitute an ethnic group, as the Tay-Sachs thing makes clear.
I suggest if you take the 'belief' in Islam being true or morally commendable out of those cultures you mention, they are dramatically improved. An unrealistic dream? Yes, at least in the short to medium term. But Islam in itself is not a culture. I feel sorry for people if they have to identify themselves purely by their belief systems. Beautiful culture exists without any need for religion, not to deny the role that religion has played in forming the various cultures of the world.
Agreed. However, I would say that the difference with a nation is that you can be a liberal in a conservative country (for example) and therefore should not necessarily feel 'ashamed' (as you say) of actions committed by the state. You could argue that the various interpretations of the scriptures within religions represent a similar situation to this, but I would argue people do not come out and declare the parts of their scripture which they feel are immoral and should be cast aside.
If you go under the same banner and base your beliefs on the same scriptures, then I think you should feel a certain obligation to, at the very worst, 'correct' people's wrong interpretation (if that is what it is) of your faith.
I suspect the answer to your last question is that Islam is responsible for more violence in the world than other faiths and that it has not traditionally been part of western culture so is naturally less accepted.
On a personal note, I give far more flack to Christianity (usually Catholicism) than Islam (mainly because I have a better knowledge of the faith and am better informed) . I do not single Islam and Muslims out unfairly.
Sometimes I do think you have to cause a little bit of 'controversy' with expressions to get some attention; I do not think my language was particularly unreasonable, and I have tried to subsequently defend it.
You are right about the danger of veiled condemnation. If you are going to condemn something, then you have every right to do so, but do it openly. At the same time I do not feel it is unreasonable to question a person as to whether they themselves agree or disagree with an action, and to what extent.
islam is not a religion anymore, its a dictatorship. it tells you how to live, what to wear, what to eat, when to eat, when to pray etc etc. someone says something even remotely against it, then they suffer, how dare someone criticize islam!!! HOW DARE THEY!!!
The "West", particularly since 9-11, has felt under attack from Muslim extremists. This has undoubtedly resulted in there being more antagonism between various racial/religious/cultural groups in many countries.
When 9-11 or something like this happens there is often (naturally?) an instinct in all of us to want quick answers regarding who to blame and particularly when it comes to a religion/culture that we don't understand or even mistrust is involved it is easy to shout "Ah Ha. Nobody said it was stupid therefore everyone agrees with it". Which is of course a dangerous line of thought because the people who agree won't speak out against it and those who disagree won't feel in any way associated with it. And none of us tend to apologise for stuff we haven't done or aren't associated with. Except possibly the English but that is more a verbal tick than anything else.
However, if there was someone from, in this case, the Muslim world who did stand up and say "Oih. Stop embarrassing the rest of us in the name of our God" it would be a great idea that would potentially do a great service to race/religion/cultural relations between various groups. Black Africa might benefit from such an approach when dealing with loons like Zimbabwe as well.
I also haven't seen the Pope apologising for the majority of Christian stupidity or at least not until a long time after the fact and Muslims don't even have such a centralised hierarchy.
When 9-11 or something like this happens there is often (naturally?) an instinct in all of us to want quick answers regarding who to blame and particularly when it comes to a religion/culture that we don't understand or even mistrust is involved it is easy to shout "Ah Ha. Nobody said it was stupid therefore everyone agrees with it". Which is of course a dangerous line of thought because the people who agree won't speak out against it and those who disagree won't feel in any way associated with it. And none of us tend to apologise for stuff we haven't done or aren't associated with. Except possibly the English but that is more a verbal tick than anything else.
However, if there was someone from, in this case, the Muslim world who did stand up and say "Oih. Stop embarrassing the rest of us in the name of our God" it would be a great idea that would potentially do a great service to race/religion/cultural relations between various groups. Black Africa might benefit from such an approach when dealing with loons like Zimbabwe as well.
I also haven't seen the Pope apologising for the majority of Christian stupidity or at least not until a long time after the fact and Muslims don't even have such a centralised hierarchy.
No, "Semitic" is a largely linguistic term, unless you're talking 'anti-'. We may possibly share more genes with Arabs than non-Jewish Europeans do, but it will all be pretty diluted by now. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Jews constitute an ethnic group, we've bred among ourselves for so long that the physical and genetic characteristics are clear.
Christianity's totally different, they mass-converted people.
No, Marx was an ethnic Jew, the son of two Jews, despite being somewhat bigoted against Jews. No-one really uses "Semitic" in this sense these days.
Islam is different, they mass-converted people. "Arab" is an ethnic group in a similar way to "Jew", but Arabs follow different religions, whereas Jews generally only follow Judaism, or nothing. You can't just legislate based on what you want to be the case, I'm a Jew who's not a religious Jew, doesn't follow the religion... loads of Jews like me still consider themselves Jews, as an ethnic/cultural group, we never refer to ourselves as "Semites", it's just not a term that's used, apart from in reference to anti-Semites... that does confuse matters, but it's just a historical anomaly.
The fact is, Jewishness is something of an exception because it's a group of people who share both a religion/culture and an ethnic identity. Christianity and Islam, being proselytising religions, converted millions of people of different races. Judaism didn't, it stayed self-contained (well, with the possible exception of the Khazars... they might have been proselytising Jews, and may have contributed to the genetic pool, but no-one really knows.)
Clearly it's a complex issue, because if a Jew converts to Christianity, say, his children might, being white, not even know they're Jewish, and so after a couple of generations they won't be Jewish anymore (though that that can happen to any race that intermarries. Genetic traits might still re-emerge though, just as Jewish ones might, like the Tay Sachs gene).
Also, within ethnic Jewry there's some considerable variation, not just Ashkenazi/Sephardi, but also the Falasha Ethiopians, who are black. But again, you look at an ethnic group like "African American", and close-up it's actually a palimpsest of different racial groups.
So to sum up, it's some sort of combination of a cultural and ethnic group. The "Semitic" thing is a red herring, it just means the same as "ethnic Jew", or more usually these days it means the language group.
Shut up big nose I can't hear
islam is not a religion anymore, its a dictatorship. it tells you how to live, what to wear, what to eat, when to eat, when to pray etc etc. someone says something even remotely against it, then they suffer, how dare someone criticize islam!!! HOW DARE THEY!!!
Most religions dictate what you do to at least some degree. It is the point really. There wouldn't be much point otherwise.
Well, I suspect neither of us is an expert on Islam, we'll have to wait for Sults to come and sort us out. But I would guess that Muslims and Islamic scholars talk of Muslim/Islamic culture, as this Wikipedia entry suggests:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_culture
As a side note, I follow the (atheist) philosopher John Gray in regarding those who believe it's possible to somehow remove errant belief-systems from human culture as essentially religious themselves.
I don't understand what you mean there.
I understand that you think they should feel that, but I'm not getting any closer to understanding what you're basing that on.
Let's return to my neighbour, let's call him Ali. I'm pretty sure he doesn't approve of Sharia as practised in Sudan. Other things he doesn't approve of include parking fines, me playing loud music, the war in Iraq, and identity cards. He's also got a job with long hours, young kids, a nagging mother-in-law. What exactly would you have him do?
It might or might not be more responsible for violence, that possibly depends how influenced by Christianity you think the Bush administration is.
When David Koresh set fire to himself and fifty other people, did you demand that moderate Christians distance themselves from him? What about when that nut shot Rabin? Should I - or let's say my mother, who vaguely believes in the religion in a wishy-washy CofE type way - have publicly disassociated herself from his group? Why? She's from fecking Yorkshire, it was sod all to do with her.
I've heard worse, but the common implication that all religious believers are fools is Dawkinsesque silliness, which clearly doesn't accord with the reality that many of our finest minds have been and are religious.
I think it depends on the context. In the current climate, it's very tricky. We're currently at war with two Muslim states, the Iraq one in particular on pretty dubious grounds.. A lot of Muslims are inevitably going to feel split identity, and will feel that being asked to condemn Muslim regimes abroad as barbaric is implicitly being asked to support the so-called War on Terror. Now they might be wrong about that, but in the circumstances a little sensitivity might not do any harm, and not doing any harm seems a wise ambition in the current climate.