by Simon 1524 Replies latest members adult
@Billyblobber - no, I would not agree with your first question/paragraph - rather christians and jews integrate better because they have contextualised their holy texts; this has yet to happen in any meaningful way in Islam.
'Religion is the symptom, not the issue' - not so.
Islam was around centuries before the British empire and America started p1$$ing muslims off - and you know it.
I did reply to the video thread.
My protests got some kickback, and then the arguments got stupid. All I am saying is trap a crowd in a loaded environment, and you will not get a representative response.
It is wrong to condemn an entire religious community based on one video. Not all Muslims are radical. And I note that Simon participated late on the video thread and suggested that my Muslim friend is not a "True Scotsman Muslim" if she is not radical. You are wrong, Simon, that is all I can say. She attends all her prayers, her meetings, charity, and her Ramadan.
Mahamad Accord has lots of ideas on how to thwart ISIS recruitment. Can you give him eleven minutes?
Even if modern Muslim/Islam becomes literally 1-1 as progressive as the majority of modern Christianity, it won't solve anything, since those people will still live with the same hardships, in the same place,
It seems to me that there is a scale for quality of life and if I'm not too mistaken it tends to be better the more secular a country is.
People do better making decisions based on current issues and pragmatism than based on 2,000 year old superstition and blind adherance to self-appointed leadership.
I think they would have less hardship if they weren't so zealous but that is just my opinion / gut feeling.
How about the reverse? Increase the standard of living and the people become less radical. It certainly happens to immigrants.
It is wrong to condemn an entire religious community based on one video. Not all Muslims are radical. And I note that Simon participated late on the video thread and suggested that my Muslim friend is not a "True Scotsman Muslim" if she is not radical. You are wrong, Simon, that is all I can say. She attends all her prayers, her meetings, charity, and her Ramadan.
That isn't what I said. I questioned what being a true muslim was and suggested that it was following the teachings of the quran and that it is logical to believe that the people who follow them the most / best are the 'truest' and the ones who don't follow them as much at some point aren't considered true followers.
Are there any objections to that? It seems like it would be a fairly easily agreed upon standard.
I have never said that a muslim isn't a true muslim unless they are radical. I'm questioning what the beliefs of the islamic faith are and whether they are too radical or too close to radical.
There is a reason that it seems to be so easy to convince 'moderate muslims' to become 'not moderate anymore'.
I listened to the interview: there doesn't seems to be anything concrete that he's saying, not what I'd describe as 'lots of ideas', just lots of statements of what the issues are and how they need to address them but not Hreally OW to address them.
'collaboration between the community' ... 'raise awareness' ... 'give parents tools'
To do what? There has to be collaboration to do something (what?) and something (what?) that they need to raise awareness of. What would that be?
What is the message that has to be given to people so that the message from ISIS is not accepted? And can that message contradict the current messages of islam.
If the issue is that they don't feel involved in the community then is the solution to keep people isolated from it or to try and have people integrate more?
Could it be that the islamic teachings hold people back from integrating, keep them isolated and make the problem worse?
Right at the end he mentions the need to tell youth that the recruiters are un-islamic.
That is what I've been saying - the best way to do this is to have clear separation between ideology because kids will know if you say something isn't the same but they can see that it fundamentally is.
So the key thing is to make clear that the ISIS cause is un-islamic. Why is that difficult and why do they need help to do it other than ... that they are easily viewed as very similar.
How about the reverse? Increase the standard of living and the people become less radical. It certainly happens to immigrants.
I think one follows the other. People's living standards improve as they waste less of their time praying and spend more of their time working in productive ways and also enjoying life.
You can't 'pay people' to be less radical - radicals would simply view that as a reward from their god.
However I do think that foreign aid would be better sent as water treatment plants etc... than arms to harsh regimes.
Right now though that can't be done, we need them to pull back to more moderate stances first.
I've been trying to say this several ways. Christians, especially evangelical Christians, are hung up with the bible, it's "correct" interpretation, and doctrine. We've got hundreds of schisms as a result, each with their perfected interpretation.
Even though the Quran is their "holy book", Muslims are not doctrinally motivated (other than radical groups like ISIS). The foundation of their faith is the five-fold path of prescribed behavior. That is why a peaceful immigrant Muslim can call the actions of ISIS un-Islamic.
You don't pay a country to raise it's standard of living. You help it build infrastructure, acquire fresh water, improved access to health care, lower infant mortality, and establish human rights. Ironically, a lot of that costs money.
