Islam is a dangerous, fanatical religion

[Lestat]

IMO those who stay silent and do not decry the actions of a known paedophile for the evil they are, share some of the guilt of the paedophile by association and condoning their evil deeds.

Granted in this specific instance the paedophile committed his atrocities many centuries ago, but at the very least, his being a paedophile pretty much ought to firmly and permanently proclaim 'this dirty bastard should NOT be worshipped as the closest thing behind their barbarian version of a deity', his 'messenger' or not, the fact is the bastard was still a child molester who would these days have bits
chopped off him in many arab countries had he done these things last week or month or year or  decade.

Knowingly elevating a paedophile to the position of worshipped figure and worse, far worse, ROLE MODEL cannot be a good thing, for it gives a lot of cause for some of those who share in the worship  of the nonce and who take It as a role model to try to condone heinous acts of child abuse of their own by saying something to the effect of 'well pighammid did it, piss be upon him'

Islam just fundamentally is a primitive and barbarous creed, and a poisonous one. Christ, having a holy book that gives directions on how to beat your wife? starring role for a kiddy fiddling throat slitting, morally repugnant warlord and general thug? not what we want represented by legions of followers, and a dangerously large number of outright murderous fanatics.

Just look at what ISIS did, even resorting to destroying ancient monuments and archaeological treasures which are irreplaceable in the name of purging the 'unclean', something they'd all love to see done to us also, if they had their way.


As for that noah misquote-its obviously not literal truth. Were two people and only two saved there simply would not be enough genetic material available to reboot the human or animal populations. Inbreeding would rapidly have left the offspring infertile, and within a handful of generations, as deformed, crippled tragedies with half-integer IQs, or else god himself would have had to wave his magic wand and convert all species to capability of reproduction via parthogenesis or binary fission, leaving us all as something probably far more squishy, boneless and polypoid than mobile and of primate heritage. Last time I looked, I wasn't a starfish-person and neither were the rest of my species, even the neurotypicals are still primates, sort of. (I'm being pretty facetious here, rather than in seriousness)

[odeon]

But why limit this to Islam? http://www.nairaland.com/450419/age-marriage-medieval-times-paedophilia

While consent ages were low, it seems to be a misconception that such young marriages were commonplace. Young marriages were more likely to occur for women of high social status, but even then it wasn't the norm. The average age of first marriage for women in the US during the early 1700s was 19-22, and that hasn't changed much since then.

Early 1700s was much later. This was way before there was a US.

Good point, but was it really that common? Not really liking this source. The source provided for the middle ages is specifically about noble women, there's no source for the claims about the 12 being commonplace before 1200, and the 1600s section only discusses ages of consent.

It was just an example, the result of a quick google search. My point is that marriages at a sometimes very young age was in no way unique to Mohammed or his time period but yet Muslims today are the only ones being judged by something that took place a thousand years ago.

Similarly hateful arguments could easily be constructed around Christians by leafing through the Bible: they are obviously all homophobic and vengeful misogynists.

[odeon]

I can't see the mileage gained from using something that may or may not have happened over a thousand years ago to make moral judgement on a billion men, women and children alive today.

It's relevant because they're still stuck in those same cultural and moral values from the beginning of the iron age.

But then again, I'm not a racist so I'm not likely to understand.

Actually you are. You're engaged in the soft racism of low expectations.

In the gun thread, you expect white people (Americans), to modernize (to European expectations) and stick to your progressive values but those poor, discriminated against, sand niggers are just too dumb to figure out that fucking children is bad.

Quite the double standard.

-1

[FourAceDeal]

I can't see the mileage gained from using something that may or may not have happened over a thousand years ago to make moral judgement on a billion men, women and children alive today.

It's relevant because they're still stuck in those same cultural and moral values from the beginning of the iron age.

But then again, I'm not a racist so I'm not likely to understand.

Actually you are. You're engaged in the soft racism of low expectations.

In the gun thread, you expect white people (Americans), to modernize (to European expectations) and stick to your progressive values but those poor, discriminated against, sand niggers are just too dumb to figure out that fucking children is bad.

Quite the double standard.

So by the same standards you are to be judged by things the Christian world has done over he last 1500 years, or anything done by a white person?  Does it work both ways?  If not then you've just defined the word hypocrisy.  (It means holding others to different standards than yourself.)

Bonus points for the Trumpist moral relativism though.  It doesn't really work in arguments with adults but well done you.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

I can't see the mileage gained from using something that may or may not have happened over a thousand years ago to make moral judgement on a billion men, women and children alive today.

It's relevant because they're still stuck in those same cultural and moral values from the beginning of the iron age.

But then again, I'm not a racist so I'm not likely to understand.

Actually you are. You're engaged in the soft racism of low expectations.

In the gun thread, you expect white people (Americans), to modernize (to European expectations) and stick to your progressive values but those poor, discriminated against, sand niggers are just too dumb to figure out that fucking children is bad.

Quite the double standard.

So by the same standards you are to be judged by things the Christian world has done over he last 1500 years, or anything done by a white person?  Does it work both ways?  If not then you've just defined the word hypocrisy.  (It means holding others to different standards than yourself.)

Bonus points for the Trumpist moral relativism though.  It doesn't really work in arguments with adults but well done you.

D- for lack of reading comprehension.

I'm not talking about things that have been done in the past, my whole point was that although Christianity and Islam have done bad things and have had poor moral values, the western world has managed to grow up while the Islamic world remains stagnant.

Or are you just trying to be obtuse on purpose??

[FourAceDeal]

I can't see the mileage gained from using something that may or may not have happened over a thousand years ago to make moral judgement on a billion men, women and children alive today.

It's relevant because they're still stuck in those same cultural and moral values from the beginning of the iron age.

But then again, I'm not a racist so I'm not likely to understand.

Actually you are. You're engaged in the soft racism of low expectations.

In the gun thread, you expect white people (Americans), to modernize (to European expectations) and stick to your progressive values but those poor, discriminated against, sand niggers are just too dumb to figure out that fucking children is bad.

Quite the double standard.

So by the same standards you are to be judged by things the Christian world has done over he last 1500 years, or anything done by a white person?  Does it work both ways?  If not then you've just defined the word hypocrisy.  (It means holding others to different standards than yourself.)

Bonus points for the Trumpist moral relativism though.  It doesn't really work in arguments with adults but well done you.

D- for lack of reading comprehension.

I'm not talking about things that have been done in the past, my whole point was that although Christianity and Islam have done bad things and have had poor moral values, the western world has managed to grow up while the Islamic world remains stagnant.

Or are you just trying to be obtuse on purpose??

I won't argue that there are strands of Islam that need dragging into the 21st century, but I do not judge a whole section of society by historic values or by the acts of a few.

And how far have we grown up?

[Al Swearegen]

Which strands and what is the size of these strands? Strands makes it sound like very small outliers.
I honestly do not know, that may be the case. Are you talking 100's? 1000's? 10, 000's? 100 000's? 1 000 000's? More?

[Pyraxis]

Oh I don't know, a handful? Say, three million? 


*ducks back out of the thread because I really do not care about the argument, but could not resist the snark*

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Oh I don't know, a handful? Say, three million? 


*ducks back out of the thread because I really do not care about the argument, but could not resist the snark*

Given that there's over a billion muslims, that's at most, .3% of the population.

So yes, it's a relative handful.

[Lestat]

Don't know about 'strands' as such, there are sunni, wahabi groups, they are all at it, the sunnis want to kill the shi'a, the shi'a want to kill the sunnis, the wahabis want to kill everybody who isn't wahabi...and the 'holy' book they all claim in one way or another to follow is a nasty piece of work to begin with. Poisonous trees do not bear wholesome fruit.

And a 'messiah' known for banging little kids? enough said. They aren't likely candidates to join this day and age any time soon since they have had 2000 years ok, I'm using the christian calendar here, rather than post anno hegirae, since I am not intimitely familiar with the islamic calendar, but they've certainly had a couple of thousand years, give or take, and they are still slaughtering people, and each other, about as civilized as a bag full of sewer rats with their tails tied together.

Are they going to change? the christian world did, under pressure, even in a fairly primitive setting, we haven't  had an inquisition for centuries, and its incredibly unlikely we ever will again, yet the islamic world is at it NOW, and remember, we have to catch the terrorist each and every time, to prevent an atrocity, THEY only have to get it right once. So even with, at any one point in time, their having fewer numbers than those they wish to panic and attack, they don't NEED so many. Sooner or later a group slips the net, or a lone wolf cleanskin suddenly decides to go active. The latter being especially dangerous and difficult to catch, those with no history and operating alone, still able to cause mass casualties.

[Al Swearegen]

I do think that there is a very real threat and it is specifically in the Muslim community. It is in the hearts of extremists that use the religious principles of Islam in the worst ways and absolutely selectively to justify their abhorrence. I think to try and extricate that from Islam or from Muslim communities is near on impossible and dangerous.

However, I do not think that ALL Muslims support these people nor even most Muslim people.

I do not think the risk of offence is nearly as dangerous as not acting on things for risk of offending.

Being Muslim does not make you bad. Any more than being Christian makes you bad. Bad people will be bad and do bad things. The Muslim extremists are bad people and they are doing bad things and with religious ideological backing (no maybe not mainstream Muslim teaching but certainly not outlier religious doctrine - Wahabbism, for example, is not a fringe Islamic cult or a discredited doctrine.

I believe in the same way that being a Hippie or a Nazi or other such once alluring and pervasive and persuasive groups can become something to mock and deride, so must the ISIS and radicalised Muslim extremists become. It has to become something so toxic to anyone even considering the idea of it as meritless. In this, any or all opposition to demonise, deride, eradicate or purge it is good for everyone.

None of my Muslims mates are fans of these sorts of people and are embarrassed and equally as disgusted by the actions of the Muslim extremists. I think were the influence and force and conviction of these fanatics to die (with as many of them as possible) then this would be good for the Muslim community as a whole too. 

[Lestat]

One can scarcely compare hippies to ISIS and other muslims.

And you are all too right, in that refusing to act just because you might offend some fraction of any given group who are just oversensitive fucking snowflakes, a government denying the citizens that government exists to serve (a fact most govts. seem to have totally forgotten; that governments exist to serve the people and that the people do not exist to serve the government) the protection and security that intelligence services etc. are required to take down these fanatic shitsniffers is completely and utterly wrong.

And furthermore, when governments start offering libations of jizm atop the altar of political correctness, that places a potent weapon right into the hands of the extremist fuckups-when govts get too pussywhipped to man up and act against the psychotic wankers for fear of offending the snowflake fuckmuppet portion of the group,  the psychos get a green card to pose as special snowflake pussies in order to deter action against them, and you get the type that is hellbent on slaughtering the infidel going 'waaahhhh they drew a picture of mohammid, make them shut up and disband and stop opposing us evil pig-hating paedophile worshipping barbarian bags of filth'

PC  makes the job of the evildoer much, much easier, by making those on the side of right too fearful to act against them by playing the fucking pussy ass snowflake bitch card.

And in any case, the ACTUAL snowflakes, they shouldn't be getting any such special treatment in the first place. Best and only policy is to tell them all to go get buggered and stop being such whiny, prissy little tosspots. Offended when other people want to eat pork chops, draw muhammid or wake up to a bacon sandwich for breakfast? too fucking bad. Don't want to draw muhammid? fine. Don't want to eat pig-parts? all well and good for you, don't draw muhammid and don't eat pork then. But don't fucking well start whining like a little fucking oversensitive bitch when people who do want to do such things and who do not adhere to your creed do so.

[odeon]

Bigots will be bigots.

[Jack]

But why limit this to Islam? http://www.nairaland.com/450419/age-marriage-medieval-times-paedophilia

While consent ages were low, it seems to be a misconception that such young marriages were commonplace. Young marriages were more likely to occur for women of high social status, but even then it wasn't the norm. The average age of first marriage for women in the US during the early 1700s was 19-22, and that hasn't changed much since then.

Early 1700s was much later. This was way before there was a US.

Good point, but was it really that common? Not really liking this source. The source provided for the middle ages is specifically about noble women, there's no source for the claims about the 12 being commonplace before 1200, and the 1600s section only discusses ages of consent.

It was just an example, the result of a quick google search. My point is that marriages at a sometimes very young age was in no way unique to Mohammed or his time period but yet Muslims today are the only ones being judged by something that took place a thousand years ago.

Similarly hateful arguments could easily be constructed around Christians by leafing through the Bible: they are obviously all homophobic and vengeful misogynists.

Correct, it's an easy jab. Was just thrown off by the article saying it was ever a common thing.

[Lestat]

Regardless of the law, there is right, and there is wrong. What is legal or illegal and what is the righteous way to conduct oneself, and to treat another. I'm sure, that at some point in time since the very first clan of, from a definitive biological, evolutionary point of view, were genetically distinct enough to have speciated fully from apes and the rest of the genus Homo, to be bona-fide H.sapiens, who had no law against taking a one-year old child, and raping the child by brute force.

This is in extremis, to make a point, but what is codified in law does not necessarily equal what is right and what is wrong. The nazis made a lot of laws, and a lot of those laws were pure evil, the murder of men, women and children, and the butchery of those born with disabilities, physical or mental. These things were sanctioned by the Reichsfuhrer himself, but were the laws made by that man and his allies RIGHT?

Or, on the flip side, the benign side of the coin, is sending a man to prison, because he sold another man, a bag of weed worth a twenty pound note, the seller having grown it himself from seed or other means by which he came, depriving no person of their right to their property, and having at no point comitted any violence in his undertakings, and the buyer doing no such thing either, should either be made by force to suffer against their will, deprived of any thing on this earth against their will for participating in the transaction, or use of that weed, enjoying it recreationally, socially, as a medical treatment against chemotherapy sickness and/or cancer pain, or all of the above? in many countries such people would be considered criminals, but does that make them bad people? yet the far more acutely and socially harmful alcohol, which itself can be enjoyed in moderation or occasional drunkenness, but as long as no person harms another, the consumer is not subjected to the threat of force against their person without their consent in full and in perpetuity as long as it may continue, be taken and the taker be a good person, when the act itself, the consumption, wholly remaining victimless, be equal in that it is the intake of an intoxicant for whatever reason the person or people consuming it so choose?

Lex legis sicut scriptum, nullum est legis bonum.