Islam, " only a tiny minority".

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 259
Topic's author
#31
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@disgusted
You're a liar

Wrong again sea slug. I have said that according to MUSLIM President Erdogan, "there is no such thing as "moderate ISLAM" . here again , see for yourself.

“The term ‘moderate Islam’ is being lathered up again. The patent of moderate Islam belongs to the West. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam; Islam is one. The aim of using such terms is to weaken Islam,” Erdogan said in Ankara.
 The idea of ‘moderate Islam’ was invented by the West and is being used to weaken the ancient religion, Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan has said in reference to Saudi Arabia’s reforms, while also lashing out at the EU’s “discrimination” of Muslims.


OH and Muslims themselves do not like the term "moderate muslim". here see for yourself.

Can we drop the term ‘moderate Muslim’? It’s meaningless. “I see it as a criticism,” one woman in Luton told me. “You are giving me this label based on how I look and how I dress.” Her male friend said he found the word “offensive”, adding: “Are you saying I’m only 50% Muslim? When someone says to me ‘you’re moderate’ it suggests to me they’re saying ‘you’re not fully Muslim’.”


Your getting better than prosser of sticking your size nines in your mouth aren't you . hahahhahahahhahahahhahahhahah
#32
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
I think a good way to understand it is that Muslims interpret 'moderate' as 'half-hearted'.   Many Muslims take their religion seriously and don't like being called 'half-hearted Muslims' just because they don't blow up buses.

I imagine Stephen wouldn't like me calling him a 'half-hearted Englishman'!    Of course 'moderate' doesn't mean 'half-hearted' when a westerner uses the word 'moderate', but it does come over that way to Muslims, presumably for some obscure cultural or linguistic reason.

That isn't 'aplogetics' - that is objective analysis of a misunderstanding.


#33
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Stephen
Irrelevant. Attacking the man and not the ball doesn't win you an argument.
Which is why I attacked his use of statistics. If your entire argument rests on the presentation of a man who is attempting to use statistics in that way, your argument is bad.

Of course they are if the want Shariah. Because you may not have noticed but along with Islamic "family & property disputes" shariah law aslo  has the death penalty for homesexuals, adulterers and and apostates.  If you believe that in Islam you can pick and choose which laws you agree with and those you do not, and which ones you will accept and which ones you will not accept,then you have no understanding of Sharia .
Different parts of rules are not all evenly applied and interpreted in the same way

If I were to ask a christian should the followings and tenets laid out in the bible be obeyed, the answer would probably yes.
But what does this mean? There are many passages in the bible considered to be archaic. Does the christian mean that shellfish should not be eaten, mixed fabrics should not be worn and women should be submissive? Probably not. The christian probably refers to what he/she believes are the sensible passages.
#34
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@dustryder
Your question doesn't really make sense since the Bible spans thousands of years of history all leading up to Jesus, and the current order.
#35
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,568
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@dustryder
Sharia Law punishments are stoning
#36
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Stephen
Are you f*cking braindead?

Shapiro says your an extremist if you dislike that the US who have been f*cking over the Middle East and you are an extremist for wanting your Religious law in the country you live in. How is that extremist?

Did you even watch the video or can't you even listen?
Does something that says brown people are not as bad as you think they are not register in your thick skull?




#37
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If this site against harrassment, violence etc it won't allow the advocacy of Christianity.
#38
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,568
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
That is utterly insane
#39
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Christianity is against the rules yet Christian propaganda is still allowed on the site.

#40
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,568
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Elaborate please
#41
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@dustryder
If I were to ask a christian should the followings and tenets laid out in the bible be obeyed, the answer would probably yes.
But what does this mean? There are many passages in the bible considered to be archaic. Does the christian mean that shellfish should not be eaten, mixed fabrics should not be worn and women should be submissive? Probably not. The christian probably refers to what he/she believes are the sensible passages.

The difference is that in Christian societies is that the bible is not the ultimate authority.   That is to say laws don't have to be justified by reference to scripture, and laws can (and do) contradict scripture.  But the Islamic system is theocratic which means law must conform to and never contradict scripture.
note I say 'law' not belief.  What is in the quran does not only affect how an inividual Muslim feels about eating shellfish.  In a theocratic system scripture dictates social policy, education policy, health policy, gender policy etc.  In the west we can debate, for example, the death penalty.  In a theocracy there is no debate - there are just religious scholars poring over ancient tomes imposing their learned opinions.

In the west we are so used to democracy and secularism its hard to imagine theocracy.  The real contrast is not between Christianity and Islam but between secularism and theocracy.   There are theocratically-minded Christians in the west, and they have a small political effect.   But if you imagine a US ruled by fundamentalist evangelicals with no oppostion you get some idea of theocracy.

Europe cast off the shackes of theocracy centuies ago.  i believe the Islamic world can reform too, but I think Wahaabists and like-minded Muslim theocrats are a real threat who are rolling back the work of modernising Muslims such as Attaurk in Turkey.


Topic's author
#42
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser

I think a good way to understand it is that Muslims interpret 'moderate' as 'half-hearted'.   Many Muslims take their religion seriously and don't like being called 'half-hearted Muslims' just because they don't blow up buses. 

I imagine Stephen wouldn't like me calling him a 'half-hearted Englishman'!   

Anyone reading here can see what an absolute sly fkr the apologist keith prosser is. He has tried this stunt before hoping no one will notice. This is prosser in full self righteous pompous sly and devious apologetic mode.

He starts of with this line: "I think a good way to understand it is that Muslims interpret 'moderate' as 'half-hearted'.". Note the word Muslims. He uses it three times in two very short sentences above.  Now keeping in mind that to be a muslim is not the same as being part of a race , prosser himself actually does then  bring race into the mix adding : "I imagine Stephen wouldn't like me calling him a 'half-hearted Englishman'!" 
  He says this as if being a member of an actual race and being a follower of  what he calls a "backward religion" are one and the same thing. 

This is prosser the pompous apologist DESPERATELY trying to make being a member of a "backward religion" the same as being a part of a racial group, which of course is an impossibility , unless one decides that all of those following what he deems to be a "backward religion" are actually all part of the same race, which they are not. There are Arab muslims, Pakistani Muslims, Indian muslims and yes even English muslims.!!!! 

Prosser's thread  on why "Islam is "backward"  can be read here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1707

 

Of course 'moderate' doesn't mean 'half-hearted' when a westerner uses the word 'moderate',

No it doesn't. and stop being so fkn sly. Trying to separate the word moderate from the word muslim when both are used to together when on the subject of Islam  is just  you, being devious to try to make or prove a point. It is only apologist such you who uses the phrase "moderate muslims" often but can never explain what it is to be a "moderate muslim" <<<<<<< see that!!!!!! two words!! 

But this won't stop you desperately trying to tell us all that even  when educated MUSLIM scholars and historians and a Muslim President use the word, that they actually mean something else. Muslims take the words "moderate muslim" as a direct insult, and not as the fluffy "half hearted" can't be arsed, not bothered either way' approach to their religion as you are proposing. They find it abusive, derogatory, insulting and critical of their religion and feel they are being accused of not being whole muslim and that the phrases " moderate Islam" and "moderate muslim" are nothing more than "a tool of the West to cause division". 


Erdogan rejects ‘moderate Islam’ as a Western tool to weaken Muslims. https://www.rt.com/news/409532-erdogan-rejects-moderate-islam/



but it does come over that way to Muslims, presumably for some obscure cultural or linguistic reason.


Not according to muslims. It actually comes over as insulting to their religion . See above.

That isn't 'aplogetics' - that is objective analysis of a misunderstanding.

Of course its "apologetics"! What you have proposed simply flies in the face of what muslims ACTUALLY believe about the " derogatory and insulting" term  "moderate muslims"  and this  is nothing more than you,  again,  trying to tell us what Islam is and what muslims think and believe. So fk you again prosser.





Topic's author
#43
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@dustryder
Of course they are if the want Shariah. Because you may not have noticed but along with Islamic "family & property disputes" shariah law aslo  has the death penalty for homesexuals, adulterers and and apostates.  If you believe that in Islam you can pick and choose which laws you agree with and those you do not, and which ones you will accept and which ones you will not accept,then you have no understanding of Sharia .
Different parts of rules are not all evenly applied and interpreted in the same way

So? They are still there embedded  in Islamic law called  Shariah, along with the death penalty for homesexuals, adulterers and and apostates.  I won't argue that maybe some islamic countries are not a strict as others, but it doesn't alter the fact that those rules/islamic laws are still there, still practiced and still enforced.



If I were to ask a christian should the followings and tenets laid out in the bible be obeyed, the answer would probably yes.

Irrelevant. The fact that you keep bringing the bible and christians into this thread is irrelevant. And I don't agree with you anyway. As I have said , Christianity has reformed and moved on into the 21st century as has Judaism. islam unfortunately has not and cannot and you know why don' t you?

There are many passages in the bible considered to be archaic.

Yes there are and they are for the best part void, obsolete and also irrelevant. Your clutching at straws sunshine. You'll need a better argument than bible bashing. Christianity has reformed we are now in the 21st century islam unfortunately from my point of view is still stuck in the 7th century. The west has taken power away from the priests - for good or ill, depending on one's belief;  but it seems to be running along quite nicely without the interference and influence they and the church once had. 


Does the christian mean that shellfish should not be eaten,mixed fabrics should etc etc etc

Your like a moth clambering about in the dark until it sees a light, then simply cannot stop banging its head against it. 





Topic's author
#44
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@TheRealNihilist
--> @Stephen
Are you f*cking braindead?
No.


Christianity is against the rules yet Christian propaganda is still allowed on the site.

And it is allowed to be scrutinised and questioned and criticised, I do so all the time and go unmolested. Where as Islam, you are commiting a fk crime if you dare do the same.

#45
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
@Stephen
What you have proposed simply flies in the face of what muslims ACTUALLY believe about the " derogatory and insulting" term  "moderate muslims"  and this  is nothing more than you,  again,  trying to tell us what Islam is and what muslims think and believe. So fk you again prosser.
What does Sarfraz Mansoor say in the article you linked to:

The [Muslim] men and women I met told me they found it infuriating that they could be devout in their practice of their religion but they would only be considered “moderate” Muslims – since moderate was often taken to mean not hugely observant. Meanwhile those who had committed appalling acts of terror – and who were often far from religious in their earlier lives – would immediately be considered “real” or “full” Muslims. It was surprising to find a term that I had always assumed was favourable and benign being so roundly condemned. It may once have been useful but the phrase is no longer fit for purpose.

So 'Moderate' is taken to mean 'not hugely observant" - I think that's the same as 'half-hearted'.  I believe my post is a sober exposition of the issue around the word 'moderate' and is neither pro- or anti- anything; I just presented some background.

I've  @'ed yassine in the hope of getting his perspective.





#46
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Stephen
And it is allowed to be scrutinised and questioned and criticised, I do so all the time and go unmolested. Where as Islam, you are commiting a fk crime if you dare do the same.
I like how you pivoted from the position you can't defend. You know he was being disingenuous with presenting those data.

Have you heard of the abortion laws in Alabama? You know it is against the law to go against Biblical inspired anti-abortion laws right?

One "fk" crime is all I need to show you that Christians also provide laws that also infringe on rights. I don't need to show you how they prevent you from questioning or criticizing when a more important problem like passing laws has already been done. What is the use of your criticism when it is a majority Christian lawmakers and they don't give a "fk" about what you think and others and still done it? 

This is not a pivot more so to show the biases you have. You see muh Islam bad but you can't see muh Christianity good. If you did you would have stated both of them infringe of liberties. 

Why do you think Islam is like how they are? 
#47
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Stephen
, Christianity has reformed and moved on into the 21st century as has Judaism
That statement is not exactly accurate.


#48
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
@disgusted
Isn't it the case that Christianity and Judaism haven't changed - it is only that they have become increasingly ignored and irrelevant due to secularism?


#49
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Sharia Law punishments are stoning
Old Testament punishments are stoning.
#50
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
I am not saying every muslim is a terrorist or a potential terrorist, but the bulk of Muslims are less liberal and less progresive than the bulk of westerners.  

Why I am opposed to Stephen is what to do about it.  I think he sees this as an opprtunity to get rid of brown people!  I see it as requiring finding a way to change the mindset of British muslims - and ideally, muslims everywhere.
Well stated.
#51
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I am of the opinion that a mistake people made in the old days was to think xenophobia was only ever race-based.  It's obvious why that was  - the biggest problem was literally black and white.  

The present situation shows that xenophobia can exist in other forms.   It should have been realised long ago - we had plenty of examples of xenophobia that were not racial - ant-semitism, sectarian violence between RCs an protestants, Shia v Sunni, Tutsis anf Hutus, Serbs and Croats...

Nonetheless, most oppbrobium is attached to 'racial xenophobia' or 'racism'.   Therefore anti-moslem xenophobes take great pains to avoid being labelled 'racists', but the mind-set of many 'islamophobes' is the same as that of a racist and in many cases islamophobia is a thin layer or fig-leaf over good old fashioned race hate.   There is a big over-lap between islamophobes and un-reconsituted racist and anti-immigrant groups.

The big issue is whether this time round the xenophobes might have a point.




#52
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Stephen
You don't attack Islam you attack Muslims and then you lie about it.
#53
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@keithprosser
The big issue is whether this time round the xenophobes might have a point.
If they do then they are clearly missing important data. Lets take for instance the middle east. We can take the stance that the place is really f*cked but we can also not realize what caused that to happen. US and other country intervention while also puppet governments.

I take the stance that the failure of middle eastern countries lies on external factors more than internal factors. If that is also your position you shouldn't be making the countries even worse. I have an analogy for this. 

A homeless man was homeless because he wasn't able to pay of his healthcare which resulted in him going bankrupt and losing his house. Progressives want healthcare paid through tax. This will allow the homeless man to not worry about healthcare costs and maybe not be homeless anymore. If we take the position we should help people based on things they had no fault in then the US should also be helping the middle east as well.

It does kind of seem like I wouldn't help people if it was their fault but I still would and my analogy wasn't that good. Just what I thought about right now. The last line in my analogy should help you understand what I mean if you didn't understand my analogy.
#54
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@disgusted
You don't attack Islam you attack Muslims and then you lie about it.
I have noticed that Stephen has a common pattern of being perturbed by the person he replies to most often on Islam, Keith, who studies religion in a more pragmatic and practical fashion.  Stephen attempts to respect a theological approach as would be expected of the actual religious adherents.  Keith continually rejects theology if at all possible, and often insists on a secular discussion so there is bound to be some miscommunication.  Its kind of hard to separate the religion from the people if someone opens up a socio-political conversation to begin with, and Stephen does express numerous attempts to have a conversation more oriented around religion, and less as Keith suggests "brown people". I'd suggest that some confusion might be avoided in the future if more of the topics about practicalities of relations in the UK were started in the society forum.
#55
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
I am not sure that conditions in the ME are very significant for the UK's domestic social situation that vexes Stephen.   The US has it's own problems, but in the UK the problem under discussion is a growing schism between the indigenous population and the small - but not insignificant and growing - Muslim commmunity.   The right raise the spectre of a complete transformation of the British way of life, due to Muslim immigration and high birth rate.

The right contends that 'do nothingism' and appeasement will result in the dhimmitdue of the British people in an Islamic state.

So are they correct?   Or is this is the one fight the racists think they can win?


#56
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@keithprosser
Does the UK have a respected constitution like the United States? 

We have a less dramatic (Islamic) mass migration of refugees with the Somali population though certainly nothing in comparison to the millions flocking to European countries. Somalia is pretty close to the Arabian peninsula, suffered war and anarchy.  The cultures are quite different from contemporary American society.  There are documented challenges to assimilation on aggregate.
#57
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
Britain is well known for NOT having a written constiution! I'm not sure how one would help..
Topic's author
#58
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
I've  @'ed yassine in the hope of getting his perspective.

No you have added a muslim because you need a fkn ally. He has already responded to this on this thread:

When you asked for an alternative "suggestion"


--> @keithprosser Post 71 
I'm more than happy to not use the word 'moderate' if you suggest an alternative.  There are Muslims who want to establish a world Caliphate and are prepared to use violence and force to achieve it.  There are  "muslims who actually do want to actually live in a peaceful  integrated western society." - at least in theory!  

We need labels to discuss the issue.  In the west non-muslims have adopted 'Islamist' and 'Moderate' for that purpose.  Many Muslims do not like those terms, for reasons I gave earlier.

So please do uggest term for the different sorts of Islam and their followers - they may catch on! But I  don't expect many Muslims to read my posts, so I will stick with 'islamist/ihdist/fanatical' etc for one sort and 'moderate' for the other.




What do you think I am prosser , some kind of embryonic amoeba?

You ask something similar on this thread too:

why Islam is "backward"  can be read here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1707

 

Topic's author
#59
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why do you think Islam is like how they are? 

ISLAM is like how THEY are!!!!???

 CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG; but

I am going to assume you meant to say, "why do you think - 'Muslims' - are the way they are"? .
If so, my answer would be  it may have something to do with teachings in the quran. Barring the "tiny minority". What do you think?


Topic's author
#60
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,321
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL

--> @keithprosser
I am not saying every muslim is a terrorist or a potential terrorist, but the bulk of Muslims are less liberal and less progresive than the bulk of westerners.  

Why I am opposed to Stephen is what to do about it.  I think he sees this as an opprtunity to get rid of brown people!  I see it as requiring finding a way to change the mindset of British muslims - and ideally, muslims everywhere.
Well stated.

I have responded to that with the above at post 11 when I stated 

"Calling me racist is not going to cure the problem of there being more radicals than the "tiny few" apologist like you want to admit. There are millions of muslim radicals that support the muslim extreme terrorist. 

I would like you to point out to the forum where I have stated anything racist keeping in mind islam is not a race, as much as you try to tell the world that it is.  You would also be hard pushed to find anything from me that could be called " anti-muslim"".