• Banno
    The problem with the OP isn't that it 'has problems with a culture and religion'; it's that it conceptualizes them in ways so thin and shallow as to be not only useless but actively harmful. Anyone who wants to talk about religion and culture without at the same time talking economics, politics, and social conditions is a priori ruled out of having anything meaningful whatsoever to say. The OP presents a shallow story for piddling minds.StreetlightX

    Not bad for a fellow basement-dweller.
  • Judaka

    Of course, OP is taking everything out of context and blaming Islam, you can see many things he lists occurring in countries that aren't even majority Muslim and of course, countries are affected by more than just their religious persuasion. Interpretations of Islam are different in different places and for different people but this "othering" concept is still stupid. Everyone is an "other", I am sure a better way of thinking and a better term to describe a similar problem is more appropriate.

    It's a piece of rhetoric that ought leave one cold. As if there ought not be a political reaction to a tragedy such as a mass shooting.Banno

    I'm completely in favour of the banning of assault rifles, wasn't aware that NZ even allowed them to be owned legally lol. I am not saying every reaction which requires political change is utilising the tragedy politically. I think that gun control is a bit of an unfortunate example because we don't need to see them killing people to know that they are going to be used for that. The AR is completely absurd because of its destructive power and how out of place it would be for defending a home with an AR or having a hobby of shooting things with an AR. Nonetheless, we've got a clear connection.

    Trying to say the political leader of a country is culpable for mass murder and using the kinds of arguments that StreetlightX and you employed (ot lack of arguments for you) crosses a line. The interpretations you guys are utilising to blame the Australian PM and Australian culture are pathological as far as I am concerned. I put it on the same level as saying Australia has a rape culture. You've got a single person from Australia committing a crime and for you, that is sufficient to blame the entire country, the region he came from and its leader as parts of the "problem" of one person being an extremist psychopath.

    Pathological to the extreme, taking things to mean what you want them to mean in order to make the arguments you wanted to make. Gun control has a serious and obvious causal relationship with mass shootings while the PM using anti-Islamic sentiment for votes, "dog whistling" and whatever else cannot be now described as "mass murder causing behaviour" because one guy who may or may not have ever given a shit about anything the PM did or said, murdered the same group of people that the PM has utilised for political purposes or "attacked".

    Now if you had said that people ought be judged for what they do, we might find agreement.Banno

    This is a philosophy forum, I judge people on what they believe all the time and I don't see a problem with it. If someone told you they hate homosexuals and they think it's disgusting and immoral would you brush that off as nothing? Would it matter if they were Muslim and based their views on their interpretation of Islam or an atheist who hated homosexuals for some other reason? I imagine not and at least for me, certainly, it doesn't matter.

    There was a thread on this, No?

    What is it?

    That which is interpretatively relevant is used to determine what something means. That meaning is used as evidence in arguments.

    To even begin to compare the West to Islam, how do we evaluate them? For Streetlight X, the West has caused a lot of problems historically for the middle east with their imperialism and so, we cannot say the West has moral superiority. The West doesn't just have problems historically and it has way more than just that, it has problems now and you can take any one or many of those things in isolation and say "this means the West isn't morally superior to Islam". You can also take the goods things about the West and say "this means the West is morally superior" and vice versa for Islam.

    Of course, none of these perspectives are balanced, they're ignoring mountains of facts and interpretations to arrive at an answer. It's something that you and Streetlight X do constantly and continually arrive at similar conclusions which are detrimental to Western countries and culture (so far this hasn't been to the benefit of Islam but that's irrelevant) while OP does the same for Islam. The result can only be described as a pathological way of looking at the world.
  • frank
    Yep. As Judaka mentioned earlier, the OP is boring and meaningless. No one supported it including the opening poster.

    What was interesting was the parade of hypocrisy it elicited. I told Judaka that the robotic character of it indicates the folks who do it don't realize they're doing it. It's all reflexive. Unconscious. Beast-like.
  • Banno
    You've got a single person from Australia committing a crime and for you, that is sufficient to blame the entire country, the region he came from and its leader as parts of the "problem" of one person being an extremist psychopath.Judaka

    This puts rather an extreme strain on what was actually said; which was that making anti-islamic police and rhetoric part of the realpolitik will inevitably lead to violence.

    Nor does pointing out misogynist culture in Australia imply that one thinks all Australian males are rapists.
  • Banno
    I explicitly rejected the pissing competition even as it began.

    My first post pointed out that Islam is not monolith, and predicted the inevitable posts from Christians who assume their own moral superiority.

    That is the opinion you, and perhaps under you influence @frank, attribute to me is quite wrong.

    Perhaps we can agree that there is a fundamental error in the OP in assuming that there are such things as Christian or Islamic morality, that they might be compared.
  • Banno
    Seems to me you are reading too much into what has been said. You want to see liberals defending Islam, so that is what you do see.

    To my eye that is no more than yet another pissing competition. The philosophical significance of the OP is that it assumes that western and islamic morality are some sort of thing that can be directly compared. The social significance is the wider acceptance of such a myth.

    The Christchurch terrorist's manifesto, blather as it was, was not dissimilar to the OP, as was the rot espoused by Anning.

    I think Arendt shows a way to understand the human stupidity going on here, including the complicity of mainstream Australian politics.
  • Judaka

    This post you're proud of does exactly what I said it does, illogical nonsense that assumes the problem with the shooter for pathological reasons.


    They are not us. We don't do this shit.

    That's the PM's excuse for Australia producing a nationalistic terrorist.

    And so he does not have to admit his culpability in the crime, despite years of presenting the sort of thing found in the OP here.

    The Christchurch terrorist was one of us. He was born in a town a few tens of kilometres away from my home town. He experiences the same sorts of things as we experienced. He chose to act based on those experiences. And what he did was appalling.

    If we deny that he was Australian. we lose an opportunity to address the issues that caused him to make his choice.

    Oh, and also, our PM, Scott Morrison, is a shitbag enabler who is most certainly culpable - though not alone - for fostering the kind of environment in which the shooter became who he is. And of course Australia is riven with all kind of systemic and cultural issues - rape, domestic violence, murderous treatment of minorities, immigrants, and the poor, and all the rest of it. Why is it so horrifying for you that this might be the case?StreetlightX

    The shooter is an Australian, what you interpret that to mean is without evidence, unreasonable nonsense. You look to find blame in his Australianness for the crime, you look for fault in the mainstream culture. Is there a case to be made? Probably not but I haven't seen one if it does exist. It doesn't matter for you that everyday Australians find murder abhorrent or the murder abhorrent. Just like StreetlightX who I think is actually worse than you, which is an unexpected twist.

    Don't compare a prejudice against women to rape, one might also again bring into question this inherent claim of these things being solely nurtured, given that misogynist views exist worldwide without exception. Do you agree with StreetlightX that Australia has a rape culture?

    I explicitly rejected the pissing competition even as it began.Banno

    No, you joined in. You started arguing with OP about how Christianity is a morally bankrupt religion, you started your own little "pissing contest" on the side. I am surprised you are even saying now that you wish to come to an agreement that there's no such thing as Christian morality, given it makes no sense with what you've said earlier in this thread.

    This is the thing with talking to people about the past, you've got your own perspective about what you've written and you've perhaps got an understanding of yourself as a certain type of person. This is a bit more of a comical example because I can actually show that you're on the wrong side of this. I'm happy for you to start taking your comments back, I want you to do that in fact.
  • StreetlightX
    Ah yes, the old "I haven't seen it so it can't be true" excuse; coupled, no less, with the vapid "I don't look because I don't do politics anyway". Outhouse thinking for outhouse thinkers.
  • frank
    The philosophical significance of the OP is that it assumes that western and islamic morality are some sort of thing that can be directly compared.Banno

    Christians first identified Islam as evil about 1000 years ago. It was mostly fear of the unknown, which is a primal thing.

    Isn't there an interfaith movement in Australia?
  • Banno
    Yes, there is. What does the say about Islam or Christianity being monolithic?
  • TheWillowOfDarkness

    I've got a long post to finish, but I'll just point this out now: by the measure being applied to Muslims in these sorts of threads, Christianity, or rather Christian cultures, have been morally bankrupt all over the place. Many of them in ways similar to instances of Islamic cultures people criticise (e.g. gay rights, women, etc. ).
  • Banno
    illogical nonsense that assumes the problem with the shooter for pathological reasons.Judaka

    Argument by label.

    Do you have anything to add to the discussion here?

    Do you think that what the terrorist was exposed to as an Australian had nothing to do with his actions? of course not.

    So perhaps we might pursue the question of how much Australian culture has responsibility for producing a terrorist?
  • Banno
    Christianity, or rather Christian culturesTheWillowOfDarkness

    Neat. Might adopt that.
  • frank
    What does the say about Islam or Christianity being monolithic?Banno

    The fact that Christian clergymen identified Islam as Antichrist 1000 years ago indicates that there is a long tradition of judging Islam wholesale. You can't claim that it doesn't make sense to do so. In fact, that sort of thing can make plenty of sense:

    Assyrian culture was unusually brutal.

    Am I saying that every single Assyrian was brutal? No, I'm highlighting the way culture influences individual actions.

    But mostly, I was telling you that when people blow up Muslims or World Trade Centers or whatever, it's not the result of a logical flaw. It's because of fear and anger (of the type your foaming at the mouth pet dog has).
  • Banno
    The fact that Christian clergymen identified Islam as Antichrist 1000 years ago indicates that there is a long tradition of judging Islam wholesale. You can't claim that it doesn't make sense to do so. In fact, that sort of thing can make plenty of sense:frank

    Sure, one can so do. But the question remains, is it correct to do so?

    Refer to my previous post. The question then becomes, to what extent can Islam be considered an individual, that we might judge it's morality?

    The OP fails on this account.

    But that does not make such a discussion impossible. For example,, I find the notion of submission moral repugnant. The notion is that one must bow to the will of god, regardless of its morality.

    Logically the one who has moral culpability for what is done is the individual who is doing the doing - the actor. Abraham is willing to sacrifice Issac as an act of submission. But it is Abraham, not god, who is the actor. He, not God, bears the blame. Abraham ought have spared his son from binding.

    Now because of the role of submission in Islam, that's a line of discussion that might be worthwhile. Doubtless there are those who might explain to me why Abraham ought submit.

    But such a discussion is a ling way from the bigoted diatribe of the OP.
  • frank
    The OP fails on this account.Banno

    OK. But it appears the OP's first language is Russian, so maybe it was a translation problem.

    Now because of the role of submission in Islam, that's a line of discussion that might be worthwhile.Banno

    Arabs were tribal people who did a lot of trading, which involved travelling in caravans stuffed with precious stuff like metals, fabrics, and perfumes. The Prophet was such a travelling merchant. Raiding caravans was part of the culture. If I raid your caravan, I might give you an opportunity to swear allegiance to me. In return, I promise not to raid your caravans in the future.

    This kind of arrangement was known as submission. The emergence of Islam involved the rise of one leader who demanded submission from all the Arabs. He united them in brotherhood. But by ending raiding, he created an economic problem that resulted in an explosion of Arabs into the Iranian world. This is why Iranians were originally not allowed to convert to Islam. If they converted, then no tribute could be taken from them.

    The Iranians eventually retook their own territory. Now Christians, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists have all converted to Islam. From this time onward, Islam will mostly be spread in the Persian language, not Arabic.

    Somewhere along the way, somebody tweaked the meaning of submission to have something to do with submitting to God. Sounds good.
  • andrewk
    OK. But it appears the OP's first language is Russian, so maybe it was a translation problem.frank
    I see that as taking the principle of charity too far. I am all for making allowances for language difficulties in civilised discussion, or even for different intentions of meaning from someone whose first language is the same as mine. But extending it to someone handing out condemnations is twisting the principle beyond any recognition of what it is about. Somebody handing out condemnations need not expect charity from any quarter. I certainly would steer very clear of making condemnations in any language in which I was conversant but not expert. In fact, I am expert in English, and I try to avoid making condemnations in that language too.
  • Banno
    I see that as taking the principle of charity too far.andrewk

    Me, too. I wondered if he might have been in the pay of Mr Putin.
  • Judaka

    Provide evidence and fair analysis rather than pathological interpretations and you'll be treated to a fair audience. That's what I would say to anyone who wasn't so far gone as to say Australia has a rape culture, I don't want to hear anymore out of you. I'm giving Banno every chance to start making sense, I've given that chance to everyone who has argued with me in this thread.

    Okay... I didn't defend Christianity or make any comments about it, I just pointed out Banno is not being truthful when he said he condemned and never took part in the comparisons between Islam and Christianity/The West.

    Labels? I'm describing your interpretations and pathology, which has been demonstrated in this thread. What do you want me to add to your comments? There are troubled kids at school, criminals who work in different industries and citizens of nations do bad things.

    You didn't try to demonstrate a connection between Morrison and the shooter, you didn't try to explain why you thought the culture or the "experiences" should be blamed for what the shooter did. You failed to show that the shooter isn't an "other" and really, that's the biggest claim of all in my opinion. He's done something extraordinarily unusual and it's been condemned across the board in Australia but to you, he's what, what you could have been?

    I think that one person, regardless of how bad of an apple he is, shouldn't poison our opinions of the bunch. Perhaps he never would have committed this crime if there wasn't any anti-Islamic sentiment in Australia but that doesn't mean we should condemn anti-Islamic sentiment for that reason. Just like how our society frowns upon sex offenders but that frowning upon them and murdering them, different things, do you see the difference?

    Individuals need to take responsibility for their crimes and instead you are using an individual's crimes to attack anti-Islamic sentiment and although I don't know what form that takes right now from you, I do think there are valid concerns about Islam and I don't want any of them to be silenced because of the actions of a homicidal maniac and the low-quality ideas he had.
  • StreetlightX
    Provide evidence and fair analysis rather than pathological interpretations and you'll be treated to a fair audience.Judaka

    Interpretations of what? Of a political scene which you proudly professed your ignorence about? No, it's not my job to educate an 'audience' who is simultaneously proud of their ignorance yet happy to pronounce other's views as 'pathological', despite that self-same self-confessed political illteracy. You made your bed in mud: you don't get to fling it about as you attempt to crawl your way out.
  • Banno
    That which is interpretatively relevant is used to determine what something means.Judaka

  • frank
    Rape culture? What is that?
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy

    Asalaamu Alaikum.
    As the forums token muslim, I feel impelled to respond to this thread (even though the timing is incredibly inconvenient, and I have several essays I need to write and the deadlines are creeping up) lol.

    Now please be careful when reading this response, and do not confuse it for an argument that is supporting the conclusion that "Islam is superior". It is not. Nor will I be arguing for the conclusion that "the west is morally inferior". There will be no premises given in support of such conclusions just yet. The main aim of this response is to show that, even if your claim happens to be a true one, you have argued it insufficiently because you have not supported your conclusions. This is simply a negative critique, seeking to show why your argumentation is insufficient to prove your point.

    I may, in the future, open up some separate threads regarding the positive claims that a. the west has a weak moral foundation, & b. that Islam is morally superior, (and also possibly c. with regards to women's rights). But as I say, I am short for time atm, and so this will have to do for the time being and I will ask that you keep your eye out for my posts in the future. So let me begin.

    PS, apologies for any mistakes, I didn't bother to proof read it, it took too long to write as it is and I can't be bothered going through it again. feel free to point them out for me.

    ***TL;DR*** :The entire argument given in the OP is one massive unjustified assumption that fails to give sufficient reasoning, offers countless misconceptions, outright lies, and does a bit of patting himself on the back from time to time.

    My Response:


    (a) The Muslim jihadists continue to make the claim that they are morally superior to the West

    i. First of all, who are these muslim jihadists? Are you referring to anyone who is an advocate for Islam? or specifically the extremists which the vast majority of Scholars disavow?

    ii. Also, I am assuming you are sticking strictly to the militaristic version of Jihad..? In which case, I will ask you to consider that the many muslims who fight organisations like ISIS are also called Jihadists. The point being, the word is often used in a purely negative sense, even though there are clear examples of Jihadi's the west would happily consider good people, yet somewhat unwilling to call them Jihadi's because of the negative connotation the word now holds thanks to western media.

    iii. examples of Jihadi's dying as martyrs protecting non-muslims here and here (you can search for more, there are historical examples also)

    iv. with regards to your mention of "the west", I will draw your attention to the next thing you say which makes certain inferences...

    (b) It is time that this claim be addressed, not as part of war between Christianity and Islam, and not as some relativistic double-talk, but on the basis of values and institutions that actually make the West superior to the Muslims.

    i. it seems that, with the first part of this sentence following from the previous one, that you have conflated the words "Christianity" with "the west". Could you confirm that? It does seem, judging from the context of your entire argument and further comments you make in this thread that you have made them synonymous. Which is strange, as will become evident as I move through further points in your argument. It seems to me that the west you are in praise of is secular society; which is in direct conflict with the teachings of christianity (which ironically are more closely related to certain positions in islam, which itself has more in common with the foundation of Christianity - Judaism - than modern christians do)

    ii. With that said, can you clarify what exactly you mean by "the west", as is pointed out in other comments in this thread, it can be seen as being in different categories to Islam, so this needs to be clarified.


    (a) The West does not have people throwing sulphuric acid into girls' faces for going to school.

    i. this is such an absurdly specific claim, and is not something that you will find in the sharia. In fact, you'll find the sharia would specifically outlaw such behaviour, and I can guarantee you that the perpetrators would be punished much more severely in a muslim country if caught and sentenced than they would do in the west. Use of such specific crimes committed by an individual cannot be used to show how the west is superior to islam because islam doesn't condone this behaviour. It does not follow that because a person does X, that X is commanded by the religion this person follows

    ii. one of the micro claims inferred in this example is that girls going to school is somehow forbidden in islam... this again, is absurd and without evidence. There are many muslim countries which have brilliant education systems for girls. Pointing out particular countries that have terrible education for girls which are muslim majority (like Niger or Afghanistan), does not mean that you can then transfer this failing onto the religion. Just as much as you can look at the fact that the two worst countries with education for girls are South Sudan and the Central African Republic, and both of them are Christian majority countries. [Reference here] it would be ridiculous to infer from this information that the problem is the result of christianity, as that would require me to neglect the many christian majority countries which don't have such problems. Your reasoning is fallacious.

    iii. with regards to the absurdly specific nature of your examples, I could do the same and it would be equally as absurd. For example: Muslim countries don't have problems with women chopping of their husbands genitals and throwing them into blenders, [reference here] and then having a panel of women laughing about it on day time tv [reference here] - it would not make sense to say that islam is superior to 'the west' for this reason because it does not follow that the system which is 'the west' condones such behaviour

    (b) The West does not have people setting their daughters on fire for getting raped

    i. again, not endorsed by sharia. 1. Killing with fire is not permitted and is a sin, 2. vigilante behaviour is forbidden, things should be taken to a court, 3. being raped is not punishable by death in Islam. The rapist however, would be dealt with severely.

    ii. less specific claim you make here is: people in islamic countries murder children for terrible reasons ~ and the west certainly has examples of this:
    - Woman slits throat of her baby daughter out of jealousy
    - woman drives 6 children to death when she finds out they will suffer in life
    - mother kills 11 year old daughter because she thinks she's sexually active
    - man beats daughter to death for not doing homework
    - man kills women, children, and the elderly at point blank range with assault weapons

    I could go on forever. The point is not a simple you-tooism, but rather that pulling up specific examples by specific people does not prove anything about the society as a whole or the religion they follow. You cannot do it to the west, nor can you do it to Islam. Especially when Islam strictly forbids the crimes you are referring to.

    (c) The West does not have children being sent to blow up marketplaces and themselves in the process.

    i. again, suicide is forbidden by sharia (major sin), and so is attacking and killing non-combatants, especially women, children, the elderly, priests/monks, the disabled, etc., and you must keep in mind that if an overly zealous westerner wants to die for his country, and kill muzzies, all he has to do is join the army and earn a decent wage in the process.

    ii. there are examples of westerners doing horrible things to people in public places, such as the countless attacks on schools in America (do I need to reference them?), or the shootings that go on at concerts in vegas... etc etc. because your claim is so specific (and rare might I add

    iii. so far, the three example you have given to prove your point have been
    - absurdly specific with no backing by the sharia,
    - equally applicable to the west
    - lacking evidence to show how it is the fault of islam that these things occur.


    (a) The West has free speech

    i. This is questionable. Speech is, and always has been, restricted to a certain degree. it's only relatively recently that blasphemy laws were removed, and even then they were replaced by other laws that restrict speech against other minorities (such as muslims, trans-people etc) The west is more tolerant of certain kinds of speech, and certainly makes an effort to allow that speech more than most, but this has led to further restrictions else where, and is a constant complaint for both those on the left and the right.

    (b) The West has women's rights

    i. Islam also has women's rights. They are not the same as western ones, and there is a point of contention between the two, but there being a difference in how they approach it does not mean that one has them and the other doesn't. There is more nuance to it than you let on.

    ii. probably best, that as you are a christian and have appeared to conflate 'the west' with christianity, we should mention that your position is completely undermined by your own faith, which you appear to consider synonymous with 'the west':
    - “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)
    - “This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)
    - “Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)
    - “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

    so which is it, are you secular, or are you a christian? Because the things you are attempting to defend are contrary to your own belief system even though there is a clear conflict between the two. more references to 'biblical sexism' - here -

    iii. not to mention the gender equality paradox... more women enter into stem fields education in islamic countries than do in the west. Scandavia, (highest emphasis on gender equality) has more trouble getting girls to study science than places like Morocco. [reference here and here]

    the more you try to grasp something, the further you move it away. This certainly throws a spanner in your claim, and requires you to further explain your point or at least offer better/different arguments.

    (c) The West has a lot of people working around the globe to extend to others development, opportunity and education

    i. yes it does. and this for the most part can be very commendable (when they're not bombing democracy into a place to the point of anarchy). but this is not unique to the west. islamic countries get involved in charitable works, and so does china, and buddhist countries such as Thailand etc. Countries around the world, that are not just 'western', offer assistance in development, opportunity and education all over the place. Countries like the US, and European countries have a lot more expendable cash, so it makes sense they would be the leaders in this. But it does not follow from that, that they are the only ones getting involved in it.


    (a) I do not say that the West is better than Islam for relativistic reasons. I say that it is better than Islam for absolute reasons.

    i. just because you claim to give absolute reasons, that does not mean your reasons are absolute. What you talk of are specific to a certain time and place, and for the most part, are in conflict with your faith; which doesnt support blasphemy, it doesn't support secular women's rights, it is certainly missionary in its nature.

    (b) I say that West is morally superior to Islam, period. And that, instead of practicing a defensive posture or some sort of religious me-tooism, it needs to go to outright offensive against Islam and seize the moral ground that the Islamists wrongfully claim right from under their feet.

    i. the problem is that you make claims that say "the west doesn't do X" when it does X, and so that requires pointing that out in order to refute. or "the west does Y", when theres evidence to the contrary.


    The West's moral superiority comes from:

    (a) free speech.

    i. already covered this as problematic, and arguable. - for evidence simply check characters such as Tommy Robinson, Avi Yemeni, Orthodox religious people who speak out against homosexuality, or the trans movement etc etc. Theres a large list of people having their speech restricted. Its a usual talking point for critics of islam. They try to point out we lost it, but I can't really see a time we ever really had absolute free speech. There always has been restrictions.

    (b) It comes from democracy.

    i. Whether or not democracy is superior is hardly obvious. And it depends on the type of democracy we're talking here. Direct or indirect democracy? And how is the tyranny of the masses any less of a tyranny than that of a single dictator? Freedoms can be restricted because of democracy, and it often comes into conflict with the first reason you gave for the west's superiority.

    (c) It comes from science and technology.

    i. This has absolutely no necessary connection to morality at all. In fact theres a very good argument that in and off themselves science and technology are amoral. I could also list numerous examples of how science and technology have done incredibly immoral things, if we don't wish to consider it amoral. What argument do you have to say that science and technology contribute the west's moral superiority? Its hardly obvious. And you shouldn't expect us to accept it as such without any argumentation as to why.

    (d) It comes from women's rights.

    i. again already covered this. see above.

    (e) And yes, it comes from the belief that people are better authority over their lives than is a government or a religious institution.

    i. you said you were giving absolute reasons and now you're giving us beliefs? which is it? and why is this obvious? Are troubled orphan children really a better authority over their own lives? why is this the case? again its not obvious. If you're going to argue it then argue it.


    (a) For all things that one or another person does wrong, the Western system has produced far better results than has the Muslim system.

    i. according to a western metric. lol, a Nietzsche quote should be relevant for this

    When someone hides something behind a bush and looks for it again in the same place and finds it there as well, there is not much to praise in such seeking and finding. Yet this is how matters stand regarding seeking and finding "truth" within the realm of reason. If I make up the definition of a mammal, and then, after inspecting a camel, declare "look, a mammal' I have indeed brought a truth to light in this way, but it is a truth of limited value. — Nietzsche F.

    the point is, you are judging what it means to be a successful system based on the results established by the western system. You've failed to explain why each metric should be favoured, you just stated it without explanation and have expected us to accept your assumptions at face value and without question. The muslim societies could play the same game, yet from a different metric and claim victory because it happens to have been based on what they already have. Just as we shouldn't accept such arguments without reasoning, we should not accept yours. Unless of course, you're willing to argue the case a bit better.

    (b) And while there will always be people who look for alternatives, even they will for the most part come to the conclusions that the Muslim system is far inferior to what is here now.

    i. you're just patting yourself on the back with hypotheticals now. this isn't contributing to your argument.

    (c) The Muslim system is not only worse than the Western system; it's also worse than Communism, Hinduism or Confucianism.

    i. lol, again, just throwing names around here without an argument as to why we should accept this conclusion. Why?

    (d) Its global reputation is this: The bottom of the world.

    i. incorrectamundo. There are muslim countries are doing pretty well. The tallest building in the world is in a muslim country. And most of the chaos thats occurring in muslim countries at the moment is the result of western meddling, paying people to assassinate political leaders and replace them in hope they'll do as the west says, and then when that goes to poo they try to bomb democracy into said places but only end up with anarchy and high death rates. This can hardly be put on the toes of muslim systems, when it seems that a military industrial complex and western empire is the main instigator for most of its problems.


    (a) Further, the Muslim people owe a lot to America and the rest of the West.

    i. Yeah you can make this argument in a positive sense. But as I explained above with respect to the introduction of anarchy and the death of a lot of the civilian population. Looking just at the death tolls of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan alone are enough to ignite a fire in ones heart. This isn't to mention how western meddling is what gave fertile soil for terrorist organisations such as ISIS to grow in.

    ii. not to mention how the opposite argument can be made. If it wasn't for the cheep fuel provided by islamic countries, I doubt that the west could sustain its oil addiction.

    iii. other islamic world contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_world_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe

    (b) If not for the Western democracies, the Middle East as well as the rest of the world would be practicing Communism; and that means that they would not be able to practice Islam at all.

    That may have some truth to it. But again its an assumption. Theres no way of knowing that communism would have managed to take hold.

    (c) Whereas with the current world leadership they can be as Muslim as they want to be

    i. in certain parts in the west yes. But in others no. And there is constant backlash about muslims being muslims. And many feel they have to hide it out of fear of persecution.

    (d) for as long as they aren't blowing up Western nationals in the process.

    i. again, this is haram. You can't commit suicide, & you can't kill non-combatants. Not islam, but misguided muslims.

    (e) Whereas if Muslims had their way, then everyone would be practicing Islam.

    i. Not quite, Its made quite clear in the Quran that not all people will be believers, and that we should submit to this fact. Very clear actually...:

    لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ ۖ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ ۚ فَمَن يَكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِن بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَىٰ لَا انفِصَامَ لَهَا ۗ وَاللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ - 2:256
    There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. — Quran

    قُلْ فَلِلَّهِ الْحُجَّةُ الْبَالِغَةُ ۖ فَلَوْ شَاءَ لَهَدَاكُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ - 6:149
    Say, "With Allah is the far-reaching argument. If He had willed, He would have guided you all." — Quran

    وَلَوْ شَاءَ رَبُّكَ لَآمَنَ مَن فِي الْأَرْضِ كُلُّهُمْ جَمِيعًا ۚ أَفَأَنتَ تُكْرِهُ النَّاسَ حَتَّىٰ يَكُونُوا مُؤْمِنِينَ - 10:99
    And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed - all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers? — Quran

    إِنَّكَ لَا تَهْدِي مَنْ أَحْبَبْتَ وَلَٰكِنَّ اللَّهَ يَهْدِي مَن يَشَاءُ ۚ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ - 28:56
    Indeed, [O Muhammad], you do not guide whom you like, but Allah guides whom He wills. And He is most knowing of the [rightly] guided. — Quran

    أَلَيْسَ اللَّهُ بِكَافٍ عَبْدَهُ ۖ وَيُخَوِّفُونَكَ بِالَّذِينَ مِن دُونِهِ ۚ وَمَن يُضْلِلِ اللَّهُ فَمَا لَهُ مِنْ هَادٍ - 39:36
    وَمَن يَهْدِ اللَّهُ فَمَا لَهُ مِن مُّضِلٍّ ۗ أَلَيْسَ اللَّهُ بِعَزِيزٍ ذِي انتِقَامٍ - 39:37
    Is not Allah sufficient for His Servant [Prophet Muhammad]? And [yet], they threaten you with those [they worship] other than Him. And whoever Allah leaves astray - for him there is no guide.
    And whoever Allah guides - for him there is no misleader. Is not Allah Exalted in Might and Owner of Retribution?
    — Quran

    يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍ وَأُنثَىٰ وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوبًا وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا ۚ إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ خَبِيرٌ - 49:13
    O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.

    (f) And from what we've seen from the condition of the Muslim countries in Middle East, that is not a promising future.

    i. lol, no certainly not, theres definitely no examples of perfectly functioning muslim countries that haven't had the life bombed out of them by freedom loving westerners:






    I could go on.. but I think I've probably made my point already.


    (a) The Middle East used to host the world's greatest civilisations.

    i. was this a muslim civilisation by any chance? what was all this about muslim countries being incapable of establishing anything great? bit of a turn in your argument this and hardly contributes to your conclusions.

    (b) At this time, and any number of decades past independence, the place is a quagmire and an obscenity.

    i. yes. I wonder why that is. Is the answer Islam? or the multitude of factors I've already given in this absolute essay of a response lol

    (c) It is entirely not the case, as Hashemi Rafsanjani claims, that Islam keeps these places on the right path. The opposite is true.

    i. Don't know who he is. And again, this isn't an argument. Its just a statement loaded with unjustified assumptions

    (d) Islam has taken these places on a destructive path and has turned the world's greatest civilisations into its worst obscenities.

    i. Again, it made these civilisations in the first place, there are still great examples of muslim societies today, the Middle East isn't the only muslim place. And you can't boil down the problems in the Middle East just using the word "Islam"


    (a) Not enough people are brave enough to confront wrongs like this; and there need to be more.

    Wrongs like what? you've not said anything other than pat yourself on the back and give a massive non-sequitur. and its hardly like you're on your own mate. There are plenty of anti-islam people about and it has its own multi-million dollar industry pulsating furiously as we speak. There are countless authors who are selling plenty of books, plenty of youtube stars with massive followings. People talk out against Islam every day. I follow most of them online and they're very vocal and quite numerous in fact.

    (b) I for one do not care one bit if saying such things will bring onto me a fatwah.

    lol, thats not how fatwah's work. And I doubt some random bloke posting terribly formatted arguments is going to have the leaders of islam on his tail any time soon. Best of luck to you though.

    (c) The issues here are too important, and they are especially important for the women - such as for example my daughter - who will be growing up in whatever world results from contemporary entanglements.

    The issues are important. And for the most part it is commendable that you care for your daughter and wish to protect her. Best part of this post so far. I pray she grows up in a safe environment and lives a long and happy life. Ameen.

    The West is morally superior to the Islamic world. And it is time that more people say so outright.

    Just one massive non-sequitur.

    Ooo one last thing:

    I think that those societies would do well to adopt Christianity instead of Islam. That way they will have social stability without it being based on a terrible ideology that, among other things, promises boys in heaven.Ilya B Shambat

    are you seriously trying to suggest that the mention of angelic beings that appear as young lads to serve the inhabitants of paradise with drinks, in the Quran, is somehow a reference to a homosexual promise of some sorts? Even when the Quran specifically forbids homosexuality as a major sin and says that heaven will be free of sin, and so therefore it would be absolutely ridiculous to even try and gerrymander it to suggest anything of the sort that you are implying with this comment.
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    Arabs were tribal people who did a lot of trading, which involved travelling in caravans stuffed with precious stuff like metals, fabrics, and perfumes. The Prophet was such a travelling merchant. Raiding caravans was part of the culture. If I raid your caravan, I might give you an opportunity to swear allegiance to me. In return, I promise not to raid your caravans in the future.

    This kind of arrangement was known as submission. The emergence of Islam involved the rise of one leader who demanded submission from all the Arabs. He united them in brotherhood. But by ending raiding, he created an economic problem that resulted in an explosion of Arabs into the Iranian world. This is why Iranians were originally not allowed to convert to Islam. If they converted, then no tribute could be taken from them.

    The Iranians eventually retook their own territory. Now Christians, Zoroastrians, and Buddhists have all converted to Islam. From this time onward, Islam will mostly be spread in the Persian language, not Arabic.

    Somewhere along the way, somebody tweaked the meaning of submission to have something to do with submitting to God. Sounds good.

    where did you get this information from? I found something on wiki that suggests something along the lines of this. But the reference just had a dudes name and a couple of pages without any mention of the book. I want to check the sources for it, because it sounds strange. I'm pretty sure the Quran makes it clear that preventing people from following the religion is a major sin. There is also a lot about suffering hardship in patience and not to allow it to lead you astray. So this doesn't make sense. If there were muslims that did this, they would certainly be considered hypocrites and condemned by the scholars and imams. I can't find any other references for it though. So not sure how legitimate the claim is. I've emailed the author of the book to see if he could give me any information on the referencing of him. I'll let you know if I hear back from him.
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    See the issue with common Christian ignorance when it comes to Islam came to ahead when many evangelicals were calling Allah a "moon god,"Anaxagoras

    وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ اللَّيْلُ وَالنَّهَارُ وَالشَّمْسُ وَالْقَمَرُ ۚ لَا تَسْجُدُوا لِلشَّمْسِ وَلَا لِلْقَمَرِ وَاسْجُدُوا لِلَّهِ الَّذِي خَلَقَهُنَّ إِن كُنتُمْ إِيَّاهُ تَعْبُدُونَ - 41:37
    "And of His signs are the night and day and the sun and moon. Do not prostrate to the sun or to the moon, but prostate to Allah, who created them, if it should be Him that you worship"
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    He explained to me that as a Muslim he would be obliged - it would be his duty - to kill me, a non-Muslim, in the event of a declaration of a jihad to that effect. This well before 9-11, before even the Iraq wars.tim wood

    I have a nationalist friend who joined the army. Before I converted, he explained to me that he would be obliged - it would be his duty - to kill a muslim, in the event of a declaration of war to that effect. He was shipped off to Iraq and Afghanistan, and true to his word, he killed muslims. He received a pay check, and got some badges as well; along with a shed load of PTSD.

    And in a nutshell, there you have it. He would murder if his priest told him to. I would not, even if my priest told to.tim wood

    lol, no thats not how it works at all. An imam (about as close as you're getting to a priest) has no authority in matters of jurisprudence. An imam is simply one who leads the prayer. I become an imam when I lead the prayer, I can't then just start ordering people kill non-believers willy nilly. People who are assigned to a particular mosque as imams (equivalent to a priest) are only to give general advice on matters of religion and... to lead the people in prayer. Nothing more. They cannot issue fatwahs nor can they declare jihad. And if they did, not one muslim would be obliged to follow his orders.

    So no, islam does not permit the killing of non-combatants simply because the guy who leads the prayer said you should. Even when the Scholars issue such decrees these are constantly questioned and debated.

    With Catholicism you have the pope. In so far as you are a catholic, you can't question the decrees of the pope because he stands in for God on earth. If he declares a crusade, theres a crusade going to take place and no amount of debating it matters because that is to undermine the authority given to him by God. This is obviously incredibly rare, and not likely to happen, but my point stands.

    In islam, such authority doesn't occur. Its generally a very slow process of the elders who have dedicated their lives to memorising the Quran and the Hadith and studying the sharia having debates and undermining each other until theres a unanimous decision. When there is not an agreement its not always clear which opinion you should follow, which inevitably leaves it down to the individual follower to decide who he thinks is the most pious and trustworthy opinion to follow. That is, you need to decide who is the most God-fearing and has really considered that if they give an incorrect ruling, they will get hell-fire as a punishment.

    The only time Jihad or fatwah's would be permitted is when the scholars are unanimous in their decision that it is a legitimate declaration, and they're reasoning was sound and they could provide their evidences. Look at the responses to ISIS by the majority of the ullamah as an example of this. Or, if you want some reading material on the matter, I recommend the following book: "Refuting ISIS - by Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi" - Buy it on this link here

    In any case, if you are in a war and are a combatant fighting your opponent, deaths in such cases are never considered murder. If you are a non-combatant, and happen to be in a war zone where muslims are fighting, there is no permissibility in killing those who do not fight.

    Here's an example of a problematic fatwah given by a muslim in Egypt, and how it caused uproar and it was mostly ignored and refuted by other scholars, its a good read and very relevant so I recommend checking it out:



    Last of all, I would like to apologise on behalf of my brother for misleading you in this matter. He shouldn't have given you that impression because its clearly stated by the Ullamah to the contrary.

    Keep in mind, being well versed and intelligent with respect to one field, does not necessarily mean you can transfer it to another field. Someone who is adept at mathematics is not necessarily going to be an authority in chemistry; the expert surgeon is not going to be someone you approach in matters of economics; and for the same reason, answers to questions on matters of religion should not be seeded from engineers. If you want an experts advice in any given field, seek the expert in that field. Your friend was probably best giving you advice on engineering lol.

    I hope I've helped clear some misconceptions up there. If you have any other questions, please ask and if I can answer I will.
  • ssu
    Thanks for your comments, Mr Phil O'Sophy

    Unfortunately you can paint an ugly picture of Islam (and many are extremely willing to do exactly that), but then you could do that with Christianity too. I remember this Dutch documentary about the Religious Right in America with the female reporter starting her documentary with the words: "In the Netherlands where I come from, I had grown up thinking that Christians are nice, tolerant people..."

    Unfortunately biased sensationalism, alarmism and spreading fear sells. Views that try to be objective and while stating the good and bad sides try to put them into perspective are found to be confusing.
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy

    Yeah life is an effort sometime lol. We have to tread so carefully, but at the same time, something about us (possibly our finitude) makes us impatient and so we go charging ahead ignorant of where we put our feet.

    I could do with some cash though. I should probably get into the biased alarmist sensationalism business.
  • ssu
    I could do with some cash though. I should probably get into the biased alarmist sensationalism business.Mr Phil O'Sophy
    Perhaps you should start an organization called "Muslims for Trump" and go on Fox News. :joke:

    Fox News would love that (if they haven't got that person already).
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    Perhaps you should start an organization called "Muslims for Trump" and go on Fox News. :joke:ssu

    You've hit the nail on the head there. Maybe throw Tommy Robinsons name in there, and Robert Spencers...?

    I think you've just made me a millionaire.
Add a Comment