Islamaphobia Legislation (UK)

[Lord-Jaffa]

You didn't think it through when you cut out half a verse and dissreaged the rest of chapter even the quran. If you read the chapter you would understand it's not about revenge.....

My point is you need to read more that few words to understand islam or any religion for that matter. Thier are many passages regarding peace teaching, not to fight unless attacked, Charity, etc how about to quote them?

Honest question, if that verse is in relation to a war that was on going at the time (and even though followed all around the world in the name of violence, supposedly isn't the real Islam, as you are stating), are there verses that, for example are relevant today that would explain the treatment and views towards homosexuals, apostates, women and agnostics?

 

[Dis86]

Borderline genocide? Have you even read the chapter and watched that video? You do realize the verses in question was guidance to and army fighting another army? That verses is referring to that time in history in which the Muslim were getting attacked and made a peace treatey, it was then broken by other side and god told prophet Muhammad not to fight give them 4 months to changed make to change thier minds or leave. How does that sound like genocide...

It doesn't refer to soldiers/warriors though. That's the point. It refers to all those who don't worship Islam. Shriks, as you should know, are basically anyone who doesn't worship Islam.

 

[Johno please?]

Those arent real muslims obviously.

I think of all the excuses that's my all time favourite xD

 

[Caracus2k]

Thier are many passages regarding peace teaching, not to fight unless attacked, Charity, etc how about to quote them?

And not absolutely everything in Mein Kampf is completely evil and/or incorrect and there is some some truth and useful material in the collective work of Karl Marx despite the horrors that were perpetrated by claimed adherents of such ideologies.

If you are member of a religion that claims its religious texts are the final, unalterable, divinely dictated word of the one god and that the the religions messenger is as close to a perfect man as you will find on earth you have set yourself a rather high moral standard for all of thoose texts, in their entirety, to live up to (and an extraordinarily high bar for the claims to be believed but that's another matter).

I don't need to judge the ideology of Islam solely by its texts I can look at the purported actions of its prophet and thoose that followed shortly afterwards.

Like the Banu Qurayza tribe of Jews who had their adult males beheaded and their women and children distributed to be sex slaves or to be indoctrinated as fighters for the cause for the 'crime' of seeking terms with an army who had besieged them.

And I know what the followers Islam were trying to do circa 100 years after the reported death of the religion's claimed prophet. ...

That being the year 732 when they were trying to conquer and subdue northern Europe when an Islamic army fought a Christian one in Tours, Northern France, 366 (Edit 364) years before the 1st crusade was launched in 1066.

Islam was not spread by charity, nice verses, and peaceable adherents who avoided conflict and retaliation it was spread by violent, bloody, sustained conquest.

 

[Nasher]

Religion amongst white english people has mostly died out these days, why are other religions still going strong?

It is, many still put christian on the census but in reality don't practice it at all. They just don't know what else to put. Most modern white Brits think religion is pretty silly tbh. We moved on from it over the past 200 years or so.

That being the year 732 when they were trying to conquer and subdue northern Europe when an Islamic army fought a Christian one in Tours, Northern France, 366 years before the 1st crusade was launched in 1066.

Yep the 1st crusade was a retaliation to the invasion of Europe by the Moors.

 

[enkoda]

@Caracus2k
I wouldn't bother trying to use facts in your argument, ak22 thinks Dr Zakir Naik is a credible source of reference.

Here's Naik "refuting" Darwin and evolution (because apparently it's the theory of evolution, not the fact of evolution ):

Be warned - it's absolute nonsense of the highest order....

And to show what a truly wonderful scholar of 7th century twaddle he really is, how about these classic quotes:
http://unmistaken1.com/10-absolutely-hilarious-memes-zakir-naik/

I wouldn't trust Naik to tie his own shoelaces, let alone explain the context of passages in the Quran (or anything really).

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

@Caracus2k
I wouldn't bother trying to use facts in your argument, ak22 thinks Dr Zakir Naik is a credible source of reference.

Here's Naik "refuting" Darwin and evolution (because apparently it's the theory of evolution, not the fact of evolution ):

Be warned - it's absolute nonsense of the highest order....

And to show what a truly wonderful scholar of 7th century twaddle he really is, how about these classic quotes:
http://unmistaken1.com/10-absolutely-hilarious-memes-zakir-naik/

I wouldn't trust Naik to tie his own shoelaces, let alone explain the context of passages in the Quran (or anything really).

Some of those quotes are awesome, gravity is false because plants grow upwards, nice to see hes a Bin laden supporter too.

 

[FoxEye]

As I've repeated over and over again in this thread — it's about context.
If they simply ‘expected compliance with their beliefs’, they would have demanded that pigs be removed when the first one appeared without the quote.

Based on the contents of the article (which is all we have to go on) the complaints didn’t appear until after the quote was added. This combination of pigs+quote creates a deliberately provocative message that is greater than the sum of its parts. It’s no longer simply about pigs being taboo in Islam, it’s now about someone going out of their way to be antagonistic.

Which is exactly the point I was making with my Liverpool analogy. However, it seems some people are only interested in defending freedom of speech when it allows them to critics a certain religion.

Anyway, I think we’ve gone way off topic form the OP over a flippant comment and I’m tired of repeating myself, so on this particular point at least, I’m out.

So where does that particular rabbit hole (thou shalt not antagonise muslims) end?

Given that some are quite easily antagonised, and seem prone to violence as a result. Should we simply desist from doing anything that could maybe antagonise a muslim or two?

Anyway, the quote allegedly appeared after the occupant had been harassed over the mere presence of the pigs in the window.

Given the things Christians have to deal with in muslim countries (like, you know, being stoned to death and burned alive), a few pigs in a window seems to really rile muslims up a disproportionate amount over here.

 

[enkoda]

Some of those quotes are awesome, gravity is false because plants grow upwards, nice to see hes a Bin laden supporter too.

The only things missing from his videos are canned laughter dubbed over the top and the Benny Hill music playing in the background.

 

[Dis86]

And he's the sort of guy they look to for guidance and understanding?!

Brilliant!

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

And he's the sort of guy they look to for guidance and understanding?!

Brilliant!

People can believe in whatever fairytales they like, I dont have any issues with it (one of my grandparents was Jewish). However when they expect their silly beliefs to be aggressively protected by laws restricting others freedoms then I have a serious issue with that, especially when said people are so against the rights of others (homosexuality etc), that includes all religions who are at their core completely hypocritical.

 

[Buddy]

And he's the sort of guy they look to for guidance and understanding?!

Brilliant!

They? Who's they? Wasn't aware ak22 represented the Muslim umma.

Dr Naik is a joke. He's in the back pocket of the salafi Saudi government and recently convicted of corruption.

Equally on the otherside of the coin Maajid Nawaz (you know the islamic terrorist turned ex Muslim- quite a jump right?) And that Australian "Fake Sheikh" are quoted by people on the other side of the fence.

The result? A thread full of misinformation and people shouting at each other.

 

[darkgen]

Is Maajid Nawaz truly on the other side or any other part of the coin to Dr. Naik? I thought he still identified as a Muslim?

 

[Buddy]

Is Maajid Nawaz truly on the other side or any other part of the coin to Dr. Naik? I thought he still identified as a Muslim?

To be honest I'm not sure (I dont really care). He is the yes man for certain media outlets and will say what ever to drum up some controversy for publicity and keep his career going.

 

[Johno please?]

As I've repeated over and over again in this thread — it's about context.
If they simply ‘expected compliance with their beliefs’, they would have demanded that pigs be removed when the first one appeared without the quote.

Based on the contents of the article (which is all we have to go on) the complaints didn’t appear until after the quote was added. This combination of pigs+quote creates a deliberately provocative message that is greater than the sum of its parts. It’s no longer simply about pigs being taboo in Islam, it’s now about someone going out of their way to be antagonistic.

Which is exactly the point I was making with my Liverpool analogy. However, it seems some people are only interested in defending freedom of speech when it allows them to critics a certain religion.

No, it covers the things you dont want to hear, thats what freedom of speech is, I dont want to hear religious preachers in the street but we live in a free country (apparently) and its their right to shout about non sense if they wish.

I dont know why people struggle with understanding this so much, hurting peoples feelings should not be a crime despite what our current absurd government thinks.

 

[darkgen]

To be honest I'm not sure (I dont really care). He is the yes man for certain media outlets and will say what ever to drum up some controversy for publicity and keep his career going.

He didn't seem to get a word in edge-ways there but I recall the episode from the retweeting of the cartoon controversy. In fairness I've seen both men articulate mostly reasoned arguments when in discussion with others (from Maajid's LBC show or when Mehdi is discussing topics with the likes of Dawkins et al). Reasoning and coherence is not something I could attribute to Dr. Naik.

 

[Dis86]

They? Who's they? Wasn't aware ak22 represented the Muslim umma.

They are the individuals that clearly buy in to the rubbish this man spouts. ak22 isn't alone given the number of hits his videos receive and the seemingly important awards he's received. He is a man who wields significant influence with a large number of muslims.

2013 Islamic person of the year! Can I get a woop woop?

Now, whilst I can see you clearly don't buy in to the crazy that falls from his mouth, others do. It's not you and those like you that worry me. It's people like him.

 

[Scort]

Seen that before - a great video, I think Stephen Fry did one as well.

 

[Irish_Tom]

So where does that particular rabbit hole (thou shalt not antagonise muslims) end?

Given that some are quite easily antagonised, and seem prone to violence as a result. Should we simply desist from doing anything that could maybe antagonise a muslim or two?

Well I would say it’s common sense and not exclusive to antagonising Muslims. Try not to be deliberately and overtly antagonist to your neighbours in general — it’s not a difficult concept.

For instance; having bunting up or having pigs on display should absolutely be defended, even if her neighbours don’t like it — it’s not directly targeting anyone.

Making an overt reference to Islam in combination with the pigs, or sticking a copy of The Sun’s ‘The Truth’ front cover in your window in Liverpool is obviously going to rub people up the wrong way.

Anyway, the quote allegedly appeared after the occupant had been harassed over the mere presence of the pigs in the window.

Unless I misread the article, that’s not how I understand the series of events. It seems to me that she complained about harassment from youths (we have to assume they are Muslim youths) after she put up bunting to commemorate Diana Princess of Wales — which I have already said is derisible in itself — she then added the quote to her window (which is a petty and passive-aggressive response in my opinion) and then the police received complaints about the pigs. Clearly no one comes out of this very well, which goes back to my original (and fundamental) point — don’t be a ****.

Given the things Christians have to deal with in muslim countries (like, you know, being stoned to death and burned alive), a few pigs in a window seems to really rile muslims up a disproportionate amount over here.

I agree, but luckily we live in a far more civilised society with different standards.

No, it covers the things you dont want to hear, thats what freedom of speech is, I dont want to hear religious preachers in the street but we live in a free country (apparently) and its their right to shout about non sense if they wish.

I dont know why people struggle with understanding this so much, hurting peoples feelings should not be a crime despite what our current absurd government thinks.

I’m not sure how many times I have to repeat myself, but at no point in this thread have I said anything to suggest it should be. I don’t know why people struggle with understanding this so much.

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

How about you get your facts right and actually read the Quran and hadith.... can't believe how many people can have such a strong opinion with out even knowing the facts...

Including most Muslims. I don't think you actually want to discuss the reality of The Haddith because genocide, ie the massacre of all men of a whole tribe and the enslavement and rape of it's women are detailed in the Haddith. I take it you haven't read up on a 58yo Muhammed's unprovoked attacks on 2 serperate tribes Bani Al-Mustaliq and Banu Quarayza. After massacring all the Bani Al Mustaliq men Muhammed raped of Juwairiya who was 20 who's husband had just been murdered by Muhammed's men. Not that Muhammed's companions weren't busy raping the rest of the women. This is the Haddith where Muhammed states coitis interuptous is considered permissable because every soul will come to the earth.

During the Banu Quarayza massacre, Muhammed and his friends tortored and murdered the husband and father of Safiyya of Khayber while extracting their treasures from them. He then told off his mate Bilaal for letting Safiyya see her murdered family members. Then he got on with raping Safiyya. What's hilarious is many Muslims consider this a 'love story' and think Safiyya was well up for it with the 58yo who'd just tortured and murdered her family. But in the actual haddith they are guarding Safiyya to make sure she didn't stab or poison Muhammed.

Now I'd imagine most Muslims with decent levels of ethics who actually believe the story of Muhammed will disregard those Haddith as 'fabricated' because they don't want to believe it. But historically Muslim scholars never considered them to be fabricated. Also the Quran backs all this up by stating it's a man's right to have sex with any woman he possesses through slavery.

I don't actually believe The Haddith or Muhammed is 1 person. Because all Haddith were recorded 200 years after the so called Muhammed's death. Bare in mind Muhammed isn't really mentioned in The Quran. 1 period in time Muhammed is supposedly a peaceful man who is almost a pacifist in the manner he turns the other cheek. Then throughout both Quran and Haddith God gives him permission to rob carivans to survive and kill because he's fallen out with rival tribes. Then he goes and has wars and massacres tribes without provocation. Then he demands other tribes either submit to him and pay him tax or get wiped out. Also the only historic recording of Muhammed was supposedly way after Islam records his death. So therefore it makes there was more than 1 prophet Muhammed, which literally means 'praised one' and they were almogomated into 1 individual. In fact we know from Haddith that it was popular in Arabia for people to claim prophethood.

Looking at the Quran, it clearly has multiple authors, partly because it's heavily plagerised from various sources. We can see the literal quality in early revelations is far superior to latter ones. The latter revelations are generally rulings in law with no poetic quality.

Also if God truely is the author of the Quran why did he quote the incorrect scientific theory of the time? Why did he at time repeat the same story multiple times? Why does the Quran contradict itself? Why did God give his last word to humanity to an illiterate man who could not write it down? Not only that for something like 6 months Muhammed worshipped Allah alongside 2 other Goddesses. Why did God not correct him in that time?