Islam

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
In order to be truly academically informed on a subject, you must mention both the pros and cons of it, and let your bias have no role in it.
 
@Online Violence: Well, you did say you were raised in Muslim majority countries, so that must have had an effect on you, directly or otherwise?

Ntwadumela said:
In order to be truly academically informed on a subject, you must mention both the pros and cons of it, and let your bias have no role in it.
Click to expand...

That's assuming something has pros/cons to begin with. Then again, you could just say "this thing has no pros/cons", so maybe I'm over complicating things a bit there.
 
FlamingPie said:
@Online Violence: Well, you did say you were raised in Muslim majority countries, so that must have had an effect on you, directly or otherwise?



That's assuming something has pros/cons to begin with. Then again, you could just say "this thing has no pros/cons", so maybe I'm over complicating things a bit there.
Click to expand...
You do have a point there. But my original statement is that not all of us are terrorists or barbaric tribals and I know many people who are not any of those who I stated, myself included.
 
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/academic

1.
a. Of or relating to institutionalized education and scholarship, especially at a college or university.
b. Of or relating to studies that rely on reading and involve abstract thought rather than being primarily practicalor technical.
c. Relating to scholarly performance: a student's academic average.

2. Academic Of or relating to the conservative style of art promoted by an official academy, especially the Académiedes Beaux Arts in France in the nineteenth century.

3. Having little practical use or value, as by being overly detailed, unengaging, or theoretical: dismissed the article as adry, academic exercise.

4. Having no important consequence or relevancy: The debate about who is to blame has become academic becausethe business has left town.
Click to expand...

It's an expression. I was using it in the sense of #4. It does not mean objective.
 
FlamingPie said:
Couldn't you have just used "autistic" instead?
Click to expand...
There ya go. Any case, before this topic derails any further, I have already proved my point about my religion earlier. Though, if you have something to contest it that DOESN'T include bias, feel free to.
 
Lol, religious man critics his religion, finds no fault. But yeah sure, my bias here is the important problem. Tell me more how Islamic theological empires built on conquest were peaceful, prosperous and tolerant. I take it about as seriously as a white supremacist proclaiming colonization was totes awesome for the colonized.
 
Real talk, not just bait:

I try to not be prejudiced against Arabs, but let's face it: the majority of my father's work was built for the sole purpose of (relatively) precisely killing enemies who threatens the United States and her people. Most of these enemies tend to be taking Islam, more often than not. I was raised with the explicit knowledge of this, and it colors my perception.

I find the Arab people a people with potential around them, but multiple barriers to harnessing them. In my opinion, the lack of any real form of separation between church and state is one of these. Others cannot, and will not expect a tolerant government from a openly religious majority. They will favor their own, more often than not.

Turkey made the right steps on the path, but it's backsliding lately. Iraq needs us to shore it up, and is partly our fault. The Arab Spring countries have descended into turmoil.

Obviously, something more is up than just normal socioeconomic tensions.
 
Iraq needs us to shore it up? That's optimistic. Iraq descended into sectarian slaughter as soon as the iron fist of the Sunni minority was removed. There's no such thing as "Iraq" as a national entity and there never was. The vast majority of the casualties people attribute to the consequences of American imperialism were basically just muslims ethnically cleansing each other. But no, Islam is not responsable! Not at all the ultimate source of endless warfare and killings in muslim countries. It's the lack of resources and opportunity. It's the awful global capitalistic system. It's the vampire corporations sucking up their national resources. It's everything and anything but Islam, bro.
 
You're still evading the original statement of not providing anything positive. Criticism involves both positive and negative analysis, especially if it's unbiased.
Here is a summary of treatment of Non-Muslims in the Ummayad dynasty
Overview of the status of religious minorities under Umaiyad caliphs
The status of non-Muslims in Umaiyad caliphate was generally regulated by the treaty of `Omar, agreement or agreements made between `Omar b. Khattab and conquered population in Syria and Palestine. The treaty of `Omar is said to contain the clauses of restrictive and discriminatory character. The number of the clauses ranges from 18 to 45, depending on the sources, which reported them. This agreement is said to have guaranteed the safety for conquered non-Muslim population in exchange for payment of jizya(poll-tax), in the case if they wish to profess their religions and also would grant the status of protected people (ahl al-dhimma) to certain category of non-Muslims. Nevertheless, such proposition, based on criteria of religion, seems to be refuted by Hoyland, who argued that in the first century of Islam and especially during the rule of Umaiyad dynasty, the poll-tax system was not based on distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims, but was "something that the conquered paid for the upkeep (rizq) of the conquerors in return for protection (dhimma).
Besides, there had been several attempts to reanimate the provisions of this treaty, by several caliphs, especially by `Omar (II) b. Abd al-Aziz. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the authenticity of some clauses of treaty are doubted as contradicting to the character and nature of `Omar b. Khattab and political situation at that time.
The scope of ahl al-dhimma only extends to the people, which were mentioned in Qur'an as ahl al-Kitab (people of the Book). Ahl al-Kitab would generally include: (i) Jews (H?d?orYahudi); (ii) Christians (An-Na??rА); (iii) Sabeans (A?-??bi'Ina); and (iv) those, who believe in One God and Last Day (Al-Ladh?na '?man? Bill?hi Wa Al-Yawmi Al-'?khiri). Later, in the course of conquest, the scope of ahl al-dhimma was extended to Zoroastrians (Majusi), which, in the opinion of Muslim jurists, did believe in One God in the beginning, but their religion had been corrupted.
Moreover, it has been asserted that there had been, overall, 33 churches in use throughout the Umaiyad caliphate and besides 22 of them were "built in early Islamic period". Also, it is assumed that 12 of them "underwent major rebuilding", whereas 5 other churches had been "repaired on a humbler scale" and 13 of them were "remodelled".

An excerpt from this site: http://samlib.ru/a/ahmedow_a_s/theu...calevaluationofreligiouspolicyofcaliphs.shtml

Tranhuviya said:
Real talk, not just bait:

I try to not be prejudiced against Arabs, but let's face it: the majority of my father's work was built for the sole purpose of (relatively) precisely killing enemies who threatens the United States and her people. Most of these enemies tend to be taking Islam, more often than not. I was raised with the explicit knowledge of this, and it colors my perception.

I find the Arab people a people with potential around them, but multiple barriers to harnessing them. In my opinion, the lack of any real form of separation between church and state is one of these. Others cannot, and will not expect a tolerant government from a openly religious majority. They will favor their own, more often than not.

Turkey made the right steps on the path, but it's backsliding lately. Iraq needs us to shore it up, and is partly our fault. The Arab Spring countries have descended into turmoil.

Obviously, something more is up than just normal socioeconomic tensions.
Click to expand...
Maybe you've noticed this before, but I come from Kuwait, a country that is allies with the United States of America, and is also against extremist groups like ISIS for example. I have already stated this numerous times in previous posts, and I advise you go check them out. I have absolutely no ill will towards the USA and actually think it's a great country. However, I must bring out the truth when it needs to be.
 
Tranhuviya said:
Obviously, something more is up than just normal socioeconomic tensions.
Click to expand...
Wahabbism. The Saudis spent a lot of money spreading Wahabbism around the world, and the West allowed it because it fought off those filthy godless Soviets. Certainly it seemed like the right move at the time and I'm not sure you can blame the West for doing it. But because we got buddy-buddy with the Saudis, because they had oil and because they hated the Commies, they were able to spread their ideology with unfortunate results.
 
Strange, it is lacking the debates on how to distribute the captured loot, the women and slaves and land that belonged to the conquered, among the conquerors. How interesting that such things were left out, for mysterious reasons. Even when they try to present it as "tolerant" the best they can do is present it as a protection scheme from gangsters, lol.
And oh, there were churches in use! So tolerant! Tell me, how many mosques were in use under colonial imperialism in muslim countries? Did they get replaced with churches? Did the colonial administrations force conversions? No? Wow, they must have been the height of tolerance then!
 
MarineTrainedTard said:
Wahabbism. The Saudis spent a lot of money spreading Wahabbism around the world, and the West allowed it because it fought off those filthy godless Soviets. Certainly it seemed like the right move at the time and I'm not sure you can blame the West for doing it. But because we got buddy-buddy with the Saudis, because they had oil and because they hated the Commies, they were able to spread their ideology with unfortunate results.
Click to expand...

As fucked as it sounds, the Al Sauds are more "progressive" and palatable to western mores than the vast majority of the people they rule. Read up on the Ikhwan, the populist faction the Al Sauds initially relied on. If it wasn't for western meddling those are the sorts who would have endless petro wealth. If there was a fully democratic election in SA today the people to end up in power would be more radicaly conservative than even the worst Saud royal member.
The West backed it at first and strengthened it because of the context of the Cold War, but the idea that they "allowed" it, as if they could somehow prevent SA from using it's wealth for it's own ends, is naive and ironically ethnocentric. Sorry, the "West" doesn't control the entire fucking planet and all the peoples therein, despite endless fantasist conspiracy theories to the contrary. I'm certainly not going to take the blame because some backwards fucking tribals just happened to live on top of the greatest concentration of a substance that happens to be incredibly useful to the needs of current technology. Can't wait for hydrocarbons to be phased down on a global level once we finally have a more efficient alternative.
 
Not only do you have an inability to admit anything positive despite being informed on the subject at hand, you are forgetting that people have committed crimes that are even worse. I remind you that Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong weren't Muslims either? You want a tolerant Muslim country? Go to Turkey, Egypt and Lebanon to a lesser extent. Hell, Kuwait, my country, only forbids public worship for Non-Muslims and lets them worship in private, and even than it will improve gradually.You are obviously well-read, but your arrogance is very noticeable to everyone on this thread.
 
Yeah ask the christians in Egypt how tolerant they are. May as well ask a native american about the tolerance of europeans. Lebanon is a christian country, or was until very recently. I'm sure they are overjoyed that is no longer the case and they can now experience true tolerance. Turkey, lol I'm not even gonna touch that. Yeah, the country whose government has been the left hand of Daesh even as SA/Qatar/etc is the right, whose insane megalomaniacal Sultan wants to turn back into the Ottoman empire, who has exterminated their largest christian minority as "traitors" and ethnically cleansed the few remaining orthodox greeks hundreds of years of occupation hadn't already eliminated, who won't even accept Kurd co-religionists as their own, much less infidels. So much tolerance.
 
Ntwadumela said:
Not only do you have an inability to admit anything positive despite being informed on the subject at hand, you are forgetting that people have committed crimes that are even worse. I remind you that Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong weren't Muslims either? You want a tolerant Muslim country? Go to Turkey, Egypt and Lebanon to a lesser extent. Hell, Kuwait, my country, only forbids public worship for Non-Muslims and lets them worship in private, and even than it will improve gradually.You are obviously well-read, but your arrogance is very noticeable to everyone on this thread.
Click to expand...

And when I see some complete mong praise Hitler and Mao, my reaction is similar. Interesting that you went straight for fascism and totalitarian communism. Kind of a lowish bar, don't you think? I'll be super worried about that once we have hundreds of millions of people the world over who fanatically defend their right to practice/preach those ideologies, but I think I missed that mark by a few decades.
 
Online Violence said:
Yeah ask the christians in Egypt how tolerant they are. May as well ask a native american about the tolerance of europeans. Lebanon is a christian country, or was until very recently. I'm sure they are overjoyed that is no longer the case and they can now experience true tolerance. Turkey, lol I'm not even gonna touch that. Yeah, the country whose government has been the left hand of Daesh even as SA/Qatar/etc is the right, whose insane megalomaniacal Sultan wants to turn back into the Ottoman empire, who has exterminated their largest christian minority as "traitors" and ethnically cleansed the few remaining orthodox greeks hundreds of years of occupation hadn't already eliminated, who won't even accept Kurd co-religionists as their own, much less infidels. So much tolerance.
Click to expand...
The majority of those countries don't even have a Sultan. Only Oman is a Sultanate in this present day and age.
China has many Muslims and issues involved with them are also unheard of. Indonesia is the country with the largest Muslim population and it isn't corrupt. My country has little corruption and is a LOT more tolerant than others. Maybe staying in some Muslim countries has left a bad taste in your mouth, but you haven't been to all of them.
 
Sultan Erdogan is more of a snide insult than a title. It's obviously what he wants to be. I'm not sure what you mean by corruption. Nepotism? Government funding shenanigans? Not sure where you're getting your data from but every study on corruption in Indonesia places it pretty low in the rankings, giving it a cursory overvue since I'm not familiar with the issue. China has MASSIVE problems with it's muslims, as long as they are from Xinjiang at least. Let's face it, from a western perspective the Han majority are incredibly racist and intolerant. The Hui minority are just one of many but they are at least culturally and linguistically chinese, so face much less opression than those that aren't. The turkic angle of the Xinjiang minority makes it a completely different beast in their eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom