Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:
For anyone with a strong opinion about how "peaceful" and "liberal" Islam actually is, I strongly recommend a reading of the Koran. You won't be left in doubt about that.

Ditto for the babble.

Islam is an ugly, gutter trash, line of thought.

Islam, however, hasn't done shit to any one.

Any line of thought, no matter how noble, has adherents who do stupid, or awful, things in service to it, so it's no wonder garbage like islam draws the loons in like flies to shit.

Take islam out of the equation and some other line of thought will take it's place.

Intrinsic nutjobbedness plus any idea you care to name (can) equal horrowshow.

henry quirk wrote:Islam is an ugly, gutter trash, line of thought.

Islam, however, hasn't done shit to any one.

Any line of thought, no matter how noble, has adherents who do stupid, or awful, things in service to it, so it's no wonder garbage like islam draws the loons in like flies to shit.

Take islam out of the equation and some other line of thought will take it's place.

Intrinsic nutjobbedness plus any idea you care to name (can) equal horrowshow.

Yes, loonies will always exist...that's true.

But your humble narrator is not sure that's all there is to it, my droog.

If a man reads, "When you meet the infidel on the field of battle, kill him," and then meets the infidel on the field of battle and kills him, then he's doing something quite different from someone who reads, "Love your enemies, and do good to those who treat you badly," and then goes and kills his neighbour with a brick.

Everything depends on what the ideology teaches.

henry quirk wrote:Islam is an ugly, gutter trash, line of thought.

Warmongers are so much better.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:If the word 'islam', in english, means, or is derived from a word, which, in english, means peace, then I would think it is wrong to equate the word 'islam' with violence. The opposite would actually be what is true.

Actually, "Islam" means "submission." But don't believe me; just look it up in any neutral source, and you'll see that's right.

I looked up the word 'islam' before I wrote anything down. THEN, I expressed what I saw, from a neutral perspective, also. I, unlike you, have not made a judgement call and expressed what i believe is right, or wrong.

Could the word islam, even when meaning submission, still be derived from another word that may or may not mean peace, in english?

Immanuel Can wrote:That is, you get "peace" when everybody who is an "infidel" (essentially, an unbeliever, heathen or Atheist: but also including any Jews and Christians, i.e. "people of the Book", that are not "submitting" to Allah).

What is an 'unbeliever' supposed to be an unbeliever of exactly?

Is it implied in most if not all religions that the followers be in 'submission' to whatever the "god" is that the religion worships to?

Immanuel Can wrote:Muhammed was a warlord, not a pacifist;

Is that an unambiguous fact that cannot be disputed, and is agreed by every person, or just by some?

Could the person who controls the us military also be considered as a warlord, not a pacifist; by some?

Immanuel Can wrote:and Islam has historically always spread through conquest.

So, if islam has historically always spread through conquest, then are you also suggesting that every single 'muslim person', follower of islam, has been subjugated and now is being controlled under duress by some kind of force?

Immanuel Can wrote: That is why they practice Jihad...the primary meaning of which is not "self-discipline," as some people would have you believe, but "holy war," i.e. a universal war waged until all of the World is compelled to become "Dar-El-Salaam," the "land of the pacified.

Is trying to pacify, i.e., bring peace to (a country or warring factions), especially by the use or threat of military force exactly what the us military tries to do also?

Immanuel Can wrote:Islam believes that we'll have "peace" after all the unbelievers are dead or completely subdued and humiliated, subject to Shariah; but not any other way.

What do you mean exactly when you say 'islam' believes? You said before 'islam' means "submission". So, what exactly are you now saying is believing?

If 'shariah' means that by the use of law this is the "way" or "path" to 'a peaceful land' for example, then is this exactly what every religion, state, and/or country imposes also?

Are ALL people somehow imposed by some sort of rules or laws to follow?

The way existence is now for ALL human beings are they forced to and/or made to be followers?

Immanuel Can wrote:For anyone with a strong opinion about how "peaceful" and "liberal" Islam actually is, I strongly recommend a reading of the Koran. You won't be left in doubt about that.

But this statement contradicts what actually takes place, i.e., most people who have actually read the koran are the ones who are saying islam is about peace.

But then again absolutely everything is relative to the observer/reader.

By the way, from what I have written, do you consider I have a strong opinion about how "peaceful" and "liberal" islam actually is or is not?

Immanuel Can wrote:

henry quirk wrote:Islam is an ugly, gutter trash, line of thought.

Islam, however, hasn't done shit to any one.

Any line of thought, no matter how noble, has adherents who do stupid, or awful, things in service to it, so it's no wonder garbage like islam draws the loons in like flies to shit.

Take islam out of the equation and some other line of thought will take it's place.

Intrinsic nutjobbedness plus any idea you care to name (can) equal horrowshow.

Yes, loonies will always exist...that's true.

But your humble narrator is not sure that's all there is to it, my droog.

If a man reads, "When you meet the infidel on the field of battle, kill him," and then meets the infidel on the field of battle and kills him, then he's doing something quite different from someone who reads, "Love your enemies, and do good to those who treat you badly," and then goes and kills his neighbour with a brick.

How is this man doing something quite different? He still killed another body. I do not see the difference here.

By the way the way how I read both of those quotes and what I see in them is I am pretty sure quite completely different from how you read them and what you see in them.

Immanuel Can wrote:Everything depends on what the ideology teaches.

Everything depends on the reader/observer, and then what the reader/observer teachs.

'Ideology' itself can and does NOT teach. Only human beings teach, and what they teach is relative to what they have experienced/observed.

ken wrote:I, unlike you, have not made a judgement call and expressed what i believe is right, or wrong.

That's one difference. The other is that I have read the Koran.

Could the word islam, even when meaning submission, still be derived from another word that may or may not mean peace, in english

?
The preferred translation is indeed "submission." "Pacification," not "peace" would be the other one.

In Islam, "peace" only comes after all resistance is broken and the world is forced to submit. That's what Dar-Al-Salaam implies: it's "the total territory that has been already pacified by Islam." The rest is called Dar-Al-Harb, or "the House of War." So places like ISIL-controlled territory in Syria is part of the former, and most of the world is the latter.

Again, look it up if you don't believe me.

What is an 'unbeliever' supposed to be an unbeliever of exactly?

Their word is translated "infidel," and always refers to someone who fails to say the shahada and submit to the authority of Allah, as expressed by Islam, and to observe Sharia Law. Private belief is not a concept with which Islam really concerns itself. No beliefs are considered legitimately "private."

Is it implied in most if not all religions that the followers be in 'submission' to whatever the "god" is that the religion worships to?

Not in the way Islam requires.

In Islam, there are no separations like sacred-profane, religious-secular, or even political-personal. EVERYTHING is under Islamic Law, because it's not just a belief system but a total culture and way of thinking. So when we Westerners talk about leaving "religion" to private conscience, Islam has in it no conception that allows for that.

And that's something Islamists will also happily tell you. They're quite proud of it, actually.

Immanuel Can wrote:Muhammed was a warlord, not a pacifist;

Is that an unambiguous fact that cannot be disputed, and is agreed by every person, or just by some?

No, it's conceded by both Muslims and secular historians alike. Again, just read a bio of Muhammed (Islamic or secular, whichever), and you'll see.

So, if islam has historically always spread through conquest, then are you also suggesting that every single 'muslim person', follower of islam, has been subjugated and now is being controlled under duress by some kind of force?

Of course not. Some are born into it. Some are indoctrinated into it, or grow into it by their culture. Many today are forced to "Islamize" or submit through the threat of murder or loss of property, even if they come from non-Islamic cultures. Some women are marrying into it, and other women and children from non-Islamic cultures are kidnapped and raped into Islamic submission...there are lots of ways in. Most are not nice. Submission can be achieved in may ways...war, assault, threat, kidnapping, overrunning, politics, propaganda...it's all fine within the Islamist playbook.

What do you mean exactly when you say 'islam' believes? You said before 'islam' means "submission". So, what exactly are you now saying is believing?

It claims to believe the shahada.

If 'shariah' means that by the use of law this is the "way" or "path" to 'a peaceful land' for example, then is this exactly what every religion, state, and/or country imposes also?

No. Some offer their way of life freely, others keep to themselves, and others impose their will on other places. But you know that...

Immanuel Can wrote:For anyone with a strong opinion about how "peaceful" and "liberal" Islam actually is, I strongly recommend a reading of the Koran. You won't be left in doubt about that.

But this statement contradicts what actually takes place, i.e., most people who have actually read the koran are the ones who are saying islam is about peace.

Actually, I find that most Islamic people I have talked to have NEVER read the whole Koran...only whatever their Imams tell them. But if you still believe them, then look up the word "taqiyya" in the Islamic Encyclopaedia...or better still, I'll post the clip below. The source itself is 100% Islamic...

The word "al-Taqiyya”literally means: "Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.”A one-word translation would be "Dissimulation."

It's permissible in Islam to lie about one's beliefs if it serves the cause. In fact, it's even a sacred religious obligation to deceive infidels.

By the way, from what I have written, do you consider I have a strong opinion about how "peaceful" and "liberal" islam actually is or is not?

No, because I do not know you personally. I cannot say how strongly held your opinion is, only that it's not consonant with the facts.

If you want me to hazard a guess, I'd say from what you seem to assume that you're probably a secular, Western liberal, one who knows little of Islam, but who probably hopes against all the facts that Islam is actually peaceful, so we can all just get along. And I admire the optimism. Unfortunately, it's not realistic, and it's getting people all over the world killed these days. So I wonder just how wise that optimism is. I would think we'd do better with hard-nosed realism, even if that subjects us to a few painful truths we're afraid to face.

ken wrote: How is this man doing something quite different? He still killed another body. I do not see the difference here.

Do you mean you can't see the difference between obeying and disobeying what a religion commands? Or are you confused about how "love your enemies" would be different from "kill them"?

Immanuel Can wrote:Everything depends on what the ideology teaches.

Everything depends on the reader/observer, and then what the reader/observer teachs.

'Ideology' itself can and does NOT teach. Only human beings teach, and what they teach is relative to what they have experienced/observed.

If what you were saying is true, then there would be no such thing as a "bad," "wrong" or "mistaken" ideology: only "bad," "wrong" or "mistaken" people. But then we couldn't even identify them as "bad," "wrong" or "mistaken," because those adjectives are always relative to an ideology of what is "good," "true" or "accurate": and I suppose since no such ideology "teaches" anything, it couldn't teach us how to make that kind of judgment.

Interesting view, but I think most people will find it implausible. In fact, it fails to account for why we even HAVE any kind of ideology.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:I, unlike you, have not made a judgement call and expressed what i believe is right, or wrong.

That's one difference. The other is that I have read the Koran.

Did you read the koran from a completely open viewpoint or did you read it from a viewpoint, which has already been gained and looked at it from that general viewpoint?

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:Could the word islam, even when meaning submission, still be derived from another word that may or may not mean peace, in english

?
The preferred translation is indeed "submission." "Pacification," not "peace" would be the other one.

So, this is not open?

Immanuel Can wrote:In Islam, "peace" only comes after all resistance is broken and the world is forced to submit. That's what Dar-Al-Salaam implies: it's "the total territory that has been already pacified by Islam." The rest is called Dar-Al-Harb, or "the House of War." So places like ISIL-controlled territory in Syria is part of the former, and most of the world is the latter.

Again, look it up if you don't believe me.

Oh, it is not a case of if I believe or do not believe you. Is it just a matter of how we each look at things, and what we find from that view, and then what we see and understand, which then affects how we each look at new things. I am just getting a better perspective of where people are coming from when they say things. For example some people say things like, "peace in the middle east". That is what 'ending conflict' implies: (or more correctly could be seen to imply): it is "the total territory that has been already pacified by US (military). Any thing can be looked at from a different and new perspective.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:What is an 'unbeliever' supposed to be an unbeliever of exactly?

Their word is translated "infidel," and always refers to someone who fails to say the shahada and submit to the authority of Allah, as expressed by Islam, and to observe Sharia Law. Private belief is not a concept with which Islam really concerns itself. No beliefs are considered legitimately "private."

But every religion and government wants, but may not be expressed directly that, all people submit to the authority of a higher power and to observe their law. There is no government I know of that allows people to freely do whatever they choose and no religion that says the same. All governments and religions insist that their ways or laws are followed and submitted to. Otherwise people would not make those laws and rules.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:Is it implied in most if not all religions that the followers be in 'submission' to whatever the "god" is that the religion worships to?

Not in the way Islam requires.

In Islam, there are no separations like sacred-profane, religious-secular, or even political-personal. EVERYTHING is under Islamic Law, because it's not just a belief system but a total culture and way of thinking. So when we Westerners talk about leaving "religion" to private conscience, Islam has in it no conception that allows for that.

Some people say all people have a right to their own belief, but in all honesty do people really have a right to a belief that abuses anything?

If some people believe that there is only one way to a certain thing/place, then they would, understandably, say that that way must be followed.

By my question in the quote I was getting to the fact, which you have implied is true, that every religion (and state and government), which makes rules and/or laws, is a way of subjugating people into submission as a way so that they then follow one way or path to reach a certain place or thing, whatever that may be, but which is usually some ideology of peace.

Immanuel Can wrote:And that's something Islamists will also happily tell you. They're quite proud of it, actually.

I find people of every religion, state, and/or government are usually quite proud of the system they follow. It would logically follow that people will only follow what they are quite proud of, and, that they are and would be quite proud of what they follow.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Muhammed was a warlord, not a pacifist;

Is that an unambiguous fact that cannot be disputed, and is agreed by every person, or just by some?

No, it's conceded by both Muslims and secular historians alike. Again, just read a bio of Muhammed (Islamic or secular, whichever), and you'll see.

So, muhammed was a messenger of Allah and a warlord, not a pacifist, right?

And, just to get this clear, did Allah use a warlord to spread the message of getting every person to believe in and submit to the authority of It's Self so that all people will then continue fighting and waring, or living peacefully together in harmony?

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:So, if islam has historically always spread through conquest, then are you also suggesting that every single 'muslim person', follower of islam, has been subjugated and now is being controlled under duress by some kind of force?

Of course not. Some are born into it. Some are indoctrinated into it, or grow into it by their culture.

So, we can agree islam is NOT always spread through conquest, right?

Immanuel Can wrote: Many today are forced to "Islamize" or submit through the threat of murder or loss of property, even if they come from non-Islamic cultures. Some women are marrying into it, and other women and children from non-Islamic cultures are kidnapped and raped into Islamic submission...there are lots of ways in. Most are not nice. Submission can be achieved in may ways...war, assault, threat, kidnapping, overrunning, politics, propaganda...it's all fine within the Islamist playbook.

Many, many people ALL over the world are forced or submitted into many, many horrific things some worse than others, we can agree is true?

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:What do you mean exactly when you say 'islam' believes? You said before 'islam' means "submission". So, what exactly are you now saying is believing?

It claims to believe the shahada.

What is the 'it' here?

I am rephrasing the same question hoping you will see for yourself what is actually doing the believing and creating all this.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:If 'shariah' means that by the use of law this is the "way" or "path" to 'a peaceful land' for example, then is this exactly what every religion, state, and/or country imposes also?

No. Some offer their way of life freely, others keep to themselves, and others impose their will on other places. But you know that...

I actually do not know that.

Please name those religions, states, and/or countries, which make rules or laws or guiding ways, but also still insist that you do not have to "follow" these ways, and that you can still do whatever you want and freely like to do but you will still remain one of "us"?

If there is one place like that I more than likely would join and be a follower, until then I remain completely open and follow no other. And, by definition, if there was a place like that I could still remain completely open and still have to follow no other. aaaahhh, now would that be bliss?

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:For anyone with a strong opinion about how "peaceful" and "liberal" Islam actually is, I strongly recommend a reading of the Koran. You won't be left in doubt about that.

But this statement contradicts what actually takes place, i.e., most people who have actually read the koran are the ones who are saying islam is about peace.

Actually, I find that most Islamic people I have talked to have NEVER read the whole Koran...only whatever their Imams tell them.

Very true. I also found this with most people, about most things they talk about. They have NEVER really looked to deeply into and read 'between the lines', as they say, about that which they talk about. What they say is usually hear-say from others have said, and then usually only what they want to believe anyway. Do you find that it is only mostly islamic followers have done this? What about christian followers?

Immanuel Can wrote: But if you still believe them, then look up the word "taqiyya" in the Islamic Encyclopaedia...or better still, I'll post the clip below.

Who is 'them' that I am supposedly still believe?

I hear and read words all the time but I NEVER believe nor disbelieve (in) those words or people.

Immanuel Can wrote:The source itself is 100% Islamic...

The word "al-Taqiyya”literally means: "Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.”A one-word translation would be "Dissimulation."

It's permissible in Islam to lie about one's beliefs if it serves the cause. In fact, it's even a sacred religious obligation to deceive infidels.

By, its very nature, concealing and disguising is something most if not all human beings would do anyway if they want to keep living and existing. This strategy could also apply to any person at any time of eminent danger, so called infidel or not? There is nothing new or revealing here, I have been concealing and disguising who/what 'I' really am always, that is up to now. Also, if any religion, state, or government imposed otherwise, then I would see that as a pure form of subjugation and submission, for an "ideology". But in saying that I, for one, would never conceal or disguise who/what I really am, NOW.

Immanuel Can wrote:

ken wrote:By the way, from what I have written, do you consider I have a strong opinion about how "peaceful" and "liberal" islam actually is or is not?

No, because I do not know you personally. I cannot say how strongly held your opinion is, only that it's not consonant with the facts.

I do not really have an opinion. If you notice nearly everything I have said are just open questions being asked of you. I just ask in order to find truth.

By the way I am never surprised by how many people seem to think/believe they have the facts, and that what others think/believe is wrong.

Nothing I have said/asked should NOT be in consonant with ANYTHING because I have not really implied anything. I am just being openly inquisitive.

Immanuel Can wrote:If you want me to hazard a guess, I'd say from what you seem to assume that you're probably a secular, Western liberal, one who knows little of Islam, but who probably hopes against all the facts that Islam is actually peaceful, so we can all just get along. And I admire the optimism. Unfortunately, it's not realistic, and it's getting people all over the world killed these days. So I wonder just how wise that optimism is. I would think we'd do better with hard-nosed realism, even if that subjects us to a few painful truths we're afraid to face.

There is to much here to look at for now so I will leave it for later.

ken wrote:Did you read the koran from a completely open viewpoint or did you read it from a viewpoint, which has already been gained and looked at it from that general viewpoint?

I read it carefully, highlighter in hand, considering everything it had to say. Whether or not you believe that is not something I can address for you, of course.

ken wrote:So, this is not open?

Open to what? Look it up, and you'll be sure I'm telling you the straight goods.

"the total territory that has been already pacified by US (military)"

You mention this sort of thing a lot. It's not relevant to me, as I have nothing to do with this issue; and you'll have to pass your own opinion on that.

But every religion and government wants, but may not be expressed directly that, all people submit to the authority of a higher power and to observe their law. There is no government I know of that allows people to freely do whatever they choose and no religion that says the same. All governments and religions insist that their ways or laws are followed and submitted to. Otherwise people would not make those laws and rules.

Well, my thought would be this: look at the lands where liberal democracy is practiced -- they're not perfect, but people flood to them for the freedoms the do happen to offer, don't they? Then look at lands where things like socialism or Islam are practiced. Name one -- just one -- that's not some kind of hell-hole of human rights abuses and oppression...

The facts are pretty clear, really.

Some people say all people have a right to their own belief, but in all honesty do people really have a right to a belief that abuses anything?

Good question. But absent a particular ideology of our own, how do we identify "abuse"? It has to be more than "something I don't like," because that's just inconvenience, not abuse. Something has to tell me what I have a right to expect, and when that expectation is being illegitimately violated...but for you, what would that ideology be?

Immanuel Can wrote:And that's something Islamists will also happily tell you. They're quite proud of it, actually.

I find people of every religion, state, and/or government are usually quite proud of the system they follow. It would logically follow that people will only follow what they are quite proud of, and, that they are and would be quite proud of what they follow.

It wasn't the pride I was indicting. It was just pointing out that they won't hide that fact from you if you ask.

Immanuel Can wrote:So, muhammed was a messenger of Allah and a warlord, not a pacifist, right?

No. He was a man who said he was a messenger of "Allah," and yes, he was most certainly the rest of what you say. Again, pick up a bio anywhere and you'll see.

So, we can agree islam is NOT always spread through conquest, right?

It depends on what you think "conquest" entails. By far the largest method is by the sword; but things like rape and cultural oppression are also forms of conquest. The tools of Jihad include many things, but the goal is unremittingly the same.

What is the 'it' here?

I was using a literary device called "metonymy," wherein a single collective "Islam" is conveniently substituted for a longer, more awkward phrase like "practitioners of Islam as it is given." That's all.

Please name those religions, states, and/or countries, which make rules or laws or guiding ways, but also still insist that you do not have to "follow" these ways, and that you can still do whatever you want and freely like to do but you will still remain one of "us"?

Western democracies. There there is a distinction between the public sphere (law) and private sphere (conscience, personal belief, creed, lifestyle, etc.). No such separation is allowed under Islam.

Do you find that it is only mostly islamic followers have done this? What about christian followers?

Any "followers" can do this, but it's more common under some ideologies than under others. I find most Atheists don't really understand their own views too. They think they "know" there's no God, but they can never tell you how they came to this astonishing conclusion. They seem to have just taken it in with their mother's milk.

Belief-without-knowledge is just a human failing. But not all beliefs are equal. I would rather entrust my life to a "follower" Mennonite or Quaker than a "follower" Nazi or Jihadi. In both cases, they'd be "followers" and unthinking; but vive la difference.

By the way I am never surprised by how many people seem to think/believe they have the facts, and that what others think/believe is wrong.

I know people like that too. They're called "educated."

Someone who does science or maths believes that. Somebody who is skilled in some practice or craft believes that in regard to those who are not. Somebody who knows facts believes that of people who do not possess the facts. My doctor believes he knows things about my physiology that I don't know.

So what is the problem there?

Follow up note:

"Dabiq," the official magazine of the Islamic State has just released its official list of six reasons they hate Westerners.
(http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... al-8533563)

A short gloss on that...

1. We don't believe in Islam.
2. We're liberal, and thus allow things Sharia forbids.
3. We have Atheists among us.
4. (The Islamic view of) Christian theology, which they say constitutes a "crime against Islamic religion."
5."Crimes" against Muslims.
6. Invading "Our Lands."

And the one and only thing ISIL says we can ever do to pacify the "religion of peace"?

Convert to Islam. There it is. One thing.

Congratulations, Atheists and liberals: ISIL hates you just a shade more than they hate Christians and Jews.

You win.

"Convert to Islam."

Me? No.

Not payin' any 'tax' for the privillige of remainin' a filthy nonbeliever either.

Not movin' to some filthy nonbeliever ghetto either (the one I'm in now suits me just fine, thank you very much).

henry quirk wrote:"Convert to Islam."

Me? No.

Not payin' any 'tax' for the privillige of remainin' a filthy nonbeliever either.

Not movin' to some filthy nonbeliever ghetto either (the one I'm in now suits me just fine, thank you very much).

Oh, you don't get a "tax" (called the "jizya") that allows you to remain non-religious. As a Christian, I get that...at least until all the Atheists are dead or converted, and then I get slaughtered too. Meanwhile, I get the privilege of living as a "dhimmi" a second-class citizen who has no right to his worldly goods or even his wife and daughters.

But you, if you remain an Atheist, you get your throat slit.

Don't worry: I'm not really any better off.

"you get your throat slit"

Ain't gonna make it easy for 'em.

“Faith invariably breeds violence.”
- J. Krishnamurti

The logical implication (until knowing takes over) of this discovery is that lack of faith, aka knowing, does not breed violence.

In this sense faith in a religion is no different than faith in any ideology, including atheism.