Phemanderac wrote:

Quote:


It's a whole of (a divided society) problem Phemanderac.

On the one side you have people who know that islam is the root cause of all the troubles, (islam is nothing more than the manifestation of the evilness of muhammad's persona) therefore evil will prevail while ever islam exists in it's present form.

To reform, islam has to admit that islam, allah, muhammad and the qur'an are all wrong. This means islam implodes.

On the opposing side, muslims know there can be no reform without sounding the death knell for islam, therefore they are letting people die rather than resolving the problem.

Their leftard supporters / apologists are in the trap with them, totally unable to do anything about it, because they would have to admit that the hated Christianity is (shock horror) a better religion that islam, so the leftard apologists let people die rather than criticize islam as being a degenerate belief, which engenders the most inhumane atrocities imaginable.    

freediver wrote on Oct 5^th, 2015 at 6:53pm:


So you are saying that arguing that the conventional view that Islam proscribes death for homosexuality is wrong and should be removed from Islamic law - is not trying to change Islamic law? You'll have to explain that one for me.

You still haven't addressed the issue here FD - namely why do you continue to insist on mocking my view of how Islam should deal with gays by insinuating heavilly that the law in that regard is 'set in stone' - whereas you argued previously that muslims can, and indeed should change the specifics of their laws? I found your initial response to this question - that I should consider abandoning the entirety of Islam rather extraordinary. Even Ayan Hirsi Ali - about the most vehement critic of Islam out there - argues strongly for Islam's ability to reform and become compatible with the modern world. Exactly what you said in 2008. Now you seem to be taking the moses route - Islam is evil incarnate - always has been, always will be, and nothing can be done to change that.

Why do you want Islam to remain in the 7th century?

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2015 at 12:09pm:


Calling for a law and punishment to be discarded entirely is a pretty important way of trying to change the law wouldn't you say?

freediver wrote on Oct 6^th, 2015 at 12:09pm:


Please explain to me the difference between "consciously taking liberties" and what you called for in 2008 that I quoted. Or do you now take the view there is no difference? Do you now think that when muslims do what you called for then, its time for them to simply "move on" from Islam - and that therefore there is literally no scope for muslims to reform Islam? Thats its either 7th century Islam or no Islam at all?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 6^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:


I believe it has something to do with Freeeedom. Or self censorship. One thing's for sure.

FD won't say.

The price of liberty is eternal Freeeeedom, no?

freediver wrote on Oct 7^th, 2015 at 12:58pm:


No? That seems to be exactly what the 2008 FD said. His point was that Islam is flexible enough to change with the times. He indicated that such pragmatism is built into the very fabric of Islamic doctrine.

I can see why you wouldn't understand this, FD. You and the 2008 FD have never seen eye to eye on this issue.

You blame Islam, no?

moses wrote on Oct 5^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:


Nope, it is what I said. Particularly in the context of the rest of my post...

moses wrote on Oct 5^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:


Really? Did the Christianity implode during the reformation? Did any Christian group admit to being "wrong" or that the bible was wrong during reformation?

Even better, does the new testament mean the old testament is wrong? Are they not both the word of God?

Given the Christian example set, it seems perfectly feasible that Islam can reform and not implode. Obviously reformation is not an easy or smooth process, I believe there are still some significant divisions within the Christian faith all stemming from the reform period.

In fact, it seems illogical to think any religious group can survive without some degree of adaptation (reformation) to keep it relevant to modern life, thinking and needs.

Bare in mind, I am not a supporter of any kind of organised religion - that is the most basic form of exerting power and control to my mind. I have this idea you see that "beliefs" are actually a personal thing. Now you and I might have some common beliefs, yipee...However, the commonality of our beliefs does not make them any more right or wrong than another's beliefs....

moses wrote on Oct 5^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:


Some might be strongly of that opinion, any reasoning person though knows that opinions can and frequently are wrong... Just like beliefs...

moses wrote on Oct 5^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:


Sorry, that's a pretty basic human condition right there and not exclusively a Muslim one.

moses wrote on Oct 5^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:


I guess part of the problem here then is that I am obviously not a "leftard" (what a childish word that is...)

I think I have just pointed out, all organised religion is crap so Christianity is neither better or worse... it's just another organised religion, one that a lot of people in our little corner of the globe are overpowered and controlled by...

ALL humans are capable (demonstrably so) of committing atrocities, yes also in the name of religion...You seem to overlook for example anti abortion campaigners who think it's ok to murder Doctors and Nurses (and no doubt some women who have had abortions) - that's pretty inhumane of itself...

This is why it is a whole of society problem. Society will always be divided at some level so it's hardly necessary to highlight that insignificant factor.

We could just blame the parents... Nothing gets resolved (hmm or reformed).

We could just blame the Islamic religion... Nothing gets resolved/reformed and, guess what, more people die.

We can blame any number of people, or, we can stand up and take responsibility for our SOCIETY and take this problem on board as an issue for all. A whole of society problem...

Hate speech after all is just that, regardless of whether it's a Mufti, you, a priest or a politician. It is divisive and doesn't address the problems, same goes for BLAME...

Quote:


Yes, that is what I thought when I knew nothing about Islam.

Quote:


You just explained that you do not care about how to interpret that verse. That sounds like giving up to me, particularly in light of your previous efforts.

Quote:


I borrowed the term from you.

Quote:


Is this the extent of your argument Phem - that it is merely an opinion and thus possibly wrong?

Quote:


Perhaps instead of seeing it as church's vs mosque's, you should see it as two different ideologies. There are clear differences. Insisting that everything you disagree with is equal on the grounds that you disagree with it is reather childish don't you think?

Quote:


What is the distinction you are trying to make? Why would something get resolved merely because you wave your arms in the air and blame society?

Everyone here Karnal.

Except you of course.