3 simple reasons why Islam isn't compatible with the West

Scroll to see replies

In such interpretation they still are Muslims, though the sinners.

Ah, but this depends on the interpretation. There are some Muslims who would consider Muslims who reject or ignore parts of the Quran to be Not Muslims (in which case, one wonders why Muslims make a fuss about their Not Muslimness, if thet are not Muslims).
It is not simply the not doing something that is the act of kufr, it is the reason for not doing it that is important.

Reply 61

QE2

Original post by admonit

If you criticize a religion, you automatically criticize people, who follow this religion and for whom this religion is sacred.

If you criticise the Tories' policy on the NHS, are you implying that everyone who voted Conservative holds the same views? Are Tories a monolithic and homogeneous block, all thinking and acting the same? Well, it's the same with Muslims.

However, if an individual Tory voter explicitly states that the Party's stance and policy on the NHS is perfect and they support it wholeheartedly, then yes, they are implicitly criticised along with the policy itself.

Reply 62

QE2

Original post by zainyyyyy

you must be high af whilst writing this. Sharia law is twisted by the media and probably all your friends. Sharia law is the law of the quran however it is misinterpreted by literally everyone. The Quran has never mentioned women must cover up their whole body in a scarf but people do it anyway.

Sharia does not state anything. It is a system of rulings derived from the Quran and sunnah. Sharia varies depending of who is deriving the rulings. It is not a definitive list of laws like the UK's statues.

In Saudi Arabia, the authorities have derived a sharia ruling that the hijab is mandatory. Any decision in jurisprudence that can be derived from the Quran or sunnah can be sharia, like cutting off hands, stoning adulterers, executing apostates, and the dgree of covering required for women. It all depends on the position of the sheikhs' understanding and position.

Reply 63

Fullofsurprises

Original post by biglad2k16

The title of the thread is "Islam isn't compatible with the west" not "Muslims aren't compatible with the the west"- I was criticising the ideology, not the people.

I read the title, I was talking about how things are in practise, as opposed to the ideology. I don't doubt there are things in Islam that clash with aspects of our culture, but most people don't rigidly follow them even if they consider themselves Muslims and there were also errors in your interpretation of what Islam contains as applied here.

There are loads of posts like this on TSR. Basically:

- poster claims that x, y and z accurately describe Islam.

- poster then claims that they are not compatible with Our Way of Life / Western Civilisation / The Daily Mail / Great Britain as We Know It. (Delete where appropriate.)

Reply 64

Drunk Punx

Original post by mil88

Indeed I do.

My point was, bringing forth evidence regarding "modern muslims" and their views of Islam dominating the world, is far more compelling than giving the example of muslims of the past, when this isn't in question or being discussed.

I am not arguing for or against here, simply highlighting a potential flaw in your reasoning.

When discussing " modern muslims", in my humble opinion, using modern data is more appropriate than using history, which doesn't represent "modern muslims" unless you make assumptions.

With regards to the other user, I suspect that they were using their own views and the views of their friends, and therefore is valid as far as the notion of "modern muslims" is concerned, just not valid for all "modern muslims".

I disagree with your assessment.

Firstly, I trust that the user I quoted was intelligent enough not to conflate their friends' opinions with history (or so one would presume).

Secondly, we seem to be on the same page here; using historical actions as a basis with which to judge the behaviour of a modern group of people is somewhat flawed (which was the message I meant to convey).

To reiterate: unwarrantedly patronising someone (in this case, saying [and I paraphrase the user I quoted] "history shows that x group of people don't engage in y type behaviour") isn't only factually inaccurate (as I stated) but is also of, as you said yourself, flawed reasoning.

Reply 65

Drunk Punx

Original post by admonit

If you criticize a religion, you automatically criticize people, who follow this religion and for whom this religion is sacred.

********. You can criticise any ideology without criticising its' adherents.

Their feelings on the matter don't change that, regardless of how offended they feel about it.

Reply 66

username2097061

Original post by Drunk Punx

I disagree with your assessment.

As do I

Original post by Drunk Punx

Firstly, I trust that the user I quoted was intelligent enough not to conflate their friends' opinions with history (or so one would presume).

This was certainly not what I meant. Rather, I predicted the chance of using their own experiences and those of their near ones, in synergy with other elements, like history.

After reading over the comments again, it does transpire that perhaps I initially misunderstood your comment.

I apologize for this.

Reply 67

alevelstresss

Original post by Drunk Punx

********. You can criticise any ideology without criticising its' adherents.

Their feelings on the matter don't change that, regardless of how offended they feel about it.

its slightly absurd to say "Yeah you're a good guy Mohammed, but your religion is bigoted, your prophet is a pedophile, your entire culture and way of life is misogynistic and backwards, your friends and family under this religion are also idiots, your religion is barbaric and it condones violence"

Reply 68

QE2

Original post by alevelstresss

“I respect you as a person too much to respect your ridiculous beliefs.” - Johann Hari

Reply 69

admonit

Original post by QE2

“I respect you as a person too much to respect your ridiculous beliefs.” - Johann Hari

"When you harm people, you should shut up, go away and reflect on what happened"- Johann Hari
:cool:

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 70

QE2

Original post by admonit

"When you harm people, you should shut up, go away and reflect on what happened"- Johann Hari
:cool:

Also true. A perspicacious guy, if somewhat flawed.

Reply 71

Drunk Punx

Original post by mil88

As do I

This was certainly not what I meant. Rather, I predicted the chance of using their own experiences and those of their near ones, in synergy with other elements, like history.

After reading over the comments again, it does transpire that perhaps I initially misunderstood your comment.

I apologize for this.

No need to apologise, I can see how my initial post could be misinterpreted :smile:

Original post by alevelstresss

Let's assess that:

"You're a good guy Mohammed".

- Sure, if you count being a warlord and forcefully converting the surrounding area to your beliefs under pain of death to be traits of "a good guy".

"Your religion is bigoted".

- Kinda is. Call a spade a spade y'know? If pointing out the truth is considered disrespectful, then I think some priorities might need reshuffling.

"Your prophet is a paedophile".

- See above.

"Misogynistic/backwards culture".

- See above above (this is a bit too easy).

"Friends and family are idiots".

- That's an opinion and an ad hom, not a rational criticism.

"Barbaric religion that condones violence".

- I refer the honourable gentleman to Point 2.

If someone takes the objective truth as a slight because it upset their fee-fees, they may as well give up now and toddle off to live in a permanent safe space where it's illegal criticise things in case it offends someone.

Reply 72

alevelstresss

Original post by Drunk Punx

No need to apologise, I can see how my initial post could be misinterpreted :smile:

Its not the objective truth though. Why are you legitimising racist/discriminatory assumptions about a foreign religion?

Reply 73

Drunk Punx

Original post by alevelstresss

Its not the objective truth though. Why are you legitimising racist/discriminatory assumptions about a foreign religion?

So you're telling me that it's not written in scripture about treating non-believers and women differently, keeping slaves is fine so long as you've got a penis, and killing various groups of people is a-ok?

You can't be racist towards an ideology, stop being ridiculous. And it's only discriminatory if I treat the adherents of that ideology differently (kinda like how it's written within the scripture that doing so is totally cool), which I'm not; I'm criticising the ideology, not the people who believe in it.

If you can't distinguish between the two then that's your problem, not mine.

Reply 74

alevelstresss

Original post by Drunk Punx

The scripture of the Quran was written for a completely different type of society 1500 years ago. Its stupid to attack the Quran as the source of all problems, when clearly the excessive majority of Muslims ignore its ancient, barbaric tenets and just follow its principles while also integrating with western society.

You're being discriminatory to Muslims because you're assuming that they're all bad people and that they follow the Quran's brutality by the word.

Reply 75

QE2

Original post by alevelstresss

The scripture of the Quran was written for a completely different type of society 1500 years ago.

Pop over to the ISOC and ask if the Quran only relates to 7th century Arabia.
I predict that the "NOs" will be approaching 100%.

Its stupid to attack the Quran as the source of all problems, when clearly the excessive majority of Muslims ignore its ancient, barbaric tenets and just follow its principles while also integrating with western society.

And yet, they all claim that it is true and perfect in its entirety. Although only tens of thousands actually engage in violent jihad, tens of millions support their actions and aims.

You're being discriminatory to Muslims because you're assuming that they're all bad people and that they follow the Quran's brutality by the word.

Still building your rickety straw men, I see.

Reply 76

the bear

Original post by Think People

Btw saying the word "sharia law" is redundant , simply because the word "sharia" means law in arabic. * Posted from TSR Mobile

sharia means "path to the waterhole" *

Reply 77

Drunk Punx

Original post by alevelstresss

I'm not being discriminatory, nor am I assuming that all Muslims are bad people. If you can quote me from this thread (or any thread, actually. Go on, I dare you. Trawl through my 10k+ posts and find the evidence you're so keenly looking for. Word of warning; you'll be wasting your time) where I explicitly said that all Muslims are bad people, fair game. But you won't find it, you know why? Because you made it up.

If people believe the Qu'ran to be infallible, then its irrelevant whether what time it was written in because it'd still stand true (n their eyes).

You're right; a majority of Muslims, within this country at least, ignore the more barbaric side of the scripture. In other countries? Not so much.

Although many Muslims endorse a woman’s right to choose how she appears in public, overwhelming majorities in most regions say a wife should always obey her husband. Medians of more than eight-in-ten Muslims express this view in Southeast Asia (93%), South Asia (88%), and the Middle East and North Africa (87%). Even in Central Asia, a region characterized by relatively low levels of religious observance and strong support for a woman’s right to decide whether to wear a veil, seven-in-ten Muslims agree that a wife should carry out her husband’s wishes

In South Asia, support for applying religious law to family and property disputes is coupled with strong backing for severe criminal punishments, such as cutting off the hands of thieves (median of 81%) and the death penalty for Muslims who renounce their faith (76%). In the Middle East-North Africa region, medians of more than half favor strict criminal penalties (57%) and the execution of those who convert from Islam to another faith (56%).

A majority of those figures (from the link, not the ones I've quoted) actually paint Islam in a positive light (or at least, a more progressive light than many would think), but if you were to argue that focusing on the bad whilst ignoring the good is daft, then you'd have to agree that focusing on the good whilst ignoring the bad is equally as daft.

And judging by the section about "certain behaviours being morally wrong", Islam has a looooooong way to go before it joins the rest of us in the 21st century. It's getting there, I'm not gonna lie. But there's still progress to be made.

Of course, it can stagnate if it wants. Who am I to say what a religion I'm not part of can and can't do? But if it stays where it is, then it's as exempt from criticism as the rest of the various ideologies around the world (by which I mean, it's not).