A representation of Islamic UK attitudes 2015
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stirlingsays  09 Dec 15 6.42pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
It's true that Christianity was just as brutal as any religion in its consequences for disbelievers and those that it considered heretics. However it's a bit of a trite argument to compare Christainity with Islam. Firstly anyone seriously comparing the two books of these two faiths will see a marked difference in the number of aggressive verses. Anyone who says Islam is a religion of peace is only telling half the story.....Christianity is pretty low on aggressive verses. Secondly, Christian societies underwent the age of reason. This tempered its zeal and views. For example, Evolution is accepted by most within its societies.....This is just not true within the vast majority of Islamic societies. Thirdly Islam makes it quite clear that religion and state are intended to merge into one with Sharia law.....There is no 'render unto Caesar' in the Koran. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Dec 2015 6.43pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| 7mins In the bush 09 Dec 15 8.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Superfly at 09 Dec 2015 5.33pm
Quote 7mins at 09 Dec 2015 5.29pm
Quote Superfly at 09 Dec 2015 5.22pm
Quote 7mins at 09 Dec 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Dec 2015 1.18pm
Quote 7mins at 08 Dec 2015 12.48pm
Islam has gotta be the worst religion for dealing with criticism/having it's beliefs challanged I don't know about that, historically Catholicism and Protestantism were pretty 'hardcore' about challenges to belief, even trivial ones. The Catholics were very keen on 'monopolisation' of religion, even their own. Nowdays, maybe, but there is a reason why no one can pick Cathar on the European list of Religions.
See the bit in bold, consider yerself wooshed and remember to never take any of my posts seriously again. Apologies... I dip in out of the Hol... I have yet to understand certain poster's characteristics
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Dec 15 9.30am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 09 Dec 2015 6.42pm
It's true that Christianity was just as brutal as any religion in its consequences for disbelievers and those that it considered heretics. However it's a bit of a trite argument to compare Christainity with Islam. Firstly anyone seriously comparing the two books of these two faiths will see a marked difference in the number of aggressive verses. Anyone who says Islam is a religion of peace is only telling half the story.....Christianity is pretty low on aggressive verses. Secondly, Christian societies underwent the age of reason. This tempered its zeal and views. For example, Evolution is accepted by most within its societies.....This is just not true within the vast majority of Islamic societies. Thirdly Islam makes it quite clear that religion and state are intended to merge into one with Sharia law.....There is no 'render unto Caesar' in the Koran. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Dec 2015 6.43pm) The old testament is a bit tasty in the whole violence, rape, aggression etc. I think the New Testament makes a great case for religion, but that the main stay religions included the old testament in order to justify doing all manner of evil and terrible s**t to people and societies. But you make a very key point in the age of reason - which essentially resulted in the elimination of the idea of a Christian countries as a concept (along with a number of revolutions etc). The rise of secularism in the West especially after the French Revolution has resulted in Religion largely being dismissed as an authority of state decision making (especially when coupled with democratic process and the increased secularism in society).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 10 Dec 15 9.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote 7mins at 09 Dec 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Dec 2015 1.18pm
Quote 7mins at 08 Dec 2015 12.48pm
Islam has gotta be the worst religion for dealing with criticism/having it's beliefs challanged I don't know about that, historically Catholicism and Protestantism were pretty 'hardcore' about challenges to belief, even trivial ones. The Catholics were very keen on 'monopolisation' of religion, even their own. Nowdays, maybe, but there is a reason why no one can pick Cathar on the European list of Religions.
Because history defines the present, and feeds into it. Its important, to me at least, to see the manner in which historical events in society result in changes to society and its structure. When we talk about European countries, like the UK, many have a history of largely uninterrupted generations of historical development stretching back over a thousand years. A lot of countries in the middle east, really came into existence as independent countries following the rise in national liberation movements following the end of empire. So when we look at Iran as a country, its history is about 30-40 years old, since undergoing a dramatic revolutionary change. Typically significant developments in history, that are positive, tend to grow out of periods of unrest and disruption, and the necessity of a country and its people to change driven by the desire for something to prevent that problem occurring. Poor monarchy, the black death and finally the English civil war, over a period of several hundred years, eventually results in the establishment of the house of lords and commons - and ultimately democracy in the UK, not because it felt right to do so, but events in history stimulated a desire not to go back to problems of the past. The Reign of King John, a disasterous period in England, begings a process in history, that eventually establishes the idea of a fair and impartial judiciary, jury trials (and legal system) we have today (with the establishment of magna carta). These events cannot just be implemented on a society, a society has to realise the necessity of that change. The Athenians invented democracy, not because they were moral, but to try to ensure the ruinous period of the tyrannies could not happen. Its interesting that the two most oppressive movements of Europe, Communism and Fascism/National Socialism, have their history in three of the youngest countries in Europe (Post Monarchistic Russia, and an Independent Germany and Italy), effectively countries that had 'cut ties' significantly with their historical progress. History is very significant, it defines nations in the same way that experiences define individuals. The end result of tyranny in the middle east, will most likely ultimately, result in systems that increasingly diminish the capacity of tyranny. At least historically speaking - this isn't a certainity, but generally countries become increasingly less oppressive as they age over generations. But realistically Saudi, Iraq and Iran for example, are very young nations. At least that's how I see it.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 10 Dec 15 7.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 10 Dec 2015 9.47am
Quote 7mins at 09 Dec 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Dec 2015 1.18pm
Quote 7mins at 08 Dec 2015 12.48pm
Islam has gotta be the worst religion for dealing with criticism/having it's beliefs challanged I don't know about that, historically Catholicism and Protestantism were pretty 'hardcore' about challenges to belief, even trivial ones. The Catholics were very keen on 'monopolisation' of religion, even their own. Nowdays, maybe, but there is a reason why no one can pick Cathar on the European list of Religions.
Because history defines the present, and feeds into it. Its important, to me at least, to see the manner in which historical events in society result in changes to society and its structure. When we talk about European countries, like the UK, many have a history of largely uninterrupted generations of historical development stretching back over a thousand years. A lot of countries in the middle east, really came into existence as independent countries following the rise in national liberation movements following the end of empire. So when we look at Iran as a country, its history is about 30-40 years old, since undergoing a dramatic revolutionary change. Typically significant developments in history, that are positive, tend to grow out of periods of unrest and disruption, and the necessity of a country and its people to change driven by the desire for something to prevent that problem occurring. Poor monarchy, the black death and finally the English civil war, over a period of several hundred years, eventually results in the establishment of the house of lords and commons - and ultimately democracy in the UK, not because it felt right to do so, but events in history stimulated a desire not to go back to problems of the past. The Reign of King John, a disasterous period in England, begings a process in history, that eventually establishes the idea of a fair and impartial judiciary, jury trials (and legal system) we have today (with the establishment of magna carta). These events cannot just be implemented on a society, a society has to realise the necessity of that change. The Athenians invented democracy, not because they were moral, but to try to ensure the ruinous period of the tyrannies could not happen. Its interesting that the two most oppressive movements of Europe, Communism and Fascism/National Socialism, have their history in three of the youngest countries in Europe (Post Monarchistic Russia, and an Independent Germany and Italy), effectively countries that had 'cut ties' significantly with their historical progress. History is very significant, it defines nations in the same way that experiences define individuals. The end result of tyranny in the middle east, will most likely ultimately, result in systems that increasingly diminish the capacity of tyranny. At least historically speaking - this isn't a certainity, but generally countries become increasingly less oppressive as they age over generations. But realistically Saudi, Iraq and Iran for example, are very young nations. At least that's how I see it. You are in a reflective mood today. Unfortunately the development of countries and their culture is not a linear unbroken process. Different events can blast a growing culture back to the proverbial Stone Age. I'm afraid to say that tyranny,subjugation and religion have done for many a country and its culture.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Dec 15 9.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 09 Dec 2015 6.42pm
It's true that Christianity was just as brutal as any religion in its consequences for disbelievers and those that it considered heretics. However it's a bit of a trite argument to compare Christainity with Islam. Firstly anyone seriously comparing the two books of these two faiths will see a marked difference in the number of aggressive verses. Anyone who says Islam is a religion of peace is only telling half the story.....Christianity is pretty low on aggressive verses. Secondly, Christian societies underwent the age of reason. This tempered its zeal and views. For example, Evolution is accepted by most within its societies.....This is just not true within the vast majority of Islamic societies. Thirdly Islam makes it quite clear that religion and state are intended to merge into one with Sharia law.....There is no 'render unto Caesar' in the Koran. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Dec 2015 6.43pm) There isn't anything quite so clearly stated, but there are a lot of different statements about the necessity to fulfil all obligations, contracts and promises, provided they do not contradict the requirements of being a Muslim. There is quite a lot of material its seems about the importance of being a good neighbour and keeping your work, and following leaders. Of course it then depends on what is and isn't Islamic - it gets down to interpretations and different sects of Islam. Its all really about interpretation. Plenty of Christians break the law every day as well.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Dec 15 9.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hrolf The Ganger at 10 Dec 2015 7.21pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 10 Dec 2015 9.47am
Quote 7mins at 09 Dec 2015 4.55pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Dec 2015 1.18pm
Quote 7mins at 08 Dec 2015 12.48pm
Islam has gotta be the worst religion for dealing with criticism/having it's beliefs challanged I don't know about that, historically Catholicism and Protestantism were pretty 'hardcore' about challenges to belief, even trivial ones. The Catholics were very keen on 'monopolisation' of religion, even their own. Nowdays, maybe, but there is a reason why no one can pick Cathar on the European list of Religions.
Because history defines the present, and feeds into it. Its important, to me at least, to see the manner in which historical events in society result in changes to society and its structure. When we talk about European countries, like the UK, many have a history of largely uninterrupted generations of historical development stretching back over a thousand years. A lot of countries in the middle east, really came into existence as independent countries following the rise in national liberation movements following the end of empire. So when we look at Iran as a country, its history is about 30-40 years old, since undergoing a dramatic revolutionary change. Typically significant developments in history, that are positive, tend to grow out of periods of unrest and disruption, and the necessity of a country and its people to change driven by the desire for something to prevent that problem occurring. Poor monarchy, the black death and finally the English civil war, over a period of several hundred years, eventually results in the establishment of the house of lords and commons - and ultimately democracy in the UK, not because it felt right to do so, but events in history stimulated a desire not to go back to problems of the past. The Reign of King John, a disasterous period in England, begings a process in history, that eventually establishes the idea of a fair and impartial judiciary, jury trials (and legal system) we have today (with the establishment of magna carta). These events cannot just be implemented on a society, a society has to realise the necessity of that change. The Athenians invented democracy, not because they were moral, but to try to ensure the ruinous period of the tyrannies could not happen. Its interesting that the two most oppressive movements of Europe, Communism and Fascism/National Socialism, have their history in three of the youngest countries in Europe (Post Monarchistic Russia, and an Independent Germany and Italy), effectively countries that had 'cut ties' significantly with their historical progress. History is very significant, it defines nations in the same way that experiences define individuals. The end result of tyranny in the middle east, will most likely ultimately, result in systems that increasingly diminish the capacity of tyranny. At least historically speaking - this isn't a certainity, but generally countries become increasingly less oppressive as they age over generations. But realistically Saudi, Iraq and Iran for example, are very young nations. At least that's how I see it. You are in a reflective mood today. Unfortunately the development of countries and their culture is not a linear unbroken process. Different events can blast a growing culture back to the proverbial Stone Age. I'm afraid to say that tyranny,subjugation and religion have done for many a country and its culture.
Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that progress was assured or inevitable, but that what we consider to be progress typically comes as a result of the experience of failure. Democracy can't just be imposed, it needs to grow out of the failures of tyranny/monarchism/dictatorship and even then it grows out of the protestations of those excluded from enfranchisement. You can't just become a 'western liberal democracy' because you have voting. There are all manner of social changes and 'historical discourses' that had to be resolved to get to that point.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Dec 15 9.55am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 09 Dec 2015 6.42pm
It's true that Christianity was just as brutal as any religion in its consequences for disbelievers and those that it considered heretics. However it's a bit of a trite argument to compare Christainity with Islam. Firstly anyone seriously comparing the two books of these two faiths will see a marked difference in the number of aggressive verses. Anyone who says Islam is a religion of peace is only telling half the story.....Christianity is pretty low on aggressive verses. Secondly, Christian societies underwent the age of reason. This tempered its zeal and views. For example, Evolution is accepted by most within its societies.....This is just not true within the vast majority of Islamic societies. Thirdly Islam makes it quite clear that religion and state are intended to merge into one with Sharia law.....There is no 'render unto Caesar' in the Koran. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Dec 2015 6.43pm) Strictly speaking Catholics and Protestants were - not all Christian faiths and sects were persecutory, really its specifically those two, and particularly the Catholic church. Plenty of Christian movements, like some sects of Islam, don't really have a history of killing in the name of god, in the 20th century. Ironically, until more modern times, the Middle East was a relatively safe place for non-Catholic Christian movements. Religion is often used as a means of monopolisation of political right - The Catholic church was pretty clear that it was exterminating the competition.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Seth  On a pale blue dot 11 Dec 15 11.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Video where passages from the Bible are read to people who think it's from the Quran. To quote many clickbait articles, "when they find out, their reaction is priceless!" [Link]
"You can feel the stadium jumping. The stadium is actually physically moving up and down" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 11 Dec 15 11.46am | |
|---|---|
|
Quote Seth at 11 Dec 2015 11.38am
Video where passages from the Bible are read to people who think it's from the Quran. To quote many clickbait articles, "when they find out, their reaction is priceless!" [Link]
My feeling is that most faiths have moved on whereas Islam is still in the middle ages - You have sort of confirmed my assertion that your average "christian" hasn't read most of the bible whereas your average Muslim has read the Khoran to the extent he knows it backwards. Still... interesting observation mate. Edited by Hoof Hearted (11 Dec 2015 11.47am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Dec 15 12.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 11 Dec 2015 11.46am
Quote Seth at 11 Dec 2015 11.38am
Video where passages from the Bible are read to people who think it's from the Quran. To quote many clickbait articles, "when they find out, their reaction is priceless!" [Link]
My feeling is that most faiths have moved on whereas Islam is still in the middle ages - You have sort of confirmed my assertion that your average "christian" hasn't read most of the bible whereas your average Muslim has read the Khoran to the extent he knows it backwards. Still... interesting observation mate. Edited by Hoof Hearted (11 Dec 2015 11.47am) Pretty much sums up the failures of human society in general. I wouldn't say Islam is necessarily in the middle ages, but there are definitely some factions of Islam that are hell bent on returning to it. The problem sometimes is that the focus in media and news tends towards these factions (many of which are more political in their ambition and violence, than driven by a desire to force everyone to convert to a brand of Islam). Notably as well the demise of the cold war, has seen a proliferation of popularity among Islamist groups in insurrection against regimes such as Saudi, Jordan, Israel etc where there can be said to be some valid reasons to oppose the state (two of the three are corrupt as f**k and the other is technically an unwanted occupying force). The question also needs to be addressed as to what our responsibility in the mess is. We've become targets because we've been directly supporting a number of questionable regimes (such as Saudi) but primarily because we've also been bombing IS. Whilst I don't agree with their tactics, it would be quite absurd to assume that when we started bombing them in Iraq, they wouldn't want to respond in some manner. In fact its even questionable whether there would be an IS, were it not for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which very few people would say was entirely justified. I think the western media overplays the 'they hate our freedom' mentality, and in doing so, we tend to lump everyone into one category. France has been bombing IS in Iraq and Syria for a long time, along with the US, its not really that much of a stretch to imagine that they would strike back in some way.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 11 Dec 15 12.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Dec 2015 12.13pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 11 Dec 2015 11.46am
Quote Seth at 11 Dec 2015 11.38am
Video where passages from the Bible are read to people who think it's from the Quran. To quote many clickbait articles, "when they find out, their reaction is priceless!" [Link]
My feeling is that most faiths have moved on whereas Islam is still in the middle ages - You have sort of confirmed my assertion that your average "christian" hasn't read most of the bible whereas your average Muslim has read the Khoran to the extent he knows it backwards. Still... interesting observation mate. Edited by Hoof Hearted (11 Dec 2015 11.47am) Pretty much sums up the failures of human society in general. I wouldn't say Islam is necessarily in the middle ages, but there are definitely some factions of Islam that are hell bent on returning to it. The problem sometimes is that the focus in media and news tends towards these factions (many of which are more political in their ambition and violence, than driven by a desire to force everyone to convert to a brand of Islam). Notably as well the demise of the cold war, has seen a proliferation of popularity among Islamist groups in insurrection against regimes such as Saudi, Jordan, Israel etc where there can be said to be some valid reasons to oppose the state (two of the three are corrupt as f**k and the other is technically an unwanted occupying force). The question also needs to be addressed as to what our responsibility in the mess is. We've become targets because we've been directly supporting a number of questionable regimes (such as Saudi) but primarily because we've also been bombing IS. Whilst I don't agree with their tactics, it would be quite absurd to assume that when we started bombing them in Iraq, they wouldn't want to respond in some manner. In fact its even questionable whether there would be an IS, were it not for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which very few people would say was entirely justified. I think the western media overplays the 'they hate our freedom' mentality, and in doing so, we tend to lump everyone into one category. France has been bombing IS in Iraq and Syria for a long time, along with the US, its not really that much of a stretch to imagine that they would strike back in some way.
It's easy to blame the British for their treatment of the middle east pre wars or American aggression but the truth is that nothing happens in a vacuum and I know it's the intellectual thing to do to be objective and philosophical on such matters but in the end one has to assume that British interests were uppermost when making any policy decision of the past. We ultimately always have to remember who's side we are on and put philosophy aside.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.