Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote:... Terrorists don't pray to Allah the god of mercy.

Of course they do.

What 'mercy' is it you think they are asking for and "mercy" really? You have to beg this 'God' to be merciful to you, stuff 'it' for the tyrant 'it' is then.

Greatest I am wrote:Yes, were all souls are equal before the law. Not like Islam where women are second class and unequal. ...

That's a pretty rose-tinted view of the Law you have. Not all souls are equal before the Law, notably the Rich.

ArisingUK : Urgent! Please set to rights your misquoting me as to the God that Muslims pray to, about two posts back. I really don't want to be misquoted to such bad effect.I had actually said that Allah is god of mercy.

I don't blame you. The format for quotations is diabolical and I made the same mistake myself, misquoting.

Belinda,

You want me to justify...

...no permits in L.A.?

...or...

...my having a shotgun?

meh

Not seein' any need to justify either.

I have it and I'll not give it up.

henry quirk wrote:In my state, Louisiana, no permits are required for ownership and use.

...and...

I live in America where there is no formal slavery (informal is another mattter).

But let's take the question at face value: would I sit quietly while my neighbor owns slaves?

If the slave were a willing participant (and such things do happen) I'd write the whole bunch off as psychos and mind my own business. If the slave were unwilling, I'd be obligied to rebalance the relationship, that is: get the owner to release his property (to mind his own business and keep his hands to himself).

Change the scenario up a bit: can I sit quietly while folks are enslaved elsewhere?

Absolutely I can. I'm a finite resource...I can't save the world...I can, howver, police my little corner of it....let folks 'elsewhere' do the same.

If your fellow free men and country chose to act, you would not want for resources to do the job.

The West, generally speaking, is pushing the Muslim ideology back towards the East but not enough or hard enough for my taste when I look at all the damage Islam is doing around the world.

Your somewhat balanced methods should be used but I do not think we should relent till all share the freedom we do.

Regards
DL

Arising_uk wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:Yes, were all souls are equal before the law. Not like Islam where women are second class and unequal. ...

That's a pretty rose-tinted view of the Law you have. Not all souls are equal before the Law, notably the Rich.

I did not speak to the two legal system of most countries, one for the rich and another for the poor, but the rich also give equality to their rich female friends.

Regards
DL

Belinda,
Here's what you said.

Belinda wrote:The Muslims' prayer is beautiful to see. There is no adequate reason to think that Muslims pray for anything other than the mercy and peace of Allah. Terrorists don't pray to Allah the god of mercy.

Islamic terrorists are Muslims, in fact they think of themselves as more Muslim than others, so they are praying for the mercy and peace of Allah therefore they are praying to this 'Allah' the 'god' of mercy. And like I say, stuff any 'God' that requires me to beg mercy from.

Greatest I am wrote:I did not speak to the two legal system of most countries, one for the rich and another for the poor, but the rich also give equality to their rich female friends. ...

Not really as in the main it's divorce cases they are fighting.

Arising_uk wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:I did not speak to the two legal system of most countries, one for the rich and another for the poor, but the rich also give equality to their rich female friends. ...

Not really as in the main it's divorce cases they are fighting.

The rich usually have pre-nupts.

It is the lower class males that generally get the short end of the divorce stick.

It may be justified as women make better care givers. Again, generally speaking.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:The rich usually have pre-nupts. ...

Pretty much aren't worth shit in the UK.

It is the lower class males that generally get the short end of the divorce stick. ...

Like I say, rich white males. Although given pre-nups don't work here the women of rich men are still in trouble if they can't afford as expensive a lawyer. But then again, no-win-no-fee.

It may be justified as women make better care givers. Again, generally speaking.

We agree.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
You are, as usual wrong.

Thanks for the enlightening argument showing where I erred.

Regards
DL

According to Hobbes and his ilk, tolerance is something that only those they consider superior (white people) can bestow as a gift on lesser humans.

There's an irony here as Hobbes' rarely shows tolerance to those he considers inferior to him.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:The most genuine example of tolerance I can think of is India under the British Empire. I don't know how Indians put up with all those snotty English toffs poncing about their country ordering them around for all those years.

It wasn't tolerance. It was the blind self-interest of the separate powers that ruled a provincial country, some of whose loyalties lay with other European concerns present in India. When the East India Co. arrived in India, in the 1600's, it was simply to trade. In order to protect its interests, it brought over British soldiers, that grew into the East India Co.'s own private army. Some provincial rulers found the British militia to be highly efficient and effective and would pay for the use of British militia to protect their own interests from neighbouring rulers. Over the course of a couple of hundred years, the Indians pretty much benefited from the British presence and, as they were a divided nation subject to several provincial rulers, many of whom had good relationships with the British, they just didn't see British rule creeping in to take over until it was too late to resist. The militia, first brought into protect the interests of the East India Company, quickly developed beyond their initial remit to protect, to become a private corporate armed force, used as an instrument of geo-political power and expansion. It became the most powerful military force in the Indian sub-continent. To some extent, Indians brought it upon themselves. To a greater extent, the East India Co. was the first evil corporation to dominate a huge part of the world.

Greatest I am wrote:

Belinda wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:Should we respect and tolerate a religion that denies us the rights and play by the same rules that they enjoy?

No. Most Muslims who live and work in the UK are eminently respectable and hard working and pay their taxes and despise terrorism as much or more than atheists.

I see that you have not watched much in the way of news about Muslims coming out of the U.K..

Shall I link you to information on how Muslims are protesting to be able to use Sharia law and how they are creating no-go zones all over the U.K..

Regards
DL

And shall I link you to the majority of law abiding British Muslims, who are NOT protesting to use Sharia law and just going about their business being good citizens? Just because a minority of hardliners want Sharia law, they do not speak for the majority who are just going about their daily routine of being decent and happy British citizens. Seems to me the only Muslims you seem to know are those you detect ONLINE. Do you actually know any real Muslims? I don't care how many links you show me, I can testify to KNOWING many more Muslims, IN MY REAL LIFE, than your links can direct me to, who are just average citizens, with little to shout about other than the racism of constantly being told who they are, and how they think, or should think, by both misguided white people and fanatical Muslims.

As to "no go zones", in the British press, which we know is part of the problem for creating mass hysteria and escalation of all things "Muslim" or "terrorism" related, the mention of "no go zones" refers to the fact the police are not being called into communities with regard to crime. The communities are policing themselves. It's not that they are areas where people need to be afraid to go. It's more indicative of the fact that Muslims can be so law abiding they police themselves. It's no surprise. Our police force is not what it once was. Constant cuts and a decline in the quality of recruits is affecting it's performance.

If the self-policing oversteps the line, the police would soon step in. So far, they choose to remain aside as they claim they "can't get involved if no-one calls them for assistance". In current times, who can blame Muslims for not trusting the institutions and wanting to be left alone.

Your 'common or garden' Muslim is not someone to whom you would see links online.

Arising_uk wrote:

Belinda,
Here's what you said.
Belinda wrote:
The Muslims' prayer is beautiful to see. There is no adequate reason to think that Muslims pray for anything other than the mercy and peace of Allah. Terrorists don't pray to Allah the god of mercy.

Islamic terrorists are Muslims, in fact they think of themselves as more Muslim than others, so they are praying for the mercy and peace of Allah therefore they are praying to this 'Allah' the 'god' of mercy. And like I say, stuff any 'God' that requires me to beg mercy from.

Thanks for sorting it out, Arising_uk.

I agree with your last sentence. I must suppose some Muslims, and other religionists, believe that Allah requires that the faithful beg for mercy. When I have seen Muslims praying, or Christians praying , I presume that they are expressing how much they care for mercy . It's obvious from what terrorists do that they don't pray to any god of mercy. It is over-stretching the definition of 'Muslim' to claim that an islamic terrorist is a Muslim.

Belinda wrote:... It is over-stretching the definition of 'Muslim' to claim that an islamic terrorist is a Muslim.

Tell them that.

Whilst I think my British Muslim neighbours are law-abiding citizens, in fact more than most, but I think you underestimate what Muhammad did when he realised his peaceful message was getting him nowhere.

Arising_uk wrote:Whilst I think my British Muslim neighbours are law-abiding citizens, in fact more than most, but I think you underestimate what Muhammad did when he realised his peaceful message was getting him nowhere.

I'm not saying the ends justify the means, but he brought together tribes under one banner, once they overcame polytheism, after the original holy battles that established Islam.

The original Meccans were not the as open-hearted and accepting as you might think. Yes, the Muslims were an annoying tub-thumping bunch who disavowed other gods, but it meant they drew the kind of attention that resulted in oppressive measures put in place by the Meccans to stop them. Muhammad didn't just decide to ravage a population because they refused to accept the 'one true' God. He made a stand and then kept going. No different from the Crusaders or the practise of the early Roman Catholic Church and Constantine. He's a reflection of the 'barbarity' and expansionism of many cultures at the time, and the centuries that preceded them.

The stories I hear from the Muslim communities, that are not widespread outside of those communities, the stories they tell their children about the behaviour of key Islamic figures are not dissimilar to the parables about Jesus. They impart wisdom, practise of tolerance and kindness, which is possibly why your 'common or garden' Muslim isn't in their neighbour's back yard weilding a scimitar and demanding they accept 'The One True Faith'.