Europe submits voluntarily

[metacristi]

It has nothing to do with believing that muslims are little better than donkeys mate. The question was whether the muslims can bring into the mainstream the Enlightenment view that the unaided Human Reason can have precedence even over what is clearly written in the Revelation / Quran (needed by any non-trivial reforms, unfortunately we basically need the transformation of islam*; 'small steps' reforms are unlikely to be the solution which to 'tame' islam once and forever, as I argued before).

I do not see why not (so yes I think muslims can fare much better than the donkey) but at the same time the approach must be necessarily skeptical because the value of unaided Human Reason in religious matters is severely downplayed in basic Islamic texts and so far Reason is far from being rehabilitated in the Islamic world (at the practical level faith, blind following of Tradition, is still mainstream; even if a minority accept that Reason is important very few can actually go beyond the view that it can only confirm Tradition and Revelation).

This was part of my wider argument that we need first to see if the advent of a strong reform movement** (based on a non-inerrancy doctrine regarding the Quran, on a par with Reform Judaism and Liberal Christianity, not existent so far in Islam) can improve or not markedly the situation before drawing the conclusion that Islam cannot be reformed in any way (even its transformation being impossible / impractical).

PS If you do not understand what is with this 'Reason' problem in Islam I advise you to read Robert Reilly's The closing of the muslim mind' (I do not agree that a mere return of the Mu'tazilite view on Reason is enough to thoroughly modernize islam but it presents well the Ash'ari philosophy, mainstream even today, which downplay the value of Reason in religious matters).


* Muhammad and the Quran having a lower status than accepted today, making it basically unrecognizable

** which we have to 'catalyse', via rational criticism of islam as well, it is unlikely that efforts entirely internal to Islamic communities can produce that

 

[untermensche]

The question was whether the muslims can bring into the mainstream the Enlightenment view that the unaided Human Reason can be more important than even what is clearly written in the Revelation / Quran (needed by any non-trivial reforms, unfortunately we basically need the transformation of islam*; 'small steps' reforms are unlikely to be the solution which to 'tame' islam once and forever, as I argued before)...

Muslims are the exact same thing you are.

They are kind to those kind to them and are not so kind to those that are not kind to them.

You want Muslims to be kind.

Be kind to them.

Do not kill them and bomb them.

Do not kill Muslims non-stop.

Do not attack a major Muslim nation for no good reason and begin torturing people.

Do not force a government on that nation that the people do not want.

Do not occupy it for a decade.

 

[metacristi]

Who kill muslims here mate? Typical of those so called 'progressives' (regressive in fact) who have to invent 'fascists' with all costs in order to fuel their incurable delusion...

http://www.danielpipes.org/18521/german-and-austrian-media-outrage-me

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The question was whether the muslims can bring into the mainstream the Enlightenment view that the unaided Human Reason can be more important than even what is clearly written in the Revelation / Quran (needed by any non-trivial reforms, unfortunately we basically need the transformation of islam*; 'small steps' reforms are unlikely to be the solution which to 'tame' islam once and forever, as I argued before)...

Muslims are the exact same thing you are.

They are kind to those kind to them and are not so kind to those that are not kind to them.

You want Muslims to be kind.

Be kind to them.

Do not kill them and bomb them.

Do not kill Muslims non-stop.

Do not attack a major Muslim nation for no good reason and begin torturing people.

Do not force a government on that nation that the people do not want.

Do not occupy it for a decade.

Culture, culture, culture!!

Your approach would be seen as weakness and that continued attacks would likely produce more concessions.

And note that other than bombing the Muslims started everything on your list. Why don't you tell them to behave?

And note that the government of Iraq is what the majority wanted. The violence was because the oppressors didn't like losing their position.

 

[repoman]

The question was whether the muslims can bring into the mainstream the Enlightenment view that the unaided Human Reason can be more important than even what is clearly written in the Revelation / Quran (needed by any non-trivial reforms, unfortunately we basically need the transformation of islam*; 'small steps' reforms are unlikely to be the solution which to 'tame' islam once and forever, as I argued before)...

Muslims are the exact same thing you are.

They are kind to those kind to them and are not so kind to those that are not kind to them.

You want Muslims to be kind.

Be kind to them.

Do not kill them and bomb them.

Do not kill Muslims non-stop.

Do not attack a major Muslim nation for no good reason and begin torturing people.

Do not force a government on that nation that the people do not want.

Do not occupy it for a decade.

And if you do, don't also let them in because they will still be pissed off.

 

[untermensche]

The question was whether the muslims can bring into the mainstream the Enlightenment view that the unaided Human Reason can be more important than even what is clearly written in the Revelation / Quran (needed by any non-trivial reforms, unfortunately we basically need the transformation of islam*; 'small steps' reforms are unlikely to be the solution which to 'tame' islam once and forever, as I argued before)...

Muslims are the exact same thing you are.

They are kind to those kind to them and are not so kind to those that are not kind to them.

You want Muslims to be kind.

Be kind to them.

Do not kill them and bomb them.

Do not kill Muslims non-stop.

Do not attack a major Muslim nation for no good reason and begin torturing people.

Do not force a government on that nation that the people do not want.

Do not occupy it for a decade.

And if you do, don't also let them in because they will still be pissed off.

So you keep 100% out because of less than 1%?

Such kindness you show them.

I'm sure this will make up for all that has happened to them already and persuade them to change.

 

[untermensche]

The question was whether the muslims can bring into the mainstream the Enlightenment view that the unaided Human Reason can be more important than even what is clearly written in the Revelation / Quran (needed by any non-trivial reforms, unfortunately we basically need the transformation of islam*; 'small steps' reforms are unlikely to be the solution which to 'tame' islam once and forever, as I argued before)...

Muslims are the exact same thing you are.

They are kind to those kind to them and are not so kind to those that are not kind to them.

You want Muslims to be kind.

Be kind to them.

Do not kill them and bomb them.

Do not kill Muslims non-stop.

Do not attack a major Muslim nation for no good reason and begin torturing people.

Do not force a government on that nation that the people do not want.

Do not occupy it for a decade.

Culture, culture, culture!!

Your approach would be seen as weakness and that continued attacks would likely produce more concessions.

And note that other than bombing the Muslims started everything on your list. Why don't you tell them to behave?

And note that the government of Iraq is what the majority wanted. The violence was because the oppressors didn't like losing their position.

My approach is to not commit massive acts of terrorism.

My approach is to not round people up randomly and start torturing them.

My approach is to not force governments onto people with a gun at their head.

And no fucking majority in Iraq ever got to choose their government.

All they had was the same shit Americans get.

A choice between two people they do not know.

The US pumped massive amounts of money INTO ADVERTISING not food and water to get US selected candidates elected.

In a fractured country under brutal military occupation the people had no say at all.

 

[repoman]

I don't want them to change I want them to stay where they are/were.

 

[untermensche]

I don't want them to change I want them to stay where they are/were.

You wouldn't be where you are if everybody thought like that.

They are no different from you.

If you have people around you these people are no different.

You have a problem with absolutely no change to you at all.

And relief for others.

 

[metacristi]

I don't want them to change I want them to stay where they are/were.

You wouldn't be where you are if everybody thought like that.

They are no different from you.

If you have people around you these people are no different.

You have a problem with absolutely no change to you at all.

And relief for others.

They have nonetheless a religious ideology which has created at least a 'tail' of violent practitioners all over the history of Islam (the whole Islamic world sometimes), even in periods of peace. Even today. And the perpetrators have, quite often, proved to be far from being poor. An ideology which was only marginally penetrated by the progressive ideas of Modernity (you should better militate for the freedom of women under Islam, freedom in the western sense of the word). In other words we deal with a culture having quite different values, mainly due to Islam unfortunately.

Otherwise they are humans like us of course, no one rational want them killed / discriminated; working in the frame provided by secularism of course, immunity to criticism for Islam is not a secular right of muslims. Defending secularism and attempting to open Islam to the same kind of criticism used in the case of the other major Abrahamic religions ever since the 17th century is not discrimination (although truth can hurt the feelings of muslims, Islam is not quite the religion of peace). It's common sense if we want a better future: the secular culture has to strongly shape Islam and not the other way around.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't want them to change I want them to stay where they are/were.

You wouldn't be where you are if everybody thought like that.

They are no different from you.

If you have people around you these people are no different.

You have a problem with absolutely no change to you at all.

And relief for others.

They have nonetheless a religious ideology which has created at least a 'tail' of violent practitioners all over the history of Islam (the whole Islamic world sometimes), even in periods of peace. Even today. And the perpetrators have, quite often, proved to be far from being poor. An ideology which was only marginally penetrated by the progressive ideas of Modernity (you should better militate for the freedom of women under Islam, freedom in the western sense of the word). In other words we deal with a culture having quite different values, mainly due to Islam unfortunately.

Otherwise they are humans like us of course, no one rational want them killed / discriminated; working in the frame provided by secularism of course, immunity to criticism for Islam is not a secular right of muslims. Defending secularism and attempting to open Islam to the same kind of criticism used in the case of the other major Abrahamic religions ever since the 17th century is not discrimination (although truth can hurt the feelings of muslims, Islam is not quite the religion of peace). It's common sense if we want a better future: the secular culture has to strongly shape Islam and not the other way around.

So has Buddhism and Christianity. The Golden horde was to a large extent a mix of these two religions. Most brutal army in human history.

Religion becomes what it needs to be. Modern Islam is to a large extent the result of colonialism. It became a symbol to rally around. And that's pretty much what it still is. But its rapidly changing. ISIS is the last desperate attempt to keep a dying ideology relevant.

I'm still not a fan of Islam because of its focus on being a victim/martyr. It's creates over-sensitive snowflakes who aren't encouraged to work beyond victimhood. But that's not really a detriment of non-Muslims. That just punishes the Muslims themselves.

 

[untermensche]

I don't want them to change I want them to stay where they are/were.

You wouldn't be where you are if everybody thought like that.

They are no different from you.

If you have people around you these people are no different.

You have a problem with absolutely no change to you at all.

And relief for others.

They have nonetheless a religious ideology which has created at least a 'tail' of violent practitioners all over the history of Islam (the whole Islamic world sometimes), even in periods of peace. Even today. And the perpetrators have, quite often, proved to be far from being poor. An ideology which was only marginally penetrated by the progressive ideas of Modernity (you should better militate for the freedom of women under Islam, freedom in the western sense of the word). In other words we deal with a culture having quite different values, mainly due to Islam unfortunately.

Otherwise they are humans like us of course, no one rational want them killed / discriminated; working in the frame provided by secularism of course, immunity to criticism for Islam is not a secular right of muslims. Defending secularism and attempting to open Islam to the same kind of criticism used in the case of the other major Abrahamic religions ever since the 17th century is not discrimination (although truth can hurt the feelings of muslims, Islam is not quite the religion of peace). It's common sense if we want a better future: the secular culture has to strongly shape Islam and not the other way around.

The US, not some organization without a nation, the most powerful nation in history, launched a cold blooded terrorist attack of the Iraqi people in 2003. It bombed and killed and allowed treasures to be looted. When things got a little tough the US just rounded up people on random sweeps and began torturing all of them in the hopes some small percentage knew something.

This insane crime against humanity allowed ISIS to gain power since after the US invasion and decision to disband the Iraqi military many Iraqi military leaders in need of a job joined ISIS. The US also left huge amounts of weapons that ISIS took. What we still see today in Syria is a direct result of the US terrorist attack. It has continued so long because the US allowed ISIS to get so powerful. It gave ISIS well trained military leadership and plenty of cash and weapons.

Almost as if the US wanted this.

And you say Muslims are the violent and dangerous people?

 

[angelo]

The question was whether the muslims can bring into the mainstream the Enlightenment view that the unaided Human Reason can be more important than even what is clearly written in the Revelation / Quran (needed by any non-trivial reforms, unfortunately we basically need the transformation of islam*; 'small steps' reforms are unlikely to be the solution which to 'tame' islam once and forever, as I argued before)...

Muslims are the exact same thing you are.

They are kind to those kind to them and are not so kind to those that are not kind to them.

You want Muslims to be kind.

Be kind to them.

Do not kill them and bomb them.

Do not kill Muslims non-stop.

Do not attack a major Muslim nation for no good reason and begin torturing people.

Do not force a government on that nation that the people do not want.

Do not occupy it for a decade.

I other words the West is to blame for it's own execution. Completely ignoring the fact that islam's founder was a warlord and terrorist who conquered by the sword long before there ever was " the West."

Also that muslims themselves make the largest number of victims of jihad themselves. Not to mention that many jihadis are second or even third generation of muslims born and raised in middle class muslim families living in the West.

 

[angelo]

They have nonetheless a religious ideology which has created at least a 'tail' of violent practitioners all over the history of Islam (the whole Islamic world sometimes), even in periods of peace. Even today. And the perpetrators have, quite often, proved to be far from being poor. An ideology which was only marginally penetrated by the progressive ideas of Modernity (you should better militate for the freedom of women under Islam, freedom in the western sense of the word). In other words we deal with a culture having quite different values, mainly due to Islam unfortunately.

Otherwise they are humans like us of course, no one rational want them killed / discriminated; working in the frame provided by secularism of course, immunity to criticism for Islam is not a secular right of muslims. Defending secularism and attempting to open Islam to the same kind of criticism used in the case of the other major Abrahamic religions ever since the 17th century is not discrimination (although truth can hurt the feelings of muslims, Islam is not quite the religion of peace). It's common sense if we want a better future: the secular culture has to strongly shape Islam and not the other way around.

The US, not some organization without a nation, the most powerful nation in history, launched a cold blooded terrorist attack of the Iraqi people in 2003. It bombed and killed and allowed treasures to be looted. When things got a little tough the US just rounded up people on random sweeps and began torturing all of them in the hopes some small percentage knew something.

This insane crime against humanity allowed ISIS to gain power since after the US invasion and decision to disband the Iraqi military many Iraqi military leaders in need of a job joined ISIS. The US also left huge amounts of weapons that ISIS took. What we still see today in Syria is a direct result of the US terrorist attack. It has continued so long because the US allowed ISIS to get so powerful. It gave ISIS well trained military leadership and plenty of cash and weapons.

Almost as if the US wanted this.

And you say Muslims are the violent and dangerous people?

Using the well worn apologist argument of the intervention by the West to blame for islamic terrorism just doesn't wash.

https://theconversation.com/is-it-fair-to-blame-the-west-for-trouble-in-the-middle-east-32487

 

[untermensche]

The question was whether the muslims can bring into the mainstream the Enlightenment view that the unaided Human Reason can be more important than even what is clearly written in the Revelation / Quran (needed by any non-trivial reforms, unfortunately we basically need the transformation of islam*; 'small steps' reforms are unlikely to be the solution which to 'tame' islam once and forever, as I argued before)...

Muslims are the exact same thing you are.

They are kind to those kind to them and are not so kind to those that are not kind to them.

You want Muslims to be kind.

Be kind to them.

Do not kill them and bomb them.

Do not kill Muslims non-stop.

Do not attack a major Muslim nation for no good reason and begin torturing people.

Do not force a government on that nation that the people do not want.

Do not occupy it for a decade.

I other words the West is to blame for it's own execution. Completely ignoring the fact that islam's founder was a warlord and terrorist who conquered by the sword long before there ever was " the West."

Also that muslims themselves make the largest number of victims of jihad themselves. Not to mention that many jihadis are second or even third generation of muslims born and raised in middle class muslim families living in the West.

No execution of anything is threatened.

That is hyper-exaggerated paranoid rhetoric.

 

[untermensche]

They have nonetheless a religious ideology which has created at least a 'tail' of violent practitioners all over the history of Islam (the whole Islamic world sometimes), even in periods of peace. Even today. And the perpetrators have, quite often, proved to be far from being poor. An ideology which was only marginally penetrated by the progressive ideas of Modernity (you should better militate for the freedom of women under Islam, freedom in the western sense of the word). In other words we deal with a culture having quite different values, mainly due to Islam unfortunately.

Otherwise they are humans like us of course, no one rational want them killed / discriminated; working in the frame provided by secularism of course, immunity to criticism for Islam is not a secular right of muslims. Defending secularism and attempting to open Islam to the same kind of criticism used in the case of the other major Abrahamic religions ever since the 17th century is not discrimination (although truth can hurt the feelings of muslims, Islam is not quite the religion of peace). It's common sense if we want a better future: the secular culture has to strongly shape Islam and not the other way around.

The US, not some organization without a nation, the most powerful nation in history, launched a cold blooded terrorist attack of the Iraqi people in 2003. It bombed and killed and allowed treasures to be looted. When things got a little tough the US just rounded up people on random sweeps and began torturing all of them in the hopes some small percentage knew something.

This insane crime against humanity allowed ISIS to gain power since after the US invasion and decision to disband the Iraqi military many Iraqi military leaders in need of a job joined ISIS. The US also left huge amounts of weapons that ISIS took. What we still see today in Syria is a direct result of the US terrorist attack. It has continued so long because the US allowed ISIS to get so powerful. It gave ISIS well trained military leadership and plenty of cash and weapons.

Almost as if the US wanted this.

And you say Muslims are the violent and dangerous people?

Using the well worn apologist argument of the intervention by the West to blame for islamic terrorism just doesn't wash.

https://theconversation.com/is-it-fair-to-blame-the-west-for-trouble-in-the-middle-east-32487

You think you can just sweep that away with a link?

Rounding people up at random and torturing them in the hopes that some are guilty?

That is dishonest.

It is cowardly.

It is ignorant.

And it is not an answer to any of it!!!!

The US is a sick mad destructive force.

Not the inventor of terrorism anywhere.

But a terrorist nation that carried out 2 massive terrorist attacks in the last 60 years.

And the reason ISIS became powerful.

And a catalyst for unknown death and misery and destruction.

This is not a fly you can just swat away.

This is the real world.

Not some paranoid delusion.

You can't answer it with links.

 

[angelo]

Using the well worn apologist argument of the intervention by the West to blame for islamic terrorism just doesn't wash.

https://theconversation.com/is-it-fair-to-blame-the-west-for-trouble-in-the-middle-east-32487

You think you can just sweep that away with a link?

Rounding people up at random and torturing them in the hopes that some are guilty?

That is dishonest.

It is cowardly.

It is ignorant.

And it is not an answer to any of it!!!!

The US is a sick mad destructive force.

Not the inventor of terrorism anywhere.

But a terrorist nation that carried out 2 massive terrorist attacks in the last 60 years.

And the reason ISIS became powerful.

And a catalyst for unknown death and misery and destruction.

This is not a fly you can just swat away.

This is the real world.

Not some paranoid delusion.

You can't answer it with links.

Still can't get over the fact that the failed Socialist Soviet empire collapsed may years ago hey!

 

[untermensche]

It is a simple mind that thinks it can answer all that with some reference to something else.

That is called deflection.

The US launched a massive terrorist war in Vietnam that spilled into Laos and Cambodia in the early 1960's.

It launched a terrorist attack on Iraq in 2003.

A terrorist attack that directly led to the empowerment of ISIS.

The US supports the Saudi dictatorship that spreads fundamentalism.

The US overturned Iran's democratically elected government which gave us the current fundamentalist government. Another nation involved in the dissemination of fundamentalism.

What does it take for a person to condemn the US and understand it is the root of the problem?

 

[DrZoidberg]

It is a simple mind that thinks it can answer all that with some reference to something else.

That is called deflection.

The US launched a massive terrorist war in Vietnam that spilled into Laos and Cambodia in the early 1960's.

It launched a terrorist attack on Iraq in 2003.

A terrorist attack that directly led to the empowerment of ISIS.

The US supports the Saudi dictatorship that spreads fundamentalism.

The US overturned Iran's democratically elected government which gave us the current fundamentalist government. Another nation involved in the dissemination of fundamentalism.

What does it take for a person to condemn the US and understand it is the root of the problem?

I see a pattern here. When you make an argument you just pick the strongest word de jour and characterise your opponents as such.

So any military action you disapprove of is a terrorist attack..

Anybody powerful is a dictator.

I'm eagerly awaiting this list to expand? Now when I'm disagreeing with you, am I a dictator or terrorist? Perhaps a devil? Or am I a mass murderer?

 

[untermensche]

It is a simple mind that thinks it can answer all that with some reference to something else.

That is called deflection.

The US launched a massive terrorist war in Vietnam that spilled into Laos and Cambodia in the early 1960's.

It launched a terrorist attack on Iraq in 2003.

A terrorist attack that directly led to the empowerment of ISIS.

The US supports the Saudi dictatorship that spreads fundamentalism.

The US overturned Iran's democratically elected government which gave us the current fundamentalist government. Another nation involved in the dissemination of fundamentalism.

What does it take for a person to condemn the US and understand it is the root of the problem?

I see a pattern here. When you make an argument you just pick the strongest word de jour and characterise your opponents as such.

So any military action you disapprove of is a terrorist attack..

Anybody powerful is a dictator.

I'm eagerly awaiting this list to expand? Now when I'm disagreeing with you, am I a dictator or terrorist? Perhaps a devil? Or am I a mass murderer?

I think terrorism on a massive scale is pretty bad. The US premeditated and unprovoked attack of Iraq was terrorism on a massive scale. It is not ALL MILITARY ACTIVITY. It is one act of massive terrorism.

I think rounding people up at random and torturing them in the hopes that some know something is bad.

A dictator is one who yields dictatorial power.

They give orders and people either comply or are pushed out and somebody else complies.

Take off your distorted glasses and see the world as it is.