8 of 17
8
Are they really due to Western foreign policies?
Posted: 08 March 2017 08:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 106 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  51
Joined  2016-02-27

In this forum, I have pointed out that even Indonesia and Malaysia have laws to punish apostasy. The fact that they do not identify themselves as Islamic nations is not enough to call them anything like champions of human rights irrespective of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

While it’s true they are not necessarily the champions of human right, but so do non Muslims nation such as China, Myanmar or the Philippines. The point is human right has never been a priority in Asia. And it’s not true that Indonesia punishes apostates. There is blasphemy law. But freedom of religion is guarantee as long as it’s among the 6 state approved religion. There are actually some ex-Muslim celebrities turn Christians and this is protected by the state.

The thing about Indonesia is we actually have a civil religion that took form in a single state ideology. This ideology is held supreme including above the Islamist ideology, which is why the Islamists continuously try to discredit the nation ideology. This is actually a treason.

Samyaza, do you know for fact that Wahhabism is contrary to the Koran and Hadits, the books of Islam? Here is a link for a good translation of the Koran; and you might want to check it out for things that you heard about Islam, but did not actually know.

Do you realize what this statement actually mean? This mean you are saying all these mess are not related to Islam, because non Muslims here have never have problem with the local traditionalist, nationalist, non Wahhabi Islam. In fact, we see the local traditionalist Muslims as the protector of diversity. The Wahhabis accused them of heresy, so that more and more Muslims would join their rank of radicals. They continued to discredit the secular government, trying to topple it and replace it with a Sharia government, which is why the traditionalist nationalists dislike them.

However, it really does not matter what the so-called holy books of religions contain; what really matters is what people do and accept being done, how much of the nonsense, injustice, hatred and atrocities in the religious books people actually believe in and practice.

This I agree. But this is also the reason why I believe Islam is not a hopeless case, because a decade ago Islam here is not as shitty as it is today. It was due to the constant funding of Wahhabism that it turned shitty. Now the traditionalists and the wahhabis are fighting for control. Ideologically, the traditionalists nationalist are losing their ground, but they have the military… So, yeah… As long as nobody decides it’s a good idea to arm the radical, I guess the government is in control.

[ Edited: 08 March 2017 08:24 AM by samyaza ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 March 2017 05:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 107 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  204
Joined  2015-03-13

In this forum, I have pointed out that even Indonesia and Malaysia have laws to punish apostasy. The fact that they do not identify themselves as Islamic nations is not enough to call them anything like champions of human rights irrespective of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

While it’s true they are not necessarily the champions of human right, but so do non Muslims nation such as China, Myanmar or the Philippines. The point is human right has never been a priority in Asia. And it’s not true that Indonesia punishes apostates. There is blasphemy law. But freedom of religion is guarantee as long as it’s among the 6 state approved religion. There are actually some ex-Muslim celebrities turn Christians and this is protected by the state.

The thing about Indonesia is we actually have a civil religion that took form in a single state ideology. This ideology is held supreme including above the Islamist ideology, which is why the Islamists continuously try to discredit the nation ideology. This is actually a treason.

You are right, Indonesia does not have anti-apostasy law. I should have said blasphemy as opposed to apostasy; Indonesia has anti-blasphemy law. The bottom line is that practically all Muslim-majority countries in the world have lawful preference for Islam; some talk respect for all religions, but in reality give preference to Islam.

Samyaza, do you know for fact that Wahhabism is contrary to the Koran and Hadits, the books of Islam? Here is a link for a good translation of the Koran; and you might want to check it out for things that you heard about Islam, but did not actually know.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39112840

Do you realize what this statement actually mean? This mean you are saying all these mess are not related to Islam, because non Muslims here have never have problem with the local traditionalist, nationalist, non Wahhabi Islam. In fact, we see the local traditionalist Muslims as the protector of diversity. The Wahhabis accused them of heresy, so that more and more Muslims would join their rank of radicals. They continued to discredit the secular government, trying to topple it and replace it with a Sharia government, which is why the traditionalist nationalists dislike them.

Really, you had to ask the question that you asked above? My friend, you have mixed up Islam and Muslim here. There is no such thing as ‘the local traditionalist, nationalist, non Wahhabi Islam’; there is such a thing as the local traditionalist, nationalist, non Wahhabi Muslim. The Koran is the principal book of Islam, anyone who follows the Koran strictly is surely Muslim by the book. Anyone who does not follow the Koran strictly is not a pure Muslim. Obviously, most Muslims are not Muslim by the book or pure Muslim. But, of course, all Muslims are humans; and all of them use some of their human intelligence and rationale over following the Koran, that is why, for example, most of them would not kill themselves for promoting/protecting Islam. The bottom line is that by looking at Muslims in different parts of the world, you cannot say that there are more than on kind of Islam; you surely can say that there are more than one kind of Muslims.

However, it really does not matter what the so-called holy books of religions contain; what really matters is what people do and accept being done, how much of the nonsense, injustice, hatred and atrocities in the religious books people actually believe in and practice.

This I agree. But this is also the reason why I believe Islam is not a hopeless case, because a decade ago Islam here is not as shitty as it is today. It was due to the constant funding of Wahhabism that it turned shitty. Now the traditionalists and the wahhabis are fighting for control. Ideologically, the traditionalists nationalist are losing their ground, but they have the military… So, yeah… As long as nobody decides it’s a good idea to arm the radical, I guess the government is in control.

If you agreed, you could say that Muslims are not a hopeless case, as opposed to ‘Islam is not a hopeless case’, if you observed that Muslims were increasingly using their human intelligence over following Islam.

[ Edited: 09 March 2017 06:05 AM by Sukhamaya (Sam) Bain ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 March 2017 07:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 108 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3796
Joined  2009-10-21
Sukhamaya (Sam) Bain - 09 March 2017 05:45 AM

If you agreed, you could say that Muslims are not a hopeless case, as opposed to ‘Islam is not a hopeless case’, if you observed that Muslims were increasingly using their human intelligence over following Islam.

This is pretty much why I quit responding to you Suk. The basis for your arguments is that there is some “Islam” that is definable. Even though you constantly acknowledge that the culture has changed throughout time and is practiced differently in different parts of the world now, you insist there is some agreed upon version of Islam that is the one correct version. And you never really try to say what it is or how you know it’s correct. You pick a point here or there, say that’s it, then you move on.

There is no such thing as “using their human intelligence OVER following Islam”. There are just humans. Sometimes they act rationally, intelligently, sometimes they follow something without knowing why.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2017 06:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 109 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
Lausten - 09 March 2017 07:06 AM

The basis for your arguments is that there is some “Islam” that is definable. Even though you constantly acknowledge that the culture has changed throughout time and is practiced differently in different parts of the world now,

That’s ridiculous arguing. Anything is definable. Islam is easily definable.
Things that change through time and have local variations are definable.
Are you saying Islam is not definable?


you insist there is some agreed upon version of Islam that is the one correct version. And you never really try to say what it is or how you know it’s correct. You pick a point here or there, say that’s it, then you move on.

I follow Sam’s posts pretty carefully and I have never read anything like that.

There is no such thing as “using their human intelligence OVER following Islam”. There are just humans. Sometimes they act rationally, intelligently, sometimes they follow something without knowing why.

That’s pretty much true. But that doesn’t mean there is a problem people can’t address.
Well, frankly people are addressing the problem more and more in a democratic fashion.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2017 06:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 110 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  873
Joined  2016-12-24
VYAZMA - 19 March 2017 06:43 AM

Are you saying Islam is not definable?

It’s not definable.
Your turn.
Define Islam.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2017 07:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 111 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3796
Joined  2009-10-21
VYAZMA - 19 March 2017 06:43 AM

I follow Sam’s posts pretty carefully and I have never read anything like that.

He does what I’m talking about in the post I responded to; “The Koran is the principal booK”, despite the fact that very few could quote it accurately, despite that extremists say you have to read it in the original Arabic. He uses the words “pure Muslim”, knowing there is debate about this. They don’t even have a central authority like the Pope. There are two distinct sects and every Imam is a variation.

I didn’t say there isn’t some definable problem or that it couldn’t be addressed. I said it is not a good idea to address something by telling people what their beliefs are or telling them what they think, then telling them their thinking is wrong.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 March 2017 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 112 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
Lausten - 19 March 2017 07:13 AM

I didn’t say there isn’t some definable problem or that it couldn’t be addressed. I said it is not a good idea to address something by telling people what their beliefs are or telling them what they think, then telling them their thinking is wrong.

Would you hold that value if we were talking about racists? Let’s say proponents of apartheid?

What if you don’t tell people what their beliefs are, but rather they tell you what their beliefs are?
Can you then tell people if their thinking is right or wrong?

And anyways how does one come to the conclusion that there is a definable problem? One that could be addressed.
I know how people come to these conclusions, I just want to know how you say, “I didn’t say there isn’t some definable problem or that it couldn’t be addressed.”

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2017 04:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 113 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3796
Joined  2009-10-21

The answers to your questions are fairly obvious. They support my point more than they do yours. I’m not sure what your point is, or if you have one. You just wanted to say I’m wrong. Having failed at that, you try blasting me with rhetoric.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2017 06:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 114 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
Lausten - 20 March 2017 04:17 AM

The answers to your questions are fairly obvious. They support my point more than they do yours. I’m not sure what your point is, or if you have one. You just wanted to say I’m wrong. Having failed at that, you try blasting me with rhetoric.

Your answers to my questions are not fairly obvious.

You’re evading the questions.(big surprise!)
I’m trying to get to the bottom of your point and then show you that it’s wrong. You realized that and have shut down the chain of inquiry.

They support my point more than they do yours. I’m not sure what your point is, or if you have one.

This is contradictory. You’re fumbling, like always.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2017 10:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 115 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3796
Joined  2009-10-21

I answered your question in post 11. I’ll discuss that if you respond to it. But you are opening up a bunch of questions that I don’t see as relevant. I’m not “evading”, I’m flat out telling you I’m not going to engage in your interrogation.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2017 11:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 116 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14

No that’s fine.

I didn’t say there isn’t some definable problem or that it couldn’t be addressed.

That’s good enough. Like I said, the definable problem is already being addressed.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 March 2017 06:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 117 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  204
Joined  2015-03-13
VYAZMA - 20 March 2017 11:53 AM

No that’s fine.

I didn’t say there isn’t some definable problem or that it couldn’t be addressed.

That’s good enough. Like I said, the definable problem is already being addressed.

I liked the discussion between Lausten, VYAZMA and Citizenschallenge-v.3. Could you guys provide your names? I like the statement, “Like I said, the definable problem is already being addressed.” the most.

Of course, the definable problem is Islamic fanaticism. But let me clarify that Islam could not cause problems if people did not follow it. More fanatic following causes more misery.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2017 07:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 118 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
Sukhamaya (Sam) Bain - 20 March 2017 06:47 PM

Of course, the definable problem is Islamic fanaticism.

Actually the definable problem is more broad than that.
It also involves massive influxes of immigrants and refugees in these recent years.
That was one of the main driving forces of the Brexit and the rise of nationalist populism in France, Holland, Eastern Europe and the US.
So it is an issue. A Definable Problem, It is being played out democratically by the voices of citizens in many countries in the West
and Eastern Europe….Poland, Hungary to name a couple.

The influx of immigrants and refugees and the real threat of islamic terrorism are two separate things.
Both equally relevant and important and politically connected for convenience.
And a convenience that is not wholly unwarranted.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2017 09:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 119 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3796
Joined  2009-10-21

I went to this lecture recently. Basically her theme is, it’s not an immigration problem, it’s a foreign policy problem.

When you say “influx”, that means you’ve defined some borders and made laws about who can cross them. This is not how humans have typically defined the world. It used to be perfectly normal for people to migrant to one area, farm, then return to their “home” when the season was over. Also, wars, famines and disasters frequently resulted in mass migrations. They weren’t “immigrants”, they were people forced to relocate. They were dealt with in a number of ways, not always in a just manner, but sometimes they were welcomed. These laws we have created to categorize people and declare them “illegal” and “refugees” are a recent creation, they are not laws of nature that must be followed.

What higher order of morality are you invoking when you use words like “influxes of immigrants.” How is that a problem just by the nature of those definitions? Or is the problem something else?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 March 2017 12:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 120 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
Lausten - 21 March 2017 09:36 AM

When you say “influx”, that means you’ve defined some borders and made laws about who can cross them.

Yes the USA and every other nation has defined those borders through laws that are currently on the books.
We all like those laws. We definitely like the laws that define who can cross and when and where.

This is not how humans have typically defined the world.

Yeah, that’s how humans have typically defined the world.
Maybe you haven’t heard about things called nations and borders.
That’s how humans have typically defined the world for centuries now.

How you personally define your “world” is irrelevant Lausten. Except to you.
If you keep bringing up conversational topics based on “your world” or your bubble it gets real boring fast.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
   
8 of 17
8