"I'm not a racist, but I don't mind saying that there are certain groups of people I'd rather not have in the United States."
The rest of your post would like a word with you.
7/22/2008 9:18:09 PM
I agree Islam sucks, but I think Christianity, Islam and Judaism all suck equally.
7/22/2008 10:22:06 PM
Well I don't think you should go out of your way to antagonize Muslims (or Christians, or anyone, really), and I think wanting them kicked out of the country is pushing it too far. But otherwise I agree
7/22/2008 11:31:27 PM
Everyone knows that hot summer days call for white sheets.
7/22/2008 11:37:32 PM
Yay! I got quoted! I am actually quite proud of my so-called 'bigotry.' I'm not afraid to take a stand and say that Islam sucks. Because it does. It sucks camel tails.
1) Islam is not a race. I am a bigot in regard to a set of beliefs, not in regard to a particular ethnic group. I'm fine with Arabs, Iranians, etc.; I just don't like Islamic beliefs and I'd rather not see those beliefs represented in this country.
2) I never said that Muslims should be kicked out of the country - did I? They have a right to be here, provided they entered the country legally. I also have a right not to like their beliefs :-)
3) Why should I respect a so-called 'prophet' who married a 5 year old and knocked her up before she turned twelve (Aisha)?
7/23/2008 12:05:33 AM
You may think whatever you wish about it, Darth Vader, it's just that you chose to express your beliefs on it extremely poorly is why you're probably quoted.
1) Correct, it isn't a race. I'm quite confused as to why it's here myself, however, why shouldn't they be represented? What gives you the right to determine if a Muslim is or isn't allowed to participate in this country? Does the U.S. Constitution not allow for all people of all religions to be treated equally?
2) Maybe you didn't, but you heavily implied that you think they probably should be, in the very least. You don't have to like them, but you don't have to post inflammatory things about them. You may not like something, but still be courteous towards those who do.
3) A last note, you are somewhat incorrect: the wife was not Aisha (as this was his first), and she did not become pregnant at five-years-old. Muhammad married her at age six, and did not, apparently, engage in sexual activities till age nine (whether or not she became pregnant from this, I don't know, but I doubt it considering how old Muhammad was and how young she is). This is not a defense of his actions, but merely a sort of 'informing,' I guess you could call it. Some have noted, however, that the scholars of Muhammad's life may have been wrong and that the girl could have been 19 and the marriage consummated at 21.
7/23/2008 12:23:04 AM
"I'm not a Muslim and I am under no obligation to obey or respect Muslim social norms. "
And yet you want to apply christian norms to the whole of the nation.
7/23/2008 1:25:54 AM
Airbag, please provide the quote where I indicated that I wanted to see Christian social norms applied to the United States as a whole.
7/23/2008 1:36:30 AM
1) Muslims can and will be represented whether I like their beliefs or not. That won't stop me from saying that I don't like Islam and I'd prefer not to see Islamic beliefs become a potent influence in this country, as they have in parts of Europe and the UK. I'm not into political correctness and I don't mind being offensive about things like this.
2) Actually, it'd be nice to see fundies of all stripes shipped off in steel crates. But, it'll never happen.
3) I didn't say that Muhammad's child bride got pregnant; I just said that the dirty old man Muslims revere as a prophet banged the crap out of her before her tenth birthday. I thought I saw another post on FSTDT claiming this wife's name was Aisha, but I might be wrong about that. Either way, I hope she was 19-21... for her sake!
7/23/2008 1:43:02 AM
Another Rule of the Internet
"I'm not a racist, but..." is always followed by something incredibly racist/bigoted/intolerant.
7/23/2008 2:25:30 AM
Intolerance non est racism.
7/23/2008 3:05:27 AM
Of the eight women that Mohamed married, Only one was under 30 years old.
His seventh wife "Aisha" was his youngest wife, And was also a political wife, The marriage was intended to bring a strong alliance with a powerfull prince who had an army at his disposal.(Mohamed and his followers were weak, and fleeing from strong enemys)
Aisha was twelve when she was sent to marry Mohamed.
Elenor of Aquitaine was twelve when she married Richard Plantagenet (King Richard the first)
And Anne of Cleves was twelve when she married Henry Tudor (Henry the eighth).
7/23/2008 3:27:40 AM
Well, it's still kind of perverted (The European rulers you mentioned were perverted too, imo), but at least twelve puts her around puberty. If you do a FSTDT search on Aisha, you'll see that we have a quote in the archives from a Muslim scholar claiming that Aisha was around five when Muhammad married her.
Either way, Muhammad is still a lousy prophet.
7/23/2008 4:03:48 AM
Every religion sucks. No doubt about that.
7/23/2008 4:11:47 AM
Yes, but some religions suck more than others. Conservative Islam ranks somewhere near the top of the chart, imho, while more peaceful religions like Buddhism and Jainsim would rank near the bottom.
BTW, I'm not an atheist; I'm a liberal/emergent Christian. So, I don't mind people having religious beliefs. I find the far right of Christianity pretty much as offensive as Islamic fundamentalism, except that lately we've refrained from slaughtering people and blowing things up (unless you count Iraq as an evangelical-inspired war).
7/23/2008 4:19:52 AM
The problem is that Islam has never had any sort of 'liberalization' of its work that other such religions have had. Judaism has the Talmud (though arguably, what it says about Jesus is rather offensive) and Christianity has...well, nothing really, as it's been forced to change with Western times. Islam has met a period of stagnation because the areas of the world it's in are underdeveloped compared to other nations that we're in. Religious liberalism is usually not from people who actually want change, rather, it's a result because they fear their belief system may get overthrown by more modern ideas; such is true of all religions besides generally benign ones like Jainism or Buddhism (as was said).
As for Muhammad being a lousy prophet...I suppose you can honestly extend to any sort of religious leader. After all, you could argue Zoroaster started this whole insanity for monotheistic religions and Buddha is another story as you could argue he was lying about 'evolving to a higher plane of consciousness' or whatever. Jesus also, I believe, failed to meet some of the requirements of the proverbial Messiah that the Old Testament predicted, so there's that too.
7/23/2008 4:46:52 AM
Anne of Cleves was born in 1515 and married in 1540. She was therefore around 25 years old, not 12.
7/23/2008 7:03:58 AM
The problem is that Islam has never had any sort of 'liberalization' of its work that other such religions have had.
Bullshit. The Islamic Empire was the most advanced and civilised place on the planet before the Crusades sent them crazy-ass genocidal. That's what happens when you kill nearly everyone.
They were the inventors of the hospital, university and many other items of lasting importance. They were the first non-Roman Empire nation to have religious toleration- where do you think the Jews fled to when England and other countries kicked them out?
THe real problem is that the Sunnis and Shiites haven't gone at each other as indiscriminately as the Protestants and the Catholics. Seperation of Church and State seems much more necessary when 1/3rd of central Europe dies in a single 30 year war about minor religious difference than otherwise. If the Muslims were more violent, the States that thy are from would be more likely to see the light and become secular. Some other political elements also enter here- it just so happens that crazy theocrats have always seemed to be the US's opponents.
Most of the issues we see today in Islamic land were seens much worse in Christian nations in Europe, before they became secular. Overly modest clothing styles are simply not a unique trait to Islam, for instance. Nor is the attacks on freedom of speech shown so well by the whole cartoons thing.
The problem is not Islam, it is the idea of having state religions (as if a state could believe in a god anyway) and religion itself.
7/23/2008 10:03:24 AM
Waiting for God
The Islamic nations were indeed the most advanced in the world during the middle ages (excluding China as I am unsure of their level of advancement at this time) primarily due to them having access to Greek and Roman knowledge from the library of Alexandria and emerging great thinkers. The crusades did little to supress this knowledge and although the populations of palastine, Syria, Lebanon and others suffered greatly during their conquests and occupations, the crusades had little lasting effect on Islamic development.
Please feel free to correct me if you have information to the contrary.
Regarding your point about state religion, Norway's state religion is evangelical Lutheranism, and yet it is one of the most progressive contries in the world with one of the highest (if not the highest) standard of living in the world. Of course, Norwegians are not required to believe in this religion or even to take it seriously ( as I assume people are in Islamic states, very seriously) which is probably why they don't suffer from the same issues.
Your perfectly correct about what you say regarding dressing moderately in the Islamic states being at the same stage as those of Christian states back during the middle-ages, but the difference is that Europe didn't know any better, it's thinkers didn't have access to greater knowledge, un-like Islam does today.
Education, imo, is the answer, honest, proper education and conscientiousness raising as Dawkins would put it. A person not driven down a particular path and having access to free and impartial information will enevitably move away from organised religion.
7/23/2008 12:58:29 PM
Why is this supposed to be racist?
Frankly most of you would agree with the man if he said similar things about the Babble or Jebus.
7/23/2008 1:58:14 PM
@ Lt. Fred
"The Islamic Empire was the most advanced and civilised place on the planet before the Crusades sent them crazy-ass genocidal. That's what happens when you kill nearly everyone."
Bull shit. The Crusades did not conquer Baghdad or Mecca. The downfall of Islamic civilisation was largely caused by conservative Muslims gaining the upper hand (and arguably a lack of new libraries to conquer.)
"They were the inventors of the hospital, university and many other items of lasting importance."
Bullshit. The Indians take credit for the university.
"They were the first non-Roman Empire nation to have religious toleration-" They invented a cruel and discriminating tax system against the Dhimmis (that is when they weren't butchering or enslaving them).
" where do you think the Jews fled to when England and other countries kicked them out?" Holland?
"If the Muslims were more violent, the States that thy are from would be more likely to see the light and become secular." That's pretty sick.
"Overly modest clothing styles are simply not a unique trait to Islam, for instance." Apart from the pathetic euphemism for keeping women virtually imprisoned I've noticed the use of a tu-quoque.
"The problem is not Islam," You keep telling yourself that. Over and over again. As long as you are not a male, hetero sexual Muslim yourself you're on Allah's death list.
"it is the idea of having state religions (as if a state could believe in a god anyway) and religion itself." Except that the terrorists that butchered village after village of Maluku villagers were not action on the state's behalf: but on the orders of Allah and his Prophet.
7/23/2008 2:09:32 PM
"Frankly most of you would agree with the man if he said similar things about the Babble or Jebus."
Depends on whom you ask. Personally, I'd think that if he had something along similar lines about Christians, it would still have been posted anyway. But to each their own, I guess.
Incorrect. After the primary expulsion of the Jews from Spain during the inquisition, some stayed, some went to Morocco (which Spain owned at the time), and some left to...the Ottoman empire (because the Jews formed an integral part of the middle class, stereotypes aside over their profession, and it was the belief that they brought a more robust economy to wherever they settled). Ironically, Jews faired better than some Christians in then Muslim-controlled lands during that time period. It's just that now modern history has the reverse of this.
"They invented a cruel and discriminating tax system against the Dhimmis (that is when they weren't butchering or enslaving them)."
Incorrect, once again. 'Dhimmi' (or 'zimmi' in Ottoman Turkish) is the Arabic term for a non-Muslim in a theocratic Muslim state, not the tax itself. How bad conditions were varied on where you went off to in Muslim-controlled lands. There were actually places were tolerance existed, however, other places, as you somewhat noted, such things occurred. They were, however, as Lt. Fred noted, at least in the Ottoman empire, a group that at least tolerated the existence of other religious groups.
"Bullshit. The Indians take credit for the university."
As you say, bullshit. Actually, the Greeks get credit for the first university (though I admit China, Persia/Iran, and India did have things similar to the basic principle).
7/23/2008 4:55:31 PM
Anonymous, I agree. That's a very good summary of why religions tend to liberalize, and why the progressive impulse is still fairly weak in the Islamic world.
7/23/2008 5:09:04 PM
7/23/2008 5:14:44 PM
Funny, if he had said the same shit about Christianity, nobody would of blinked an eye at it around here.
7/24/2008 4:46:19 AM