That is such a horribly simplistic view of things.
Shooting at Charlie Hebdo HQ in Paris
- Thread starter rednev
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Don't confuse simplistic with reality.
It's not reality really, it's a terrible generalization.
All u need to know is here...
You might have a point by generalising the 'Muslim world' as contributing very little in recent history, but its a bit disingenuous to generalise the billions of Muslims to have lived over the last couple of centuries to have contributed nothing to the world no?
It's nonsense, obviously.
If he was to say that Islamic countries have contributed relatively little to progress in the last couple of centuries he'd probably have a point though. Not only regarding technology but also in terms of societal advances, such as equal rights for women, gay marriage etc. etc.`
I'm talking about the ummah, which is the Islamic world.
Yes, there are individuals who perhaps have contributed to something, but even then statistically it's a very small percentage compared to what non-muslim scholars, intellectuals and artists have contributed to the advancement of mankind as a species.
The ummah is caught up in its own turmoil, which they for narcissistic reasons cannot grasp that it is within their own powers to turn things around, instead they decide to blame anyone else from the outside, instead of looking inwards to themselves and see how they could make a change for the better. For the time being that change is sectarian strife and an interpretation of their beliefsystem beyond anything acceptable for those who are far away from it.
Fantastic to see all the tolerance of the modern world proposed by some in this thread which is in fact throwing shit at and generalising a walking evil called 'religion'.
Really sorry to see what happened there, thoughts with the families of the victims, hope that the scum that's done that attack is severely punished with the right kind of punishment.
Really sorry to see what happened there, thoughts with the families of the victims, hope that the scum that's done that attack is severely punished with the right kind of punishment.
Last edited:
It's not terribly realistic either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists
I don't agree with Sam Harris that Islam is a singularly dangerous religion, but I do agree it (or interpretations of it) pose a singularly dangerous modern threat preceisely because the power base of the Muslim world is so stuck in antiquity. It's not just religion. It's a combination of religion, ignorance and poverty. They need a new Enlightenment, and that can only happen from within, but also only through the eroding of religious power.
It's easy to say these extremists don't represent Islam, but it's more correct to say they don't represent Muslims, because what is representing Islam? What is representing any religion? Catholics & Protestants fought (and still fight) for centires over which one is a more correct representation of Christianity. Even the vast majority of peaceful Muslims disagree over which type of peaceful Islam is the correct representation. Is it Suni, is it Shia, is it Sufi? Is it Zahiliyyah, Mahdavi, Moorish Science? Is it the Nation of Islam and their funky ties? Should hadiths be used, or is Quranism the most representative? And if most Muslims agree on a peaceful interpretation, how problematic for "true" Islam is it that most Muslims also agree with strong punishments for homosexuality, immodesty and other antiquated social mores? Is that true Islam? What is true or real in any religion? If no one can conclisively decide, then saying "this one definitely isn't it" means nothing, because if religion of all creeds, colours and hats have one thing in common, it's the irrefutable beleif that everyone else but them is definitely getting it wrong.
Last edited:
You realise there is no such thing as a unified 'Ummah' right? Since the collapse of the Ottoman empire, 'Muslim' nations and peoples have pretty much been at war with one another. The Islamic world is probably the most fragmented and divisive.
Muslims talk about the ummah, even if the ummah isn't unified. It sometimes is simply used to refer to the Islamic world.
All my other points still stand about the Islamic world.
I don't like that you've been flamed for this, it's not an unreasonable post. Intolerance and ignorance are indeed the problem.
It is unreasonable, because organised religion is inherently intolerant of the things that are outside of its dogma.
Organised religion suppresses original thought, creativity and rationality. Organised religion is simply the embodiment of intolerance whether you like it or not.
Muslims can talk about this utopian idea of an Ummah all they want but that's all it remains at this stage - Utopian. The Saudis and Iranians for instance hate each other more than they could hate say the state of Israel or the West in general. ISIS have deemed it OK to spare Christians and Jews who pay a tax but offer nothing but an execution for Shia Muslims. The idea of an 'Ummah' or Islamic consensus is a myth and that's always been the case since the the beginning of the 20th Century.
I think you've downplayed the number of Muslim scientists and scholars in recent times, but I'd imagine that they're not as well as represented as their Christian/Jewish peers is most likely because of the oppressed and impoverished nature of the societies they live in. Not exactly a cakewalk getting a Nobel Prize in Medicine for evolutionary biology if you're an Afghan or Iranian scientist for instance.
An Islamic renaissance does need to happen, but its not going to happen for example if Western foreign policy continues to consolidate certain Islamic states for regional benefit or to arm and fund extremist insurgents. Nor would it happen if it were to go on the offensive against the Muslim world - that would only seek to dignify and garner sympathy for those who harbour extremist sentiments.
Last edited:
I would think the terrorists would love that post because it is helping them achieve their goal.
As I have previously stated....
Most Muslims probably feel no more connection to radical Islam than most Christians do to the Westboro Baptist Church
I definitely buy into that considering how many wars have been in the past.
Fun fact, according to some Encyclopedia of wars, only 6% of wars are caused by religion. I want to look a bit more into that, don't really have the time at work but it immediately goes against what you've said. I'd be interested in seeing if it's actually legit or not.
If you look at the mass murders (outside declared war of nations) in the past 100 years, I'm willing to bet that the percentage is higher regarding religion or cults.
First bold point: Tell that to the 100,000 native christians of Mosul who all had to flee the city, because ISIS gave them two options, a) convert b) leave the city.
Not to mention ISIS has systematically burned down and destroyed churches.
Secondly: Yes, Shias are getting the brutal treatment. This is why I mentioned that the only thing the Islamic world has contributed is nihilistic thought and a severely narcissistic outlook on global affairs in which nothing is their own fault and everyone else is to blame. Whether that be a Shia for a Sunni or vice versa or a non-muslim altogether it doesn't matter. It can't be them.
Thirdly: and why are they impoverished? They're mainly impoverished because of themselves, not because of Western interference or some other magical outside force. Western interference happened elsewhere around the World too and these places are faring much better. They're impoverished because of their culture, religion and the ideology that comes with it.
As for ummah, I said before, technically you are correct it stands for a unified Islamic world, but reading arabic articles the use of ummah is used also just to refer to the nations that make up for the Islamic world (whether unified or not).
I have seen no Christians commit atrocities like the Muslims are doing across the world. Jesus has been mocked for decades yet no cartoonists, journalist or other people have been viciously murdered for it.
Yeah. The vast majority of Africa is doing so fantastic.
If you don't want to see fault with Islam and its adherents, that is up to you. Remain ignorant and blind.
You could also have used examples like: Japan, China, Hong Kong, India, Brazil, South Africa. Whilst these places are obviously not on par with Europe or the US they are seemingly doing better in many areas than the Middle East is (and I'm not talking about mini states with only wealthy oil magnates like Dubai or Qatar).
Religious satire came about post-enlightenment in the West. You're comparing apples and oranges.
We live in the now. If muslims can't live in the now in Europe, then they shouldn't be here, but wait for their enlightenment to happen in the Middle East.
I don't see the point of religion myself, but your views are laughably over the top. That's what I take issue with.
And how long did this change take to happen? The west is still meddling in the middle east. I'm not sure how you expect change to occur while that's ongoing.
The kind who believe the words of a book written by people who had no concept of gravity and didn't know what happened to the sun at night. Religion has no place in modern society other than personally held beliefs kept by people to themselves.
They can, quite obviously.
If a secularist commits a crime, should all secularist leave Europe as well?
This is exactly my point. Stop blaming the rest. Start looking inwards. Muslims can change their affairs if they start changing their ways themselves. That's what most people don't seem to grasp.
A secularist doesn't do it in the name of secularism. A muslim quite often does it in the name of Islam for the prophet muhammed and Allah.
How can you argue about this? Come on man. Seriously.
That's naive. How can they change themselves when they don't even have proper control of their countries?
They do it in the name of their nationalistic endeavours. It's always members of pseudo-political groups like Al-Qaeda or ISIS.
It must be fun living in a world that's so black and white.
Sooner or later...
As soon as the oil runs out over there that is an option that may be on the table.
Try telling that to the American right wing.
Also depends who will use it first.
"When was the last time a Christian, Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu, Jedi or Apple fanboy kicked off and killed people when someone made a little joke about their religion?"
Has it been asked yet?
Has it been asked yet?
I think only Western liberals like yourself, Pogue, regard gay marriage as a great societal advance.
To most people around the world, it's somewhere between a joke and an anathema. Who's to say your opinion is better than theirs?The objectification of its own values by Western liberalism is always amusing. The mercurial affectations of Western elites are assumed to represent the end point of human moral and intellectual progress, and other, older viewpoints arrogantly dismissed.
It's true to say that the West has been virtually the sole source of the great intellectual and material change in the world since the 17th century. Other cultures have contributed little. But that applies to all non-Western societies, not solely to the Islamic world.
This is bone chilling. These ISIS animals need eradicating, asap.
I went out to play football with my mates but I suppose they still are.
Probably yes and if it wasn't "public" information, it's an information that could easily gained by paying anybody working inside the building.
I'm still of the view that only a tiny minority of Muslim extremists endorse the killing of western infidels.