Yes, I fundamentally disagree that Islamic people are incompatible with Western society.If that makes you happier, sure.
Any thoughts on that particular point? Do you disagree they're incompatible?
That's fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree.Yes, I fundamentally disagree that Islamic people are incompatible with Western society.
I think it's nonsense. You can wrap that up in "the Quran is wrong (catechism)" but it's the people you are talking about otherwise you wouldn't have a topic to discuss. And I think that's demonstrable shite.
I'm not really looking to argue semantics with you, you know the point I'm trying to make.
The instructions set out in Islamic texts/scriptures, which advise Muslims on how they should lead their lives, aren't compatible with western values. Better?
That's like listening to one person who said they were voting for Corbyn in 2019 and predicting a landslide.That's fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't think it is demonstrable shite though, as I'm basing my opinion on Muslim family members who disparage western values and who themselves say those values aren't compatible with Islamic values.
Every f*cking religion, if you want to follow the text by the letter, is incompatible with modern "western" society. People seriously have difficulty differentiating the religion from how people practice it when making comparisons.
Every f*cking religion, if you want to follow the text by the letter, is incompatible with modern "western" society. People seriously have difficulty differentiating the religion from how people practice it when making comparisons.
Yeah, except it's not just one person, it's definitely a growing trend. I think you'd be surprised at just how conservative younger Muslims are these days and at some of the shit some imams feel comfortable saying in mosques.That's like listening to one person who said they were voting for Corbyn in 2019 and predicting a landslide.
Yeah. The stories and messages and "guides" from all the "Abrahamic" religions are all basically the same.
Not really a departure from the Old Testament because he follows, directly, the book of Malachai. Also, that the Messiah should come is directly given by prophecy in the Old Testament thus Jesus, if you read the Gospels, and more, spends much time qualifying his position with respect to the scribes and the pharisees by quoting Old Testament. It's an Old Testament promise given by God, if you study religion/are religious/spiritual/etc.Jesus was a departure from old testament ethics. Not a Christian, but despite all the inconsistencies like "I came to save you from the sin i myself created".
I actually think he holds up well. Someone prepared to suffer for all the sins of mankind in order to save them is a good spiritual rolemodel. Whether you consider it made up or not.
Not really a departure from the Old Testament because he follows, directly, the book of Malachai. Also, that the Messiah should come is directly given by prophecy in the Old Testament thus Jesus, if you read the Gospels, and more, spends much time qualifying his position with respect to the scribes and the pharisees by quoting Old Testament. It's an Old Testament promise given by God, if you study religion/are religious/spiritual/etc.
Moses preaches Necessary defiance against slavery. It's not exactly nice to read because it is a slave economy but it's hardly the wrong answer? Do you go with it instead? In that respect, ahead of the Greecians when Aaristotle commends slavery as part of certain kind of people's "nature". Moses is emancipatory by contrast. Should add, we have, quantitatively, more slaves today than we did 200 years ago. Moses is entirely anti-colonialist. Again, lightyears ahead. Now, you can read the (more than 10) commandments and say "but this is terrible" -- but then Christ says much the same thing (it wasn't the correct thing to do in the sense that said behavior ought continue forever but as a fleeing tribe it was the necessary thing to do, for cohesion, think military, for a "season" or so).Yeah but the ethics still are different and so is the message despite Jesus being granted authority by previous prophecies in the old testament Moses and Muhammed had more in how they played ball. They both preached bronze age ethics. Jesus mostly holds up.
I agree, but the problem arises when religious people follow those texts literally. I haven't met many Christians who try and follow the Bible as literally as possible but I've met plenty of Muslims who try to follow the Quran and Hadith as literally as they can.
Yeah, except it's not just one person, it's definitely a growing trend. I think you'd be surprised at just how conservative younger Muslims are these days and at some of the shit some imams feel comfortable saying in mosques.
Moses preaches Necessary defiance against slavery. It's not exactly nice to read because it is a slave economy but it's hardly the wrong answer? Do you go with it instead? In that respect, ahead of the Greecians when Aaristotle commends slavery as part of certain kind of people's "nature". Moses is emancipatory by contrast. Should add, we have, quantitatively, more slaves today than we did 200 years ago.
Muhammed says children are born without sin (or evil). I don't know one person who could disagree with that. The concept of holy jihad (as against the evil which is societal and after birth) seems to me a morally astute one. If you just took the first part of that (without evil/sin) you'd have what Christ promises. Also, "judge by the fruit" -- so without Muhammed we never have a whole series of people like Malcolm X and on and on. I don't think you can divide the word of god as a theologian or believer or spiritualist/secularist-interested, etc.
That's fair enough. I don't like reading the religious scriptures too often myself. It's a necessary thing for me (to know and understand) but I don't do it all the time. And debates about religion can be as toxic as they get.Well if i felt like rereading religious scripture, i might return to you with a reply but i dont think it will be today. Ive had discussions of this nature here on the caf and it tend to go in circles.
I give him insanity as a defense because you'd have to be insane to do what he did (and for self-gratitude by the looks of it [live-streaming: followers, internet kudos]). But as you said, there is no moral refractation for murder but there is also no clear explanation, beyond insanity, or hatred, as to why you'd do what he did in the first place.he got what he was asking for. you don't have to deserve something for it to happen, you only need to provoke it. burning Quran in front of mosque is like deliberately swimming near saltwater crocodiles. why the feck would you do that? how stupid can you possibly be?
So if some nut cases now decided to lynch the murders that would be basically the same because they got what they were asking for, right?he got what he was asking for. you don't have to deserve something for it to happen, you only need to provoke it. burning Quran in front of mosque is like deliberately swimming near saltwater crocodiles. why the feck would you do that? how stupid can you possibly be?
I can't really agree with the logic in your first paragraph. Don't blame the religion, blame the people who are practicing the religion the way the religion says it should be practiced? The reason I'm blaming the religion is because I know there are plenty of Muslims who don't follow it to the letter and whose views are compatible with liberal values. But the only reason their views are compatible is because they aren't following the religion literally in the way the religion says.Then blame how some people practice the religion and not the religion itself because when you blame the religion you're directly implying everyone who follows it, regardless of how they do it, is incompatible with liberal values. There's not one way to follow Islam just like there isn't one way to follow Christianity or Judaism.
Regarding the trend, you have to look at other factors rather than just the religion being backward. There was a noticable shift in how Muslims moved towards more extreme forms of the religion after 9/11 because of how we were being vilified throughout the western world, again regardless of how the person was even practicing the religion.
That same argument could be used to justify killing plenty of people in conservative countries for enjoying their government rubber stamped right of free speech.Free speech apparently means that not only does the government allow you to say and do whatever offensive shit you want but also a utopian society free of people that will disproportionately retaliate.
Good luck with that. Some people are unhinged, that’s human nature. By all means enjoy your government rubber stamped anti-woke freeze peach but I’m going to have very little sympathy when the consequences slap you in the face (or shoot you in the head for that matter) if you use it to intentionally feck off people you know it’s dangerous to feck off. That’s been the nature of society for literally ever.
It’s weird how the right thinks they can say whatever the feck they like and expect zero consequences. “It sll started when he hit me back your honour”
I give him insanity as a defense because you'd have to be insane to do what he did (and for self-gratitude by the looks of it [live-streaming: followers, internet kudos]). But as you said, there is no moral refractation for murder but there is also no clear explanation, beyond insanity, or hatred, as to why you'd do what he did in the first place.
I’m not condoning it. I’m saying that if you want to live in a libertarian utopian absolute free speech society then you have to accept personal responsibility for the consequences of your words and actions.That same argument could be used to justify killing plenty of people in conservative countries for enjoying their government rubber stamped right of free speech.
For me this is no different than any other honor killing.
I still don't see the difference to the woman wearing a short skirt at night "knowing what she is doing".I’m not condoning it. I’m saying that if you want to live in a libertarian utopian absolute free speech society then you have to accept personal responsibility for the consequences of your words and actions.
It’s the nature and often the purpose of people exercising their free speech that it upsets others. Just because the government allow you to say whatever you want, it’s incredibly naive to think that it won’t result in retaliation.
For the record, I don't think we have a motive yet for this murder. So we don't know if this was done by extreme Muslims.I’m not condoning it. I’m saying that if you want to live in a libertarian utopian absolute free speech society then you have to accept personal responsibility for the consequences of your words and actions.
It’s the nature and often the purpose of people exercising their free speech that it upsets others. Just because the government allow you to say whatever you want, it’s incredibly naive to think that it won’t result in retaliation.
Eh?I still don't see the difference to the woman wearing a short skirt at night "knowing what she is doing".
Yeah it's not that surprising. There is still only 1 side to blame.
Sure, and a book also has words in it and a skirt is a piece of cloth.Eh?
if you don’t see the difference then there is no point having this discussion. A woman wearing a short skirt has functions other than to offend and causing offence or being sexually assaulted is unlikely to be her motivation. Burning holy books outside a place of worship has no function other than to antagonise.
Are the ones that shot him to blame? Sure, and they will be charged accordingly. Should the guy just trying to keep himself warm outside a mosque accept some responsibility? Yeah the phrase is feck around and find out.
What’s the motivation for burning the book outside the mosque?Sure, and a book also has words in it and a skirt is a piece of cloth.
Yet with both one is blaming the victim for the actions of others. It's just that you like one victim more than the other.
I could only guess but given he fled the society he fled to live in the society he lived in I would presume there was some history.What’s the motivation for burning the book outside the mosque?
If you actually practiced Christianity the same way as the Bible you'd find exactly the same, the Old testament has some pretty horrible stuff in there that isn't compatible with western values as they are nowNope, I mean Islam. If you actually practice Islam the way the Quran and Hadith tell you to, there are so many incompatibilities with western values. I don't even know where to begin
So you’re saying the motivation was purely to offend?I could only guess but given he fled the society he fled to live in the society he lived in I would presume there was some history.
If you actually practiced Christianity the same way as the Bible you'd find exactly the same, the Old testament has some pretty horrible stuff in there that isn't compatible with western values as they are now
.I agree, but the problem arises when religious people follow those texts literally. I haven't met many Christians who try and follow the Bible as literally as possible but I've met plenty of Muslims who try to follow the Quran and Hadith as literally as they can.
Perhaps. Or perhaps he had fundamentalists wipe out his entire family because they x,y or z.So you’re saying the motivation was purely to offend?
You obviously haven't been to the rural deep south of the USA!
It doesn’t matter to his murder but it definitely matters when you’re trying to equate his actions to that of a female wearing a short skirt.Perhaps. Or perhaps he had fundamentalists wipe out his entire family because they of x,y or z.
It does not matter to his murder.
I did not say those two are the same. You said it was incredibly naive to think there would be no retaliation and I said I don't see how that makes any difference just as wearing a certain piece of clothing doesn't make a difference to the crime another person commits.It doesn’t matter to his murder but it definitely matters when you’re trying to equate his actions to that of a female wearing a short skirt.
His actions were purely to antagonise and his death was a consequence of that. His death was wrongful and criminal and there are consequences for that.
The motivation for a female wearing a short skirt on the other hand go beyond and do not have to include being antagonistic. It could give her confidence, it can align her culturally with her peers, it can attract a consensual partner. There’s plenty of perfectly innocent, positive reasons why she might wear it so I don’t agree it can be equated to burning a religious text outside a place of worship, sorry.
I think I’ve explained all I can at this point. Let’s agree to disagreeI did not say those two are the same. You said it was incredibly naive to think there would be no retaliation and I said I don't see how that makes any difference just as wearing a certain piece of clothing doesn't make a difference to the crime another person commits.
We are blaming the guy for committing a hate crime with the purpose of nothing other than to antagonize a group of people and incite chaos. So yes, that's what he is being blamed for. The people who killed him are to blame for murdering him and will be charged accordingly. But it is important to state that the guy who went to a peaceful mosque to burn their holy book in front of them is a trash human being.Sure, and a book also has words in it and a skirt is a piece of cloth.
Yet with both one is blaming the victim for the actions of others. It's just that you like one victim more than the other.
So because somebody in one country commited a crime against him, that gives him the right to commit hate crimes outside a peaceful mosque half way across the world? Nah, the guy is just a cnut who committed a crime that in many countries would get you thrown into prison for (also the story said he was awaiting his trial, so it might have been going that way in Sweden as well?). He's not some innocent person. But unfortunately some people (or foreign powers) try to take justice in their own hands and commit further crimes.Perhaps. Or perhaps he had fundamentalists wipe out his entire family because they x,y or z.
It does not matter to his murder.
We are blaming the guy for committing a hate crime with the purpose of nothing other than to antagonize a group of people and incite chaos. So yes, that's what he is being blamed for. The people who killed him are to blame for murdering him and will be charged accordingly. But it is important to state that the guy who went to a peaceful mosque to burn their holy book in front of them is a trash human being.
If you keep poking somebody and you get hit back, you are not blameless in the ordeal. If you opress a group of people and they lash out, you are not blameless and there are 2 sides to the problem. Of course nobody should resort to violence. But if people get insulted right to their face, spat on, pushed into a corner (not just talking about this specific scenario obviously), then eventually somebody is going to react in a bad way. Don't be a cnut in the first place and antagonize for no reason is the right way to fix this issue, because there will always be nut jobs who will react with violence.
Is this the thread about the burnings or the thread about the murder? I'm 99% certain we also had a thread on those...So because somebody in one country commited a crime against him, that gives him the right to commit hate crimes outside a peaceful mosque half way across the world? Nah, the guy is just a cnut who committed a crime that in many countries would get you thrown into prison for (also the story said he was awaiting his trial, so it might have been going that way in Sweden as well?). He's not some innocent person. But unfortunately some people (or foreign powers) try to take justice in their own hands and commit further crimes.
