Are thousands of Kurds abandoning Islam?
The article, published by a Kurdish news source, describes what appears to be a growing disenchantment with Islam in that region as a result of the violence and destruction of the Islamic State.
Many Muslims are confronted by the violent extremism of the Islamic State (ISIS) and wonder how to reconcile their personal beliefs with the actions of the extremist group. The Kurdish population is approximately 94% nominally Muslim. Recently, however, there have been many reports of Kurds leaving Islam or converting to other religions. The Zoroastrian movement claims to have as many as 100,000 followers in Iraqi Kurdistan. Christian organizations assert that thousands in the region have been seeking out Christianity as they reject ISIS’ interpretation of Islam. There are also reports of growing numbers of atheists and agnostics.
This quote however by an ordinary citizen I think is more significant:
[Sanger Najim, a young man living in Erbil] points the finger of blame at religious leaders for the rise of extremism and growing number of people turning away from Islam. “We don’t have [a] response when people from [the] West [are] telling us that Islam is cruel, Islam is Daesh. We don’t have a response for this. Why? The Mullahs never tell us what real Islam is. They are just reading us some history facts. They are just telling us some history… from old times. They are not able to link it with present society… They have to link Quran with the real life.”
He is horrified by the actions of the Islamic State, but cannot get a satisfactory answer about why this is not Islam from his own Islamic Mullahs.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
The article, published by a Kurdish news source, describes what appears to be a growing disenchantment with Islam in that region as a result of the violence and destruction of the Islamic State.
Many Muslims are confronted by the violent extremism of the Islamic State (ISIS) and wonder how to reconcile their personal beliefs with the actions of the extremist group. The Kurdish population is approximately 94% nominally Muslim. Recently, however, there have been many reports of Kurds leaving Islam or converting to other religions. The Zoroastrian movement claims to have as many as 100,000 followers in Iraqi Kurdistan. Christian organizations assert that thousands in the region have been seeking out Christianity as they reject ISIS’ interpretation of Islam. There are also reports of growing numbers of atheists and agnostics.
This quote however by an ordinary citizen I think is more significant:
[Sanger Najim, a young man living in Erbil] points the finger of blame at religious leaders for the rise of extremism and growing number of people turning away from Islam. “We don’t have [a] response when people from [the] West [are] telling us that Islam is cruel, Islam is Daesh. We don’t have a response for this. Why? The Mullahs never tell us what real Islam is. They are just reading us some history facts. They are just telling us some history… from old times. They are not able to link it with present society… They have to link Quran with the real life.”
He is horrified by the actions of the Islamic State, but cannot get a satisfactory answer about why this is not Islam from his own Islamic Mullahs.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
I hold hope that this could be the beginning of a new “Arab Spring” the rest of the world could get along with.
I would like to hope that this is the beginning of a new “Arab Spring” that the rest of the world could get along with.
Earlier I said If Islam is too rigid to evolve to the needs of its younger generations it will have to go through a transformation or it’ll find itself in a generational conflict.
Cotour asked: So, what do you think it might take, 1000? 2500 years? More?
My replyChange can be dramatic from one generation to the next, the young are always questioning the wisdom of their parents,
The article mentions that “We don’t have [a] response when people from [the] West [are] telling us that Islam is cruel, Islam is Daesh. We don’t have a response for this. Why? The Mullahs never tell us what real Islam is. They are just reading us some history facts. They are just telling us some history… from old times. They are not able to link it with present society… They have to link Quran with the real life.”
When you’re at war, the sermons being preached will focus less on the conciliatory aspects of a religion and more on those designed to encourage the soldiers will to fight, for example, US soldiers heading into battle are not going to hear about turning the other cheek and forgiving thy enemy. I suspect that there is an element of that happening, the passages in the Quran encouraging conciliatory attitudes aren’t being preached to the people fighting for their existence against ISIS.
“When you’re at war, the sermons being preached will focus less on the conciliatory aspects of a religion and more on those designed to encourage the soldiers will to fight, for example, US soldiers heading into battle are not going to hear about turning the other cheek and forgiving thy enemy. I suspect that there is an element of that happening, the passages in the Quran encouraging conciliatory attitudes aren’t being preached to the people fighting for their existence against ISIS.”
BS
You obviously don’t know religion and have never attended regularly.
There are daily,weekly,monthly and holiday teachings to be read/prayed besides the part the leader decides to pontificate on in his sermon.
Have you ever even read the Surahs? Try it some time.
The second series 2.1 through 2.15 gives you an idea of why there will never be a reform of Islam.
Andrew W:
Your attempt to intellectualize this discussion about the West freely accepting Islam is just that, an intellectual exercise with no reasonable or equitable outcome . NONE.
You ask, and some of my fellow Americans who consider themselves “evolved” and “intellectuals” listen to you and hear someone of similar concerns and intellectual station / level. They think “do you see here, Islam really wants to get along with our Western culture and belief system”. These intellectuals (and I use that term as a designation of a kind of mental disease) who find themselves in power currently are attempting to sell (read force) their fellow Americans to commit this national suicide that you propose. I reject their thinking and I reject your attempts to either fool yourself and or fool them.
Then there are other Leftist / Liberals who see your attempts in selling this fantasy that you propose as the final barrier to their “borderless world” where all are “equal” and the U.N. can ultimately rule the earth (under strong suggestion and influence by the multinational corporate masters interests and the proper thinking masters of the universe).
I can not explain to you, if you actually do believe what it is that you write or you are one of their operatives paid to promote such suicidal thinking, how much resistance your proposals will be met with by a significant number of Americas. And the fact that you are attempting to reason your way through it on this particular web site. I must admit if you can sell it here you can sell it anywhere in America.
So you continue your sales efforts here, it can only further reveal the weakness of your argument and logic and “facts” and this proposed cultural suicide that it entails. I look forward to it.
I remain proudly “Deplorable!”
I’ll repeat it again:
Andrew_W comes across as apologizing-for & explaining-away, damn near everything that goes on in the rest-of-the-world, no matter what it is.
pzatchok, I just read Surah 2.1 – 2.20, and I’ve no idea what you’re talking about. Those verses simply explain that people who believe in Gods other than Allah (the Abrahamic God, the God that Muslims, Jews and Christians share) are genuine in their convictions.
https://quran.com/2
Andrew_W
Did you read the Quran or the “approved” translation? To read what it REALLY says you have to read it in the original Arabic. The modern English translation has been “prettied up” so that it can be acceptable to Americans who would reject Mohammed as the insane pedophile cult leader he was. (Think Charles Manson writes a book). We should all be grateful that most of the insane modern cults commit suicide before they get too big (Jim Jones, Heaven’s gate)
No, I do not read arabic. but as Thomas Jefferson knew when he was dealing with the Barbary pirates, it is important to know your enemy.
PeterF, if you run the mouse cursor over the Arabic wording in my link above it’s translated word by word. You’ll have to make your own assessment. I suspect pzatchok may have had a different chapter of the Quran in mind.
PeterF– good stuff!
Cotour.
I’ll link to this again:
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=vC2BDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false
You’re doing, saying, exactly the things that Hayek recognized in Conservatives, Conservatives are “closer to socialism than true liberalism” (the liberalism of the Classical Liberal).
…and sorta like Keith Oberman or Ed (The Red) Schultz, Chris Matthews, Rachel Madcow…
Yow, the whole cast at MSLSD!
So you think that Hayek was of the center left, or left.
That would fit with your convictions that “progressive” (in favor of any form of change) is synonymous with leftist.
2.8
And of the people are some who say, “We believe in Allah and the Last Day,” but they are not believers.
2.9
They [think to] deceive Allah and those who believe, but they deceive not except themselves and perceive [it] not.
2.10
In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie.
2.11
And when it is said to them, “Do not cause corruption on the earth,” they say, “We are but reformers.”
2.12
Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive [it] not.
2.13
And when it is said to them, “Believe as the people have believed,” they say, “Should we believe as the foolish have believed?” Unquestionably, it is they who are the foolish, but they know [it] not.
2.14
And when they meet those who believe, they say, “We believe”; but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say, “Indeed, we are with you; we were only mockers.”
2.18
Deaf, dumb and blind – so they will not return [to the right path].
All of these refer to Muslims who question the Imams interpretation of the Quran.
Basically they say to not believe those who question your interpretation of the Quran they are NOT true believers and thus not Muslim.
There can never be any reform of Islam.
Other Surah’s actually state that a true believer will not speak against another sect of Islam because the other sect could possibly be the correct one.
Other Surah’s state that it is Allah’s will that one should kill those who will not believe. Especially those who knew Islam and turned away from the one true teaching.
Jews and Christians (people of the book) are allowed to live if they pay a special tax and follow special rules. the rules are not written by Allah but are made up by the local Imam and the local Islamic ruler. And they are allowed to just state that they will not allow any non Muslims to live in the area. They can handle that in anyway they wish.
Read the whole of the Surah’s.
Read An introduction to Islam by David Waines
Hayek, smayek, do think that these designations make any difference in the core discussion ” should Western culture integrate with Islam?”. (the answer is no by the way)
Even Hayek would agree that it should not be. Do you know why?
Because all of these trite little classifications have nothing to do with anything relevant.
Q: Why do you put so much emphasis on what some economist has to say?
We could put ten economists together in a room and ask them a question and no one would have anything to say that would agree with anyone else.
Economists? You must be continuing your joke of an argument in hoping that someone here agrees with you. Please explain your fascination with Hayek, I don’t get it.
I remain “Deplorable”.
If you’re arguing that “There can never be any reform of Islam.” is a sequitur of “Basically they say to not believe those who question your interpretation of the Quran they are NOT true believers and thus not Muslim.”
I disagree, the simple fact that there can be different interpretations of Islam means that any one of the possible interpretations could be legitimately followed by Muslims in the future.
I know apostasy is a serious crime in most of Islam, but there’s a fair chunk of Muslims that do not accept that it is required of Muslims that they punish such converts from Islam, many believe that Allah will punish them, It’s similar to the Christianity, in the past it was OK for Christians to punish heretics, today most Christians are happy to let their God handle it.
Jews and Christians (people of the book) are allowed to live if they pay a special tax and follow special rules.
Today there is no country in the world imposing Jizya.
Cotour: should Western culture integrate with Islam?
If you mean can Muslims and Christians live in the same country together without conflict the answer is yes, it happens in numerous countries, in only turns to conflict when conservatives and radicals in the two religions decide they can’t get along.
I find it fascinating that so many conservatives love Hayek for his right wing views not realizing that, not only was he not a conservative, but that he actually had a pretty low opinion of them.
But you’re correct, enough of Hayek.
So, are you suggesting that it is reasonable that there should be a mandatory declaration by any follower of Islam that wants to immigrate to the United States or any Western culture that states that they reject Sharia law and any Islamic rule or law that is counter to their host country’s laws ?
And if they do turn out to follow or promote Sharia law and do not adhere to their new country’s law that they should be deported immediately for lying? Is that acceptable to a Muslim?
Upon doing that wouldn’t they be subject to death by any radical Muslim who thought it offensive?
PS: The Koran from my point of view (and many others) is not just a religion, it has a dual purpose and based on that the Untied States needs to declare it so and deal with it in an appropriate manner. The Constitution and the First Amendment is not a suicide pact.
So, are you suggesting that it is reasonable that there should be a mandatory declaration by any follower of Islam that wants to immigrate to the United States or any Western culture that states that they reject Sharia law and any Islamic rule or law that is counter to their host country’s laws ?
I think any country has the right to select its immigrant population on a case by case basis with the aim of getting in the people who will best suit and adjust to the culture existing in the host country.
I think a sensible approach would be to initially grant a work visa good for 3 – 5 years and only grant citizenship after that probationary period.
I don’t get your “subject to death” bit, subject to death for what? Lying?
Is any Muslim who openly states / rejects the word of Islam (apostate) to fear being killed for that? Where is Islamic reform going to come from? You site the youth, but from where I sit it is the youth in many instances that perpetrates the violence to enforce Islamic law.
If there is a requirement to renounce certain text from the Koran to enter the Untied States or where ever then the implication would be that they would become apostate and would be subject to Islamic law.
I am not against anyone coming to America as long as it by the proper legal methods, but they must come here to assimilate, to become American, no matter what religion or race they might be. (you do not come to America to bring Islam here, you come here to America to become an American).
Where this all falls apart for the American people is when our current political leadership who right now is Liberal / leftist makes long term political decisions not first based on the interests of the country and the citizens and the Constitution, but based on international and associated agenda.
This post is about thousands of Young Kurdish Muslims abandoning Islam, it’s not about thousands of apostates being killed for abandoning Islam. In some communities someone declaring him/herself apostate might well get killed, everything I’ve read though suggests that that is almost exclusively in smaller more traditional communities. With better education and in more urban cosmopolitan towns that’s not usually the case.
I wouldn’t trust anyone who abandoned their religion simply to swap countries, I don’t think being a Muslim in America makes someone a potential terrorist. On what basis the US screens potential immigrants is up to the US. Personally I don’t like the idea of blanket screening on the basis of race, gender, religion etc, and would be against it for NZ (as would 99% of Kiwi’s).
Cotour, after linking to a CATO page a while back (freedom index between countries), I thought I’d go look at other stuff that’s under their name, found this:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/fearing-muslim-planet
It covers my opinions on the beliefs of US Conservatives with regard to Islam quite nicely.
There’s actually little that they produce that I disagree with, on AGW there seem to be a lot of “luke warmers” rather than out and out “skeptics”.
So, if I’m some sort of closet commie, I guess CATO must be full of them.
Have you ever heard of ISIS?
They are a violent sect of Suni Islam. They are actively killing everyone not of their sect in every area they can gain control. They are actively hunting enslaving and or killing the Kurdish yazidis.
In those areas that they do not have total control yet they are imposing a Dimi tax on non Muslims. Just like mobsters used to impose a protection on shop keepers. Under threat of violence.
Islam is a very fatalistic religion. If Allah did not want them to do something it would either be written in the book or Allah would stop them.
Basically only the strong survive, Either the strong sect or the strong individual. Their simple survival proves Allahs will.
Your are more than likely correct that no modern Islamic nation imposes a jizya tax. But they do impose other taxes to replace it.
If your allowed to open a place of worship you pay an extra tax.
If you need items of worship like a bible you must get them through approved sources who pay an extra permit and tax to sell those items.
In some states alcohol (including sacramental wine), though not allowed to Muslims, can be purchased through taxed and permitted stores.
This guy, Mustafa Akyol, discusses the diversity between various schools of thought within Islam.
http://www.cato.org/events/islam-compatible-free-market
pzatchok, I know ISIS are a bunch of violent Islamist extremists, do they represent Islam as a whole? No, of course not, in fact they’re very unrepresentative of most Muslims.
Regarding non-Muslims in Islamic nations, I found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
Perhaps you can find specific examples of taxes currently applied to non-Muslims that are not applied to Muslims in Islamic countries. Alcohol tax isn’t a convincing example, as people in Western countries that drink alcohol have to pay taxes on it and Muslims and others who don’t purchase alcohol don’t have to pay that tax.
The problem with Islam.
https://youtu.be/W5BtQgTGOI4
From the American point of view.
And that in the end is what I am concerned with.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
You find a lot of things but I am beginning to doubt you actually have read any of them.
Your author, in the end, eventually admits that even though there are several ways, reasons and even passages in the Quran that would or should lead to a more liberal view or more open and peaceful sects of Islam he is at a loss to explain why more oppressive and now violently orthodox sects are on the rise and have been for over a hundred years.
I know why and its extremely simple but I will leave you to read and learn.
pzatchok
From 22:20 through to the end of his speech, which is the last 2 or 3 minutes, Akyol explains that Western meddling in Muslim countries, supporting unpopular dictators and warfare, is causing the radicalization amongst some Muslims, and that the way to fight that radicalization is to encourage stronger economies and greater stability in Muslim countries. Maybe you were watching a different video.
Cotour,
That was an interesting and disturbing video, 4000 Muslims praying peacefully inside the Mosque, 2 Muslim converts from Judaism outside the preaching hate, even advocating the nuking of Israel (with the preference that Israelis go home first) hard not to wonder a lot about the psychology involved there, did they convert as a result of self hate at the damage created by the establishment and expansion of Israel?
My bet is that those two started life in conservative Jewish American households, saw footage of Israeli tanks vs Palestinian rocks, heard their parents endorsing the dispossession the Palestinians experienced, and as often happens, rebelled against one set of extremists (their parents, now in their ’70’s) by going to the other extreme.
Another nations interference in yours is just an excuse.
A poor simplistic excuse. I could just as easily claim Britain interfered in my nation back in 1812. Or the Soviet Union interfered back in the cold war era.
There is always an excuse. Always.
But none of that explains how oppressive orthodox Islam is the norm and now violent radical Islam is the fastest growing sect.
As for your author. He has a ax to grind. His own father was imprisoned in Turkey.
http://www.meforum.org/3840/turkey-akp-akyol
There is always an excuse. Always.
What are your excuses for your position?
pzatchok– good stuff.
Another nations interference in yours is just an excuse.
Bizarre, given that that’s always been an excuse for all out war, and in both the examples you give the US responded in kind.
Psychological motivation aside, the doctrine that they site and what it demands of them and allows them is the issue.
How about this for their motivation, as long as we are playing psychologist: They are focus less, not so attractive young men who seek / need structure and they read the Koran, and they find plenty of “structure”, and rules, and patriarchal social models about women and how they have to do as they say, and be sexually “available” to these not so attractive young men. And it makes it so these unattractive men, through codified “law” constantly can make arrangements to have as many women as they would like. Pretty sweet deal if 1. Your not gay, and 2. If you can afford it all. (women are very expensive if your not familiar with them)
I am aware of an arrangement where by a Muslim man can “marry” a woman for a short period of time, say a couple of hours (read have sex), and then gets a “divorce” so its all good with the profit. What a bunch of EFN BS, who is fooling who here? Your not fooling me.
Boil it all down and everything is about sex, EVERYTHING, power, money, boats, cars, country’s, the “P” word, EVERYTHING. And if your not getting any sex you will come up with lots of justifications that guarantee, even demand that you do. Ask Muhammad.
The Koran is entirely about men possessing women, it makes them property, it is, and this is what you reject but must accept, 180 degrees from Western philosophy and that is why it must stay where it is until it “evolves”. Western culture discarded such thinking incrementally over the last 500 years. So Islam is at least 500 years behind the West. If you start now you can be accepted into the world society by say 2600 or so?
How does that sound to you? Lets all stop the BS here, that’s what Islam is about. (as is the bible, as is most other doctrines of social control and “religion”)
Another refutation of your Islamc youth theory to civility, this is it in practice:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/one-four-french-muslims-revolt-against-secular-laws-143153434.html
I guess Andrew agrees that its fully in a Muslims rights as an individual or a group(a sect) to attack their perceived enemies in any way possible.
Allah’s will be done.
There is a reason wars are declared by nations and not individuals.
Does Andrew know why?
The French push to ban religious clothing’s an interesting one, when I look at it I think individual freedoms, people should be allowed to wear any clothing they like (I’ll bow to laws around nudity) if people want to wear Burkas or bukinis I’ve not problem with it, if men want to dress as women, their business, that’s the libertarian perspective. I get the impression though that a lot of Conservatives (a few in the US and a lot in France) are keen to ban any religious items of clothing not of their own religion. To me that attitude screams bigotry.
From your link Most “problematic”, according to the report, was the third group which was composed of “mostly young, low-skilled people with low levels of participation in the labour market” living on the outskirts of cities.
“Islam is for them a way of asserting themselves on the margins of French society,” the report found, noting that most people in that group approved of the burqa and of polygamy, which is permitted by Islam.
Around half of under-25s fell into this category, compared to around 20 percent of over-40s, revealing a generational gap between moderates and younger hardliners, the report found.
Twice I’ve said that unless immigrants are integrated into the society of their new countries it’ll end in tears. This all comes back to what I was saying before about the tribal “us” and “them” situation, if these people – the young especially – don’t feel they really belong to the French “tribe”, if they feel ostracized from it, discriminated against, they’ll mentally label the French as the “them” the people of a different tribe, and the human instinct that has a different morality when dealing with “them” rather than “us” will kick in.
It’s why killing Westerners is so easy for Islamists, and why killing people in Arab countries, even innocent civilians, causes little domestic problems for Western Governments, a lot of Westerners don’t identify with foreign Arabs, those foreigners aren’t “us” so killing them isn’t, on a personal level, really an immorality. Westerners are actually genuinely perplexed that those foreign Arabs take the death of many of their country men, including children, so badly, so badly that they even want to hit back.
pzatchok, I’m not talking about “rights”, I’m talking about the human instinctive moral code, the one that allows you to think it OK for the US to kill a lot of foreigners the US defines as enemies is the same instinct that allows foreigners to think it OK to kill Westerners because they define Westerners as enemies.
There is a reason wars are declared by nations and not individuals.
Does Andrew know why?
Because it is likely to be damaging to your tribe/nation to have individuals starting wars against other tribes/nations based on personal grievances. A nation/tribe has an obligation to prevent it’s own private citizens from violently acting against other tribes/nations if it is able to.
What you describe is a human custom borne from instinct. Terrorism happens when the terrorist group don’t respect, or are completely alienated from their own government, effectively psychologically speaking the terror group and supporters have formed a separate tribe outside the control of their own country.
Andrew W:
No comment on my psychological profile of a young male Muslim / the foundation of Islam and its patriarchal social model ?
“Patriarchy: Is a social system in which adult males hold primary power and predominance in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege, and control of property. In the domain of the family, fathers (or father figures) hold authority over the women and children. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage and descent is reckoned exclusively through the male line, sometimes to the point where significantly more distant male relatives take precedence over female relatives.”
Andrew_W,
As an actual practitioner in the psych-biz, I find your alleged command over the subject-matter, to be lacking.
————————————————–
Cotour–sincerely hope you were not directly impacted by the non-terrorist, non-muslim, non-bomb, Islamic-Terror-Bomb-Attack, on NYC. (And NJ, and let’s not forget the mass-knife-attack in Minnesota, a State which has always been “progressive” (and I don’t mean “progress”) but has now morphed into a huge version of Dearborn, Michigan. Which we all refer to as “Dearbornistan” in the Mitten State.)
This is totally off-thread, but I’ll stick it in this thread. ( I didn’t realize until today Mark Levin issued a free 20 minute LevinTV clip, on Constitution Day. If I could share my login pass-code with you all, I would.)
https://www.levintv.com/videos/constitution-day-special
Perhaps you could reference specific examples in Islamic scripture where subjugation of women is required or advocated – that’s what you’re implying isn’t it? I’m pretty sure that the religious requirements of Islam are no more patriarchal than Christianity.
Again I suspect your sources aren’t accurate.
Cotour– can you believe this “stuff?”
“Again I suspect your sources aren’t accurate.”
You rely on “sources” a lot. I mainly rely on my common sense and my actual observations, along with my understanding of history and how the world and the human animal actually operates.
Please provide your sources that indicate that Islam is not as patriarchal as my observations tell me it is.
This of course is a rhetorical request, a patriarchal society is what it is and Western thought and culture on the subject is many, many, many degrees removed from it.
I want to again restate here that I have no problem with Muslims coming to America (legally) to become Americans, I fully support that. I support anyone coming to America to become American.
But not to come to America to bring Islam and Sharia to America, that is where your entire argument falls apart.
Why? Because it is un American, its anti Constitutional, it is incorrect thinking (from an Americans point of view anyway. You may not be able to understand that)
I mainly rely on my common sense and my actual observations, along with my understanding of history and how the world and the human animal actually operates.
Heh, where does common sense come from? I’m not a fan of common sense as it is often used to justify applying past experience, beliefs and education to situations where those things aren’t reliable for judgement, (obviously the Earth doesn’t move around!) What “actual observations” have you made? Have you visited Muslims in their homes, talked to them face to face?
How the human animal actually operates is an interesting area, I’m not one of those who think that gender does not matter, it’s obvious to me a product of evolution is that that women and men do think a little differently (my wife agrees with me on that one, eg. she reckons women on average are crap school principals). Women tend to be more subtle in how they manipulate their spouses, I often wonder if men aren’t deluded in their belief that they rule the roost.
https://gendersociety.wordpress.com/2015/02/02/is-islam-an-innately-patriarchal-religion/
There’s a comprehensive wiki page Women in Islam
But not to come to America to bring Islam and Sharia to America, that is where your entire argument falls apart.
You’re about 25% right America allows – encourages – freedom of the practice of religion, so people can practice whatever religion they like as long as it doesn’t break US laws. The are many aspects to Sharia law that can be practiced that do not conflict with the US legal system, Sharia includes contract law that’s compliant with US laws.
“You’re about 25% right America allows – encourages – freedom of the practice of religion, so people can practice whatever religion they like as long as it doesn’t break US laws. The are many aspects to Sharia law that can be practiced that do not conflict with the US legal system, Sharia includes contract law that’s compliant with US laws.”
Your insistence that parts of Sharia are compliant with U.S. law means that your intent is that it should be included and tolerated in our legal system. No? You again transmit the mandatory intention of Islam, to infiltrate and to over take. U.S. law is U.S. law, there shall not be Sharia law in America.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Do you agree with that statement? Should the Koran be compliant with the Constitution?
Americas prime directive should not be to destroy itself with other legal systems or invasive religions counter to its founding. This will all be made much clearer for you if Hillary loses the presidential election. The Liberals / Leftists among our current leadership are transmitting confusing politically correct policy to the world.
It becomes more and more likely as time passes that this confusion will be clarified soon for you.
Cotour, lots of cultures and religions have practices that are compliant with US law, stating that doesn’t mean people in those cultures and religions practicing those aspects of their lives in the US are intent on “taking over” the US.
An example, in Sharia law the division of wealth in the event of a marriage break up is out lined, if a couple sign a prenuptial agreement that’s in line with Sharia law, they are both adhering to Sharia and meeting US legal obligations. There are a lot of examples along these lines that could be given in terms of the person to person agreements between Muslim adults in the US, and the same can be said of peoples of other cultures and religions that practice their beliefs, they can still belong to those cultures and be law abiding Americans.
You’re starting to sound very authoritarian, if Americans are compliant with US law, what’s it to you how they live the culture and religion they believe in?
Also remember, I’ve said it’s up to America who she chooses as new immigrants.
“You’re starting to sound very authoritarian, if Americans are compliant with US law, what’s it to you how they live the culture and religion they believe in?”
And this is where you run off the rails. Islam / the Koran is both a religion and law, it has a dual purpose and from that point of view it needs to have a special designation where anyone who applies to come to America must 1. Renounce Sharia because it stands fundamentally counter to the Constitution (the Constitution will not comply with Sharia to accommodate immigrants, immigrants will comply with the Constitution. And if not then please do not bother coming. ) and 2. Are coming to America to become American and not to come to America to make America compliant with the Koran.
I welcome anyone who adheres to these standards, even you.
Authoritarian? Not authoritarian, I understand the Constitution and understand where hard lines must be drawn in relation to it.
You never answered my question: Should the Koran comply with the Constitution? I will assume that would not be acceptable. And again your entire argument falls apart.
Should the Koran comply with the Constitution?
The Quran is not going to get rewritten (any more than the Bible is, which also has some passages that are contrary to the Constitution), I think the relevant question is: “can Muslims practice Islam in the US and do so while supporting the US Constitution”, I think yes, and a considerable majority of Muslims in the US have managed to do exactly that.
Because those Muslims have embraced America and its Constitution and have given up the necessary elements of the Koran that are counter to it?
” (any more than the Bible is, which also has some passages that are contrary to the Constitution), ”
The Bible in the context of this conversation is not both a codified religious document and a document of law, so your comparing the two is inappropriate. The Koran is both for strict adherents and the two are inseperable.
This entire conversation from your point of argument is that the Constitution / Americans must comply with some degree of Islam, that is an argument that is not acceptable. When you come to a new country you come there to assimilate. To expect anything other is to have irrational expectations.
This entire conversation from your point of argument is that the Constitution / Americans must comply with some degree of Islam, that is an argument that is not acceptable.
No, that’s a misrepresentation. Are you saying that everyone moving to the US must abandon all religious and cultural aspects of there former lives? No, I doubt it.
Are you saying you would allow them to choose to practice the aspects of their religion and culture that comply with US laws? Because that’s my position.
You can come to America and worship rocks and live in a tree if that is what your culture is, and no one will care.
But you do not come to America and assume that a religion that is both a religion and codified law in the culture from which the person comes should be some how accommodated by the existing legal system that they are moving to. That is an unreasonable expectation. Its actually much more than unreasonable, it is unacceptable.
Its not just “religion” or “culture” its the legal element that is the issue with Islam.
THAT is what is irreconcilable.
The problem is that many Muslims have a very deep hatred for many different groups of Americans. Importing Muslims to “diversify” is akin to forcing black people to board the KKK in their houses.
Our friends to the left think they are immune to the hatred from the Muslim world, but they aren’t. And our friends to the left denigrate those groups who have been victimized by Islam for almost 2,000 years.
Islam is also unique in that the more religious a person becomes, the more likely they are to hate the USA, Christians, Jews, gays, women, pagans, ect and more likely to engage in jihad against these groups. There is no other religion where the more devout a person is has such a strong correlation with wanting to engage in religious warfare and the subjugation and persecution of all others.
The only other ideology that is like this is socialism. There are many similarities between socialists and Islamists and the two groups have a long history of working together.
Until recently, most of the Arabs living in the USA were Christian despite them being a minority in their homelands. This is because there has been a slow rolling genocide taking place in the ME for almost 2,000 years. Now, our friends to the left want to import the very people who are responsible for this taking place.
Its like the Syrian refugee crisis. We aren’t letting in the people who were the downtrodden victims in Syria. We are letting in the people who did the victimization.
I want to help all of the victims of ISIS but many of them aren’t nice people themselves and I would rather help them retain their homelands rather than import them and their problems to the USA. There are more ways to show our compassion, respect for other cultures, and desire for peace than the few pitiful options the global leftists are allowing us to choose from.
Wodun:
To your point.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/10000-administration-about-hit-syria-refugee-target-fewer-05-are
There is something wrong with the compassionate Left, they are sooo compassionate they demand that everyone commit suicide.