What is this Taqiyya? It seems to be a Shia thing mostly. These murders of the innocent people are vile and I am sure most people would reject it and do reject it. This is what extremists on both sides want. A conflict.
Teacher beheaded near Paris after showing cartoons of Prophet Muhammad
- Thread starter SinNombre
- Start date
I think from a theological pov, it refers to the ability for Muslims to hide their belief or deny they are Muslims in the face of overwhelming threats against their person or community. My understanding is that as a concept it is bigger in Shia Islam, ironically due to the discrimination they have traditionally suffered at the hands of sunni rulers.
It's taken hold amongst some right wingers now, who usually see Islam/Muslims as an existential threat, as a theory that even so called 'moderate' or 'secular' Muslims don't exist and are in fact, merely biding their time when the situation is more favourable to Muslim domination. At its most extreme, I don't think you can ever get away from this. So for example I've been told by someone that Javid, who only whips out the Muslim or brown card when he wants to deflect away from something, is an example of this in their mind.
As others have pointed out, I think most Muslims have never heard of this term or even come close to considering it a part of their lives.
Yeah I didn't know it was him for sure but suspected so. I know Ayaan Hirsi Ali mentioned it loads of times as well. Was a popular talking point at secular conferences I went to or watched as well, despite being an utter fabrication.
The 2000s were at interesting time for young secular Muslims. We had absolutely bucketload of young secularists post-9/11 who'd discovered Dawkins (particularly those scientific minded like myself) along with Dennet, Harris and Hitchens. Some were more drawn to the "Ijithad" side of things for their Muslim identity with a gravitation towards the writing of Irshad Manji. But that movement got hijacked by Spencer, Pam Geller, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bridgitte Gabriel who helped lay the intellectual groundwork for the alt-right and the far right.
So glad I escaped that toxic shit. I've had a dabble more recently in the works of some of the (relative) ex-Muslim newcomers like Sarah Haider, Yasmine Mohammad and Armin Navabi. Its even more ineffectual, illiberal, hyperbolic, unfactual and puerile space than it was before. I think I have time for a few of them who are tolerable and occasionally have decent points like Ali Rizvi and Maryam Namazie. Even more time for those who absolutely skewer that movement and the IDW like Eiynah Mohammad.
It was worse after 9/11. Ignore and move forward.
I've yet to come across anyone convincing anyone in an online 'debate'. Say your piece and move on, let those with an agenda carry on.
That was the period I started becoming seriously interested in Islam (as a non-Muslim), and in the midst of it all there was a brief period when I read Spencer’s blog every day, and Hirsi Ali’s books, and accepted their basic thesis. My views evolved mostly due to personal circumstances and growth, but a more minor but still important part of it was being put off by how willing those two were to associate themselves with complete whack jobs like Geller and Gabriel, and a bit later with the more traditional European far-right parties who were trying to re-brand at that time.
Of those newer personalities you mention, I’m only familiar with Yasmine. She strikes me as a pure creation of the Twitter age.
You keep bringing it up, it's almost like you want to keep the valid points buried.
Which colonialism, that of the muslim empires? I was responding to a post about Bulgaria. The islamic world as the victim of European imperalism, no, I'm not buying that and at least Western imperialism brought a lot of positives. Net positive? That's debatable but I get the feeling some collective sense of guilt unique to Western culture is in the way. Talking about stereotypes...
The issue with stereotypes is the same as with islamophobia. It's that constant switching from the problem with islam at the general level to the individual level that's in the way of adressing the problem with islam. I get that most muslims just want to live their life and practice their religion, those are the muslims I get to know too, and you can't blame them for what others do, that's self evident and does not need to be pointed out over and over again seemingly not to debate the problem with islam and showing off what a good person you are. I take that for granted, it's the basis for discussion. If you walk onto a football pitch you're not solemnly declaring you'r about to play football and not kickboxing, are you? You don't expect the muslims here to declare that they are not planning to behead anyone soon, are you?
Of course you can describe beheaders of teachers and priests as individual lunatics because they are, but a reglion and/or religious community that keeps producing great numbers of individual lunatics beheading people or driving trucks through crowds has a problem or is a problem. 'Not my islam' is easily said but to what extent isn't it your islam if you believe that non religious people have to obey the religious rule of not drawing or not showing drawings of the prophet? Now there are muslims everywhere in Europe protesting the cartoons, not the beheadings. The nerve..., it's seems to be their islam too. They don't have to be afraid that there's some medieval fundamentalist that pulls his sword to chop their heads off and that's because Western values make it an uneven fight that's goint to be lost unless we find some Western civilized way to win. With respect to the individual muslim of course, but not with the individuality of muslims as a first line of defence for the totalitarian radicals.
Let's forget about taqiyya and zoom out from the individual muslim. The fact is that as the situation gets more favourable, islam starts to dominate more. It's not like when the first muslim communities arrived they said you can't make fun of the prophet anymore otherwise you'll get beheaded, women have to cover up in our neighbourhoods, we need halal food everywhere, you can't drink alcohol or eat porc in our presence, you can't have education about the holocaust and freedom of speech in your schools, girls have to sit apart in university, we need spaces to pray and we'll amplify the azaan to show who's boss. If they would have done that we wouldn't have the problem now because it would have meant a hard 'No'.
There's creeping domination everytime the situation gets more favourable. Through the numbers, through the younger generations often becoming more conservative than their parents and grandparents, through globalization, and through lapses in a counterforce and simply weakness. The presence of racism and guilt are also a weakness that gets exploited, for example through many of the arguments here, and there's even the secular but brigade claiming we should all obey islamic rules. Maybe people should think of a way to stand up for invidual muslims without becoming a radical totalitarian muslim's wet dream.
By the way what is a secular Muslim? Or do you mean secular states?
I think the term is somewhat contradictory, but what springs to mind is a muslim who wants to practice his/her faith in a secular society without wanting to implementing religious law such as Sharia or stuff like that.
A secular muslim is someone who believes all religions are true. And not allaah is the only God. So basically not a muslim at all now that I think of it. The closest practising muslims can get is to accept that the other religions lead you to hell, so let the punishment be meted out in the afterlife rather than now.
So secular christians and jews believe islam is also a true religion and followers of islam are not damned in hell in the afterlife ? By your idiotic wum definition of secular no religious person could ever be secular.
What the feck are you on about?
Yes lets forget about taqiyya even though its something I said exists. Even though its clearly bullshit and I just regurgitated what I heard without bothering to look into it
The rest of it is just your stupid fantasy about what Muslims will turn the West into. Newsflash Islam has been around for ages. Pubs are still a thing. Halal food being prominent only in areas of high Muslim population is a business move. Literally nobody said anything about "porc" in our presence?
Why on earth would Muslims care about holocaust being taught?? Given that fascists are out for us now, I think if anything we'd want more people being cognizant of what happens when persecution of a religious minority gets amplified to a genocidal level.
This whole "creeping domination" is repackaged "creeping sharia". You're literally regurgitating talking points straight out the manifesto of Brenton Tarrant.
Also anti-Muslim sentiment is mainstream, there's no silencing of it due to fears of racism or guilt. Plenty of examples.
No two Muslims are the same. There are gradations of belief and practices. There will be non-believers who pray Friday prayers, Eid prayers, fast during Ramadan. But its more of a cultural identity, and there will be agnostic and those who believe certain aspects and are ambivalent about other things
Contrary to popular sentiment and ex-Muslim talking points, many Muslim diaspora families have people like that in families and we all get on fine. There are some pretty terrible cultural issues like familial pressure on who to marry, misogyny, anti-LGBT etc in many orthodox communities but attitudes are changing and a lot of the changes in law that prevents forced marriages etc has changed that paradigm (incidentally changes to said laws brought about through Muslim women's contribution to academia/legal system).
Yes there are Muslims who do it diligently and some who don't.
In my opinion anyone who believes in the one God Allah( in arabic) and that Mohamed is his messenger is a Muslim. Some pray 5 times while others don't. Some fast in Ramadan while few don't.
That's ridiculous. How can someone who believes in all religion be a Muslim? For that matter it will apply to anyone in any religion.
Indonesia says hi
More whataboutery.
I may be naive and most things are connected but this whole thing kicked off because some crazies didn’t like some cartoons and decided murder was the correct response. They were encouraged by the response across the Muslim world when they saw demonstrations against the cartoons.
I’ll say it again; cartoons. Ffs!
I believe Christians, Muslims and Jews all worship the same God, in essence. There truly is more that connects us than divides us. I remember being surprised when a Muslim colleague explained how Mary is an important person in the Muslim religion. I guess some Christians don't see it that way (hello Southern Baptists), but as a Catholic I feel we have so much in common.
I’m not sure that’s necessarily the comforting thought it might appear. Commonalities can divide as much as or more than differences. Which is one reason why sectarianism is often so vicious, why civil wars tend to be so bloody, or even why family feuds can be so prolonged.
With regard to Islam and Christianity, an argument could be made that the universal claim they both make in respect to humanity’s purpose and destiny - something both share to a degree probably not seen or at least felt in other religious traditions - is precisely one of the major causes of conflict between their adherents historically.
Last edited:
The 3 monotheistic religions have never really got on very well with each other though. Though in theory all worshipping the same god.
Which makes it all the more ridiculous.
The 3 religions I mean. They can’t all be right and more likely, IMO, they’re all wrong.
The 3 religions I mean. They can’t all be right and more likely, IMO, they’re all wrong.
This is very well-said. Yes, you're (sadly for all of us) right.
Islam and Judaism are much more closer but a lot more hatred between the Jews and Muslims. It is also the question of Israel and Palestine that makes it so bad. If you take away the Prophets Moses and Mohamed it could be almost the same religion.
It's a sky god belief of its time riven with teachings at its scriptural fringes that offer often pitiful but sometimes sociopathic men of deranged or low consciousness irresistible opportunities to exert prepotence over women and the followers of competing beliefs. It is currently, for various sociohistorical and techno-civilisational reasons, lurching through a critical paroxysm that will define its own and Europe's future. That's a pretty heady cocktail for young men in say North Africa recruited by the Ansar Al-Mahdi in Tunisia and Arab Maghreb whose alternatives are weed or unemployment.
Those rebuking observers on both sides for "wanting a conflict" are keeping up the understandable polite fiction that there isn't already a conflict. There is, both within the religion and between it and various systems and beliefs in numerous countries around the world. The west/secular democracies/anyone who wishes to should be standing side by side with Macron.
Those rebuking observers on both sides for "wanting a conflict" are keeping up the understandable polite fiction that there isn't already a conflict. There is, both within the religion and between it and various systems and beliefs in numerous countries around the world. The west/secular democracies/anyone who wishes to should be standing side by side with Macron.
Of course there's a lot more to it than the deliberate lies and misinterpretation of a book of peace and religion including the virtually constant racism denying them any equality, for some the refugee camps or even the stealing of their lands and homes. I'm no expert on their miseries or the Koran but I choose to take peace loving people who believe the foundation of their 'Sky Gods' message to be one of doing good but then what we are both doing, you and I are using generalisations, strong descriptions and ignorance to paint simplistic sides to the debate.. But we aren't talking about a People here, not a Nation, we are talking about a tiny minority who believe that violence is the answer and not for a People of 1.8bn who are true adherents whether sunni, shia, secular or whatever.
I'll stand side by side with anyone who genuinely wants peace and equality. I'm not convinced that Macron is that person.
Signs of hope
Some good stuff in here about French Muslims speaking out and working to protect churches. With more people like this and less of the crazies there’s some hope for the future.
Some good stuff in here about French Muslims speaking out and working to protect churches. With more people like this and less of the crazies there’s some hope for the future.
There should be room for condemning this violent acts and criticizing the French govt lack of common sense regarding the right of their muslims citizens practicing their faith, mainly the one regarding hijab. Unfortunately because of the former, the muslims who wanted to do the latter, can't do it. Otherwise they'll be grouped as radical muslims.
Talking about the Quran here?
Talking about Peace being pretty central. I'm not going to have an argument with you, I said I was generalising as was @Needham. It's interesting that you pick 4 words from my post to challenge but that's your right, here on this forum. I appreciate your stance on the subject that you've explained so far with your posts.
Alright i won't take it further. I havn't read the Torah, but the 3 holy books of the abrahamic religions are all kind of a mishmash of peace and violence. I'd say the big man himself(God, Yahweh, Allah) is inherently not peacefull as the destination of the unbelievers tend to be condemned to hell although the pope recently said that unbelievers don't go to hell but simply cease to exist upon death which is what most atheists believe anyway.
That's good then.
Me neither. As I've said, not an expert on the Muslim's Holy Book, likewise the Jew's, however I'd agree that the Bible is a mish mash, or rather a book of two halves. The Gospels and the New Testament advocates for Peace and Love of your fellow man. There, I didn't take it any further, same as you.
There endeth the topic.
Ooo - Ooo edit. Pope John Paul II said that animals go to Heaven. I don't know to what degree they are believers but I'll get to have a lot of fun with all my dogs and cats who have died over the years plus all those which belonged to the atheists. I'll give them your love. x
Last edited:
Quality control
Especially the similarity with catholicism during the days of the Spanish Inquisition is touching.
That's why they can't bear freedom of thought, speech and religion. Protestantism is not authoritarian by nature because it's based on educated people reading the bible and has forced catholicism to give up it's totalitarian ambitions, bot to be honest those can't bear it either given the secularisation. Islam with it's habit of killing all competition is still in keeping the people dumb and obedient mode, in which it succeeds remarkably well through fanaticism and violence.
Of course, how could I forget. Muslims even make the holocaust about themselves. Just like they make the beheadings about their hurt feelings and the possible backlash for other totalitarian radical muslims. How could I be so stupid to think that muslims would care about holocaust education? The idea that muslims would care about the history of the society that welcomed them, it's education and the society that welcomed them alltogehter, of course not, or that they care about the jews. The jews are fleeing Europe and it's not because of infidel fascists, but I guess you believe that's a good thing.
You don't have to worry about fascist, today's marching and flag waving people who surpress any dissent with violence won't hurt their muslims brothers. The difference between classic fascism and islamo-fascism is futile. Muslims don't have to be afraid of the classic fascists either, muslim communities have nothing in common with the jewish communities in Germany besides some silly traditions like genital mutilation. The nazi's hated the jews because they became too integrated en successfull, anyone who's watched muslims communities in Europe since the 60's knows there's zero chance of that.
Oh, there was something to read? I didn't. Luckily with attacks like the killing of more than 250 christians in Sri Lanka we can rely on simply 'muslim' for an explanation. That good old Quran is still the same. Anyway, it is creeping, if they had said right away that people who show cartoons of their prophet would get beheaded we wouldn't have had all these problems with muslims now.
I see quite a bit of anti islam rationale, but that's an entirely different matter. I do see quite a lot of racists of the patronizing kind that act like muslims are some weak people who can't handle criticism or getting their feelilngs hurt by cartoons and have to be protected by law. Of course in reality no one's religious feelings are really hurt, it's just hateful totalitarian muslim radicals who claim offence because they want to force their reliigious rules on everybody, islam needs power. The only thing that hurts them is that they haven't succeeded yet and people still enjoy freedom of religion and are too smart, educated and civilized to ever convert to islam from their own free will.
Danish Party seeking to republish the Charlie Hebdo Muhammed Cartoons. inevitable shitstorm incoming.
https://cphpost.dk/?p=119889
https://cphpost.dk/?p=119889
A cartoon raises this? I've seen pubs named and designed after my religious leader and crap all happened.
This post starts off like every flavor of religious extremism. This isn’t unique just to islam. It’s instances are just currently more numerous & more shocking & bloody though.
Hope that real concern for this goes further than the typical platitudes, we hear ‘thoughts & prayers’ far too often in this country as a stock response to armed mass casualty events.
I'm late to this discussion, but I thought I would add that it has not always been bad. It's been up an down a lot, but historically, for example, Muslims have been accepting towards Christians and Jews because they are also 'people of the book', as the Qu'ran calls it (in recognition of the close religious relationship).
This is apart from geopolitical strife and other social circumstances, of course. For example, it would be wrong to portray the Crusades as a deeply religious war and use it as an example of this historical strive between Christians and Muslims. (But I suppose this sort of thing may have been covered before in this thread.)
Last edited:
I don't agree with this post at all.
Firstly when you say that Muslims for example were accepting of other faiths of the book historically you are wrong. Those other believers were always treated as second class and were not allowed to proselytize. That's not really acceptance but the bare minimum tolerance level.
Secondly all religions are instruments of control. What is controlled is determined by religious authority. Once you are accepting of that control from that source and the same source instructs political and military actions then they are causal. For the obedience of the actors, the lack of ability and inherent right to question the actions and the determination with which it is carried out.
I am talking about, for example, the Middle Ages here; you can't impose modern notions of tolerance and equality and judge them for it in this context. Well, obviously, you can do that in an absolute sense (compared to modern ideas) and say that the Middle Ages were a barbaric time overall. But you can't if you are trying to assess the relative contemporary mindset of a group of people. To my knowledge, by the standards of the time and in comparison of considerations for and by others, Muslims were very accepting of Christians and Jews.
I agree with the first point on not judging the morals of the past from the present out of context but you have to also remember that we are learning about the past from the winners. Here are some other thoughts on the existing religions at the time.
You can quote lots of positions from Qu'ran though, just like you can use the Hebrew Bible to portray Judaism and Christianity as extremely intolerant and violent.