Watch an expert explode the myths about Islam! - Essential viewing for many on here.

[Soulman]

if there wasnt a substantial authority around, i wouldnt be at all surprised if there was beheadings or similiar in Westboro. thats a part of the world that only just stop lynchings the last few decades.

"Last few decades"....yes some things have moved on. The thing is there have not been any "be headings or similar in Westboro"......"i wouldnt be at all surprised if "...there is not.

 

[Soulman]

So you are suggesting that it is only Muslims that 'Love a ruck'?

I think if you look at the facts (especially historically) you could politely say that most humans from most religions and most countries 'love a ruck'

"historically" you are correct, but we are dealing with what is happening NOW, to keep dragging up our behaviour from the last centuries is just swerving.

 

[BadFish]

"historically" you are correct, but we are dealing with what is happening NOW, to keep dragging up our behaviour from the last centuries is just swerving.

But suggesting that Muslims love a ruck based on the actions of some Muslims is sound?

 

[Soulman]

But suggesting that Muslims love a ruck based on the actions of some Muslims is sound?

I am suggesting that the troubles in all the countries that i mentioned involve Muslims, these are countries where no action from the West has contributed.
If you look at England, your Australia, Thailand, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark etc...you do not see any unrest (or people offended) from other religions like Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists etc. The trouble in these countries, including Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Nigeria etc all involve those (not all obviously) that follow Islam in one form or another. This is NOW.

 

[Jim Van Winkle]

The sooner organised religion is banned, the better off we'll be.

I completely agree. I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon, the super church about 10 minutes from my house has a crazy full car park on a Sunday morning. These super church's are real money makers - someone, somewhere is cleaning up making easy money.

 

[BadFish]

I am suggesting that the troubles in all the countries that i mentioned involve Muslims, these are countries where no action from the West has contributed.
If you look at England, your Australia, Thailand, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark etc...you do not see any unrest (or people offended) from other religions like Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists etc. The trouble in these countries, including Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Nigeria etc all involve those (not all obviously) that follow Islam in one form or another. This is NOW.

So when you say 'They (Muslims) love a ruck' you are suggesting that Muslims as a group love a ruck based on the fact that some in some countries are involved in fighting?

62% of Muslims world wide wide live in the Asia Pacific region and are not involved in fighting.

35% of Muslims live in the Middle East and Africa. I am not sure how many of these are involved in fighting but even if it were every single one (which obviously it isn't) then I don't see how you can suggest that 'They' 'love a ruck' based on the fact that 35% of 'them are fighting. This would entirely ignore the reasons that they are fighting - these could be many and i am going to assume are more involved that simple because they 'love a ruck'.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ulation-more-widespread-than-you-might-think/

Do you really think that because 35% of Muslims live in countries that are involved in fighting that this makes Muslims the world over aggressive religion?

 

[Soulman]

So when you say 'They (Muslims) love a ruck' you are suggesting that Muslims as a group love a ruck based on the fact that some in some countries are involved in fighting?

62% of Muslims world wide wide live in the Asia Pacific region and are not involved in fighting.

35% of Muslims live in the Middle East and Africa. I am not sure how many of these are involved in fighting but even if it were every single one (which obviously it isn't) then I don't see how you can suggest that 'They' 'love a ruck' based on the fact that 35% of 'them are fighting. This would entirely ignore the reasons that they are fighting - these could be many and i am going to assume are more involved that simple because they 'love a ruck'.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ulation-more-widespread-than-you-might-think/

Do you really think that because 35% of Muslims live in countries that are involved in fighting that this makes Muslims the world over aggressive religion?

Perhaps if you read my post again you will note I put "not all obviously". It seems to me that there is an awful lot of slaughtering going on in many countries where Muslims reside and against there own ideology. In the other countries I mentioned where they are a very small minority, they seem to be (a smallish minority please note amongst a small minority)causing a fair bit of anguish, which other faiths do not seem to do.

 

[BadFish]

Perhaps if you read my post again you will note I put "not all obviously". It seems to me that there is an awful lot of slaughtering going on in many countries where Muslims reside and against there own ideology. In the other countries I mentioned where they are a very small minority, they seem to be (a smallish minority please note amongst a small minority)causing a fair bit of anguish, which other faiths do not seem to do.

I am still trying to get to the bottom the your comment that 'They like a ruck'. The 'they you were referring to was Muslims and i am still wondering what you are basing this on as most Muslims in the world (62% at the very least) are living peaceful lives like the rest of us. 35% are living in countries that are fighting which seems to lead you to believe that 'they' as a group 'like a ruck.'

To me this is the same crass generalising that the original post was addressing.

Put that together with the other 90%+ Muslim countries that are killing, like Yemen, Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, and Afghanistan, Iraq etc where they have been killing each other for years.......and you could say, perhaps in a polite and non confrontational way......that they love a ruck

Maybe you could also explain what the other 90%+ Muslim countries are?

 

[somerset]

Surely people are able to realise that Islamic extremists are in No way a true representation of Islam and the Muslim faith?

People recognise this fact, of course they do, but when we as a world population, are faced with barbaric atrocities, all committed in the name of that religion, it becomes a natural response to generalise. I could post a list if current active Islamic militancy around the world but I haven't got the time, look it up.....and before you say it, that list dwarfs a similar list you may want to draw up of conflicts driven by non Islamic militancy.

 

[BadFish]

People recognise this fact, of course they do, but when we as a world population, are faced with barbaric atrocities, all committed in the name of that religion, it becomes a natural response to generalise. I could post a list if current active Islamic militancy around the world but I haven't got the time, look it up.....and before you say it, that list dwarfs a similar list you may want to draw up of conflicts driven by non Islamic militancy.

The only way that your list would really be useful though is if you posted a list of all atrocities committed across the world and then separated them into those committed in the name of Islam and other belief systems. what this may well tell you is that more atrocities are committed in the name of Islam than any other belief system (I am not sure if this is true but am willing to go with it for the sake of this example).

The difference is, and the point made by Melia's shoes and in the opening video is that the atrocities committed in the name of Islam are not representative of the feelings or beliefs of the vast majority of Muslims.

To put it another way even if all atrocities in the world last year were committed by Muslims that doesn't mean that all Muslims commit atrocities and nor are they represented by those atrocities.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Perhaps if you read my post again you will note I put "not all obviously". It seems to me that there is an awful lot of slaughtering going on in many countries where Muslims reside and against there own ideology. In the other countries I mentioned where they are a very small minority, they seem to be (a smallish minority please note amongst a small minority)causing a fair bit of anguish, which other faiths do not seem to do.

I agree.

 

[somerset]

The only way that your list would really be useful though is if you posted a list of all atrocities committed across the world and then separated them into those committed in the name of Islam and other belief systems. what this may well tell you is that more atrocities are committed in the name of Islam than any other belief system (I am not sure if this is true but am willing to go with it for the sake of this example).

The difference is, and the point made by Melia's shoes and in the opening video is that the atrocities committed in the name of Islam are not representative of the feelings or beliefs of the vast majority of Muslims.

To put it another way even if all atrocities in the world last year were committed by Muslims that doesn't mean that all Muslims commit atrocities and nor are they represented by those atrocities.

It may be a natural reaction to generalise in this way but that doesn't stop it being wrong, ignorant and lazy.

If you compiled a list by country/conflict you would see a pattern.

Secondly, I agree with the point in your last paragraph,..... someone recently quoted an interesting statement, "It is certainly a fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is a matter of record that at the moment, the vast majority of terrorists are muslim"

I can't remember where I saw it quoted though.

 

[looney]

So you disagree with a small part of his argument but agree with its main thrust?

No I dont, its a highly selective collection of half truths ad falsehoods.

Take Malaysia, apart from the premiership being Dynastic ad democratic not Islamic the upper house is Sharia law clerical. Under the constitution that only applies to about 55% of the population which are muslim. There is a town ad country divide also but where you live and what race you are define how you are treated as a woman(Born Malays are muslim from birth by law.).

Ignoring the fact that most these countries ban non-muslims from public sector employment a lot of them(Countries) barely have a muslim majority, with a large section of the rest either christian Taoist hindu or some local animist type.

The kind of people who happily refer to "muslim countries" would squeal like pigs if you called a predominantly christian country like the UK christian, which it is.

When it comes to Islam, history and geography as well as sociopolitics from the liberal left there are large doses of selective thinking, having it both ways, ignoring the elephant i the room and double standards.

There are IMO, massive holes i your knowledge base. Your not the only one. I dont tnink you are stupid or a bigot, it appears to me you, and many others, have been spoonfed information to reach certain conclusions. Now you face the challenge that those conclusions may be wrong(I'm being kid here).
.

 

[GreersElbow]

Surely people are able to realise that Islamic extremists are in No way a true representation of Islam and the Muslim faith?

You'd think that, but despite the fact Sunni tribes in Iraq have vowed to fight IS, which is also Sunni, people still go on about how Islam's going to kill us all because brainwashed Muslims wanna kill us all.

Logic would then kick in. Islam = violent = muslims killing non-muslims on a massive scale all around the globe rather than the minority of societal rejects having a CoD circle jerK thinking they're achieving what Islam strives for. However, apparently not.

They're all going to behead us and force our women to be their sexual slaves wearing burqas and hating on bacon.

 

[sydney]

the majority of muslims are just like the majority of christians......wanting to get on with life ,mind their own business and get the best for their kids , the unfortunate part of that for the average british muslim is that they are not in a muslim country(yet) so the religious and educational needs are not met....generally.

so where there is a high concentration of muslims , they will infiltrate local govt and lobby for exclusive education in their muslim way.
the problem is the rabid , shit stirring ****ers amongst them who are now trying to impose muslim law upon whole council/borough areas.....surely if these people want to live under strict muslim law they should be offered the chance of free passage back to the land of their fathers...it's gotta work out for the better in the long run......i think england has repaid it's dept 10 fold...they are just taking the piss now.

 

[Soulman]

People recognise this fact, of course they do, but when we as a world population, are faced with barbaric atrocities, all committed in the name of that religion, it becomes a natural response to generalise. I could post a list if current active Islamic militancy around the world but I haven't got the time, look it up.....and before you say it, that list dwarfs a similar list you may want to draw up of conflicts driven by non Islamic militancy.

Exactly. Unfortunately being concerned and stating it is not acceptable to some.

 

[portlock seagull]

Two points to make here.

Firstly - these conflicts in Muslim countries are obviously not fought by typical civilians, who just want to get on with their lives. Generalising the actions of Jihadists and militia, who make up less than 1% of these populations, onto regular people is not in any way accurate.

Secondly - Western nations have killed far more, all around the world, especially in Middle Eastern nations, than even the taliban or ISIS have or ever will. If those people were to generalise Western peoples in the same way - who murder in the name of oil, money and an imperialist interpretation of democracy - what would they think of us?

How can you say western countries have killed far more? With any degree of certainty? If you're about to quote the world wars, how do count who killed who (not that this has ever been precisely calculated) and whether it was the fault of a western country? Eg post WW1 Turkey and the Armenians? Is that the western fault? Moreover, what's the point of what you're trying to say? Does it matter?

 

[Gregory2Smith1]

The Armenian genocide was nationalist racial cleansing, funnily enough as the empire was embracing westernisation, nothing to do with Islam.

The point was that Western nations have killed more, sometimes inadvertently but often directly. The US for example has bombed at least 34 countries since WW2, 14 of them being major conflicts. But more relevantly & significantly - the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of civilians who died in Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Libya etc in recent years was very much caused or exacerbated by Western intervention.

So yes, to summarise, a tiny minority of Muslim people do behave barbarically and commit terrible atrocities - but it is nothing compared to a tiny minority of Westerners, who unfortunately have a lot more powerful weapons and as a result are a lot more deadly.

Mustafa,why do you live in a western society?

you clearly despise all that it stands for

 

[portlock seagull]

The Armenian genocide was nationalist racial cleansing, funnily enough as the empire was embracing westernisation, nothing to do with Islam.

The point was that Western nations have killed more, sometimes inadvertently but often directly. The US for example has bombed at least 34 countries since WW2, 14 of them being major conflicts. But more relevantly & significantly - the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of civilians who died in Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Libya etc in recent years was very much caused or exacerbated by Western intervention.

So yes, to summarise, a tiny minority of Muslim people do behave barbarically and commit terrible atrocities - but it is nothing compared to a tiny minority of Westerners, who unfortunately have a lot more powerful weapons and as a result are a lot more deadly.

Sorry, you've misunderstood. Are you counting Armenian genocide as a western caused conflict? Because of its links to WW1? My point being how do you categorise everything so neatly when it's anything but simple to do so? And what are your sources? Are you a professor of history? What books on this have you written? And how far back are you going in time with this assertion? Your arguments may have more validity if you framed it as such. But it's an over simplification at best. That or a gross generalisation in the same bracket as "religion is the reason for all wars" which gets trotted out in similar fashion by the same London cabbies.

 

[BadFish]

Mustafa,why do you live in a western society?

you clearly despise all that it stands for

I live in a western country and dislike many things that my governments do. Luckily though I don't see that the actions of those governments define me or my country.

Disagreeing with and recognising the way your country acts is very different to despising what it stands for.

Do you believe that Bush and Blair's (and Howard's for that matter) war in Iraq represents what the US UK and Australia stand for?