Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today....

Lethality

I AM THE Geelong Cats
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Posts
29,564
Likes
34,453
Location
Top of the AFLM ladder
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory, NY Rangers
This is why I don't agree with the title and the word "Islamophobia". I don't think it's honest to compare something like homophobia or xenophobia for example, which is dislike for a person's race or sexuality, with dislike for a religion which contains orders to kill apostates, Jews, or to beat one's wife, etc, etc. Unlike race and sexuality, religion should be up for criticism.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

JackOutback

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Posts
17,270
Likes
21,157
AFL Club
West Coast
We're pretty much on the same team, it's just you're not comfortable with how hard I go after Islam. If it helps, I'm usually pretty savage on Christianity and Judaism as well, it's just that Islam is giving us a lot more reasons to condemn it than those others lately.
The problem I have is how many people use criticism of Islam as code for criticising brown people. When I hear people criticising interpretations of the Koran, then I will nod in agreement. When I see people say that Muslims are more intolerant than any other people in the world because ISIS, I'm not agreeing with that, even when they start bringing in interpretations of the Koran.

I'm comfortable with criticisms of all religions, I'm comfortable with criticisms of ISIS and religious fundamentalists, but the whole global political situation is more complex than 'people who follow Islam are bad'. There's a reason why Muslim countries have fostered fundamentalism and it has more to do with war and poverty than their religion. If the roles were reversed, Christians would be bombing people and Muslims would be decrying how it is a religion of violence.
 

fleabitten

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Posts
5,596
Likes
9,957
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Portland Trailblazers
The problem I have is how many people use criticism of Islam as code for criticising brown people. When I hear people criticising interpretations of the Koran, then I will nod in agreement. When I see people say that Muslims are more intolerant than any other people in the world because ISIS, I'm not agreeing with that, even when they start bringing in interpretations of the Koran.
I'm not into attacking brown people and you'd find me on the "left" side in pretty much any argument on racial issues. Hindus are browner than Muslims (as in there are far more white Muslims than white Hindus), so if it was all about colour they'd be copping it too.

I'm comfortable with criticisms of all religions, I'm comfortable with criticisms of ISIS and religious fundamentalists, but the whole global political situation is more complex than 'people who follow Islam are bad'. There's a reason why Muslim countries have fostered fundamentalism and it has more to do with war and poverty than their religion.
Have never said that people who follow Islam are bad. I've said it's a bad religion. Like all religions, it does more harm than good. It makes good people do bad things and lets bad people get away with pretending to be good.

If the roles were reversed, Christians would be bombing people and Muslims would be decrying how it is a religion of violence.
So there's our main difference. You think all religions are equally bad while I think there's a scale, with Islam near the worst end.
 

JackOutback

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Posts
17,270
Likes
21,157
AFL Club
West Coast
So there's our main difference. You think all religions are equally bad while I think there's a scale, with Islam near the worst end.
I find both books comparable and anyone looking to justify violence and murder using the Bible could easily do so. I believe war and poverty is a bigger factor in the rise of fundamentalism within Islam than any particular statement in a book. Hell, bin Laden basically led the modern rise in fundamentalism and his biggest complaints were US aggression in Islamic countries and 'the decadent West'. Modern interpretations of Islam might be worse than modern interpretations of Christianity, but the Koran is not 'worse' than the Bible.
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Posts
8,817
Likes
7,225
AFL Club
St Kilda
How about "Parts of the Koran are not perfect"? There are passages that require some pretty intensive re-interpretation to become anything other than disgusting by modern standards.



I think the majority of Christians that I know would concede that the bible is not perfect and that parts of it are outdated to the point of being immoral. I realise these aren't the same people who are most vocal about Christianity, but there are definitely plenty of Christians just like that. Saying that as a Muslim can be dangerous though.
But that is Christians. That's just one offshoot from the Bible.

But you're talking about Muslims, in their entirety.

Would this mean Muslims are less able to interpret their book than Christians with theirs? Interpretation doesn't seem to be the issue, it's the implications of interpreting a book which contains damaging content. The Qur'an is so literal and so violent and intolerant that it's inevitable that a certain percentage will take a message out of it that is not helpful to our civilization.
Muslims vs Christians.
All people who follow the Quran, vs one of the sects of people who follow the Bible.

Plenty of stupidity in both books.
And as the vast majority of Muslims are not following the book to the letter, it would seem they are able to interpret it.

At the end of the day, extremists and radicals could take a Minties wrapper and use it to justify whatever they wanted.

I've seen you quote passages from the Bible that are dangerous, and they are seemingly waved away with ease by people who follow a religion from the Bible.
I've seen the same done when discussing the Quran with Ahmadiyya Muslims here in Australia.
 

fleabitten

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Posts
5,596
Likes
9,957
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Portland Trailblazers
I find both books comparable and anyone looking to justify violence and murder using the Bible could easily do so. I believe war and poverty is a bigger factor in the rise of fundamentalism within Islam than any particular statement in a book. Hell, bin Laden basically led the modern rise in fundamentalism and his biggest complaints were US aggression in Islamic countries and 'the decadent West'. Modern interpretations of Islam might be worse than modern interpretations of Christianity, but the Koran is not 'worse' than the Bible.
I disagree. Almost all of the violence in the bible is contained in the old testament, for a start. And the violence of the old testament is mostly historical. It's telling stories about how this bunch of primitives wiped out this other bunch of primitives and how much god loved it all. It's pretty disgusting, but it requires a bit more twisting to turn it into a command to wage war against unbelievers, particularly for Christians who have an updated message. The koran's violence is often prescriptive rather than purely historical. It's not just telling us what happened, it's giving instructions on how to wage religious warfare in a book that is supposedly perfect and applicable to all places and times. It's worse.
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Posts
8,817
Likes
7,225
AFL Club
St Kilda
I disagree. Almost all of the violence in the bible is contained in the old testament, for a start. And the violence of the old testament is mostly historical. It's telling stories about how this bunch of primitives wiped out this other bunch of primitives and how much god loved it all. It's pretty disgusting, but it requires a bit more twisting to turn it into a command to wage war against unbelievers, particularly for Christians who have an updated message. The koran's violence is often prescriptive rather than purely historical. It's not just telling us what happened, it's giving instructions on how to wage religious warfare in a book that is supposedly perfect and applicable to all places and times. It's worse.
Now hold on. I hardly think that the Quran is some kind of 'The Art of War' lookalike.

From my understanding of the Quran, there is talk about how to fight and things but it is in the context of having your land invaded. Rather than some invasion strategy.
 

fleabitten

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Posts
5,596
Likes
9,957
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Portland Trailblazers
But that is Christians. That's just one offshoot from the Bible.

But you're talking about Muslims, in their entirety.
Fundamentalist Jews can be just as dangerous as fundamentalist Muslims, it's just that there are far fewer of them. Plus most of the followers of the religion are way past the literal bible stage and can more effectively control the radicals. And when the Jewish fundies do pop off, it's usually in their own back yard against their (in their own minds) sworn enemy rather than a random slaughter of innocents.
 

JackOutback

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Posts
17,270
Likes
21,157
AFL Club
West Coast
I disagree. Almost all of the violence in the bible is contained in the old testament, for a start. And the violence of the old testament is mostly historical. It's telling stories about how this bunch of primitives wiped out this other bunch of primitives and how much god loved it all. It's pretty disgusting, but it requires a bit more twisting to turn it into a command to wage war against unbelievers, particularly for Christians who have an updated message. The koran's violence is often prescriptive rather than purely historical. It's not just telling us what happened, it's giving instructions on how to wage religious warfare in a book that is supposedly perfect and applicable to all places and times. It's worse.
We can't just dismiss the Old Testament, which includes many instructions to kill (including, among others, gays and 'infidels'). But there are also similar statements in the New Testament... 'But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me'. As I said, if roles were reversed, Christians were poor, downtrodden and victimised by war, they wouldn't struggle to look to their book and find a justification for murder.
 

Lethality

I AM THE Geelong Cats
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Posts
29,564
Likes
34,453
Location
Top of the AFLM ladder
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory, NY Rangers
At the end of the day, extremists and radicals could take a Minties wrapper and use it to justify whatever they wanted.
Really? There is no link between the belief and behaviour? Unlikely.

I've seen the same done when discussing the Quran with Ahmadiyya Muslims here in Australia.
Ahmadiyyas don't believe Muhammad is the final messenger.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lethality

I AM THE Geelong Cats
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Posts
29,564
Likes
34,453
Location
Top of the AFLM ladder
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory, NY Rangers
Now hold on. I hardly think that the Quran is some kind of 'The Art of War' lookalike.

From my understanding of the Quran, there is talk about how to fight and things but it is in the context of having your land invaded. Rather than some invasion strategy.
Nah, there is plenty around the context of invasion, as well as how to behave as a minority. That's because Muslims were both in the time written about in the Qur'an.
 

Lethality

I AM THE Geelong Cats
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Posts
29,564
Likes
34,453
Location
Top of the AFLM ladder
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory, NY Rangers
We can't just dismiss the Old Testament, which includes many instructions to kill (including, among others, gays and 'infidels'). But there are also similar statements in the New Testament... 'But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me'. As I said, if roles were reversed, Christians were poor, downtrodden and victimised by war, they wouldn't struggle to look to their book and find a justification for murder.
The Qur'an is shorter than the NT and has far more violence and bigotry in it. Also the fact that the leading example for all humankind is Muhammad, a war monger who killed and tortured people.
 

JackOutback

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Posts
17,270
Likes
21,157
AFL Club
West Coast
The Qur'an is shorter than the NT and has far more violence and bigotry in it. Also the fact that the leading example for all humankind is Muhammad, a war monger who killed and tortured people.
None of that goes to my point that were the roles reversed, Christians could use the Bible to justify murder and terrorism, which I believe they would. The book isn't the cause of terrorism, it's the tool.
 

Number37

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Posts
14,039
Likes
13,789
AFL Club
Sydney
I dont know If I would lump One Nation supporters in with IS mate. Both demonstrate very conservative right wing views, but few One nation supporters advocate death to party defectors (although many right wingers do indeed advocate death to 'white anting leftists') or tossing homosexuals off buildings (although I dare say a vast majority support the death penalty for other things).

If we can be critical of One Nation and Far Right wing numpties (and we can be) that same criticism (and more) can be levelled at IS and its supporters.
There is of course a clear distinction between IS and One Nation (the violence), I am not suggesting otherwise, the point I am trying to make is that starts off as just a difference of opinion. For example: If you read OBL's spiel he basically says as much. He didn't agree with American ways but wasn't really interested in doing anything about it until America attacked his 'side' then it became a free for all.
The end game for One Nation is the end of Islam and Muslims. It is reasonable to assume that isn't going to happen voluntarily, so what One Nation is actually advocating is forced conversion. 'Love it or leave'.
Forced conversion means what? It is reasonable to assume that means violence. If you take UPF and groups like them as a kind of militant version of One Nation we are already going down that path.
So for now the distinction is the violence.
 

Lethality

I AM THE Geelong Cats
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Posts
29,564
Likes
34,453
Location
Top of the AFLM ladder
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory, NY Rangers
None of that goes to my point that were the roles reversed, Christians could use the Bible to justify murder and terrorism, which I believe they would. The book isn't the cause of terrorism, it's the tool.
They could, but they have fewer tools to do so. A pretty straightforward reading of the Quran in the other hand traces pretty obviously to the kind of problems within Islam.
 

Lethality

I AM THE Geelong Cats
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Posts
29,564
Likes
34,453
Location
Top of the AFLM ladder
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory, NY Rangers
There is of course a clear distinction between IS and One Nation (the violence), I am not suggesting otherwise, the point I am trying to make is that starts off as just a difference of opinion. For example: If you read OBL's spiel he basically says as much. He didn't agree with American ways but wasn't really interested in doing anything about it until America attacked his 'side' then it became a free for all.
The end game for One Nation is the end of Islam and Muslims. It is reasonable to assume that isn't going to happen voluntarily, so what One Nation is actually advocating is forced conversion. 'Love it or leave'.
Forced conversion means what? It is reasonable to assume that means violence. If you take UPF and groups like them as a kind of militant version of One Nation we are already going down that path.
So for now the distinction is the violence.
Forced conversions are pretty commonplace, and even in Australia it's difficult enough to leave a religion, so coercion is in play there too.
 

Lethality

I AM THE Geelong Cats
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Posts
29,564
Likes
34,453
Location
Top of the AFLM ladder
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory, NY Rangers
Don't normally click on links with skeptics in the link but went there and did the questionnaire on 'Whose God is more Vicious', got so many wrong.
Answers surprised me.
Biggest difference between Christian and Muslims god is that Allah only loves people who believe. Christian God is supposedly all loving.
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Posts
8,817
Likes
7,225
AFL Club
St Kilda
Would this mean Muslims are less able to interpret their book than Christians with theirs? Interpretation doesn't seem to be the issue, it's the implications of interpreting a book which contains damaging content. The Qur'an is so literal and so violent and intolerant that it's inevitable that a certain percentage will take a message out of it that is not helpful to our civilization.
I've seen you quote passages from the Bible that are dangerous, and they are seemingly waved away with ease by people who follow a religion from the Bible.
I've seen the same done when discussing the Quran with Ahmadiyya Muslims here in Australia.
Ahmadiyyas don't believe Muhammad is the final messenger.

I'm sorry, I've lost the thread of this conversation now.
Could you elaborate for me please?
 

Maggie5

Spec Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Posts
35,165
Likes
31,864
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Collingwood
Moderator #1,898
Biggest difference between Christian and Muslims god is that Allah only loves people who believe. Christian God is supposedly all loving.
I always preferred the Tooth Fairy, made money out of it.

Although, one of the questions and answers that I got wrong was:

2. Whose god orders the most violent plight for nonbelievers while on Earth?

Correct Answer: C. (The Christian god because he ordered his followers to kill all those of a different religion, including family members, friends and even their cattle, whereas the Moslem god simply required the enslaving of nonbelievers .) “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people . . . If thou shalt hear . . . Certain men . . . have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants ofthat city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword” (Deuteronomy13:6-15). “Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection” (Koran 9:29).
 
Last edited:

Lethality

I AM THE Geelong Cats
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Posts
29,564
Likes
34,453
Location
Top of the AFLM ladder
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory, NY Rangers
I always preferred the Tooth Fairy, made money out of it.

Although, one of the questions and answers that I got wrong was:

2. Whose god orders the most violent plight for nonbelievers while on Earth?

Correct Answer: C. (The Christian god because he ordered his followers to kill all those of a different religion, including family members, friends and even their cattle, whereas the Moslem god simply required the enslaving of nonbelievers .)
LOL, there is so much wrong in that answer.
 
Top Bottom