What is wrong with calling Islam religion of peace?

[The Emperor of Mankind]

In answer to the original post, I believe it is time for a rebranding. Now that the truth has been exposed, Islam should be called what it really is, the Religion of Fear.

How about 'The Religion of Slavery'?

 

[Notanumber]

How about 'The Religion of Slavery'?

Are we going to start a list?

 

[J2hapydna]

This video provides a fair description of Orthodox Sharia based Sunni Islam spread by the Umayyads. The Sufis, non-denominational Sunni Muslims, Sir Syedan rationalists and Shias etc don't use all of these books that are described as the Islamic trinity.

Il

Are we going to start a list?

My suggestions:

1. Madhabi

This is a word that is already in currency in the east and means (Denominationalist).

I like it since it is easy to remember as it sounds like MAD HABIBI. The meaning corresponds to exactly what we are fighting - sectarianism in Islam

This would allow us to classify the problem area without biting more than we can chew and losing support of reformist and peaceful movements within the Din of Islam, such as regular Sunni Muslims, the Sir Syedan Rationalist Sunnis, Sufi Ethiopian Sunnis, Ahmadis, Ismailis etc. In addition we will not lose support of some liberal Christians and Jews who also use the phrase Muslim / Islam to describe themselves.

Otherwise, cutting with a blunt knife and generalizing like many on this board are doing will make us spend more resources and get less done. Also we look like bigots


2. Yazidism/ Umayyadism/ Arabism

This would suggest excessive veneration for the code instituted under these particular rulers in the Arab Empire. This is the code that the video is talking about as Islam. The problem with 2 is that it doesn't include the slightly less extremist but still dangerous Shia Islam.

 

[Notanumber]

Il


My suggestions:

1. Madhabi

This is a word that is already in currency in the east and means (Denominationalist).

I like since it is easy to remember as it sounds like MAD HABIBI. The meaning corresponds to exactly what we are fighting - sectarianism in Islam

This would allow us to classify the problem area without biting more than we can chew and losing support of reformist and peaceful movements within the Din of Islam, such as regular Sunni Muslims, the Sir Syedan Rationalist Sunnis, Sufi Ethiopian Sunnis, Ahmadis, Ismailis etc. In addition we will not lose support of some liberal Christians and Jews who also use the phrase Muslim / Islam to describe themselves.

Otherwise, cutting with a blunt knife and generalizing like many on this board are doing will make us spend more resources and get less done. Also we look like bigots


2. Yazidism/ Umayyadism/ Arabism

This would suggest excessive veneration for the code instituted under these particular rulers in the Arab Empire. This is the code that the video is talking about as Islam. The problem with 2 is that it doesn't include the slightly less extremist but still dangerous Shia Islam.

Heaven forbid I would not want to look like a bigot, but Islam already occupies that definition.

Do they all believe in Sharia Law?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Perhaps I will understand what you are saying if you tell me how you think people should be punished in this situation?

You could try comprehending the question instead of avoiding it.

 

[J2hapydna]

Heaven forbid I would not want to look like a bigot, but Islam already occupies that definition.

Do they all believe in Sharia Law?

Heaven forbid I would not want to look like a bigot, but Islam already occupies that definition.

Do they all believe in Sharia Law?

Yes, all rigid believers of Shariah Law are Madhabi. The Shariah Law is a code created by scholars in the Umayyad period

 

[Notanumber]

This is what Muslim women should be like.

She looks and acts as if she is free. I can’t imagine her wearing the Burka. It would be unfortunate if she was subdued and forced to submit to Islam.

 

[J2hapydna]

You could try comprehending the question instead of avoiding it.

Did the Allied forces (British, Americans etc) punish the Nazi party after WWII under German laws that Hitler had created using judges that Hitler had appointed? Of course not. So why would we expect pagan Meccans who had been killing Muslims, attacking Medina and attempting to assassinate MP be tried under laws that the murderers had created after their city was conquered?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Did the Allied forces (British, Americans etc) punish the Nazi party after WWII under German laws that Hitler had created using judges that Hitler had appointed? Of course not. So why would we expect pagan Meccans who had been killing Muslims, attacking Medina and attempting to assassinate MP be tried under laws that the murderers had created after their city was conquered?

No, but the Nazis were tried under laws that already existed which Germany (as well as the former kingdoms & duchies which went on to form the nation of Germany) had historically signed up to (e.g. the Geneva Conventions) as opposed to some that the Allies just pulled out of their collective asses. The Meccans weren't Muslims when they committed these alleged acts, they weren't living under Islamic law when they committed them, nor had they historically agreed to abide by Islamic law. Islamic law applies only to Muslims; not to non-Muslims.

So your comparison is wrong.

 

[J2hapydna]

Heaven forbid I would not want to look like a bigot, but Islam already occupies that definition.

We cannot fight this war without the support of civilized nations. They are not going to join and help us if they think we are bigots in my opinion.

 

[Notanumber]

We cannot fight this war without the support of civilized nations. They are not going to join and help us if they think we are bigots in my opinion.

I have heard that there are now a few in Europe that are starting to see the light, which is encouraging.

 

[J2hapydna]

I have heard that there are now a few in Europe that are starting to see the light, which is encouraging.

The average guy doesn't realize how complex and dependent our economies are on international trade. He doesn't realize the financial pain such polices will cause. It sounds romantic; and these ideas may even garner populist support, but once these economies begin to shrink with the rise of protectionism and declines in civil liberties, a giant sucking sound of GDPs shrinking and unemployment rising will be heard. At which point the idea will look a lot less romantic.

I doubt a majority of PhDs in international finance & trade would go along with such ideas. Therefore in a sense when that happens al qaeda would have achieved its objectives and won the war by making the world as irrational as they are. Then we will be fighting among ourselves as they do

 

[Notanumber]

When are we getting our wristbands?

As he says, thank god for America.

 

[Shad]

When are we getting our wristbands?

As he says, thank god for America.

I thought the wristband had to be a fake claim but no it is actually a policy. This is what happens with people are too PC with issues.

They should hand out mace, it works better.

 

[Notanumber]

I thought the wristband had to be a fake claim but no it is actually a policy. This is what happens with people are too PC with issues.

They should hand out mace, it works better.

Is this why the authorities are becoming concerned about ‘Fake News’?

Sweden shuts down any non-PC news and the UK has been accused of doing the same.

Do they want to shutdown ‘rouge’ reporters to keep us all in the dark?

BTW, he is proud of the fact that does not tell lies and checks his facts.

 

[Shad]

Is this why the authorities are becoming concerned about ‘Fake News’?

In part. There is also the denial of bias by so many within the media. Like CNN. At least Fox tells you it's bias straight up.

Sweden shuts down any non-PC news and the UK has been accused of doing the same.

I read Sweden stopped using ethnicity in crime statistic as statistics are now racist... or whatever.

Do they want to shutdown ‘rouge’ reporters to keep us all in the dark?

No I think a lot of people are freaked out by even the idea of being called a bigot or racist for pointing out statistics.

BTW, he is proud of the fact that does not tell lies and checks his facts.

I do not know all his facts nor have checked. I only looked up the wrist bands. However yes he does not care what labels other people throw.

 

[J2hapydna]

Is this why the authorities are becoming concerned about ‘Fake News’?

Sweden shuts down any non-PC news and the UK has been accused of doing the same.

Do they want to shutdown ‘rouge’ reporters to keep us all in the dark?

BTW, he is proud of the fact that does not tell lies and checks his facts.

In these types of debates, one can tell lies by omitting certain facts without making a false statement of facts

I'm a rationalist and believe that certain people with high IQs and years of training can look at all the facts and make better decisions in their fields than the average average untrained person. Consequently, I would much rather trust a panel of high IQ doctors and nutritionists on heath matters. Similarly I would much rather believe a panel of high IQ engineers on how to build a piece of equipment or a machine than putting such things to some populist vote. So, I see no reason why I wouldnt trust Economists and social scientists to make the right decisions rather than some populist vote. In other words, I'm really not interested in one step angry populist thinkers who say we should adopt a certain policy because this is what for example people do in the Middle East to minorities etc. Why would I want to do what they do in the ME, when I know those civilizations are irrational and inefficient?

I don't see the world as divided between between white and non whites or Christians and Muslims etc. I see the world as divided between rational and irrational people, between those who can follow the advice of rational people and those who can't.

Finally, I'm not some bleeding heart liberal. I don't think we are tuff enough on Islamists. I would deport Muslims (or any other) if they cannot obey our rational secular laws and don't understand our concept of civil liberties / pluralism that are essential for a highly functioning modern economy. We should also be very tuff with ISIS. At the same time, we should use our best and most well trained minds to engage with their best and brightest minds to help them find rational secular solutions too. However, we should also be equally tuff on our own unbalanced, paranoid irrational fringe. I think that is what our governments are doing and that is what you are perceiving.

 

[gnostic]

Finally, I'm not some bleeding heart liberal. I don't think we are tuff enough on Islamists. I would deport Muslims (or any other) if they cannot obey our rational secular laws and don't understand our concept of civil liberties / pluralism that are essential for a highly functioning modern economy. We should also be very tuff with ISIS.

I don't think deportation is that easy, J2hapydna.

You should know better that Islam, like Christianity is not tie to one nation or one race; because both religions will convert anyone who accept the respective religions, regardless of nationality or race. Like Christianity starting in Palestine, Islam may have started in the Middle East, in Arabia, but it had spread beyond the boundaries.

So violent radical Muslims, such as the Islamists, like ISIS, can be Americans, British, French, Chineses, etc.

So how do any country deport their own non-Middle Easterner or non-Arab citizens, who have converted to Islam, and worse, become "radicalised"?

 

[Notanumber]

Islam is a cancer that should have been cut out before it spread.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

How about 'The Religion of Slavery'?

How would we differentiate it from the other Abrahamic ones who did it first?