UK: Muslims outraged over dog in advert

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by Dylith

It will be modernized, but slowly like Christianity was and from within. Christianity has secularized a great deal, The religion still exists, but it has changed a great deal as everyday secular life has influenced it.

Once again, a secular religion doesn't exist; that is a conflict of terms.

Pushing this onto religious conservatives though is a good way to get exactly the opposite of what it is that you desire. You make them into the enemy by treating them like shit. Treat them that way, and guess what they are going to think of you and the culture that you associate with.

I don't treat anyone like shit; I've actually be quite polite in my dislike for their religion, far politer than I've been to my relatives on their fundamentalist Christianity. If voicing a different opinion is treating them like shit, then no wonder they have such a hard time with freedom of speech. I won't hold their hands like little babies and pretend that I agree. That would be worse, in my opinion, as it blatantly patronizes them.

I think there are certain sects of Islam that certainly do need to moderate, but by simply talking about Islam you are painting with a very broad brush, so I must fall back onto the only constant in Islam, which is the Quran which most certainly isn't that bad if you are well educated in Islamic history and have some understanding of the difference between Meccan scripture and Median scripture.

There are different sects of Islam and there are different philosophies; that is a matter of course. One has to generalize, because I would have to go on for about 10 pages to just cover my opinions of some of the sects. This even has to be done with Christianity. I can lump Christianity into a group, because most of them tend to hold the New Testament and Old Testament as holy, just like the Muslims and the Koran and Hadith, generally speaking.

If you care to make the argument yourself I will gladly discuss it with you.

I already did. I said that I agreed with that assessment. I agree that there are moderate Muslims and fundamentalists Muslims. However, then there is pure Islam. Fundamentalist Muslims, unlike moderates, take everything in Islam as relevant and true. Moderates in Islam are like those in Christianity and Judaism, they take the good bits, but then ignore the bad. This only changes how people adhere to Islam.

I use to be a militant atheist, but such a mannerism is quite counterproductive to a secularist agenda. The more you push and demonize the more conservative and unified you will make the religious opposition. It is people like you who help radicalize the religious right.

Demonizing is definitely something to avoid. People aren't and can't be demons. There are people that believe in the literal words of the prophet Mohammad, and it is truly scary that there are people that think Mohammad's example is one to follow.

The religious right needs no help from atheists to radicalize. They have been doing fine on their own for thousands of years. When religious radicals, of any persuasion, start to interfere with my life and the lives of other people, then it is all of our obligation to speak out. This is as true in America as it is in Europe or the Muslim World. If you are saying that you should hold your tongue if you disagree with Islam, then that is a foolish idea. It is exactly dissent and criticism that forces institutions change.

Islam certainly allows for violence, but not the type that you are thinking about I think. I would gladly discuss Islamic scripture with you if you would like. Quranic Islam most certainly can co-exist with the west and with other faiths.

What is the price of being an apostate, according to the Hadith? If you go by his teachings, Allah isn't a friend to human rights.

The killing of civilians is forbidden.

That might depend on the definition of a civilian. From another point of view, Koran 2:190-194 is permission to attack the West and many others.

I guess Theo Van Gogh wasn't a civilian, when he was killed for blaspheming Islam. Of course, that doesn't describe all muslims, but no one is arguing that it does.

This is where having some religious education comes in handy instead of simply reading Quran and hadith verses on the internet. Religious education is actually a negative indicator of terrorism, and such acts have been condemned in the Islamic world at the highest of levels.

They have also been praised by others at the highest levels, depending where you want to look. Don't think that I don't know what I'm talking about when it concerns the Koran or Hadith. I've read both. They give any justification that a sadistic person could ever want.

This is where understanding the different divisions within Islam also comes in handy, because many of these Jihadi movements have little to no basis in Quranic scripture or in Hadith, but rather in the teachings of people like Sayyid Qutb a former member of the Muslim brotherhood and the man who influenced Bin Laden and his Jihadi movement.
But it is all treated the same by too many here in the west. The differences are ignored and it is all simply labled as Islam.

I know about Sayyid Qutb. Yet, even if you ignore the Jihad movements (which I have never mentioned), you are still left with a completely terrible set of beliefs in the Koran, and in the Hadith especially. To even try to present these ideas as palatable is disgusting. You've said as much in your regard to "secularization". Why get rid of them if they weren't repugnant and false?

Once again you fail to distinguish between Islamic branches and Islamic differences. Islam in Saudi Arabia in incomparable with Islam in say Turkey or the UK, or even Iran.

I never said they are the same. I am reduced to saying just Islam because I don't know what sect the people are who threaten innocents with death in a London street, that riot and burn effigies, or kill people.

You also fail to realize just how much ISlam has changed over the past couple decades, with Turkey re-writing its hadith canon to show women in a better light, and Saudi Arabia retraining 40,000 clerics to be more tolerant, Egypts banning of female circumcision, and the international fatwas against suicide bombings and even against Jihad against the West and against the killing of Israeli citizens.

That's good, but more needs to be done. The point is that the more modern, moderate and reasonable Muslims get, the less influence Islam has. Remember that it is being watered down for a reason.

Those who move don't dislike the west. They like our political freedoms and our economic freedoms. But when the society that brings them in then rejects them so completely it becomes hard to adjust. You ignore blatant racism and long lasting poverty and social inequality which would fuel contempt and polarization amongst just about any group.

I see it differently. I see most of Europe as being completely tolerant, and in fact, bending over backwards to give them what they want. You have the Muslims just taking advantage and getting offended by just about anything imaginable. I have scarsely heard of a group of people so thin-skinned.

I am all for free speech, but yours is hate speech and it helps fuel this cross cultural conflict. Instead of working to find common ground and to solve the problem you add to it and do decades worth of damage.

Oh come on, now I can't even take you seriously. Do you even know what hate speech is? What I am trying to have with you is a rational conversation, where we offer our own sides of the issue and we discuss it. It isn't like I am not amenable to persuasion or that I hate Muslims. It is true that I dislike many things in Islam, but that is true for many religions and many philosophies. It isn't as if this is new; this is generally what happens when a person criticizes any part of Islam, he is accused of hate speech. Free speech is specifically protected for speech that others don't like, and no one has a right to not be offended.

You do know that hundreds of thousands of Muslims were brought to Europe as military conscripts right? You do know that European colonization has made many of these countries economic waste lands (Like Pakistan).

What's that have to do with my argument?

If you want to rationally criticize it then you should take the time to learn more about it, so you don't blame the Jafari down the street for the viewpoints of Hanbali Muslims or of Qutbists or Wahabists. You polarize and radicalize moderates through such ugly stereotypes and generalizations.

You again make the mistake of thinking that I don't know about the sects of Islam or the scriptures.

Any person that would be "radicalized" by a silly cartoon, an honest conversation, or a differing opinion was no moderate at all. In order to be a moderate, you must first learn to accept all criticism as opinion and the right for people to have opinions and express them. You must not understand this either, for you consider what I am saying as "hate speech", which is completely false.

Originally Posted by Dylith

The article didn't say anything about them demanding that this never be printed, it talked about Muslims not wanting to put up a picture of a religiously unclean animal in their stores. Or producing a different pamphlet for the areas with larger Muslim populations.

I didn't say they demanded it. The officials will not print anything like that again anyway as to not get bad publicity, nor will they print one specifically for Muslims. Making one specifically for Muslims would be a waste of money when you can make one for all - just without dogs. The officials will pander... as always.

[Viv]

[quote]

Originally Posted by avsp

The doctors DIDNT speak english?
I find that very hard to believe, ..., in fact I dont believe it at all.

It's true.

& even if true then its hardly the fault of the doctors who were on duty Surely its the 'lazy' ways of english speaking doctors for not being willing to work at night.

I did not word the post well, she was treated by a doctor. But the doctors on duty could not discuss the treatment and allay her concerns, or explain what had happened and what would happen to her. Her treatment was not impeded by the language barrier.

I assume it was a matter of those on duty having some English, but not enough to explain the treatment.

As for the dogs fingy, ..., doubtless there were some who sought to make it an issue, but they're surely just the 'usual suspects' & firebrands who shouldnt be given the time of day by the likes of Councillor Asif, ..., tho perhaps its he who like to see his name in the paper

I don't think so. It relates to Tayside police in Scotland. There are not many race-related issues here. I don't know that Asif seeks a high profile in the way that you suggest.

None of the muslims I know, (& i know dozens) would be worried in the slightest by a picture of a dog landing on the doormat. Many are perfectly happy to share a sofa with a dog. Equally there are some who take care not to get dog saliva on their belongings because it is 'unclean', a view not disasimilar to my own & I'm agnostic-ish

They do regard dogs as unclean though, which the rest of us here do not. In fact, many of us love dogs and would take pleasure in seeing a little pup like him in an ad. That is what the article indicates, that he is universally popular.

Why then, should "the rest" of us be deprived of something we love, to accomodate this view?

I don't think we should be.

This is a multicultural society and all views are accepted. But we should encompass and include all views, not abolish some to suit minorities.

This is not a case of racism, or cartoons, or anything offensive against a religion. It's innocuous.

& BTW there is no question at all of introducing Sharia law, ..., the talk is of formally recognising the civil mediations that Muslims have entered into willingly, ..., just as Beth Din 'courts' are similarly recognised

I have read the articles. It was pretty clearly indicated that there is a lack of support for Sharia law when the Bishop situation blew up.

I question the motives of all the ppl 'getting all hot & bothered & jumping up & down' about this, be they the Daily Mail, Asif or posters in this thread

Feel free to question my motives. I am not racist, my husband is a foreign national. But my view is that we should include new customs when an ethnic minority joins the community, not be forced to lose the ones we love, in order to accomodate them.

There is no question of people here getting hot and bothered about it. The police are clearly taking a commendably intelligent and diplomatic route in agreeing to reassess the format of the ad. I hope only for issue to the Muslim community and not the rest of Scottish society.

[JaJae]

Police sniffer dogs will have to wear bootees when searching the homes of Muslims so as not to cause offence.

Guidelines being drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) urge awareness of religious sensitivities when using dogs to search for drugs and explosives. The guidelines, to be published this year, were designed to cover mosques but have been extended to include other buildings.

Where Muslims object, officers will be obliged to use sniffer dogs only in exceptional cases. Where dogs are used, they will have to wear bootees with rubber soles. “We are trying to ensure that police forces are aware of sensitivities that people can have with the dogs to make sure they are not going against any religious or cultural element within people’s homes. It is being addressed and forces are working towards doing it,” Acpo said.

No this isn't from the Onion.
Sniffer dogs to wear ‘Muslim’ bootees - Times Online

Before you bring that bomb sniffing dog in to check for that bomb you had better remember to put his bootees on! The lengths they go to appease. It's getting out of hand. The article goes on to quote an Imam who says this is pointless since it is the saliva (as mentioned earlier in this thread) that is impure.

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by Schrödinger's Cat

Once again, a secular religion doesn't exist; that is a conflict of terms.

I am not calling it a secular religion, I am calling it a more secular religion than what it was and that is certainly accurate as many rleigious customs and traits and issues are replaced by secular customs traits and issues within the church.

I don't treat anyone like shit; I've actually be quite polite in my dislike for their religion,

No, the generalizations, stereotypes and implications that most are "kill the infidels" types is not polite, nor is it rational. It is part of the problem, and it has been shown to be THE major problem when looking at West-East relationships.

There are different sects of Islam and there are different philosophies; that is a matter of course. One has to generalize, because I would have to go on for about 10 pages to just cover my opinions of some of the sects.

Maybe you should go on for about ten pages then. Whenever I have a problem with something Islamic I am always very specific. I suppose you are also one of those people who thinks it is ok to talks about all blacks as if they were criminals right? When we do such things it is looked down upon, but for some reason it is still perfectly acceptable to do it to Muslims.

This even has to be done with Christianity. I can lump Christianity into a group, because most of them tend to hold the New Testament and Old Testament as holy, just like the Muslims and the Koran and Hadith, generally speaking.

This doesn't make sense though because Hadiths change from country to country and even from local region to local region. You can't lump together when it comes to Hadith. You can't generalize hadith. The ONLY constant is the Quran.

I already did. I said that I agreed with that assessment. I agree that there are moderate Muslims and fundamentalists Muslims. However, then there is pure Islam.

Perhaps you can explain to me what pure Islam is then?

There are people that believe in the literal words of the prophet Mohammad, and it is truly scary that there are people that think Mohammad's example is one to follow.

Why is that scary, please elaborate.

The religious right needs no help from atheists to radicalize.

Yet we help them out with it all of the time. Muslims have said themselves that the number one issue that causes culture clash and dislike between Islam and the west is the western perception of Islam.

They have been doing fine on their own for thousands of years. When religious radicals, of any persuasion, start to interfere with my life and the lives of other people, then it is all of our obligation to speak out.

Of course, I speak out againt radicals as well, the problem seems to be that you simply see Islam as radical, you don't distinguish between one or the other when you should.

It is exactly dissent and criticism that forces institutions change.

Or it creates the paris riots, or the poalrization that is seen across Europe. Why are radical Muslims springing up out of moderate Islamic homes? There has to be some external factor there.

What is the price of being an apostate, according to the Hadith? If you go by his teachings, Allah isn't a friend to human rights.

Hadiths are not the teachings of Allah, and it depends on what Ilamic branch you are asking about, some will be death, others estrangement from society and others still acceptance.

That might depend on the definition of a civilian. From another point of view, Koran 2:190-194 is permission to attack the West and many others.

Are you suggesting that if someone makes war on you then you shouldn't fight back? That if someone oppresses you that you shouldn't rise up against it? That you shouldn't make peace if the other side is willing?

I fail to see how these beliefs are "scary" or even unique to Islam.

They have also been praised by others at the highest levels, depending where you want to look.

No, Tantawi the highest scholactic Sunni authority in the world has comdemned all of these things. There is no one of equal standing that has supported them. He sits in Egypt at the head of the area where the four main Sunni schools come together.

Don't think that I don't know what I'm talking about when it concerns the Koran or Hadith. I've read both. They give any justification that a sadistic person could ever want.

Reading doesn't mean that you understand. It takes more than a read through to understand the Quran, let alone the nature of Hadith, it takes years of serious study and perhaps even a lifetime.

I know about Sayyid Qutb. Yet, even if you ignore the Jihad movements (which I have never mentioned), you are still left with a completely terrible set of beliefs in the Koran, and in the Hadith especially. To even try to present these ideas as palatable is disgusting. You've said as much in your regard to "secularization". Why get rid of them if they weren't repugnant and false?

Who am I to say that the Quran is false? Most of these movements htat I am against didn't arise out of Quranic belief. You don't have to discard Islam in order to get rid of them.

I never said they are the same. I am reduced to saying just Islam because I don't know what sect the people are who threaten innocents with death in a London street, that riot and burn effigies, or kill people.

I'll give you a hint, they are individuals.

That's good, but more needs to be done. The point is that the more modern, moderate and reasonable Muslims get, the less influence Islam has. Remember that it is being watered down for a reason.

That doesn't have to be the case at all, and the more you try to force religion away from these people, the stronger they are going to cling to it.

I see it differently. I see most of Europe as being completely tolerant, and in fact, bending over backwards to give them what they want. You have the Muslims just taking advantage and getting offended by just about anything imaginable. I have scarsely heard of a group of people so thin-skinned.

Then you have absolutely no understanding of the conditions in Europe. Racism, especially in countries like France is very high. It is different in Europe than it is in the United States, the US is a younger country and doesn't have the strong sense of ethnic nationalism that many European countries have. This sense of nationalism prevents minorities from every truely merging with the culture. Politicians may try here and there to mitigate the effects of this, but the root problems are never dealt with. These admissions are just a series of band-aids.

What's that have to do with my argument?

I was responding to the statement "if they hate it, why come here" which is always a silly arguement fir many reasons because:

1.) Many were brought there against their will as military conscripts

2.) They don't hate it. They really do love a lot of core western values as I have stated over and over again. They dislike it when the culture that they have come to be a part of rejects them and insults them. Then their chidlren become the radicals, the neo-conservatives.

3.) There is little economic choice. They have to come west or move elswhere to seek work because the effects of colonization in many countries such as Pakistan has left them without a stable economy. Neo-coloialism is still very rampant, especially in the Middle East.

Any person that would be "radicalized" by a silly cartoon, an honest conversation, or a differing opinion was no moderate at all.

It isn't just the cartoon, it is what it represents, the cartoon was the straw that broke the camel's back, all it was was a spark that triggered the long growing unrest. Unrest that is well justified.

I didn't say they demanded it. The officials will not print anything like that again anyway as to not get bad publicity, nor will they print one specifically for Muslims. Making one specifically for Muslims would be a waste of money when you can make one for all - just without dogs. The officials will pander... as always.

That's how it should be. If their goal is to raise awareness and recruitment/support then they have to come up with somethat that appeals to the people. Dogs don't appeal to a significant proportion of the people, so it makes sense that something else should be used.

That's not pandering, that's rational behavior, that's capitalism, that's being efficient. I am sorry if change upsets you so much.

[motivez]

While I think their response is ridiculous on a personal level, I think Dylith has a point about cultural sensitivity when it comes to unclean animals and whether or not it'd be taken offensively if we asked Jewish folks to put up pictures of pigs in their establishments

I don't think it means the police should change their ad campaign or do anything so ridiculous as to make their dogs wear boots if they have to search for something with them, but I certainly don't see why Muslims should be asked to put up something offensive to them

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by Dylith

I am not calling it a secular religion, I am calling it a more secular religion than what it was and that is certainly accurate as many rleigious customs and traits and issues are replaced by secular customs traits and issues within the church.

Fine, I was just letting you know my meaning, and that I disagree with your choice of words. I'll leave it at that.

No, the generalizations, stereotypes and implications that most are "kill the infidels" types is not polite, nor is it rational. It is part of the problem, and it has been shown to be THE major problem when looking at West-East relationships.

This doesn't apply to me and I didn't say that most Muslims even fit into that category. In fact, as it concerns the adherents, I've gone out of to say how diverse they are. My objections are with the very core of their beliefs; I did not say that they all want to kill people. Such problems aren't only as it concerns the West and Muslims, it is also in the East where you find a clash (e.g., India).

Maybe you should go on for about ten pages then. Whenever I have a problem with something Islamic I am always very specific. I suppose you are also one of those people who thinks it is ok to talks about all blacks as if they were criminals right? When we do such things it is looked down upon, but for some reason it is still perfectly acceptable to do it to Muslims.

I find it a bit insulting that you assume that I am not black, and that you try to compare me to a racist.

I didn't say that all Muslims are anything in particular other than Muslims. Most adhere to either Sunni or Shi'a Islam. I can therefore make a generalization because I am talking about beliefs and practices which both of these groups have in common; that is just like saying just "Christianity", instead of saying "Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant". Indeed one could break down even these groups further. I wouldn't need to break them up though, for I would be talking about something they had in common. These generalizations are even used by the proponents of these religions.

Perhaps you can explain to me what pure Islam is then?

Traditional and shared views of believers, usually required in order to be considered a believer.

Why is that scary, please elaborate.

It is the abandonment of critical analysis to archaic superstition.

Yet we help them out with it all of the time. Muslims have said themselves that the number one issue that causes culture clash and dislike between Islam and the west is the western perception of Islam.

Whenever you have a group of people that claim to know the absolute truth, with no evidence, and you have another group that is critical of the claims, the former group will become hostile. Our disbelief and skepticism is an affront to their faith; the Koran even warns of unbelievers trying to lead them astray and the doom to follow them in the afterlife. In many ways, this is a reason why many Muslims are hostile to the secular West looking at Islam with a skeptical eye.

Of course, I speak out againt radicals as well, the problem seems to be that you simply see Islam as radical, you don't distinguish between one or the other when you should.

Many core ideas in Islam are radical. The submission to a tyrant in the sky is a completely radical idea to me.

Or it creates the paris riots, or the poalrization that is seen across Europe. Why are radical Muslims springing up out of moderate Islamic homes? There has to be some external factor there.

Islam is a naturally polarizing religion, it separates people along the lines of belief. You ask why radicals are springing out of moderate homes. I will tell you that if they are so upset about criticism, then they were not really moderate in the first place.

Are you suggesting that if someone makes war on you then you shouldn't fight back? That if someone oppresses you that you shouldn't rise up against it? That you shouldn't make peace if the other side is willing?

When it comes to military versus military, yes. However there are many that see things through a broader scope. They seem to blame not only a few in the military, but everyone that is a part of that society as well, the West. The point was that such passages can and are used for justification.

I fail to see how these beliefs are "scary" or even unique to Islam.

I've talked about fundamentalists in other religions previously, but this thread is about Islam. Of course, Islam isn't the only show in town, and there's plenty of examples in other faiths. I didn't say those passages were "scary", but now that you mention it, I find it scary that someone would believe that a god is telling you to kill and believing that he is on your side, giving you justification.

Reading doesn't mean that you understand. It takes more than a read through to understand the Quran, let alone the nature of Hadith, it takes years of serious study and perhaps even a lifetime.

No one truly understands them, because there is no objective right or wrong view. This is why you have so many interpretations and so many perversions. Before you charge me again with singling out Islam, I've said the same things about other religious holy books.

Who am I to say that the Quran is false? Most of these movements htat I am against didn't arise out of Quranic belief. You don't have to discard Islam in order to get rid of them.

You can say it is false, just like you can say that Hellenistic religions are false. Muslims claim that they are the ones in possession of the truth, yet they have no evidence for this claim at all. If you take the same stance with these Jihadi movements as you do with the Koran, who are you to say that they are false?

I'll give you a hint, they are individuals.

Of course, but groups are also made of individuals.

That doesn't have to be the case at all, and the more you try to force religion away from these people, the stronger they are going to cling to it.

Who is trying to force religion away from these people? They can believe whatever they want. I am merely speaking critically about their beliefs.

Then you have absolutely no understanding of the conditions in Europe. Racism, especially in countries like France is very high.

What does genotype have to do with religious belief or culture?

It isn't just the cartoon, it is what it represents, the cartoon was the straw that broke the camel's back, all it was was a spark that triggered the long growing unrest. Unrest that is well justified.

They weren't justified to riot, issue death threats, destroy property, and so on. They are justified to peacefully demonstrate, as some did. The violence was completely unjustified.

That's how it should be. If their goal is to raise awareness and recruitment/support then they have to come up with somethat that appeals to the people. Dogs don't appeal to a significant proportion of the people, so it makes sense that something else should be used.

Rebel was used because he was a cute icon that was popular among most of the people. Dogs don't appeal to a small minority that now have a larger voice than many people, due to political correctness. This takes place in Tayside, Scotland. I do believe that they are an extremely small minority (~1-2%), but a Scot can confirm that. If Jews were to get offended at every unclean animal mentioned in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, then you'd never hear the end of it.

That's not pandering, that's rational behavior, that's capitalism, that's being efficient. I am sorry if change upsets you so much.

I am not upset by this story in the slightest, as I have no vested interest in the political correctness of Scotland.

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by Schrödinger's Cat

This doesn't apply to me and I didn't say that most Muslims even fit into that category. In fact, as it concerns the adherents, I've gone out of to say how diverse they are.

Yes you have to the first, and no you haven't to the second.

You said "The people who are calling for the deaths of infidels or people that "insult" their religion are not a minority," which implies that they are actually a majority, which is exactly what I called you out on.

As for the second, in this very post you merely break Islam down into Sunni and Shiite, and then justify the generalization of these two groups, how is that going out of your way to show how diverse Islam is? That is doing just the opposite and simplifying it to a point where you can't have very many specific discussions about its content.

My objections are with the very core of their beliefs; I did not say that they all want to kill people.

No, you just implied that most do.

I find it a bit insulting that you assume that I am not black, and that you try to compare me to a racist.

1.) You live in Virginia and your user name appears to be German, I assumed that you are someone living in Virginia of Germanic heritage, where I then made the assumption that you were white.

If you're not, good for you, my example still stands

2.)You are comparable to a racist in the fact that you are making sweeping generalizations about people based on the title of their religion, much the same way that racists make sweeping generalizations about a specific ethnicity.

I didn't say that all Muslims are anything in particular other than Muslims. Most adhere to either Sunni or Shi'a Islam. I can therefore make a generalization because I am talking about beliefs and practices which both of these groups have in common;

I am sorry but Islam is not that simple. You can't break it down to Sunni and Shiite and then leave it at that. Do you know how many branches of Shia Muslim there are? There used to be hundreds and there is certainly more than one today. Even when you find two Shia twelver and shia Jafari localities they are still going to be different given the nature of hadith comentaries.

I already said before that the Islam in Turkey is completely different from the Islam found in Saudi Arabia and guess what? Both are Sunni.

Whenever you have a group of people that claim to know the absolute truth, with no evidence, and you have another group that is critical of the claims, the former group will become hostile.

You keep using the word critical, that really isn't the right term. The way the west generally depicts Islam and its adherants is nothing fshort of abusive. It's ignorant. The ignorance and the unwillignness to listen pisses people off, porbably mroe so than any rational criticism that you can fling at them.

Many core ideas in Islam are radical. The submission to a tyrant in the sky is a completely radical idea to me.

And leading a godless life that is devoid of any outside meaning is a rather radical view to them, the fact is though that you are going to have to live with one another.

You ask why radicals are springing out of moderate homes. I will tell you that if they are so upset about criticism, then they were not really moderate in the first place.

That really doesn't make any sense. The new Muslim youth movement in the UK and France is certainly more radical than what was previously seen, and even most modern terrorists come from homes that don't advocate violence, but are in fact, very moderate in comparison.

When it comes to military versus military, yes. However there are many that see things through a broader scope. They seem to blame not only a few in the military, but everyone that is a part of that society as well, the West. The point was that such passages can and are used for justification.

Waging war against an entire society is a great sin in Islam and has been condemned in several major Fatwas. Once again, religious education is a negative indicator of terrorist activity.

I agree that this mindset exists, I do not agree that it is really rooted within Islam, but was rather introduced into Islam by people such as Qutb.

I find it scary that someone would believe that a god is telling you to kill and believing that he is on your side, giving you justification.

God really isn't used as justification to kill in the Quran, the fact that he is "on your side" is more so for moral purposes. The Umma was in conflict with Mecca and was previously oppressed under Mecan rule, later on the Byzantines invaded, these are the confllicts that are referened in the Quran.

No one truly understands them, because there is no objective right or wrong view. This is why you have so many interpretations and so many perversions. Before you charge me again with singling out Islam, I've said the same things about other religious holy books.

You can't really compare the Bible to the Quran in that fashion. Once again you are generalizing and missing huge differences. The Quran was written down right after Muhammad's death by people who were their for its revelations and it has been preserved that way in its origional language ever sense. The only real different versions you get of the Quran are when they are translated into another language like English. Nor is there nearly as much debate in the Islamic world as to the meaning of Quranic scripture as there is in Christianity with regards to Biblical scripture. The main differences lay within hadiths and their implimentation and interpretation.

Of course, but groups are also made of individuals.

I would rather you treat them as individuals for now, you yourself have already said that you don't know what group they are, which implies that you have no concept of their numbers, or of that group's specific beliefs.

What does genotype have to do with religious belief or culture?

French colonies were heavily populated with Muslims, that means that many of the minorities within France are Islamic. Furthermore, there is a general sense of Islamophobia because Islam isn't seen as "French" so you have bigotry on that front too. Black French suffer from discrimination due to their color as well, but Muslim minorities suffer from French nationalism on multiple fronts.

They weren't justified to riot, issue death threats, destroy property, and so on. They are justified to peacefully demonstrate, as some did. The violence was completely unjustified.

I never said they were, I said the unrest was justified.

Rebel was used because he was a cute icon that was popular among most of the people. Dogs don't appeal to a small minority that now have a larger voice than many people, due to political correctness. This takes place in Tayside, Scotland. I do believe that they are an extremely small minority (~1-2%), but a Scot can confirm that. If Jews were to get offended at every unclean animal mentioned in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, then you'd never hear the end of it.

Then print the damn things and don't have Muslims hang them up. Big deal, it is really the station's call, if they decide to not print it anymore, that is their choice. The Muslims aren't forcing them to do it.

I am not upset by this story in the slightest, as I have no vested interest in the political correctness of Scotland.

Then why make the thread?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm going to wind this down, because I think it can go on for a long time without reaching common ground.

Originally Posted by Dylith

You said "The people who are calling for the deaths of infidels or people that "insult" their religion are not a minority," which implies that they are actually a majority, which is exactly what I called you out on.

If they are a minority, they are an extremely vocal minority. I accept the possibility that I am wrong about their numbers.

1.) You live in Virginia and your user name appears to be German, I assumed that you are someone living in Virginia of Germanic heritage, where I then made the assumption that you were white.

Here is what my name refers to:
Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are many African-Americans in VA, but I am not even originally from here. The point is that you are willing to resort to ad hominem in your posts. Why make assumptions about me personally when you aren't even in a position to know?

You keep using the word critical, that really isn't the right term. The way the west generally depicts Islam and its adherants is nothing fshort of abusive. It's ignorant. The ignorance and the unwillignness to listen pisses people off, porbably mroe so than any rational criticism that you can fling at them.

I am completely willing to listen to the other side. I am doing it with you right now. The point is that they don't want to listen. I don't hate them. I want to talk about their false beliefs (in my view), but that is proscribed currently in society. They seem to have a charmed place where they are immune. This is not just Islam, but to a lesser degree Christianity and Judaism (especially in the US). You can't criticize Islam or Muslims without being branded with hate speech, as you did with me. Even if I am wrong for generalizing, the point that when anyone speaks against this belief system in public way, they are either killed, get death threats against them, or have riots sparked because of them; that is even taking your point that these types are a minority. Yet Muslims continue to be catered to, because people are afraid and because they are a very vocal group. Such a proscription is detrimental to a free society. We have free speech for the specific reason to protect undesirable speech.

I would rather you treat them as individuals for now, you yourself have already said that you don't know what group they are, which implies that you have no concept of their numbers, or of that group's specific beliefs.

Conceded.

Then why make the thread?

To spark a discussion, as is what one would expect with a thread-starter. I have actually enjoyed it, and I have learned some things. Thanks for indulging me with a conversation, regardless of what you think of me.

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by Schrödinger's Cat

Here is what my name refers to:
Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pretty interesting thanks for the link.

There are many African-Americans in VA, but I am not even originally from here. The point is that you are willing to resort to ad hominem in your posts. Why make assumptions about me personally when you aren't even in a position to know?

I was trying to make a point. For some reason it seems socially acceptable to generalize and stereotype religious groups, which bugs me because the same people who do things like this would probably also suggest that things such as racism are bad. I find one to be pretty much as bad as the other.

I am completely willing to listen to the other side. I am doing it with you right now.

You are right, you are, and you have remained polite throughout the conversation despite my hostilities. I apologize for the aggressive nature of my posts. This thread started off on the wrong foot (I was concentrating on things like the violence comment).

They seem to have a charmed place where they are immune.

I have honestly have never had a problem talking with Muslims about Islam or really with talking with Christians about Christianity. Some are a little different from others and some I simply don't like. Perhaps the difference is tha I don't try to convert. (not sure what it is that you do). I show respect to their beliefs. Sure I don't believe them, and find them illogical, but they have to break away from that on their own. I am just ehre to show them that atheists don't have to be religious hating ignorant pricks. That's really all I am going for, that and personal gain through better religious education.

I don't want them to view me as an enemy, because I can be much more influential as a friend.

This is not just Islam, but to a lesser degree Christianity and Judaism (especially in the US). You can't criticize Islam or Muslims without being branded with hate speech, as you did with me.

I criticized you because of the broad stereotypes and generalizations. Like I said I think we started off on the wrong foot.

Yet Muslims continue to be catered to, because people are afraid and because they are a very vocal group. Such a proscription is detrimental to a free society. We have free speech for the specific reason to protect undesirable speech.

The problem it not with free speech, but the ignorance that is being spoken and the racial and religious bigotry that is so pervasive in several parts of Europe.

Once again polls don't show that Muslims have a problem with free speech, they have a problem with western ignorance with regards to Islam.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by Dylith

I was trying to make a point. For some reason it seems socially acceptable to generalize and stereotype religious groups, which bugs me because the same people who do things like this would probably also suggest that things such as racism are bad. I find one to be pretty much as bad as the other.

I don't think it is seen as socially acceptable.

What I was trying to explain, and it seems doing a poor job of it, was that I find the basic tenets of not just this religion, but all to be downright radical. Islam tends to be less watered down than other Western faiths. I didn't mean to seem to be generalizing that all these people are evil or something. That is certainly not my position. Racists believe that there is a factor that makes one group of humans inherently better than another; the person has no choice and is born into being inferior. That is not only wrong, but is contrary to modern science. It is a hold-over from pseudo-science and anthropology from over a century ago, that has long been discounted in all open-minded inquiry. I have a fundamental disagreement with basic ideas that apply to many religions, and Islam is merely one of them. The adherent of a belief system has the choice to believe or not.

You are right, you are, and you have remained polite throughout the conversation despite my hostilities. I apologize for the aggressive nature of my posts. This thread started off on the wrong foot (I was concentrating on things like the violence comment).

It is understandable. I think I did a terrible job of articulating my position, and I'm sorry for that.

I have honestly have never had a problem talking with Muslims about Islam or really with talking with Christians about Christianity.

On the topic of Christianity, I know a great deal more, I will admit. There are many that are outright hostile to any criticism from nonbelievers. In fact, there are many in my community, even my family, that are outright hostile to atheists - for merely disbelief. They are right, they know it, and they won't even accept the possibility that they may be wrong. This is, of course, not all of Christians. However, fundamentalists are strong in the US and especially in my part of the country.

Some are a little different from others and some I simply don't like. Perhaps the difference is tha I don't try to convert. (not sure what it is that you do). I show respect to their beliefs. Sure I don't believe them, and find them illogical, but they have to break away from that on their own. I am just ehre to show them that atheists don't have to be religious hating ignorant pricks. That's really all I am going for, that and personal gain through better religious education.

I don't try to convert them, and I hold religious freedom as a very important principle. My problem with it is that I see religion as a negative influence on progressive society and the way to combat that influence is to attack their ideas. They won't like that, but I don't like the fact that much of the things in society are often influenced by ignorant people that want to force their specific morality on everyone else (e.g., gay marriage, abortion, scientific research and the role of science in the classrooms). In this way I can't respect their beliefs, because it is based in falsehood and it has a negative effect. A main problem, that I have outlined before, is that I see faith as having an immunity to criticism in the eyes of the media and of the general public.

I don't want them to view me as an enemy, because I can be much more influential as a friend.

I don't care how they view me. I am used to being viewed as an evil sinner. I am viewed that way by members of my own family. Their opinion of me is totally irrelevant to the argument or the truth, which is something we should all be striving for. If they aren't open-minded to opposing arguments then I wouldn't have a chance to reach them anyway.

The problem it not with free speech, but the ignorance that is being spoken and the racial and religious bigotry that is so pervasive in several parts of Europe.

They should be allowed speak no matter how racist or ignorant the things they say are. If it is incitement to violence, then it shouldn't be protected. I trust most people to come to a reasonable conclusion once all sides are heard and they are in possession of the facts.

Once again polls don't show that Muslims have a problem with free speech, they have a problem with western ignorance with regards to Islam.

I don't have a problem accepting that as true, but are you specifically referring to polls of Muslims in the West? I think it is a combination of things. I disagree with the willingness in Europe to censor "hate speech". That is an affront to free speech, in my opinion.