MovieChat Forums > Tyrant (2014) Discussion > Say it Three Times - Islam is Peace

Say it Three Times - Islam is Peace

posted 8 years ago by kuntext
89 replies | jump to latest

The power of three... if you say it three times, they'll believe it. Such is the human mind.

Reminiscent of Dorothy's "There's no place like home" and Point Break's airplane scene, Keanu yelling, *beep* *beep* *beep* and surely Harry Potter's world used this power of three many times. LOL

Is that a good representation of the brain-washing/conditioning going on in Islam? Are they repeating the words, "Islam is Peace" and thinking they are magically true? Were the writers going for satire? Or, are they perhaps too ignorant to understand that without equality - a basic human right - that peace is not attainable? You can't have a male-supremacist society and also have peace. Duh. No male-supremacist ideology is capable of anything so evolved as peace.

I am sincerely asking if that scene was satire because they had a woman whom had to engage in public theater, putting on a costume, saying other people's lines and submitting to the agenda of a cleric/sheik to even be heard. These are the methods available to subjugated and oppressed women, so the Islam is peace chant is obviously propaganda. That scene was very much in need of the little boy in The Emperor's New Clothes to show up shouting, "It's not peace while women and men aren't equal."

BTW, I'm anti-supremacist... please don't whittle that down to anti-Islam... it's just one of many supremacist ideologies.

ETA: It's one week and 72 posts later. The Pew Research Center - a world-renowned, credible source of surveys and polls, conducted an international poll on Islam, what Muslims think, what non-Muslims think of Islam, etc... Here's the poll,

"Muslims and Islam: Key findings in the U.S. and around the world" (July 22, 2016):

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/22/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply
formatting help
[–] StarWarsIsMyLife 8 years ago

That's an interesting take on it. I, being the simpleton that I am, saw it as the "other side" of Islam. One of the things I admired about Tyrant is that it wasn't afraid, unlike much of today's politically correct world of entertainment, to depict the very dark side of Islam. On the other hand, it showed that there isn't anything inherently evil in Islam or Muslims. al-Qadi was a conservative Muslim cleric, yet he was probably the most decent human being on the show this season.

I think you also have to consider "peace" means different things to different people. It's a state of being lacking in conflict, but when is there no conflict? Therefore, peace has come to mean an absence of violence. I think the "Islam is Peace" scene was meant to highlight the two sides of Islam that, for the most part, think along the same lines. It's just that one is willing to use violence to make it's point and impose it's will.

reply
formatting help
[–] kuntext 8 years ago

That's an interesting take on it. I, being the simpleton that I am, saw it as the "other side" of Islam. One of the things I admired about Tyrant is that it wasn't afraid, unlike much of today's politically correct world of entertainment, to depict the very dark side of Islam. On the other hand, it showed that there isn't anything inherently evil in Islam or Muslims. al-Qadi was a conservative Muslim cleric, yet he was probably the most decent human being on the show this season.


I just posted much the same sentiment on another thread. I agree. I think Tyrant has offered the most positive depictions of Muslims ever shown in a tv series. Truly. Because... they didn't show a "one size fits all" character. They showed variety and conflict and doubt... like real people! I think these depictions in fiction do add understanding and the complexity defies the stereotypes.

I disagree about al-Qadi's decency because of his mistreatment of women. He was so far up his own ... ego... he neglected to even notice the anguish of his own wife. He was treating her like his favorite pet - someone to give him comfort yet unworthy of his time or attention until her tormented mind made her a potential threat to him. He'd been shamefully callous and dismissive of her life.

I'd say the most decent character is Daliyah Al-Yazbek because she exemplifies fairness.

I think you also have to consider "peace" means different things to different people. It's a state of being lacking in conflict, but when is there no conflict? Therefore, peace has come to mean an absence of violence. I think the "Islam is Peace" scene was meant to highlight the two sides of Islam that, for the most part, think along the same lines. It's just that one is willing to use violence to make it's point and impose it's will.


Yes, you make a good point about defining peace. My version goes further than an absence of physical violence, because the threat of violence is more frequently used than violence itself, and that condition is certainly not experienced as peaceful. More like, "passive acquiescence" or "successful oppression."

So, I define peace as, "Do as you will but harm none." Patriarchal religious ideologies are male-supremacist power structures which prohibit equality, freedom and peace.

Here's one real-life fact which is informing my view. The United Nations offers peace-building funding for nations which earn the designation, "post-conflict." For example, the DRC - Democratic Republic of the Congo - suffers a genocide, they enter into peace negotiations, call a truce and come to an agreement. Those negotiations do NOT include the state or safety of women and girls.

So, what actually happens is that the genocide shifts to a flat-out femicide. The women and girls are raped and maimed and killed, but the post-conflict designation and funding continue because females do not count in male-supremacist cultures and societies. There are Muslims and Christians and other religious groups living there - ALL are patriarchal religions which is a supremacist mindset. There can be no peace while such inequity and hatred and entitlement exist, and worse still, that it be called "holy" or "normal" or "right."

I saw how the women in that scene were working to unite factions, which is laudable. :) But, I also saw the irony that these women were working to promote a system which tolerated the subjugation and oppression of women while thinking themselves to be advancing freedom! It's the oppressed oppressing themselves! That's why I questioned if the writers were aiming for satire.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. :)


Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply
formatting help
[–] StarWarsIsMyLife 8 years ago

I just posted much the same sentiment on another thread. I agree. I think Tyrant has offered the most positive depictions of Muslims ever shown in a tv series. Truly. Because... they didn't show a "one size fits all" character. They showed variety and conflict and doubt... like real people! I think these depictions in fiction do add understanding and the complexity defies the stereotypes.


It's almost paradoxical in the sense that the politically correct and the SJW cohort go to great pains to disassociate extremism and violence with Islam, but ultimately only create more resentment by attempting to ignore what are rather obvious problems in which religion plays a part of the problem. Tyrant depicts Islam is such a multi-spectral manner that you end up neither hating nor loving Islam. Instead, you come to appreciate and respect them as people.

I disagree about al-Qadi's decency because of his mistreatment of women. He was so far up his own ... ego... he neglected to even notice the anguish of his own wife. He was treating her like his favorite pet - someone to give him comfort yet unworthy of his time or attention until her tormented mind made her a potential threat to him. He'd been shamefully callous and dismissive of her life.


I'm not going to dispute any of that. But what made al-Qadi so endearing in my eyes is a bit personal. The more vocal corners of American society (that includes education and the media) generally hold religious people in contempt, particularly those who hold more conservative views. Often, they're derided and portrayed as angry, bitter folks who "cling to guns and religion," as our president once said. While I agree there may be a grain of truth to that, I also know, from personal experience, that these awful conservative religious people are some of the most compassionate and kind people I've ever known. It's the "secular" and the self-described "tolerant" who seem to be so judgmental and scornful of others. The religious folks are the ones that never try to force their beliefs down your throat, are always willing to lend a helping hand, and accept everyone for who they are. Most of these people tended to be Christian. al-Qadi is Muslim, but his character reminded me of the good people I've just described. If it takes a Muslim for people to realize being religious doesn't make you an evil, intolerant person, then so be it. This is why his character meant so much to me.

I'd say the most decent character is Daliyah Al-Yazbek because she exemplifies fairness.


Daliyah was definitely the most tragic character on the show. The scene where they force-fed her was so difficult to watch. Her beauty, both inner and outer, contrasts with the ugliness she has had to endure. But, going along with what you said about al-Qadi, a theme of the show is that being right hardly means anything in a place like the Middle East. Nobody's perfect, but the truly "good" people seem to have the worst go of it. Daliyah was the most decent person on the show and now she's incarcerated, indefinitely. Fauzi may want all the right things, but his weakness makes him impotent and he leaves his country that he loves so much twice as a result. The difference is, Daliyah genuinely wanted to create unity without seeking power. She was the one person who didn't have a tyrant lurking inside her.

reply
formatting help
[–] Dangerous-Boy 8 years ago

The problem with Al-Qadi is that he wanted to religious law throughout the whole country.

-----
His foundation lies in the holy mountains. Selah.

reply
formatting help
[–] kuntext 8 years ago

Tyrant depicts Islam is such a multi-spectral manner that you end up neither hating nor loving Islam. Instead, you come to appreciate and respect them as people.


Agreed.

There was also very little actually shown about the religious practices of Islam. Calls to prayer and beads and rugs don't really cover how much connection there is between the religion and every day life. As a matter of fact, I read a comment about this story in a Muslim country and I wondered why they saw it that way. I saw that Muslims were there but didn't see them as the defining factor in what kind of nation it was.

As the series progressed, the struggle between religion and government became more prominent. (Reminded me of America's struggle to keep Christian influence out of government... it's a battle which is ongoing.)

The series also avoided showing how frequently the barbarism of female genital mutilation happens and that's an unforgivable exclusion of the truth, even in fiction. Kind of reeks of a KKK perspective on justice... leaving lynchings out.

I disagree about al-Qadi's decency because of his mistreatment of women. He was so far up his own ... ego... he neglected to even notice the anguish of his own wife. He was treating her like his favorite pet - someone to give him comfort yet unworthy of his time or attention until her tormented mind made her a potential threat to him. He'd been shamefully callous and dismissive of her life.

I'm not going to dispute any of that. But what made al-Qadi so endearing in my eyes is a bit personal. ...

... al-Qadi is Muslim, but his character reminded me of the good people...


You have absolutely disputed that. I'm saying that a man does not meet the criteria for goodness if he's a male-supremacist. Because it's a form of hatred, no better than a White Supremacist... same mental deficiency - only difference is what target they've chosen to oppress. Is it possible that such hateful people have admirable qualities, too? Sure, Hitler is a great example of skillful public speaking and persuasion. Doesn't make him "good."

I don't see what you are seeing. The guy used his power to disrupt democratic elections. He used his entitlements and advantages in a male-supremacist society to abuse his power to control women. At home, he treated his own wife as a servant and finally deemed her worthy of his attention when it became necessary to save his own butt. What's to admire in this spoiled, egotistical, power-hungry coward? Truly, he's so unjust, so unfair... where's the goodness?

Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply
formatting help
[–] StarWarsIsMyLife 8 years ago

You have absolutely disputed that. I'm saying that a man does not meet the criteria for goodness if he's a male-supremacist. Because it's a form of hatred, no better than a White Supremacist... same mental deficiency - only difference is what target they've chosen to oppress. Is it possible that such hateful people have admirable qualities, too? Sure, Hitler is a great example of skillful public speaking and persuasion. Doesn't make him "good."

I don't see what you are seeing. The guy used his power to disrupt democratic elections. He used his entitlements and advantages in a male-supremacist society to abuse his power to control women. At home, he treated his own wife as a servant and finally deemed her worthy of his attention when it became necessary to save his own butt. What's to admire in this spoiled, egotistical, power-hungry coward? Truly, he's so unjust, so unfair... where's the goodness?


This is precisely the judgmental and scornful attitude I was referring to. We may not like the customs and practices of other cultures, but guess what, it's their customs and practices. Not to mention things aren't always what they seem. I'm the last person to ever want to convert to Islam or to live in a Muslim country, but I don't necessarily pass judgment on them for their practices either. There's plenty of things going on in this world that'll make your head spin, trust me.

I'm also over this idea that "hate" is the root issue. "Hate" is like the term "racism" - it's been abused to the point it's original meaning has been lost. More importantly, one need not hate anyone to mistreat them. Most criminals don't necessarily hate their victims - they see them as a means to an end and/or don't think all that much of them. It's the fact they don't care about them nor empathize with them on any level that makes it easier to victimize other humans.

There's a scene in the movie Mississippi Burning that illustrates this concept very well:

Gene Hackman's character: You know, if I were a Negro, I'd probably think the same way they do.
Willem Dafoe's character: If you were a Negro, nobody would give a damn what you thought.

That says it. Just like having Black friends doesn't necessarily mean you're incapable of being racist, not being hateful doesn't mean you can't hold prejudices nor doing bad things to others. All you have to do is believe someone to be of complete insignificance.

Anyway, al-Qadi just reminds me of some of the better people I've known. You may not share the same beliefs, but it doesn't mean they can't be good people.

reply
formatting help
[–] Dangerous-Boy 8 years ago

except al-Qadi wanted to bring religion into the government and people's lives. Don't you remember he wanted sharia in the family courts when he was arguing with leila?

Instead of the sword, he used the smile like christian missionaries right before the europeans come and exploit the native's resources.

-----
His foundation lies in the holy mountains. Selah.

reply
formatting help
[–] kuntext 8 years ago

You have absolutely disputed that. I'm saying that a man does not meet the criteria for goodness if he's a male-supremacist. Because it's a form of hatred, no better than a White Supremacist... same mental deficiency - only difference is what target they've chosen to oppress. Is it possible that such hateful people have admirable qualities, too? Sure, Hitler is a great example of skillful public speaking and persuasion. Doesn't make him "good."

I don't see what you are seeing. The guy used his power to disrupt democratic elections. He used his entitlements and advantages in a male-supremacist society to abuse his power to control women. At home, he treated his own wife as a servant and finally deemed her worthy of his attention when it became necessary to save his own butt. What's to admire in this spoiled, egotistical, power-hungry coward? Truly, he's so unjust, so unfair... where's the goodness?

This is precisely the judgmental and scornful attitude I was referring to. We may not like the customs and practices of other cultures, but guess what, it's their customs and practices. Not to mention things aren't always what they seem. I'm the last person to ever want to convert to Islam or to live in a Muslim country, but I don't necessarily pass judgment on them for their practices either. There's plenty of things going on in this world that'll make your head spin, trust me.


If you look again, I did not say anything about Islam - you did. I am "scornful" of male-supremacists, much akin to the way I am "scornful" of the KKK. al-Qadi could have just as easily have been an American Christian Fundamentalist, equally backwards and hateful towards women.

And, while I celebrate variety in cultures, I adhere to a fair-minded standard of "Do as you will but harm none." That includes harm done to women and to girls. That is not about cultural variations... as a matter of fact... misogyny crosses all boundaries.

al-Qadi is a misogynist, so yeah, he doesn't rate on the manhood scale because his mind is warped and undeveloped like that. No misogynist can make a claim to have achieved manhood - same kind of damaged mind as a race supremacist. Would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous and pathetic and sad.

It seems a requirement to repeat this... just because he's a Muslim character doesn't mean he's cornered the market on misogyny. It would be a huge mistake to think that.

Anyway, al-Qadi just reminds me of some of the better people I've known. You may not share the same beliefs, but it doesn't mean they can't be good people.


Then my wish for you is that you meet such great people that your thermometer on what constitutes goodness rises.


Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply
formatting help
[–] FateTheMagnificent 8 years ago

The series also avoided showing how frequently the barbarism of female genital mutilation happens and that's an unforgivable exclusion of the truth, even in fiction.


Female genital mutilation is more a societal practice than a religious one and is actually not commonly practiced in Middle Eastern countries, except among Kurds and immigrant workers. It is also practiced by many African Christians.

reply
formatting help
[–] kuntext 8 years ago

The series also avoided showing how frequently the barbarism of female genital mutilation happens and that's an unforgivable exclusion of the truth, even in fiction.

Female genital mutilation is more a societal practice than a religious one and is actually not commonly practiced in Middle Eastern countries, except among Kurds and immigrant workers. It is also practiced by many African Christians.


Yes, I'm glad you expounded but I want to be clear that while that part is true, it is also practiced by Muslims.

I was making an observation about the depiction of women's lives rather than one of religious or cultural traditions being the cause of their harm. The choice to exclude the truth is one to be noticed and considered. Why treat it as if it were an ancillary detail? Like, if penises were being hacked off would that be considered irrelevant to the culture? It was a bad decision to never even mention it once.

I was referring to this:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

^^^ WHO - World Health Organization report on FGM including prevalence in the Middle East.

I also refer to this - "Stop FGM - Middle East":

In other countries in the Middle East and Asia, the struggle against FGM is still at a starting point. Through continuous research we can draw a vast map now including Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, India, the Maledives, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Oman, the U.A.E.

One of the campaign’s focal points since the start has been religion. While FGM is not related to religion everywhere it exists, all evidence in Asia points to a strong connection between Islam and FGM.

We realized early on that it is essential for any campaign against FGM to discuss religion and to find religious leaders who correct the assumption of FGM as an Islamic duty or recommended practice. Therefore we collect Fatwas against FGM.

http://www.stopfgmmideast.org/


Let's not forget about America. Newsweek reported last year:



FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION ON THE RISE IN THE U.S.

BY LUCY WESTCOTT ON 2/6/15

http://www.newsweek.com/fgm-rates-have-doubled-us-2004-304773


Religion, tradition, politics, woman-hating, insanity... I don't personally care which excuse to destroy a girl is being used... just stop!

Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply
formatting help
[–] Gary-161 8 years ago

>>Were the writers going for satire? Or, are they perhaps too ignorant to understand that without equality - a basic human right - that peace is not attainable?

According to the writer:


Neither Chris nor I are speak with any authority on that [the soul of Islam], but we did want to reflect voices in Islam that don’t get a platform or that stage enough in real life because they are blunted by louder, more violent and angrier voices. So we gave a fictional platform to some very real voices. Those are some of the voices that some of our regional consultants on the show felt the series had kept out of the story.


That was one of the limitations of the series. They didn't want to get bogged down in a theological debate in a crowded storyline, preferring to just "put it out there."

reply
formatting help
[–] Caribbean_Smurf 8 years ago

but we did want to reflect voices in Islam that don’t get a platform or that stage enough in real life because they are blunted by louder, more violent and angrier voices

Yes, well. those louder, violent, angry voices are louder because so many more mouths are spewing them.

reply
formatting help
[–] kuntext 8 years ago

Yes, well. those louder, violent, angry voices are louder because so many more mouths are spewing them.


Look at the thread. So far, three posters are sharing POV's. One offered a reference which related to my question, albeit, indirectly. Still, it's interesting and adds information to consider, from the proverbial horse's mouth. Good stuff. Very generous of that poster to take a moment to post it. :)

Another poster disagreed but also with generosity of spirit, offered details about what they noticed or liked. Again, good stuff.

Now, as for "spewing"... which posts express that?

It's like you miss the good stuff. These writers have added these depictions of the variety and complexity present in Islamic life and how they interact with others. Heck, even how they define, "others." It's a creative act of peace-making to add understanding where there was once only ignorance and fear. It's good to inspire curiosity because it leads to something most natural in we human beings - caring.

I'm not suggesting that you suddenly turn pro-Islam. I am suggesting that if you have a specific complaint... that can be discussed. But when you generalize like you are doing, you are inviting rejection and dismissal because "global statements are always wrong." LOL, that was irony. 😜

Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply
formatting help
[–] kuntext 8 years ago

>>Were the writers going for satire? Or, are they perhaps too ignorant to understand that without equality - a basic human right - that peace is not attainable?

According to the writer:


Neither Chris nor I are speak with any authority on that [the soul of Islam], but we did want to reflect voices in Islam that don’t get a platform or that stage enough in real life because they are blunted by louder, more violent and angrier voices. So we gave a fictional platform to some very real voices. Those are some of the voices that some of our regional consultants on the show felt the series had kept out of the story.

That was one of the limitations of the series. They didn't want to get bogged down in a theological debate in a crowded storyline, preferring to just "put it out there."


Thank you, Gary. I believe they are being sincere and that they did a commendable job of meeting that goal. I cannot think of any other series which has depicted Muslims in such a comprehensive, diverse and complex way. Quite the opposite of the usual polarized stereotypes of "quiet wise man" or "brainless terrorist." Tyrant presented full and conflicted, admirable and despicable, complex people. Kudos to the writers. I'm a fan. :)

My question was specific to that scene. The rampant misogyny crossed political, religious and geographical boundaries so the irony of the women delivering such words was astounding. (Which is not to say that it won't be women whom lead humanity to reject violence as an option.)

I guess that's my one criticism of most shows - they really do need to hire writers with the ability to add the same fullness and complexity of female characters as they did here with Muslim characters.

Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply
formatting help
[–] Gary-161 8 years ago

>>I guess that's my one criticism of most shows - they really do need to hire writers with the ability to add the same fullness and complexity of female characters as they did here with Muslim characters.

The makers are from secular liberal democracies which in the current climate at least tend towards scepticism of power. So that scene suited those sensibilities in that religion is used by Leila to get what she wants.

reply
formatting help
[–] kuntext 8 years ago

>>I guess that's my one criticism of most shows - they really do need to hire writers with the ability to add the same fullness and complexity of female characters as they did here with Muslim characters.

The makers are from secular liberal democracies which in the current climate at least tend towards scepticism of power. So that scene suited those sensibilities in that religion is used by Leila to get what she wants.


Thanks, Gary. Yes, the writers did a good job of showing her initial goals and then the oppression she faced and the only options available if she weren't to remain silenced. That compromise was cringe-worthy.

I don't mean to imply that they got it all wrong when it comes to depictions of women but there's still a lot of character development missing.

A current writer whom is showing a real "feel" for female characters is Steven Knight, creator of Peaky Blinders. He's got some room to grow too but he's still one of the most skilled at it. He has a good grasp of how women make sense in nonlinear ways and in understanding and in valuing that about women, he's able to depict them in more realistic ways. Knight states that he grew up in a matriarchal culture so his experience with smart and powerful and complex women is very much a part of his ability to write female characters with agency. Kudos to Knight. :)

Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply
formatting help
[–] kuntext 8 years ago

I wanted to add... I think that in a way, comparing writers is like comparing colors... to each their own.

While I find Knights' writing to be more progressive with both strong, complex female characters AND the kind of male characters whom know how to relate to these women, I do think that the Tyrant writers should be given credit for their strengths which include very nuanced and sophisticated treatment of a topic which is treated like a mine field in current day news.

Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply
formatting help
[–] kuntext 8 years ago

Caribbean -

Islam is war. Islam is war. It does not matter what some stupid TV show is trying to convince us of. Or what an incredibly small majority of so-called ''moderate'' muslims with fake smiles tell us.

Islam is war. Islam is conquest. Islam is death and Islam is destruction of everything good and true in our world. It is a cancer that is eating away at humanity.


Wow, that's some serious hate you have chosen to add to the world.

I'm against ALL male-supremacist ideologies, which all patriarchal religions advance and support and profit financially from, but what I really object to is any supremacist ideology, whether it's based on one human organ (skin) or another human organ (genitalia). Both lack logic and reason - to the degree of harming others, so I object strongly.

But, I don't hate supremacists as human beings. They were indoctrinated, whether Christians, Muslims, KKK, LDS, Jews, Hindus, bigots, homophobes or misogynists. They were taught that business by those whom they admired and trusted and respected and they were taught that as vulnerable children. So, while I hate the supremacist ideology for all the harm it does, the people themselves are worthy of a respectful ear and conversation. How else will they break free of the ignorance which limits them?

So, I hope you break free of hatred for any group. It serves no one. Just fight the harm in ways which don't cause harm. LOL, that's kind of the message of this series, IMHO.

Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply
formatting help
[–] danloki 8 years ago

Islam is war. Islam is war. It does not matter what some stupid TV show is trying to convince us of. Or what an incredibly small majority of so-called ''moderate'' muslims with fake smiles tell us.


Woah. Were you born ignorant or have you been indoctrinated by the school of xenophobia and stupidity.

reply
formatting help
[–] censorshipsucks06 8 years ago

Say it Three Times - hell. I'll say it once. That's Hollywood pushing a pipe dream. That scene was complete and utter fiction. It would NEVER happen. The sad fact is - we NEED that to happen - all over the place - and publicly. But it's not happening. Ask yourselves why.

reply
formatting help
[–] kuntext 8 years ago

Say it Three Times - hell. I'll say it once. That's Hollywood pushing a pipe dream. That scene was complete and utter fiction. It would NEVER happen.


Well, yeah, it's a fictional show. Hollywood pushing a pipe dream... are you objecting to something about the scene? I can't quite understand what you are saying.

Like, do you mean that you want to see Muslims gathering peacefully to unite and work towards peaceful conflict resolutions and to do so in public? If so, aren't you supportive of Tyrant for depicting that?

The sad fact is - we NEED that to happen - all over the place - and publicly. But it's not happening. Ask yourselves why.


What's your idea of "why?"

I've asked the younger generation why they aren't storming the streets over quite a few problems in America today. The answer... twitter. They say that Bush made citizens sign contracts limiting their free speech before they were allowed to enter buildings where he was speaking. They say that journalists got embedded (controlled) and are being killed in rising numbers. They say that the American police are enemies of citizens, militarized and ready to turn against their own people, for pay.

They say judges are bought and lawyers are cattle herders. Sexism, racism and financial elitism make the system dangerous for protesters whom would dissent... so why enter a playing field (the public streets) where you are easily silenced, injured, captured or killed, when twitter can raise a voice and aim a spotlight. This is why they value the freedom of the internet.

What I wondered might be apathy was simply a change of venue and a shift in tools of persuasion.

If we really dumb this down... the question of what Muslims should be doing about violent Muslims, just as an attempt at empathy... ever had a family member or a friend or a roommate or a neighbor whom was violent? How successful is anyone at stopping the behavior choices of others? Seems to me that some people are expressing some very unrealistic expectations of people whom aren't violent, just because they are also Muslim. Like, I get the whole, "It takes a village" concept, but since when did the village end at being Muslim?

I'm just saying, the dividing line here isn't Muslim versus non-Muslim, it's violent versus nonviolent. What I did love about that scene was that democratic elections were being discussed as a national need.

Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply
formatting help
[–] censorshipsucks06 8 years ago

I'm not sure where your confusion is, other than you aren't grasping the concept of my post one second, and the next are quoting the explanation you seek.

EXAMPLE: you write

do you mean that you want to see Muslims gathering peacefully to unite and work towards peaceful conflict resolutions and to do so in public? If so, aren't you supportive of Tyrant for depicting that?
Then quote me saying
The sad fact is - we NEED that to happen - all over the place - and publicly. But it's not happening.
As to "ask yourselves why", I don't think it's 'apathy'. I believe it's because there's a lot of tacit approval, or fear, or both. And I also don't believe a lot of these people who claim they are 'peaceful' and Islamic. Check out the term "Taqiyya". Muslims are taught that lying to 'the infidels', or non-believers, is fine if they are not accepting of Islam. Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. There's also another term - "Kitman".

While I believe apathy exists in many cultures and forms, there's a bit more going on with Islam.

Again, as I wrote elsewhere, backing up what another poster said about Muslims not being allowed to leave their faith - put that to the test. Go to Mecca and stand up and say you are leaving the Islamic faith and rejecting it. The odds you make it out of that square alive are not in your favor. That kind of tenet is not representative of a religion of 'peace'.

reply
formatting help
[–] kuntext 8 years ago

'm not sure where your confusion is, other than you aren't grasping the concept of my post one second, and the next are quoting the explanation you seek.


It's the internet... patience, please.

I was confused at your wording, "Hollywood pushing a pipedream." Pushing? Okay, that's a negative word choice. But, you follow up with praise for the scene which you think there should be more depictions of. It sounds like you contradict yourself, so I seek clarification.

I also have contradicting thoughts... it's a part of intelligence and an open mind to do so, so I mean no criticism. I'm just trying to figure out what you are saying. As written, it sounds like you are criticizing Hollywood for doing something you want.

All that aside, my request for clarification means - "I value your view enough to ask you to express it more." We don't agree on everything but I find differing views to be of value, too.

As to "ask yourselves why", I don't think it's 'apathy'. I believe it's because there's a lot of tacit approval, or fear, or both. And I also don't believe a lot of these people who claim they are 'peaceful' and Islamic. Check out the term "Taqiyya". Muslims are taught that lying to 'the infidels', or non-believers, is fine if they are not accepting of Islam. Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. There's also another term - "Kitman".

While I believe apathy exists in many cultures and forms, there's a bit more going on with Islam.

Again, as I wrote elsewhere, backing up what another poster said about Muslims not being allowed to leave their faith - put that to the test. Go to Mecca and stand up and say you are leaving the Islamic faith and rejecting it. The odds you make it out of that square alive are not in your favor. That kind of tenet is not representative of a religion of 'peace'.


http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/islam-religion-peace

I'm a fan of Intelligence Squared Debates, in general. This one is well presented. For anyone interested in a researched, multi-perspective treatment of the the subject of Islam, this is one of many great resources.

Personally, I'm an anti-theist. That's not only an atheist, I am against ALL religions for much the same reasons stated by Christopher Hitchens on the subject. Again, great research, reasonable and respectful presentation of facts, and conclusions based upon evidence rather than fantasy, indoctrination or propaganda. However, my core reason for rejecting religions is the same reason I reject the KKK - I'm not a supremacist whether that delusion be based on skin color or genitalia.

One reason I enjoyed Tyrant was that it took a panoramic view of a complex clash of multiple cultures. The only bias, IMO, was the decision to avoid, neglect to depict, failure to highlight in any way, the attacks on the genitalia of women as an accepted practice. Arguably the most prolific of the human rights violations within that culture - I found that deafening silence to be an act of creative complicity. AS IF it were not central to the story.

In my anti-theism and in my 50+ years of experience as an American woman, I find empathy for the invisible, the silenced and the oppressed. That includes the current "judgments" against Muslims. My POV is that you don't have to be a fan of anyone's religion to treat them fairly. And, maybe this is just me hoping against hope, but I believe that by treating others fairly, bonds are formed which truly protect us from acts of intolerance because the door remains open for discussion.

Atheism and anti-theism is the mindset of peace.

Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply
formatting help
[–] censorshipsucks06 8 years ago

All that aside, my request for clarification means - "I value your view enough to ask you to express it more." We don't agree on everything but I find differing views to be of value, too.
Fair enough.

reply
formatting help
[–] censorshipsucks06 8 years ago

My POV is that you don't have to be a fan of anyone's religion to treat them fairly. And, maybe this is just me hoping against hope, but I believe that by treating others fairly, bonds are formed which truly protect us from acts of intolerance because the door remains open for discussion.
I see your point. But many religions don't engage in fairness themselves. I personally find it hard to treat people fairly who simply don't engage in fairness themselves. Seeing how many religions, in this case, Islam, subjugate women, gays, and others, and the harshness of the penalties for disobedience, it's hard for me to have an even-handed outlook regarding Islam.

In my experience, if your religion or policies are truly peaceful, there's really no need to shout "We are peaceful!!!". The actions relay that message just fine. Those who scream they are peaceful, usually are doing so because the exact opposite is on display.

reply
formatting help
[–] danloki 8 years ago

Do you personally know any muslims, censy? I've travelled extensively through muslim countries and currently have muslims living next door and working in my local shopping centre. I've never experienced anything but kindness and hospitality from them apart from a cop in pakistan and he could have been a belligerent cop anywhere in the world and with any religion or no religion. The people saying 'we are peaceful' are those who feel lumped in with the psychotic extremists. Ofcourse they have a right to be offended at ignorant people assuming all muslims are terrorists.

reply
formatting help
[–] censorshipsucks06 8 years ago

Do you personally know any muslims, censy?
I do not count anyone who follows Islam as a friend. Only because for the same reason I don't have any Rastifarian friends, I just don't know many.

I have worked closely with Muslims though. One was my Co-Manager and "2nd in Command" so to speak, at a business in the early 90's. I found him to be demanding about his 'rights' as a follower of Islam, belligerent about it, and had a real attitude. Nevertheless, I took all of his religious requests seriously, and actually wrote our schedules to accommodate him. He broke several key rules, mishandled company funds, and was fired by myself and my superior at the time. I was then sued and he filed an EEOC complaint against me, both of which were thrown out of court. The EEOC was the most satisfying, as he had claimed I discriminated against him based on religion. Now, I am white. The majority of this office was African American. Our corporate attorney flew in from out of state, and interviewed EVERY employee about me. I was very worried, as anyone with any kind of ax to grind with me could easily throw me under a bus. The attorney stated, after all the interviews, that he wished every case could be as easy as this one was going to be. He said when asked if I displayed any racial attitudes or tendencies, my people not only vigorously defended me, but some actually laughed and scoffed at the suggestion. When we got to the EEOC hearing, one of the complaints was that I had deliberately forced him to work night shifts during Ramadan, to make it more difficult for him due to fasting and that I did so because I knew he was fasting until sunset, and would have to extend that until after 9PM due to a night shift. And that I regularly scheduled him on Fridays during Jumu'ah. My documented schedules showed I NEVER scheduled him for night shifts during Ramadan, and went so far as to give him every Friday off. The judge then asked him 'give me the dates of Ramadan'. To which he could not do (Ramadan is at different times each year because it's based on a lunar Islamic calendar). The judge admonished him and threw out the complaints. He lost his civil suit as well.

Now, that was a bad experience. I certainly don't think he was that way because he was Islamic. I think he was a jerk. I've worked with other Muslims who were nice and were 'social/work' friends.

None of these experiences change my opinion of the overall religion, and what I think the truly peaceful Muslims should do, which I stated with a comparison to Martin Luther's Reformation.

reply
formatting help
[–] danloki 8 years ago

I think he was a jerk.


Yep. Plenty of those around. I got called a racist at work years ago simply asking a filing clerk of a different skin colour to grab a file for me. I was like WTF??? That was her job.

The screams of 'you're a racist' these days have diluted the meaning of the word.

Getting back to the muslims you have or are working with, are they given prayer time if they request it? I'm just curious. As for ramadan which is a celebration I've experienced and really like, I'm not really sure what that guys' problem was. They break the fast at sunset. It doesnt go all night long. Break fast then go to work for his shift. What's the biggy. Much easier to be on night shift during that month so you're not surrounded by people eating all day. He just sounds like an angry turd because you were 1st in command.

reply
formatting help
[–] censorshipsucks06 8 years ago

He just sounds like an angry turd
Oh, he was. He was a problem before he got to me. He had been transferred for sexual harassment. When he arrived, we sat in my office and I told him, "Look - I don't care about what happened, as far as I'm concerned, you're here with a clean slate". He replied I was out of line for even saying that - as his slate WAS clean and bringing it up suggested otherwise. I knew then I had a real problem on my hands. Within 48 hours, I had to tell him that talking to a female co-worker and saying he'd like to 'lick her like a stamp' was not going to be tolerated (and reported it to cover my own ass). I don't even want to go into what his outlook on women was.

As for Ramadan, his shift would start right before sunset, and his break wouldn't have occurred for several more hours - so he'd have to 'extend his fast'. Or so he said. The fact was, I never scheduled him for night shifts during Ramadan, so we never had to put it to the test. The guy was a liar. Probably the biggest problem person I worked with in my life - just because of his attitude.

Now, the Muslims I worked with other than him. Over my career they were either lateral to me, or in different departments in the different companies I worked for/with. If they did request prayer times, I didn't know about it one way or the other. It wasn't anything we discussed. But it was never an issue AFAIK.

reply
formatting help
[–] danloki 8 years ago

I dont know how people in this day and age, of any cultural background, think they can get away with talking to a coworker that way in countries where there is anti sexual harassment legislation in place.

Just on the prayer question, it wasnt really important because a lot of middle path muslims dont pray 5 times a day anyway, the same as not all muslims regard booze as haram, but it reminded me of some commentary on fb when that burkhini incident occurred in Nice (yes my mind does flit all over the place so bear with me). People brought up prayer rooms in corps and how that's reverse discrimination ie discriminating against the non muslims in a corporation. I was at the airport on the weekend and there is a designated prayer room. It's for everyone to use for navel gazing, not just one religious group. If I wanted to go in there and do some meditation I was quite free to do so.

Actually that now reminds me of when a corp I worked in had a smoking room. There was whining from non smokers that they didnt have a special little room to socialise like the smokers did. LMAO. They were quite free to go in and socialise in that stinking room if they wanted.

OK, that's my random musings of the morning. Thanks for playing

reply
formatting help
[–] censorshipsucks06 8 years ago

That clown and that incident happened just as the 'sexual harassment' evolution was just occurring. That comment he made, in and of itself if said today, would be grounds for immediate termination.

As for smoking - the big 'anti-smoking' push was just starting then too. I used to smoke until the late 90's, and I smoked like a chimney. Co-workers HATED coming into my actual office, as there was a perpetual cloud in the room. But the corp rules at the time said the 'smoking area' was to be defined by the buildings ranking officer, which was me. I kinda drove people nuts because I said "The designated smoking area shall be a 10 foot radius of whatever area I am currently occupying.".

SIDE NOTE: The best thing I ever did was quit that habit.

reply
formatting help
[–] danloki 8 years ago

I wonder how the angry clown would have reacted if an openly gay man had said the same thing to him.

When did your sexual harassment legislation come in? Ours was 1984. The smoking rooms came in shortly after that, then I think they were disbanded about late 90s and smokers had to choof on the street. Now some areas of the city are designated no smoking at all. Going the way of Singapore, which is not a bad thing. Give up or smoke at home. You cant even legally smoke in your car now if there are kids in the back. Then you get the smokers squawking that they're being discriminated against because of their addiction. It's called 'Global Whining'.

I love your designated smoking area. That would have made me laugh to hear you say that.

Interesting thread hijack. Back so Singapore, that's a real melting pot of ethnicities, cultures and religions and it seems to work well there. Just about every day there would be a religious/cultural holiday and I guess they just write up the rosters accordingly to accommodate everyone.

reply
formatting help
[–] censorshipsucks06 8 years ago

They say that the American police are enemies of citizens, militarized and ready to turn against their own people, for pay.
Well gee, 'they' say it. Doesn't make it fact. This is a current hot topic in America. I know MANY police officers, and have ridden in many cars. That statement is simply false.

If we really dumb this down... the question of what Muslims should be doing about violent Muslims, just as an attempt at empathy... ever had a family member or a friend or a roommate or a neighbor whom was violent? How successful is anyone at stopping the behavior choices of others? Seems to me that some people are expressing some very unrealistic expectations of people whom aren't violent, just because they are also Muslim. Like, I get the whole, "It takes a village" concept, but since when did the village end at being Muslim?
The realistic solution is for the 'vast majority' of Muslims to break away and start their own, truly peaceful, denomination of Islam. If they truly can't change the Sharia seeking Muslims, than this is an option. It's not completely unheard of. In the Christian faith, Martin Luther's Reformation was a breakaway from a Catholic Church that had a much stronger hold on it's people. A people by the way who didn't have means to communicate on a global level as exists today.

It's my opinion that the will simply isn't there. Either to change Islam from within and purge it of most of it's violent aspects (as Christians have done), or to break away and practice and openly advocate a truly peaceful religion.

Here's a couple of questions: Would the world be better or worse off right now if ISLAM was suddenly a thing of the past? Would the world be a better or worse place if ALL religion was a thing of the past??

Religion does have it's good points. But boy does it come with a high price.

reply
formatting help
[–] kuntext 8 years ago

They say that the American police are enemies of citizens, militarized and ready to turn against their own people, for pay.

Well gee, 'they' say it. Doesn't make it fact. This is a current hot topic in America. I know MANY police officers, and have ridden in many cars. That statement is simply false.


It's is a true statement that the perception is out there that police no longer exist to protect and to serve. I'm saying that this is one of the reasons why dissent has moved from the streets to the internet, you tube and twitter. The issue is more than a "hot topic," it has changed the behavior and involvement of American citizens.

In terms of Tyrant, it depicted similar fears and similar adaptations in response to armed, government repression of dissent. I am suggesting that Muslims not speaking out against terrorists may be, in part, hampered by such intimidation. I don't have all of the answers. I'm just pointing out the current environment for public dissent.

As for the authority or expertise you appear to borrow from your cop car rides, this is whom our family lost so you are preaching to the choir. BTW, our family is one of thousands with such stories, but this one still grabs headlines decades later:

http://articles.philly.com/2014-10-07/news/54696455_1_death-row-daniel-faulkner-maureen-faulkner

In addition to the loss of Danny, was the wake-up call it was for me, personally. I grew up in Philly. Loved the place. Loved that we had "Fun Sundays" in which the various ethnic neighborhoods came out and met to share their food, clothing, art, music and dance. Then Osage Avenue got bombed and Danny was murdered. All of those years, I thought I came from a city where we all got along. I had also been actively volunteering with Amnesty International since I was a teen so I cared about human rights. Yet, I had no idea that Philly's Police Department was racking up complaints about violations against Black suspects. It is possible to be deeply involved and STILL have a severely limited view... this is why we need to listen to each other.

You see, the situation holds two truths. Danny was a lovely man and a fine officer whom volunteered working with minority youths. One of the good guys. :) Mumia murdered him. What is also true is that there's this lingering cloud over the case because the other cops handled things poorly. "Poorly" has been described by others as negligent, sloppy, racist and illegally. Things aren't so simple as "which team are you on?"

Which brings me to this:

The realistic solution is for the 'vast majority' of Muslims to break away and start their own, truly peaceful, denomination of Islam. If they truly can't change the Sharia seeking Muslims, than this is an option. It's not completely unheard of. In the Christian faith, Martin Luther's Reformation was a breakaway from a Catholic Church that had a much stronger hold on it's people. A people by the way who didn't have means to communicate on a global level as exists today.

It's my opinion that the will simply isn't there. Either to change Islam from within and purge it of most of it's violent aspects (as Christians have done), or to break away and practice and openly advocate a truly peaceful religion.


I think that Muslims are saying that the violent extremists do not represent their views or desires. I have Catholic, Jewish, Methodist and Wiccan friends of 4 & 5+ decades... and each one cherry-picks their religious texts and rejects the calls to hatred, supremacy, enslavement, rape, racial prejudice, woman-hating, etc... which are written in ALL of those books. So, why would it not be the same for Muslims?

The notion that Christians have done something which is a step towards nonviolence is ridiculous. It's a male-supremacist ideology which taints the minds of those whom otherwise, using reason, would have been fair human beings. More male-supremacists have killed while feeling entitled than any other group in human history. One religion is NOT the problem and is not the threat.

Here's a couple of questions: Would the world be better or worse off right now if ISLAM was suddenly a thing of the past? Would the world be a better or worse place if ALL religion was a thing of the past??


https://youtu.be/d5OMNPmoVAw

^^^ Intelligence Squared Debate on religious matters. I'm a fan of Christopher Hitchens (whom also suffered from a male-supremacist ideology, but managed to find reason on other matters), so he can address your questions in a far more entertaining and interesting way than I can, so I refer you to him.


Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply
formatting help
[–] danloki 8 years ago

I think that Muslims are saying that the violent extremists do not represent their views or desires. I have Catholic, Jewish, Methodist and Wiccan friends of 4 & 5+ decades... and each one cherry-picks their religious texts and rejects the calls to hatred, supremacy, enslavement, rape, racial prejudice, woman-hating, etc... which are written in ALL of those books. So, why would it not be the same for Muslims?


Needs to be in bold.

reply
formatting help
[–] venanttout 8 years ago

Plus, you can't leave the ideology or you will be killed.


No, that's just the modrn trend.

In classical ISlam, you can be also a second class Citizen (with some kind of rights) or a slave.

Ahh, the flaws of modernity...

reply
formatting help
[–] KittyKat214 8 years ago

Islam is Peace!

*Fires AK-47 into the air*

reply
formatting help
[–] censorshipsucks06 8 years ago

Really? Go to MECCA and stand in a public square and denounce ISLAM and say you are walking away from ISLAM. See how long you live among your followers of 'peaceful Islam followers'.

reply
formatting help
[–] larosat 8 years ago

Islam is 72 virgins waiting in Paradise for you. Wait say what????

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] censorshipsucks06 8 years ago

That's just racist *beep*
Tell me what you think would happen if you were to openly renounce Islam at Mecca? Please - enlighten me to what would occur.

Pivoting to 'racism' just shows you don't even understand the term. You just think it's a cool thing to throw at someone discussing race or religion. The INTOLERANT group in this discussion is Islam. If you can't grasp that - that's your issue.

Here's another one, go to Mecca and try and have a "Gay Pride Parade". See what happens.

Using your logic, it would have been 'racist' to call the Nazi's out for what they were - homicidal genocidal maniacs. Why people here want to defend the most close minded of modern day religions (not including very small nutty ones) is beyond me. Maybe it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside while spewing self righteousness on the net.

reply
formatting help
[–] TejasTeacher 8 years ago

I thought it was a little over the top myself, but not overtly so. I like how this show has been pretty even-handed in it's portrayal of all the different sides to Islam, and didn't pull punches as far as the ISIS stand in (the Caliphate). I am sure there are plenty of Muslims who just want to practice their religion in peace and don't want Sharia law or to force their views on others. But sadly the world has to deal with the fact that there a huge numbers of Muslims in the world, who support Sharia governments replacing democracies and favor terrorism and violence to bring about their paradise on earth. Think about this, if only 1% of Muslims in the world are jihadists or support terror, that would be the population of a US state between Illinois and Florida.

reply
formatting help
[–] DukeRaisin 8 years ago

Ehm, 25-50% of WESTERN muslims support IS, Al-Qaeda, sharia, killings of civilians in the name of islam and so forth.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx

(Before some tool claims the link is biased, there's sources provided for everything listed.)

Not directed at you, but someone has to be pretty *beep* dense to still believe islam is just like any other religion. Religion of piss is more like it. Look it up - a true muslim man MUST sit and pee or risk going to hell cause that's what the "greatest man who ever lived" proclaimed after being teased about it while doing so himself. Probably had such a small one that he'd pee his dress if he was standing up, would also explain the cravings for small children.

reply
formatting help
[–] TejasTeacher 8 years ago

Yes, I get your point. I usually also follow up that 1% line with, "If you believe it's only 1% then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you." I was only citing the usual apologist's creed of "it's only a small number of......."

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] danloki 8 years ago

I thought as much. Thanks for clarifying.

reply
formatting help
[–] censorshipsucks06 8 years ago

Why you defend one of the most close-minded of religions that subjugates women, calls for the murder of gays, and in general, has some REALLY wacko punishments for people is beyond me. I seriously wonder if there were people that defended the Nazi's during WWII. I'm sure 'most of them' weren't bad people either. 

reply
formatting help
[–] danloki 8 years ago

Why you defend one of the most close-minded of religions that subjugates women, calls for the murder of gays, and in general, has some REALLY wacko punishments for people is beyond me.


And christian extremists dont? C'Mon now, Censy.

reply
formatting help
[–] censorshipsucks06 8 years ago

And christian extremists dont? C'Mon now, Censy.
The amount of Christian Extremists as compared to Islamic Extremists is a drop in the bucket. The comparison is so absurd, I'm stunned you would even type it out and post it.

reply
formatting help
[–] danloki 8 years ago

Why is it absurd? All extremists do exactly the same thing, whether it's for religion, animal 'rights', gender bashers etc. I get it, you hate muzzies because you had a problem with one nutbag at work. Not all people who follow holy books are radicalised extremists. And if you dont know the correlations between the Qu'ran, the old testament and the torah (the latter two being what the Qu'ran is based on, you really should do some reading before continuing with your islamaphobic carry on. I'm an atheist but yes, I will defend peaceful, middle path believers and their gods when people want to generalise and lump them in with psychotic terrorists.

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] censorshipsucks06 8 years ago

The Christians have their issues, as do all religions. But in 17 of the 23 countries where the question was asked, at least half of Muslims say sharia is the revealed word of God.

On the flip side, the Westboro Baptist Church has a grand total of 40 members. Let's not confuse the number totals of violent Christians vs Islamic terrorists. Christians are not flying planes into skyscrapers. They aren't shooting up the Bataclan and Paris restaurants. They aren't waging a multiple nation war as ISIS is.

Seriously? You are gonna make that comparison? 


http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

reply
formatting help
[–] danloki 8 years ago

ISIS, the Taliban etc do not represent Islam. They are constantly condemned by clerics and Muslim communities around the world.

If you want to continue to generalise an entire religion based on some nutbags, and using a shtty link posted in the thread to try to back up your argument, I'll leave you to it. I know what I have experienced in Muslim countries and with muslims in my community and social network, not because of one nutbag at work and conspiracy theory websites.

Have a great weekend.

reply
formatting help
[–] censorshipsucks06 8 years ago

I get it, you hate muzzies because you had a problem with one nutbag at work.
This statement is beyond stupid. You want to isolate this down to one experience I had with one Muslim? Go ahead.

The pure numbers don't back your comparison up. You know it, I know it, and anyone who can count knows it. I thought you had a brain between your ears, but I now see I was wrong.

You are correct: Extremists are Extremists. But the sheer number and aggressiveness on a GLOBAL basis that's occurring puts ISLAM at the forefront. Go ahead and concern yourself on an equal level 'animal rights activists' and Islamic terrorists advocating Sharia. Honestly - you either want to appear as some really 'fair minded loving guy', or you are an idiot.

I'm serious - I cannot believe you are dumb enough to even type that garbage.

Have a nice life. I can't waste my time conversing with people that are demonstratively ignorant.

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kuntext 8 years ago

danloki -

If you want to continue to generalise an entire religion based on some nutbags, and using a shtty link posted in the thread to try to back up your argument, I'll leave you to it. I know what I have experienced in Muslim countries and with muslims in my community and social network, not because of one nutbag at work and conspiracy theory websites.


Censy didn't use that link to the biased, unprofessional website. I had posted this one, to at least give posters a chance to see the difference between the facts and the propaganda. Censor cited the Pew Research poll, which is a credible source:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/22/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

It looks like you slipped into reaction-mode, and criticized without first verifying what you thought you were objecting to. That said, Censor either lacks the ability or the will to share information in a fair, unbiased manner. The quotes lifted from the Pew Research study are truncated and devoid of context, but since the link was posted, too, others can see that and verify for themselves.

ISIS, the Taliban etc do not represent Islam. They are constantly condemned by clerics and Muslim communities around the world.


True. I think it is also true that there is a need for a more assertive outcry than what is currently being seen.

But... I feel on unsteady ground in believing that there isn't actually MORE of an outcry against the terrorists, by Muslims, already - but the press simply isn't giving those voices the time or attention. The news/business still adheres to an "if it bleeds, it leads" sort of agenda. That supports ignorance in people whom think they took the time to become informed but were failed by a biased media. Which is one reason why I posted the Pew Research poll.

Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply
formatting help
[–] danloki 8 years ago

But... I feel on unsteady ground in believing that there isn't actually MORE of an outcry against the terrorists, by Muslims, already - but the press simply isn't giving those voices the time or attention.


I agree on this point. There was an incident in my country only last weekend. The press was all over it screaming terrorism terrorism as a knee jerk response to an announcement from ISIS a few days prior when it was the act of a mentally unwell young person. I was talking to someone about it when it happened and said this is just fueling not only the fear, but what those extremists want, and giving maximum attention to lone wolf attention seekers. The press around the world are doing the job for them.
My friends' response - our govt wants us to be afraid.

No thanks. I'll continue on my way enjoying my social network and life experiences without freaking out every time I see a woman with a head scarf.

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] censorshipsucks06 8 years ago

One more time (and try not to call me a racist)

Go to MECCA and stand in a public square and denounce ISLAM and say you are walking away from ISLAM. See how long you live among your followers of 'peaceful Islam followers'.Tell me what you think would happen if you were to openly renounce Islam at Mecca? Please - enlighten me to what would occur.

And again, go to Mecca and try and have a "Gay Pride Parade". See what happens.

The intolerance will be on display by those following Islam. Let me know if you make it out alive, or with your head still attached to your shoulders.

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] censorshipsucks06 8 years ago

Can't answer the questions - pivot to others. Why is it so hard for you to admit how Islam would react to this?

I see Gay Pride Parades all the time in America. What are you talking about?

I see people renounce Christianity more and more in America. They aren't being murdered for it.

Why don't you give me your oh so intellectual assessment about what would happen if you tried to have a Gay Pride Parade in Mecca? Or if you publicly renounced Islam in Mecca - how about during Ramadan?

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] censorshipsucks06 8 years ago

You can't answer the questions. You are obsessed with attacking me, and think by doing so, and making this about me, you can get away with question-dodging on the actual topic and examples I challenged you with.

You either don't know the answer (but you do), or you want to avoid embarrassment because you know giving an honest answer will confirm exactly what I originally wrote that got your panties all in a bunch.

Nice try. Epic fail.

Good night loser.

Enjoy your headless return home from your Mecca Gay Pride Parade, and public refutation of Islam at Mecca.

Oh, here's another assignment. Ask any gay Muslim currently living in the Middle East if it's worse for him there, where if he publicly lived his life in an outward manner he would likely DIE, or if it's worse in American because an idiot Mid-Western baker wouldn't make him and his partner a cake?

Your (and that other guys) feeble attempts to draw a correlation between Middle Eastern Islamic treatment of gays to the American/Christian treatment of gays is one of the most absurd comparisons I've ever seen out here. And that's saying a lot.

Enjoy your life in your fantasy land. I hope you have a safe space to run to.

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] danloki 8 years ago

Angry lil guy, isnt he. Implosion imminent.

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kuntext 8 years ago

cj -

No your answers are

No, you haven't read the Koran;
No, you don't know anything about Sharia Law; and
no, you haven't a clue what the difference is between Shia Islam, Sunni Islam, or Wahhabism. So how can we have a discussion if you know NOTHING about Islam other than what your islamaphobic websites tell you? It's critical that we have a common frame of reference.

I have had lengthy discussions with representatives of each of the three branches of Islam. Have you?

And because you don't, like a true fact-challenged right-wingnut, you run away and hide. How very predictable of you.


Okay, cj, I share your frustration and annoyance with ignorance. Unlike you, I have not "had lengthy discussions with representatives of each of the three branches of Islam."

My question to you is, "So what did they have to say about how to address wide-spread ignorance of Islam?" Did they give you any tips which could help censor (and others) understand? Why have you chosen to play verbal ping-pong instead of generously (and I might add, productively) sharing your experience?

While I disagree with much of Censor's postings, I do see effort there to understand. So, I'm saying to you the same as I've said to censor... don't argue opinions - share the facts you found which informed those opinions. Source them - so it's not a "my god is better than your god" gossip-fest. That's my answer to "how can we have a discussion?"

Do you know what I mean? There's a long list of posts here on this thread which are not much more than, "I'm right. You're wrong, and you're bad for being wrong." How about some middle ground... like, "I read this. Have you seen it?" Respond in kind.

Many propaganda sites hired experts to make their sites appear professional. Not everyone is educated in how to assess their veracity, so if someone posts one, at least others who do know how to critically analyze can see that and hopefully come back and explain what makes the site's information suspect or unreliable or flat-out false.

Or, you know, maybe you find out that the other person's source is more recent or more accurate than the information you began with and you learn.

The ping-pong of frustration over how misinformed "others" are seems fruitless.

I am less interested in your angst with one poster and am far more interested in your experience related to the topic.

Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kuntext 8 years ago

My question to you is, "So what did they have to say about how to address wide-spread ignorance of Islam?" Did they give you any tips which could help censor (and others) understand?


Thanks for posting the other thoughts you have on the subject. :)

Could you also answer my questions, please?

Did the discussion include the PR for Islam?

Did they talk about communication techniques such as referencing facts or rules of ethical debate? Or, even methods of effective persuasion? Anything?

Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply
formatting help
[–] DukeRaisin 8 years ago

Blah blah *lies* blah blah *nonsense* blah blah *crusad... HAHA, just stop embarrassing yourself. Nobody still believe what you're spouting except maybe your close circle of SJWs. T O O L.

Muslim invasions VS the crusades
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo

Prove him wrong cause you can't.

reply
formatting help
[–] DukeRaisin 8 years ago

Now those christians are at it again with bombs in New York and knives in Minnesota.

In my home country of Sweden, the rape capital of the world because of... Multicellular organisms, there's been fires, riots with molotovs thrown at the police (that btw does nothing to aggravate them and arrest no-one for the crimes per usual), cars set on fire, and explosions just during last night and in four different cities. Damn those christian missionaries are hard to please despite all the free *beep* they receive as soon as they show up and grace us with their present.

/SARCASM

reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DukeRaisin 8 years ago

Aww, you fell off your pretentious soap box pretty hard there, time to crawl back into the crate you came from. I'm sure you'll pop up somewhere else fresh and rewinded to tell your fairy tale stories all over again. The joke on education was funny though, since it's coming from someone who seem to think the world began the day she was born.

reply
formatting help
[–] censorshipsucks06 8 years ago

So American Larry runs away, and this guy self-deletes all his/her posts. 

Typical.

reply
formatting help
[–] AmericanLarry 8 years ago

After Flashpoint is undone, Eobard Thawne will probably still find a way to stick around since we know Tom Cavanagh is still a regular and the Earth 2 Harrison Wells is back on Earth 2.

reply
formatting help
[–] censorshipsucks06 8 years ago

Time for your electric shock treatment Larry.

reply
formatting help
[–] kuntext 8 years ago

Tejas -

I thought it was a little over the top myself, but not overtly so. I like how this show has been pretty even-handed in it's portrayal of all the different sides to Islam, and didn't pull punches as far as the ISIS stand in (the Caliphate).


I thought it did a great job, too.

No expert here, but... I thought that it was more like this:

Caliphate is the mindset - ISIS are the attackers

Vatican Missions is the mindset - Crusaders and pedophiles and bans on condoms are the attackers

Christian Fundamentalists claim a literal mindset - Abortion-doctor assassins & gay bashers are the attackers

You know what I mean? These groups each make some claim to some elitist, "chosen one," "one true god" sort of lifestyle in which at their most gracious, they think of "others" as less fortunate than themselves for reasons of religion. LOL LOL LOL They all want their own beliefs to be shared by all. Nothing new there. Which is why I question the fears of Islamic folk wanting to take over the world.

I am sure there are plenty of Muslims who just want to practice their religion in peace and don't want Sharia law or to force their views on others.


This is the most recent, credible, international poll that I'm aware of on what Muslims actually think, by location and by the numbers:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/22/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

Sharia Law is neither a religious nor cultural difference - it's femicide! For those whom only know a little about it, this film does a great job of putting you in someone else's shoes in the midst of it. I think it's a "must-see" for all but... not sensitive viewers. It's so grueling and traumatic to watch this that I strongly urge people to make certain that children can't even potentially hear it from another room.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1277737/?ref_=nv_sr_1

^^^ The Stoning of Soraya M. (2008)

However terrorizing that story is ^^^ this one about Muslims touches my heart every time I think of it, even years later:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1188996/?ref_=nv_sr_2

^^^ My Name Is Khan (2010)

But sadly the world has to deal with the fact that there a huge numbers of Muslims in the world, who support Sharia governments replacing democracies and favor terrorism and violence to bring about their paradise on earth. Think about this, if only 1% of Muslims in the world are jihadists or support terror, that would be the population of a US state between Illinois and Florida.


Have you (anyone reading) ever actually researched the statistics (known and available) on which population suffers the most from violence? You know, "Who is being targeted by violence most?" And, the other side of it, "Who is the most violent group?" I mean, consistently, throughout recorded history. Men. The common thread is men.

So, IF the concern is actually about violence then I suggest that the solution is to first identify the actual, factual reality of the threat.

Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply
formatting help
[–] big_kmc 8 years ago

Have you (anyone reading) ever actually researched the statistics (known and available) on which population suffers the most from violence? You know, "Who is being targeted by violence most?" And, the other side of it, "Who is the most violent group?" I mean, consistently, throughout recorded history. Men. The common thread is men.


I would change this is a little to go even more big picture with the masculine versus the feminine rather than simply men and women. Yang negating yin.

Yang represents the following general qualities: Light, Solar, Day, Masculine, Active, Analytical, Dominant, Aggressive, Left-Brain, Right-Body. The dark area is Yin, which represents the expression of the following qualities: Dark, Lunar, Night, Feminine, Passive, Intuitive, Submissive,Right-Brain, Left-Body.

The masculine is also represented in attitudes like output. While the feminine would be about cycles of rest or cycles of introduction of technology and resting to see it's effect either way on society. This would have avoided the advancement of destructive technology like gas powered cars until we waited for something less destructive to the environment like solar powered cars.

No sect of life has had the feminine more repressed in them than men themselves. They can't even cry when they want to and while "not that there is anything wrong with that" is a widespread attitude toward homosexuality, men still don't want other men to show feminine traits, so if you do, you are gay and we'll tolerate that in a gay man but not a straight man. That's why I love the olympics seeing tough and accomplished men like Phelps cry and show sensitivity, no one can deny his power and toughness. Yet the tears make him more human and more full of heart.

Without the feminine to balance the masculine, the masculine becomes a distorted caricature of itself. Not to negate masculine qualities, that's the biggest mistake we can make - negation/repression/denial, but the masculine is clearly over-emphasized. The feminine would be the creative aspect as well, something sorely lacking in our lives in our modern world with so much emphasis on science (masculine) versus anything spiritual (not religious)and work versus rest. Especially when science is sorely lacking in finite explanations and scientific explanations get constantly overturned. But science is like the new catholic church telling us what's ok to believe about life or not.

The masculine is meant to serve the feminine, it's the only way life makes sense so the rational mind needs to serve the felt sense, intuition or instinct. Or like with the nights of the round table, their might was in protective service of something honorable and mystical. This is why men should open up doors for women b/c the woman is a symbol of the feminine, the feminine within men themselves.

reply
formatting help
[–] kuntext 8 years ago

big_kmc -

I've posted quite a few facts here to show why I disagree with some points.

Have you (anyone reading) ever actually researched the statistics (known and available) on which population suffers the most from violence? You know, "Who is being targeted by violence most?" And, the other side of it, "Who is the most violent group?" I mean, consistently, throughout recorded history. Men. The common thread is men.

I would change this is a little to go even more big picture with the masculine versus the feminine rather than simply men and women. Yang negating yin.


I don't agree that shifting the view away from facts is in any way broadening it. I'm not stating an opinion about men's violence... it's verifiable fact.

Taoism and Confucianism are Chinese philosophical/religious paths which have also been disgraced by misogyny. Just like other religions whom purport to value women... when you look at the actions and mute their words, you see the facts. This is yet another reason why I found my home in Atheism and in Anti-Theism.

In terms of yin/yang itself... it's meant to represent complementary qualities and balance, not negation. Again, I'm no expert... maybe you mean something else by negation?

Gotta ask... do you know how such a "story" about valuing people equally turned into a literally torturous life for young girls? I've studied it to some degree as a part of fighting femicide and all I can say is, if anything is being negated, it's women.

Obviously your information doesn't include this (which, BTW, is not a criticism... none of us knows everything), I'm just assuming you are unaware:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding

^^^Chinese foot-binding (way, way worse than what those words bring to mind)

For a more academic and in-depth treatment of foot-binding:

http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/ws301/html/dworkin.html

^^^Chapter 7 of Andrea Dworkin's book, "Woman-Hating."


Yang represents the following general qualities: Light, Solar, Day, Masculine, Active, Analytical, Dominant, Aggressive, Left-Brain, Right-Body. The dark area is Yin, which represents the expression of the following qualities: Dark, Lunar, Night, Feminine, Passive, Intuitive, Submissive,Right-Brain, Left-Body.

The masculine is also represented in attitudes like output. While the feminine would be about cycles of rest or cycles of introduction of technology and resting to see it's effect either way on society. This would have avoided the advancement of destructive technology like gas powered cars until we waited for something less destructive to the environment like solar powered cars.


While cute and flowery, you are describing assigned duality which is not borne out in real life variations on the female to male spectrum. On the face of it, exclusionary, limited and biased. Duality is a construct based on the concept of "Othering." See, Michel Foucault's philosophy of "the Other."

To equate masculinity with action and to equate femininity with passivity is the groundwork for Chinese foot-binding. See the connection? It's a false construct, designed with a purpose and taught to maintain power. When I read the part about female creativity I thought of Tommy Tunes and sperm. LOL (my mind...) Don't you see it doesn't stand up to reason?

No sect of life has had the feminine more repressed in them than men themselves. They can't even cry when they want to and while "not that there is anything wrong with that" is a widespread attitude toward homosexuality, men still don't want other men to show feminine traits, so if you do, you are gay and we'll tolerate that in a gay man but not a straight man. That's why I love the olympics seeing tough and accomplished men like Phelps cry and show sensitivity, no one can deny his power and toughness. Yet the tears make him more human and more full of heart.


What you describe is what male-supremacy does to harm men. There are many examples of woman-hating, and using a feminine-related word to humiliate, shun or abuse a man is one of the more common forms of woman-hating. This is not a natural phenomenon - it's taught, like all supremacist hatreds.

There are a lot of great TED Talks on toxic masculinity, the cost of male-supremacy to both men and to women... it's like people don't "get it." If you are a supremacist then you cannot experience equality, regardless of which end of that supremacy model you reside.

Without the feminine to balance the masculine, the masculine becomes a distorted caricature of itself. Not to negate masculine qualities, that's the biggest mistake we can make - negation/repression/denial, but the masculine is clearly over-emphasized. The feminine would be the creative aspect as well, something sorely lacking in our lives in our modern world with so much emphasis on science (masculine) versus anything spiritual (not religious)and work versus rest. Especially when science is sorely lacking in finite explanations and scientific explanations get constantly overturned. But science is like the new catholic church telling us what's ok to believe about life or not.


Science is like the new catholic church? Uh, no.

"Especially when science is sorely lacking in finite explanations and scientific explanations get constantly overturned."

Science, is the exploration of ideas through testing, then using what is learned to test some more.

Religion, is the presentation of answers to questions which are felt to be unsettling to we humans. Death, time, space... religion offers meanings and answers, but only to those whom agree to suspend rational thought, reason and a fair regard for evidence.

Also, not for nothing, the religious kill scientists, doctors and "heretics" while science just evolves.

The masculine is meant to serve the feminine, it's the only way life makes sense so the rational mind needs to serve the felt sense, intuition or instinct. Or like with the nights of the round table, their might was in protective service of something honorable and mystical. This is why men should open up doors for women b/c the woman is a symbol of the feminine, the feminine within men themselves.


There's a mythology going around about the supremacy of men. One big part is the notion that they are protectors of women. LOL NOT.

In my country, America:

- a sexual assault occurs every 109 seconds
- in 9 out of 10 rape cases, the victim is female
- out of every 1000 rape cases, 994 rapists walk free

So, okay, most men do not rape but nor have they stopped rape. Their actions support that violation of human rights. I do blame men because they dominated the legal system, police, medicine, prisons, the military, politics and rehabilitation, etc... and this is the result.

Forget society as a whole, there's also this:

- An American woman is safer giving birth in 40 other countries than she is in her own nation. Got that? See, Amnesty International's report, "Deadly Delivery" campaign on Maternal Mortality. Our Senators didn't even know... and their wives and office staff were pregnant. Dying and ignored.

- As recent as 2015, in America, the #1 cause of death of a pregnant woman was homicide at the hands of her spouse or lover. See, Dept. of Justice Statistics of just google it to see many articles from major news outlets.

But, hey, we have Viagra.

This is what a male-supremacist, extremely rape-supportive nation looks like.

The world can just spare me the "men as protectors" propaganda. It's THE fairy tale central to the male-supremacist ideology.

Women would do spectacularly better if male-supremacists (both female and male) would just stop harming and killing women. You say the "masculine should serve the feminine." I say replacing one form of supremacy with another is the same pathology, the same mistake. If every human should serve other human beings, then on that, I can agree.


Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply
formatting help
[–] big_kmc 8 years ago

While cute and flowery, you are describing assigned duality which is not borne out in real life variations on the female to male spectrum. On the face of it, exclusionary, limited and biased. Duality is a construct based on the concept of "Othering." See, Michel Foucault's philosophy of "the Other."


Oh sorry I mistook some of your posts before that you had some reading comprehension, I can see that rather than comprehend I was broadening your point in terms of archetypes via the lines of Jung, Campbell, Reich, Woodman and various others into a big picture you think I am negating your point so you are out to negate mine. I am not even discussing male to female spectrum, I believe I spent minutes writing out that male and female is not the same as masculine and feminine so if you can't get that, there is nothing to really go forward on. You can stop your preaching and your out of place statistics. You sound fanatical. That's what fanatics do, they don't listen but just inundate you with how they think you should think. Ironic how you are condemning patriarchal religions who are like this when you would fit right in.

No matter how much you don't like it, there were always be religion. It's a part of human psychology and to negate that occurring across space and time is as bad as negating homosexuality. You can't make that part of human nature go away because humans aren't purely rational. There's your mistake, you are don't have knowledge of what it means to be human. Study some Ouspensky or even Freud is good on this topic.

Science, no matter how much you try to give a noble simplification of it's intentions, has been brandished as a weapon as much as religion. There are thousands upon thousands of books on this everything from Ivan Illyich to Mae Wan Ho to Bernardo Kastrup to Gershom Zajcek to Gilber Ling to Harold Hillman even Melissa Jo Peliers' (producer of the dog whisper's) latest book "Don't Let Your Doctor Kill You: How to Beat Physician Arrogance, Corporate Greed and a Broken System"

I mean wow talk about your bias. Careful you don't become the dragon you seek to slay.

If you say science evolves, religion also evolves, look at judaism, their whole relgion is based on interpretation and reinterpretation of the Talmud. Look at all the sects of christianity that have evolved out since the time of Jesus. And "cults" that have evolved out of that. You are losing major credibility in the things you are saying.


"To equate masculinity with action and to equate femininity with passivity is the groundwork for Chinese foot-binding. See the connection? It's a false construct, designed with a purpose and taught to maintain power."


You still don't comprehend that the feminine and masculine is in both male and female thereby missing the entire point of my post to get on your tyrannical soap box of history negation. It doesn't matter if you don't like the two categories and what goes in them, too bad. This is language. Language and science are a system of labeling. That's what the periodic table is, it's a table that labels and organizes based on fixed terminology and all of science depends on language to be able to reproduce experiments as accurately as possible. While the map is not the territory we are bound by the limitations of language as such but there is a duality that splits masculine and feminine just as a penis and a vagina are different and complimentary. Just as there are protons and electrons with their own nature, it doesn't matter if that makes you uncomfortable or upsets your modern negation of the nature of things.

You have an incredible bias to think that science is ok and nothing is wrong with it but religion, patriarchal or not, is on the hook and needs to be condemned. You think people are going to give up their faith because of your statistics? You think a Jewish person who has a history of surviving centuries of persecution with a distinct and lasting culture born of their religious ties are going to condemn themselves because of your statistics? That's ignorant and arrogant. You are negating the reasons why religion came into existence and what it did for cultures because you have the 20/20 perfect hindsight of being alive in a modern post-industrial society. You are making the novice mistake of ignoring history and process and evolution itself.

Let me suggest Power of Myth or any basic world religion college text or even wikipedia as a starting place to comprehend the roles of religion and why it can't be negated whether you see it's purpose or comprehend it's history or not. Without education on such things you will continue your negation, making people take a harder line against anything you have to say which happens when we try to deny the validity of the existence of something. All your doing with your rantings is strengthening the other side. Let me suggest some Baruch Espinoza, a great jewish scholar, "I have striven not to laugh at human actions, not to weep at them, nor to hate them, but to understand them"

Also a lot of scientific findings stem from religious men over the centuries. So the two are intertwined historically. The islamic culture made tremendous improvements in our understanding of science in medieval times
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

I really should have read more of your posts before remarking on anything, then I would have seen you just want to rant and point out the speck in someone else's eye while you have a massive board of wood in your own. You got a lot to learn.

reply
formatting help
[–] kuntext 8 years ago


"To equate masculinity with action and to equate femininity with passivity is the groundwork for Chinese foot-binding. See the connection? It's a false construct, designed with a purpose and taught to maintain power."

You still don't comprehend that the feminine and masculine is in both male and female thereby missing the entire point of my post


If you can, consider that you are wrong about that. That I do understand the concept, the philosophy... yet, I still see it differently than you do.

There's definite misunderstanding going on here. Your ball.

Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply
formatting help
[–] Cherubim1 7 years ago

Islam may be peace to many but this show was designed and created to dispel that belief. In fact, this horrid production goes out of it's way to show how primitive and barbaric muslim people are and their reluctance to accept anything but conflict.

Tyrant was a blatant anti-Muslim propaganda production. Just another slot in the divide and rule agenda designed to whip up alarmist sentiment about Islam and the supposed superiority of the US.

Rather sickening that Muslims agreed to appear in this *beep*



reply
formatting help
[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

About | Contact | Privacy | Terms | Standards | Contribute
Top Movie Discussions
Civil War Discussion | Dune: Part Two Discussion | The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare Discussion | Abigail Discussion | Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire Discussion | Immaculate Discussion | Monkey Man Discussion | Challengers Discussion | Poor Things Discussion | Late Night with the Devil Discussion | Kung Fu Panda 4 Discussion | The First Omen Discussion | Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire Discussion | Love Lies Bleeding Discussion | Arcadian Discussion
Copyright © 2017 - 2024 MovieChat LLC

MovieChat is not affiliated with IMDb, IMDb Message Boards, or Reddit