Islam: Is It Able To Be Reformed? How Do We Go About Reforming It?

[Ambivalence]

usa killed over 100 civilians with their new bomb.. do you hear people/media all over the net say shit? nah, it's just mulims
terrorist group (fund by said country above) kills people in the west and the whole world starts to be sad and what happens? hate against mulims because all their fault


reform? the ****... what we need is dumbasses to open their eyes and to see the secret services who are under zionist control are using islam as the villain to start a new ww, to implent the long awaited police state

Might be one of the stupidest things I've read on this site for a long time...

 

[Kushina89]

Might be one of the stupidest things I've read on this site for a long time...

oh is that so? i'm sure the stupidest things you will find around you
but who am i to judge a dude who turns on his tv and lets media do all the job on what to think and what to believe

turning your brain off and act like a dumb slave is to your liking as the perfect comfort zone, no?

 

[Uchihaa Sasuke]

And how? That is my question

I don't know how
but I know that, in many Muslim countries, Atheism is already spreading, and Atheists are secretly and constantly criticizing Islam on the Internet, maybe supporting them and defending their rights would be a good start

 

[Lyke]

I don't know how
but I know that, in many Muslim countries, Atheism is already spreading, and Atheists are secretly and constantly criticizing Islam on the Internet, maybe supporting them and defending their rights would be a good start

Nah, im all for equality. Everything has its good and bad aspects

 

[kimb]

You've already shown me you don't want real discussion, proof is the thread below so is your objective just to sway the jury?

You must be registered for see links

I'm not even going to assume you purposefully avoid real dialogue so if your really ignorant to it have a reread. Tbh the only reason I'm even checking you on this so you can catch yourself. And if its purposeful than understand a person of shaky foundation can only influence a person of shaky foundation. And that type of mentality is sustainable by reaffirmation not confrontation.

I hope you don't take me checking you personally and like I said in the other thread this is why I usually avoid serious topic because most people aren't really interested in discussion.

What proof? The proof that you can't properly debate? You established a point of interventionism which I stated was irrelevant to solving the crisis in Europe. I could have been a a**hole, straight up called your point a irrelevant and moved on, but I was courteous enough to acknowledge interventionism and explain my stance on it. I then explained that unless you were able to explain how acknowledging interventionism or a dicussion on interventionism solves the crisis in Europe in anyway, I will remain to see it as a red herring. And instead of explaining how acknowledging interventionism is relevant or solves anything, you stated I misinterpreted and misrepresented your points (without pointing out which) and moved entirely left field with an entirely new barrage of questions. I don't think you were being disingenuous, because you seem like a well intentioned guy, so maybe my point flew over your head (twice).

I'm still open to hearing your explain on how you think acknowledging interventionism, an issue that is at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy and criticism, is relevant to solving the crisis in Europe. Respond to me here or on the previous thread, Idc which.

 

[Sagebee]

What proof? The proof that you can't properly debate? You established a point of interventionism which I stated was irrelevant to solving the crisis in Europe. I could have been a a**hole, straight up called your point a irrelevant and moved on, but I was courteous enough to acknowledge interventionism and explain my stance on it. I then explained that unless you were able to explain how acknowledging interventionism or a dicussion on interventionism solves the crisis in Europe in anyway, I will remain to see it as a red herring. And instead of explaining how acknowledging interventionism is relevant or solves anything, you stated I misinterpreted and misrepresented your points (without pointing out which) and moved entirely left field with an entirely new barrage of questions. I don't think you were being disingenuous, because you seem like a well intentioned guy, so maybe my point flew over your head (twice).

I'm still open to hearing your explain on how you think acknowledging interventionism, an issue that is at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy and criticism, is relevant to solving the crisis in Europe. Respond to me here or on the previous thread, Idc which.

I'll put it like this in the second to last post of the thread to make sure no one can say they are misunderstood or misrepresented and so we have real dialogue I gave you the opportunity to verbatim to state your position in respect to my inquiries so you couldn't say I'm speaking for you so it's absolutely clear what your saying. And for you to address my points without you dismissing ignoring and misrepresenting what I'm saying.

And I did this with the intention so we understand and truly dialogue with each other and not talk at each other. But you again decide to dismiss ignore and misrepresent what's said and impede actual discussion. And this is what went on the entire discussion that there was no real effort or intention to understand and dialogue just blindly argue against.

Also we aren't going to play the game of arguing yes you did no you didnt answer that I gave you the opportunity to make your position absolutely clear for me so there's no doubt or questions for what we are saying.

Also for what your saying about interventionism in this post throughout the entire discussion you were looking for subtle ways to dismiss it and try to move the goal post I've actually addressed this issue in my inquiries so if you really have the intention to dialogue you will thoroughly answer those questions. If you can't than what's there really to talk about then.

 

[kimb]

I'll put it like this in the second to last post of the thread to make sure no one can say they are misunderstood or misrepresented and so we have real dialogue I gave you the opportunity to verbatim to state your position in respect to my inquiries so you couldn't say I'm speaking for you so it's absolutely clear what your saying. And for you to address my points without you dismissing ignoring and misrepresenting what I'm saying.

And I did this with the intention so we understand and truly dialogue with each other and not talk at each other. But you again decide to dismiss ignore and misrepresent what's said and impede actual discussion. And this is what went on the entire discussion that there was no real effort or intention to understand and dialogue just blindly argue against.

Also we aren't going to play the game of arguing yes you did no you didnt answer that I gave you the opportunity to make your position absolutely clear for me so there's no doubt or questions for what we are saying.

Also for what your saying about interventionism in this post throughout the entire discussion you were looking for subtle ways to dismiss it and try to move the goal post I've actually addressed this issue in my inquiries so if you really have the intention to dialogue you will thoroughly answer those questions. If you can't than what's there really to talk about then.

"Says I misrepresent, ignores, and dismiss your points"
"Doesn't point out which points I misrepresented or ignored".
I definitely dismissed your points though because as I see it, they're irrelevant. For the conversation to continue in the direction you want it, that being from multiculturalism to interventionism, you must first make it clear to me how acknowledging interventionism or discussing interventionism is relevant to solving the crisis in Europe. Do that and I'll answer any and all questions about it.

TL;DR EXPLAIN WHY INTERVENTIONISM IS RELEVANT TO SOLVING THE EUROPEAN CRISIS

 

[Sagebee]

"Says I misrepresent, ignores, and dismiss your points"
"Doesn't point out which points I misrepresented or ignored".
I definitely dismissed your points though because as I see it, they're irrelevant. For the conversation to continue in the direction you want it, that being from multiculturalism to interventionism, you must first make it clear to me how acknowledging interventionism or discussing interventionism is relevant to solving the crisis in Europe. Do that and I'll answer any and all questions about it.

TL;DR EXPLAIN WHY INTERVENTIONISM IS RELEVANT TO SOLVING THE EUROPEAN CRISIS

It's literally discussed in the post I referenced how you did that when it came to the topic of interventions

Again if you care to dialogue you will answer the questions if not than it will be a one sided conversation where you want to dictate the narrative of the discussion how you want.

And please don't respond with " you answer my question first" even though I literally did I have no problem answering it again but show some effort and courteousy in dialogue by answering the questions I've asked you first.

 

[ArabianLuffy]

Just what is there to be reformed? It sounds to me like someone wants to delete some knowledge of Islam.

 

[kimb]

It's literally discussed in the post I referenced how you did that when it came to the topic of interventions

Again if you care to dialogue you will answer the questions if not than it will be a one sided conversation where you want to dictate the narrative of the discussion how you want.

And please don't respond with " you answer my question first" even though I literally did I have no problem answering it again but show some effort and courteousy in dialogue by answering the questions I've asked you first.

Sagebee, I will literally delete my account/have it intentionally banned of you quote yourself pointing out where you explained how dicussing interventionism helps solves the crisis in Europe. Ill stay faithful to my word, but screenshot this if you need to, I've been looking for a reason to quit this site and you might provide me with the scapegoat.

DIRECT QUOTE from the previous thread using

where you explained how discussing interventionism helps solves the crisis in Europe and I will;

-Making an noncondescending public apology thread directed at you on this forum admitting I was wrong.

-Apologize to anone you think I've offended

-Delete my account or have it intentionally banned by posting something banworthy.

Make my day Sagebee.

Just what is there to be reformed? It sounds to me like someone wants to delete some knowledge of Islam.

I know the method of removing scriptures to create reform will never work, it's counterproductive and would only cause internal conflict within the Islamic world, but I know erasure isnt the only way to go about reform. Christianity still has its cancerous and regressive messages in the bible on slavery, stoning, and mass genocide, but was able to go through several reformations without removing an iota.

In my opinion, I think it's a matter of promoting certain secular values over certain Islamic values and changing how people interpret the holy book, like Maajid Nawaz explained; mind you this is just my opinion.

I'm not 100% how Islam would go about reform, hence why I made this threat, but people are too uncomfortable with the topic, or misinterpreted this is an attack on Muslims. I think I'm the first and only person to actually make a suggestion, everyone else is either running around the bush or blaming other things like interventionism, muslims, or the jews.

 

[Sagebee]

Sagebee, I will literally delete my account/have it intentionally banned of you quote yourself pointing out where you explained how dicussing interventionism helps solves the crisis in Europe. Ill stay faithful to my word, but screenshot this if you need to, I've been looking for a reason to quit this site and you might provide me with the scapegoat.

quote from the previous thread using

where you explained how discussing interventionism helps solves the crisis in Europe and I will;

-Making an noncondescending public apology thread directed at you on this forum admitting I was wrong.

-Apologize to anone you think I've offended

-Delete my account or have it intentionally banned by posting something banworthy.

Make my day Sagebee.



I know the method of removing scriptures to create reform will never work, it's counterproductive and would only cause internal conflict within the Islamic world, but I know erasure isnt the only way to go about reform. Christianity still has its cancerous and regressive messages in the bible on slavery, stoning, and mass genocide, but was able to go through several reformations without removing an iota.

In my opinion, I think it's a matter of promoting certain secular values over certain Islamic values and changing how people interpret the holy book, like Maajid Nawaz explained; mind you this is just my opinion.

I'm not 100% how Islam would go about reform, hence why I made this threat, but people are too uncomfortable with the topic, or misinterpreted this is an attack on Muslims. I think I'm the first and only person to actually make a suggestion, everyone else is either running around the bush or blaming other things like interventionism, muslims, or the jews.

I don't care for a show I want a discussion I already told you the last couple posts if you can't show effort and courtesy in discussion there's nothing to talk about. And I don't care how you spin the discussion, either you answer the questions or you don't. And if you reply not answering the questions but continuing to try to manipulate the discussion than I'll clearly explain how your trying to manipulate discussion especially with this post.

I'm not going to argue in circles with you to answer the questions either you answer the questions that I've asked first or you can keep deflecting from answering the questions.

 

[kimb]

Sagebee, I will literally delete my account/have it intentionally banned of you quote yourself pointing out where you explained how dicussing interventionism helps solves the crisis in Europe. Ill stay faithful to my word, but screenshot this if you need to, I've been looking for a reason to quit this site and you might provide me with the scapegoat.

quote from the previous thread using

I don't care for a show I want a discussion I already told you the last couple posts if you can't show effort and courtesy in discussion there's nothing to talk about. And I don't care how you spin the discussion, either you answer the questions or you don't. And if you reply not answering the questions but continuing to try to manipulate the discussion than I'll clearly explain how your trying to manipulate discussion especially with this post.

I'm not going to argue in circles with you to answer the questions either you answer the questions that I've asked first or you can keep deflecting from answering the questions.

Tell me this isn't how it happened;

Spoiler

My response

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

Your following response

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

My response

You must be registered for see images

This is what happens when you spend 30 seconds skimming over a response.

 

[kimb]

You must be registered for see images

 

[Sagebee]

Tell me this isn't how it happened;

Spoiler

My response

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

Your following response

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

My response

You must be registered for see images

This is what happens when you spend 30 seconds skimming over a response.

:wesobi: Let's put this in full context and I'll explain how you have and are continuing to manipulate the truth of the discussion. Here's the full quotes of you and me below.


Your Full Quote

Spoiler

I've outline key steps to the solving the crisis in Europe; start off by acknowledging the issues with the ideology of Islam and the conflict caused by the incompatability in Islamic values and western values so a discussion can be had in order to come to a solution. Only after establishing the issue can you go about solving it.



I don't know who this "they" you keep referring to. I'm not a part of this "they", so don't associate my beliefs with theirs. Multi-"CULTURALISM" is not a matter of race. The problem isn't "brown skin people are coming into the country, oh no", the problem is migrants from the middle east have contradicting value systems and are not only failing to integrate into western society, but are causing issues with the current natives. This is not "let me pick and choose to make people subservient” as you define it, this is pointing out beliefs that are incompatible and contradict the basic principles and values western society is built upon and that cannot be tolerated.
And before you ever try to strawman me with the “them”, I'm not an ethno-nationalist, I am a civic nationalist. I do not care for creating a racially homogenous state, nor do I believe it is a valid solution. I, being black and latino, would rather live in a community surrounded by middle-easterners who support the idea freedom and liberty than live in a community surrounded by Blacks and Latinos who don't. Being against multiculturalism doesn't make you an ethnonationlist or a member of the alt-right the same way being against communism doesn't make you an anarcho-capitalist or a member of the neo-libertarian movement.


I've established that Islamic terrorism at large and Islamic terrorism in Europe are two separate issues that share similar roots, but have varying symptoms and very different ways of going about solving them. This is starting to become a red-herring.



I don't know how to respond to this because your analogy (which wasn’t a rhetorical device in the slightest) since it has no relation with me. I don't see what Trump or the alt-right have to do with me and there’s no reason to draw such a parallel.



First off, don't attach Muslims to this. I have nothing against Muslims at large, my issue is with the ideology of Islam.

Secondly, I didn't "faintly acknowledge interventions and shrug it off and say it's not doing anything". The largest section of my previous comment addresses that issue, and I stated interventionism has nothing to with the crisis in Europe. And again, I've established that Islamic terrorism at large and Islamic terrorism in Europe are two separate issues that share similar roots, but have varying symptoms and very different ways of going about solving them. Unless you’re able to explain how pointing out U.S. meddling solves the crisis in Europe, this is a red-herring.



Aaaaand your solution is "initiative" and unity; "we gotta come togeder n do sumtin!". You would have been better off saying your solution was posting more #PrayForManchester hashtags. At least then you would have been helping yourself feel better, because your non-solution does nothing for anyone.



You keep referencing this conspiratorial Anti-Islamic Cabal at "the top". If you were looking at the power scheme from a truly holistic perspective, you'd know that "the top", which consists of the corporate media, big corporations, globalist, and neocons and neolibs benefit from mass immigration, multiculturalism, radical leftism, radical conservatism, and interventionism. This is not a left vs right issue as extremes from both sides contribute to the problem, this is globalism vs freedom. Your version of the top consisting of Anti-Islamic ethno-nationalist or whatever bigoted belief you believe they hold, is a figment of the left, and if you followed your line of logic, being, “Anti-Islamist are at the top”, you’d see how wrong of a position it is. Anti-Islamist don't run the media, anti-Islamist don’t control social media, anti-Islamist don't control the language or dialogue, anti-Islamist don't control public perception, etc. If Anti-Islamist are at the top, they’re doing a shitty job and controlling things from the shadows.
And what is my mentality? Every time you respond to me, you frame me as if I'm an anti-Muslim, alt-right, Trump supporting, tribalistic white nationalist, when I'm the antithesis of most of those things. You always strawman my position or reference a position that I don't even hold and respond to that rather than responding to my actual positions. Feels bad man.

My response

Spoiler

I'm not sure if we're having miscommunication issues but every point I've made so far you either ignored, moved the goal post or just completely misunderstood or misrepresenting. In the same respect you've said I'm misrepresenting what your saying. So I'm going to attempt to make every point forward clear and concise and when I address points made by you going forward before I go deeply addressing those point I'm going to have you first confirm if or if not that's your position.

Alright tell me if this is the fundamental point your making your that's your antimulticulturalist specific to Islam because you say it poses a risk to society?

You said you describe yourself as "civic nationalist" which I'm assuming your for and against things for the safety of the country?

So would you say Islam poses the biggest or one of the biggest risks to security, in a previous thread I've quoted you official stats how in the US how right wing extremeist make up the greatest percentage of domestic terrorism in this country I think Islamic terrorism actually has the lowest stats. So how should both these threats to security be addressed.

When I was addressing the issue of antimulticulturalism what it really is I'm made it clear I wasn't referring to white nationalist elements even tho they champion this message the most but I didn't paint all these people with same brush. I was speaking to the message of there being forced conformity to way of life. Like you specifically said in your own post saying they aren't "assimilating"? So what exactly than are the Muslims not participating in terrorist acts doing wrong what are they not "assimilating" in?

Also did you say the solution is to clearly diagnose Islam as the root problem of this and from there we can find concrete solutions?

I had a clear point throughout my whole response I don't mind if a person is antimulticulturalist, anti immigration, and even anti islam if your anti interventionism.

But you than dismiss and marginalize interventionism in a couple ways, first when I say how terrorism is used in politics and media as a way to fear monger to push agendas you dismiss it as conspiracy and that your saying that I'm saying some anti-Muslim illuminati exists. Simple question how do you think things like the Iraq war was made possible which inevitably birthed isis?


Than on the issue with foreign meddling you say interventionism exists but initially just blame it on saudi Arabia to take away us responsibility. Then the latest post you now switch the goal post to European interventionism first of all those countries have there own dealings inside and outside the countries involved with their own interventionism and also support us interventionism ideologically and physically. Also places like France have been doing things like no hijabs even before terrorist attacks hit them.

So why can't you simply say if you don't want them in your country you think we should stop opportunistically meddling with theirs?

And you said something interesting you said the issue is "globalism vs freedom" what exactly does that mean?

Also to the issue of solutions and you saying what I said isn't one could you please explain to me how you understand it the point I'm making and how it isn't a solution. But at the core what I'm saying is people who care for solutions will find them.

And clearly with detail explain what your solution is and what you think the result would be.

I will say this is I personally don't like discussing serious issues especially online because in most times its not a dialogue but a person just adamantly arguing their side without truly listening and trying to understand what the other side is saying. So this goes to both you and me let's try our best to understand each other and if you feel I'm not understanding you than please go out of your way to be as clear as possible and hopefully we can at least understand what the other is saying.

Before I explain how here your manipulating the discussion again I'm going to explain how you've been specifically manipulating the discussion of multiculturalism and interventionism. My basic point I made in the discussion was I wouldn't mind people having antimulticulturalist sentiments if there in the same time your anti interventions. You can't in one respect take issue with certain people being in your country if your in the same time meddling in theirs. So you initially acknowledge interventions exist but that it's really only the fault of places like saudi Arabia trying to wash away US involvement in order to make the point that Islam is truly responsible. Then I address you doing this so you than decide to move the goal post to European interventions. And even to that I respond that Europe participates in interventions as well. And how their foreign and domestic policies negatively impact Muslims which facilities recruitment to these terror groups and attacks. And this was only one of many points you either dismissed ignored or misrepresented.

And I tell you about this but we still keep arguing in circles with both of us saying we are being misrepresented so it just became an argument instead of a discussion. In this specific full quote of yours your saying I'm misconstruing you as I feel you are doing to me. So instead of arguing in circles and having you say I'm misrepresenting you or that I'm putting words in your mouth I put what I believed your positions are and things I wanted you to respond to in question format so you could clearly speak to what your saying and actually address my points so it could be a dialogue and no one could say they were misrepresented. Also in that post I speak to both of us saying let's not argue but dialogue and tried to resolve the issue of us saying we are being misrepresented. So how have I sidestepped anything?

Throughout this entire discussion you've manipulated the discussion to disingenuously argue your point like you just did with this post and consistently sidestepped ever trying to make your position clear.


And besides the issue of misrepresentation another way you manipulate discussion is by keep moving the goal post of the discussion if I allowed you dictate the discussion there would be no progression either you will say your misunderstood, ignore dismiss points made not allowing yourself to put your feat to the fire on your positions making me think at this point even if you do answer the questions it's still going to be a discussion with no progression.

 

[kimb]

:wesobi: Let's put this in full context and I'll explain how you have and are continuing to manipulate the truth of the discussion. Here's the full quotes of you and me below.


Your Full Quote
My response
Before I explain how here your manipulating the discussion again I'm going to explain how you've been specifically manipulating the discussion of multiculturalism and interventionism. My basic point I made in the discussion was I wouldn't mind people having antimulticulturalist sentiments if there in the same time your anti interventions. You can't in one respect take issue with certain people being in your country if your in the same time meddling in theirs.

MY country has nothing to do with causing crisis in Europe. It definitely helped destabilize the middle east, arm terrorist organizations, and helped create the migrant crisis, but not the European crisis.

So you initially acknowledge interventions exist but that it's really only the fault of places like saudi Arabia trying to wash away US involvement in order to make the point that Islam is truly responsible.

False, I said Saudi Arabia is the main contributor.

Then I address you doing this so you than decide to move the goal post to European interventions.

Not ONCE did I mention European intervention before this comment (ctrl+f if you have to).

And even to that I respond that Europe participates in interventions as well.

And what effects of Europe's intervention lead to the crisis in Europe and how does acknowledging Europes intervention solves the crisis in Europe?

And how their foreign and domestic policies negatively impact Muslims which facilities recruitment to these terror groups and attacks. And this was only one of many points you either dismissed ignored or misrepresented.

Europe hasn't dropped mass drone strikes on the middle east, nor have they funded rebel groups with weapons. In all the reports of civilian death tolls, European countries are almost never mentioned, unless to make the U.S. look bad in comparison.

And I tell you about this but we still keep arguing in circles with both of us saying we are being misrepresented so it just became an argument instead of a discussion. In this specific full quote of yours your saying I'm misconstruing you as I feel you are doing to me. So instead of arguing in circles and having you say I'm misrepresenting you or that I'm putting words in your mouth I put what I believed your positions are and things I wanted you to respond to in question format so you could clearly speak to what your saying and actually address my points so it could be a dialogue and no one could say they were misrepresented. Also in that post I speak to both of us saying let's not argue but dialogue and tried to resolve the issue of us saying we are being misrepresented. So how have I sidestepped anything?

Throughout this entire discussion you've manipulated the discussion to disingenuously argue your point like you just did with this post and consistently sidestepped ever trying to make your position clear.


And besides the issue of misrepresentation another way you manipulate discussion is by keep moving the goal post of the discussion if I allowed you dictate the discussion there would be no progression either you will say your misunderstood, ignore dismiss points made not allowing yourself to put your feat to the fire on your positions making me think at this point even if you do answer the questions it's still going to be a discussion with no progression.

Why would I let you dictate the dicussion, you're accusing me of manipulating/shifting goal posts without accurately pointing to a single moment where I've done so.

Admittedly if dismissed and overlooked some of your points as I saw them as irrelevant and stated why I would continue to see them as being irrevelant until you explained otherwise.

And you have also overlooked many of my points, seemingly out of obliviousness or lack of attention to detail.

If you want to start fresh, I'm down. I with you when you say you're tired of arguing about the argument. I think I've expressed all my points, so I'll let you choose where we pick up from here.

 

[Sagebee]

MY country has nothing to do with causing crisis in Europe. It definitely helped destabilize the middle east, arm terrorist organizations, and helped create the migrant crisis, but not the European crisis.

False, I said Saudi Arabia is the main contributor.

Not ONCE did I mention European intervention before this comment (ctrl+f if you have to).

And what effects of Europe's intervention lead to the crisis in Europe and how does acknowledging Europes intervention solves the crisis in Europe?

Europe hasn't dropped mass drone strikes on the middle east, nor have they funded rebel groups with weapons. In all the reports of civilian death tolls, European countries are almost never mentioned, unless to make the U.S. look bad in comparison.


Why would I let you dictate the dicussion, you're accusing me of manipulating/shifting goal posts without accurately pointing to a single moment where I've done so.

Admittedly if dismissed and overlooked some of your points as I saw them as irrelevant and stated why I would continue to see them as being irrevelant until you explained otherwise.

And you have also overlooked many of my points, seemingly out of obliviousness or lack of attention to detail.

If you want to start fresh, I'm down. I with you when you say you're tired of arguing about the argument. I think I've expressed all my points, so I'll let you choose where we pick up from here.

How's getting clarity in your positions and having you respond to mine dictating the discussion? I'm trying to make sure both sides are accurately heard and responded to.

I have a strong urge to rebuttal your responses such as when you ask how does US interventions contribute to the "European crisis" and I think what you mean by European crisis is the "immigrant crisis" and these interventions to immigrants moving to different countries. On how they create a mess and complain when they have to clean it up. Etc...

But I just don't think in these serious types of topics we will get fruitful dialogue.

In the end of the day I will say this fundamentally both of us don't want incidents like those to occur we need to be conscious of the victims and should be conscious on how rhetoric like this will impact muslims. And in broader context be aware and sympathetic how your positions will impact minorities and just people in general. And the reason I stressed minorities your positions on social issues are usually skewed against minorities I say this not so you don't have those positions but understand it effects people. What we are discussing isn't something theoretical but have impact on real people.

And I think we should just respectfully agree to disagree and leave it at that

 

[kimb]

How's getting clarity in your positions and having you respond to mine dictating the discussion? I'm trying to make sure both sides are accurately heard and responded to.

I have a strong urge to rebuttal your responses such as when you ask how does US interventions contribute to the "European crisis" and I think what you mean by European crisis is the "immigrant crisis" and these interventions to immigrants moving to different countries. On how they create a mess and complain when they have to clean it up. Etc...

But I just don't think in these serious types of topics we will get fruitful dialogue.

In the end of the day I will say this fundamentally both of us don't want incidents like those to occur we need to be conscious of the victims and should be conscious on how rhetoric like this will impact muslims. And in broader context be aware and sympathetic how your positions will impact minorities and just people in general. And the reason I stressed minorities your positions on social issues are usually skewed against minorities I say this not so you don't have those positions but understand it effects people. What we are discussing isn't something theoretical but have impact on real people.

And I think we should just respectfully agree to disagree and leave it at that

My problem with your perspective is that you seem more concerned with the potential effects having a discussion about the flaws of Islam could have on Muslims over victims of martyr vests and trucks of peace, and this seems to be the case with anyone I talk to who's socially left leaning.

Before Islam was a big issue, Christianity was at the focal point of discussion from both the left and right. Christian beliefs and traditions were openly criticized and condemn, liberals would make arguments detailing to how Christianity hindered progress in society, and oppressed gays, and this was all done without targeting Christians, or without concern for "negatively effecting christians". And because of the frank discussion on Christianity, we saw change.But now when it comes to Islam, it's become a leftist sacred cow. It holds beliefs that are twice as regressive as Christianity, but it's protected by those who promote progress. Why?

Why was there not a concern for effecting Christians, but there is one for Islam? What makes the ideologies so different? In short, nothing. Its because of things like the rise of cultural marxism, and intersectional philosophy you now see the protection of ideologies from criticism.

Inb4 "wut about the muslims". I had these serious discussions with Muslims I shared a dorm with back at in Uni and it was them who were the ones that convinced me over to wanting reform rather than erraticating the entire religion. They were the ones that turned me to the Muslim reform movement, and people like Maajid Nawaz; and talking to them definitely helped better expand my perspective on the issue, and my knowledge of the culture more.

I am still of the belief that in the long term ALL religions should be phased out through the promotion of secular philosophy, logic, and reasoning, but in the short term, its far more practical to have Islam succumb to modernity. This doesn't mean the targeting of Muslims, or the purge of refugees, or bombing insurgents to smithereens, all it means is having a frank and honest discussion.

There's no nice way of saying you're wrong, so I'll say that I disagree to disagree.

 

[Sagebee]

My problem with your perspective is that you seem more concerned with the potential effects having a discussion about the flaws of Islam could have on Muslims over victims of martyr vests and trucks of peace, and this seems to be the case with anyone I talk to who's socially left leaning.

Before Islam was a big issue, Christianity was at the focal point of discussion from both the left and right. Christian beliefs and traditions were openly criticized and condemn, liberals would make arguments detailing to how Christianity hindered progress in society, and oppressed gays, and this was all done without targeting Christians, or without concern for "negatively effecting christians". And because of the frank discussion on Christianity, we saw change.But now when it comes to Islam, it's become a leftist sacred cow. It holds beliefs that are twice as regressive as Christianity, but it's protected by those who promote progress. Why?

Why was there not a concern for effecting Christians, but there is one for Islam? What makes the ideologies so different? In short, nothing. Its because of things like the rise of cultural marxism, and intersectional philosophy you now see the protection of ideologies from criticism.

Inb4 "wut about the muslims". I had these serious discussions with Muslims I shared a dorm with back at in Uni and it was them who were the ones that convinced me over to wanting reform rather than erraticating the entire religion. They were the ones that turned me to the Muslim reform movement, and people like Maajid Nawaz; and talking to them definitely helped better expand my perspective on the issue, and my knowledge of the culture more.

I am still of the belief that in the long term ALL religions should be phased out through the promotion of secular philosophy, logic, and reasoning, but in the short term, its far more practical to have Islam succumb to modernity. This doesn't mean the targeting of Muslims, or the purge of refugees, or bombing insurgents to smithereens, all it means is having a frank and honest discussion.

There's no nice way of saying you're wrong, so I'll say that I disagree to disagree.

What I interpret the fundamental point your making is Islam is the root cause of these problems and we should change it and hopefully have it removed from all societies one day.

There's many things I want to unpack from what you said but fundamentally let me say usually in any type of serious discussions we will not see a person with an actual reflective and researched position but you will see people giving talking points talking at each other and the biggest sign people are doing that is they ignore and dismiss half the issue or story and in extreme cases dismiss the facts entirely to create their narrative.

With me any issue I hear out what both sides are saying and see where the truth lies. For the issue you saying Islam is the root cause of these attacks. And people with that perspective will usually say that Islam promotes indiscriminate attacks on non muslims. So I've actually researched is this the case and look at the passages sited and its context. And all those passages are discussing the regulations of war and all the passages reference when conflict is brought to them how to deal with people declare war. And I've thoroughly studied there regulations of war it's not acceptable to attack people who aren't involved in war like woman children old people. That there places of worship should not be touched it even saying to not even destroy trees indiscriminately. Also things like suicide attacks are extremely sinful and it's not promoted in the religion. While we think killing innocent people are fine which we give an excuse and call collateral damage. And also think it's acceptable to start wars with people that have done nothing to us and call it preemptive war.

Also some people think they've researched an issue because they've looked up what biased sources say and regurgitate what's said with no real questioning just a reaffirmation to argue the position. This how things like media works to intellectually segregate people just swallow what they are told and spit it right out having a superficial and in some cases complete fabrication of the issue.

It's not by accident media uses language like people who do these attacks are extremists and the ones that don't as moderates. Trying to subtly imply they commit these attacks because they're truly following Islam and the people don't aren't. And you allow what a few people have done to dictate who a whole people are. And people with your mentality when given the fact that right wing extremist actually pose a greater risk in those countries statistically it's ignored and dismissed and if you guys aren't explicitly supporting those actions you implicitly are. And what you want to ignore is these attacks aren't coming out of a vacuum it's not like countries always had a Muslim terrorist problem so where do you thing they sprouted from?

How about the United Kingdom and Ireland conflict did those Irish people attack them just because they are Christians? Or do you not think the United kingdoms relationship with them contributed to the attacks.

Just putting the morality of the issue to the side the facts aren't on your side. So too fold the actual truth isn't cared about and also how it effects people.

Also you say the eventual solution should be we should get rid of religion but until then we should reform them. First thing I want to say is there are people that say that religion is the root of all problems of the world and let's assume then religions are just man made evil tools. Removing religion will not remove human evil or even decrease because as humans we will exist. You know what the secular equivalent to blind faith is? It's patriotism which predispose people to not question what there country does and assume they are doing the right thing. You think you will escape the flaws of religion in secularism those elements still exist and people assume we are smarter and better but we commit the same mistakes of the past. Me personally I have a deep seeded frustration with the imperfections of people not truly caring to listen understand and be empathic and sympathize. What you need to understand is you don't decide what people should think and be. As you believe your position is true and right others in their spectrum of beliefs think they are true and right. What I believe is truth prevails no matter what nothing can be done to suppress it. So all anyone could do is state their truth some will be swayed others won't and we all separately live our truths. Also to the issue reformation of Islam the majority of Muslims believe that all evils committed in the name of Islam are corruptions and call for revival to the true islam.

Also something else I want you to understand is not just the effects of our actions committed in foreign countries or even done to Muslims. Things like the standing rock conflicts going on where native Americans and protesters are being brutalized. There's cops indiscriminately murdering people mainly minorities and they get away with it and as a country excuse it. And more and more in public office rhetoric is allowed that put minorities under threat but their stories constantly being ignored or sensationally manipulated. And I want you to understand the constant threats muslims in this country are out under you see that story of the attacking of the stabbing posted in general discussion where those guys saved those Muslim woman muslims are constantly attacked in this country but it's underreported but high rates of right wing extremists even Christian extremist which go severely underreported. Just for an anecdote back when I was in college there were constant stories of Muslim woman getting harassed and assaulted on a consistent basis and I went to a fairly liberal schools. There's muslims arrested on accusations of crimes constantly in this country not getting trials. Due to your bias and many with your mentality that ignore and dismiss these struggles and implicitly allow and excuse these type of things.

Again you said your basic point for solution was we have to acknowledge Islam as the root cause of these attacks? So how about the effects of our actions outside and within this country?Also are you still sticking to the position of antimulticulturalism based on the people champion this message having white nationalist undertones, and it seems your not truly antimulticulturalism but more so anti islam but you do hold anti minority positions in all issues I've seen you discuss so far?

Lastly you do realise the term agree to disagree means we arent agreeing right? I'm pretty sure to disagree to disagree would mean we are agreeing.

 

[kimb]

What I interpret the fundamental point your making is Islam is the root cause of these problems and we should change it and hopefully have it removed from all societies one day.

Yes, and I hold this true for all religions. I'm not sure what you mean by "these problems" though, you could be including or excluding certain issues that I think Islam causes.

There's many things I want to unpack from what you said but fundamentally let me say usually in any type of serious discussions we will not see a person with an actual reflective and researched position but you will see people giving talking points talking at each other and the biggest sign people are doing that is they ignore and dismiss half the issue or story and in extreme cases dismiss the facts entirely to create their narrative.

With me any issue I hear out what both sides are saying and see where the truth lies. For the issue you saying Islam is the root cause of these attacks.

Aaaaand you go back to terrorism. Is terrorism the only issue with the Islamic world? If not, stop using terrorism as the preface of all your arguments.

And people with that perspective will usually say that Islam promotes indiscriminate attacks on non muslims. So I've actually researched is this the case and look at the passages sited and its context. And all those passages are discussing the regulations of war and all the passages reference when conflict is brought to them how to deal with people declare war. And I've thoroughly studied there regulations of war it's not acceptable to attack people who aren't involved in war like woman children old people. That there places of worship should not be touched it even saying to not even destroy trees indiscriminately. Also things like suicide attacks are extremely sinful and it's not promoted in the religion. While we think killing innocent people are fine which we give an excuse and call collateral damage. And also think it's acceptable to start wars with people that have done nothing to us and call it preemptive war.

Does Islam not promote violence against Christians and Jews?

Suicide in itself is a sin, but in killing infidels, a suicide bomber becomes a martyr in death, allowing him to go to paradise. I hope you were just simply oblivious to that fact, because it would be a shame did do research and ignored the fact.

Btw, provide sources and links to the Islamic rules of law stating exclusion of woman, children, and churches. And again, terrorism (your sacred cow of an argument) is not the only issue with islam.

Also some people think they've researched an issue because they've looked up what biased sources say and regurgitate what's said with no real questioning just a reaffirmation to argue the position. This how things like media works to intellectually segregate people just swallow what they are told and spit it right out having a superficial and in some cases complete fabrication of the issue.

"Some people like to put ketchup on their fries, some people like to wear socks with sandals, some people like sleeping with the lights on."

Unless you're going to staple something to me, or accuse me of something, stop bringing up irrelevant bullshit to the argument. These positions, and actions have nothing to do with me, and you're attempting to associate me with them. How you're explain "some people" do XXX thing, is how you see me in your mind, otherwise you wouldn't be bringing up this irrelevant bullshit.

It's not by accident media uses language like people who do these attacks are extremists and the ones that don't as moderates. Trying to subtly imply they commit these attacks because they're truly following Islam and the people don't aren't. And you allow what a few people have done to dictate who a whole people are. And people with your mentality when given the fact that right wing extremist actually pose a greater risk in those countries statistically it's ignored and dismissed and if you guys aren't explicitly supporting those actions you implicitly are. And what you want to ignore is these attacks aren't coming out of a vacuum it's not like countries always had a Muslim terrorist problem so where do you thing they sprouted from?

How about the United Kingdom and Ireland conflict did those Irish people attack them just because they are Christians? Or do you not think the United kingdoms relationship with them contributed to the attacks.

Just putting the morality of the issue to the side the facts aren't on your side. So too fold the actual truth isn't cared about and also how it effects people.

Also you say the eventual solution should be we should get rid of religion but until then we should reform them. First thing I want to say is there are people that say that religion is the root of all problems of the world and let's assume then religions are just man made evil tools. Removing religion will not remove human evil or even decrease because as humans we will exist. You know what the secular equivalent to blind faith is? It's patriotism which predispose people to not question what there country does and assume they are doing the right thing. You think you will escape the flaws of religion in secularism those elements still exist and people assume we are smarter and better but we commit the same mistakes of the past. Me personally I have a deep seeded frustration with the imperfections of people not truly caring to listen understand and be empathic and sympathize. What you need to understand is you don't decide what people should think and be. As you believe your position is true and right others in their spectrum of beliefs think they are true and right. What I believe is truth prevails no matter what nothing can be done to suppress it. So all anyone could do is state their truth some will be swayed others won't and we all separately live our truths. Also to the issue reformation of Islam the majority of Muslims believe that all evils committed in the name of Islam are corruptions and call for revival to the true islam.

Also something else I want you to understand is not just the effects of our actions committed in foreign countries or even done to Muslims. Things like the standing rock conflicts going on where native Americans and protesters are being brutalized. There's cops indiscriminately murdering people mainly minorities and they get away with it and as a country excuse it. And more and more in public office rhetoric is allowed that put minorities under threat but their stories constantly being ignored or sensationally manipulated. And I want you to understand the constant threats muslims in this country are out under you see that story of the attacking of the stabbing posted in general discussion where those guys saved those Muslim woman muslims are constantly attacked in this country but it's underreported but high rates of right wing extremists even Christian extremist which go severely underreported. Just for an anecdote back when I was in college there were constant stories of Muslim woman getting harassed and assaulted on a consistent basis and I went to a fairly liberal schools. There's muslims arrested on accusations of crimes constantly in this country not getting trials. Due to your bias and many with your mentality that ignore and dismiss these struggles and implicitly allow and excuse these type of things.

Again you said your basic point for solution was we have to acknowledge Islam as the root cause of these attacks? So how about the effects of our actions outside and within this country?Also are you still sticking to the position of antimulticulturalism based on the people champion this message having white nationalist undertones, and it seems your not truly antimulticulturalism but more so anti islam but you do hold anti minority positions in all issues I've seen you discuss so far?

Lastly you do realise the term agree to disagree means we arent agreeing right? I'm pretty sure to disagree to disagree would mean we are agreeing.

Im not going to read through you attempting to associate me with various with absolutely no evidence. Youre using a grimy tactic of bring up the beliefs of "some people" and the acts of "some people", in an attempt to associate me with those acts without actually stapling them to me, so when I try to defend myself or say otherwise, you can act like a sleezy piece of shit and say "OH, I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about some people".

Quit being b****-made, Sagebee. Either you be up front like an adult and accuse me of what you're trying to associate me with, or you don't respond to me. I don't have time to listen to someone try to lecture me on shit I haven't done.

 

[Sagebee]

Yes, and I hold this true for all religions. I'm not sure what you mean by "these problems" though, you could be including or excluding certain issues that I think Islam causes.


Aaaaand you go back to terrorism. Is terrorism the only issue with the Islamic world? If not, stop using terrorism as the preface of all your arguments.

Does Islam not promote violence against Christians and Jews?

Suicide in itself is a sin, but in killing infidels, a suicide bomber becomes a martyr in death, allowing him to go to paradise. I hope you were just simply oblivious to that fact, because it would be a shame did do research and ignored the fact.

Btw, provide sources and links to the Islamic rules of law stating exclusion of woman, children, and churches. And again, terrorism (your sacred cow of an argument) is not the only issue with islam.


"Some people like to put ketchup on their fries, some people like to wear socks with sandals, some people like sleeping with the lights on."

Unless you're going to staple something to me, or accuse me of something, stop bringing up irrelevant bullshit to the argument. These positions, and actions have nothing to do with me, and you're attempting to associate me with them. How you're explain "some people" do XXX thing, is how you see me in your mind, otherwise you wouldn't be bringing up this irrelevant bullshit.



Im not going to read through you attempting to associate me with various with absolutely no evidence. Youre using a grimy tactic of bring up the beliefs of "some people" and the acts of "some people", in an attempt to associate me with those acts without actually stapling them to me, so when I try to defend myself or say otherwise, you can act like a sleezy piece of shit and say "OH, I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about some people".

Quit being b****-made, Sagebee. Either you be up front like an adult and accuse me of what you're trying to associate me with, or you don't respond to me. I don't have time to listen to someone try to lecture me on shit I haven't done.

What are you talking about have you not been saying Islam is not the root cause of terrorism? Lol trying to move the goal post again. Most Muslims don't find the Muslim world actually following Islamic principles.

No Islam doesn't promote the indiscriminate attacking of Christians and Jews if you know the history they lived with them before the first Islamic state started.

Also I'm going to assume someone gave you false info but at no times ever is suicide or killing an innocent accepted. To the point someone stops and gives up in middle of battle you respect it and and not do harm to them no matter what the circumstance.

If you mean telling you about the struggles people go through and saying how you dismiss it or ignore it either to get off your point or simple bias than yes you've done that. And I never said you did the actions but choosing to ignore it is implicitly accepting it.

In the end of the day I knew this would be the response a non response I'm not even gonna go into what your doing. I just wanted to put some clarity to the situation at this point for me anyways there's nothing else to be said.