Can My Bank Freeze Or Close My Account...
Business & Finance1 min ago
Can Fundamentalist Islam Survive In The Modern World?
81 Answers
This question arises from last night’s excellent television documentary ‘Shot for going to School’ concerning the plight of Malala Yousafzai, shot by the Taliban for wanting an education. As well as offering a superb insight into the inflexible mentality of the fundamentalist, it highlighted the determined ambition of many girls like Malala who do want an education, and despite the fear and apprehension that such aspiration engenders within that society, are supported by parents and many other adults alike. I’ve long been of the opinion that with the advent of increasingly easily available world-wide communication a chasm is opening up between those Muslims who are determined to cling to the old ways and those who are no longer content to blindly accept the unjust and misogynous philosophy of their forefathers – but which faction will eventually succeed? The traditionalists – or those who favour progress?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
naomi //Modeller, apart from the fact that, in the main, neither Jews nor Christians act upon the punishments recommended in the bible, who would you suggest removes it - and do you really think its removal would encourage fundamentalist Islam to abandon Sharia Law?//
On the first point on biblical punishments we used the death penalty up to 1965 , the Jews still do for certain crimes. In the USA it is still used in many states .
The principle of punishment as apposed to rehabilitation is widespread throughout the Christian world . However over the past 50 years punishments have been relaxed or abolished by Governments which shows that biblical laws can be changed if there is a will to do it.
The way governments treat women also can change despite OT rules.
On second point only the Church could remove them but that is impossible , that would indicate they were wrong and they will never do that. They didn't admit Gallileo was right until 1956.
No it wouldn't change the Islamists in the short term .
On the first point on biblical punishments we used the death penalty up to 1965 , the Jews still do for certain crimes. In the USA it is still used in many states .
The principle of punishment as apposed to rehabilitation is widespread throughout the Christian world . However over the past 50 years punishments have been relaxed or abolished by Governments which shows that biblical laws can be changed if there is a will to do it.
The way governments treat women also can change despite OT rules.
On second point only the Church could remove them but that is impossible , that would indicate they were wrong and they will never do that. They didn't admit Gallileo was right until 1956.
No it wouldn't change the Islamists in the short term .
Modeller, you were talking about Sharia Law – not the death penalty.
//On second point only the Church could remove them but that is impossible , that would indicate they were wrong and they will never do that. //
And that’s not the only point. Which church are you talking about? There are hundreds.
//On second point only the Church could remove them but that is impossible , that would indicate they were wrong and they will never do that. //
And that’s not the only point. Which church are you talking about? There are hundreds.
Seems to me that I put my hand where it hurts on 6th July. Everyone is talking about why I am in this country and why I am not where I should be and how I am enjoying freedom, education and so many other things here. Yes you are all right. First of all my religion does not stop me from education, or this and that. And then you are right again that I am allowed a freedom in this country that might not be allowed in few Muslim countries and that is for a very simple reason. Because few countries would not allows those countries to have all that freedom. Turkey, for example can’t allow their women students to wear hijab in universities because a govt would allow that then their western allies would say that they are going towards fundamentalism and they would always (unfortunately) have someone (especially in the army) to topple the government over. Same is happening in Egypt, is it? First ever elected government in their history and have been removed by a military dictator only because they are called “Muslims brotherhood” and they talked about Islam being the first choice in their legislation. I wonder who is behind that army general? It is OK to arm rebels in any country when the other side does not suit us and it is ok to send in ground troops as well to help people who call themselves a wing or Al Qaeeda only when it suits us? It is ok to back a dictator when it suits us and it is Ok to push countries towards democracy if the dictator turns against us? It is Ok to attack a country because UNO asked for it and it is Ok to put UNO resolutions in the bin when it suits us.
And anyone who talks about Shia and Sunni killing tell me that why there haven’t been this much violence between these two sects before 9/11? Although Sunni and Shia has coexisted for centuries. All of the Muslims know that USA & Co crept into few countries and CIA started all this? Even in Iraq at the time of Saddam Hussain you never heard of Sunni Shia conflict, Why? Does that remind me of old “divide and rule” strategy?
Em10 - ////its odd to me that the worst exponent of this is Anjem Choudary, who spits on us essentially, yet takes lots of hand outs, how is that possible, he isn't ill, not disabled, and did work once, so why is the taxpayer funding this odious man and his family////
Please find that out and let me know? Write a petition to UK govt and I would be the first one to sign that. Or perhaps as I said earlier few govt and intelligent services need these sorts of people for their own objectives. Obviously Hook, has gone and so has Abu Qatada, unless they breed another one that they can use to defame Islam, they need Anjem Choudhery.
Karl – I appreciate your post and only thing I would like to say is that anyone is welcome to my home to see how my family live, dress up or anything else. Naomi tells about who I am and what I do because I told what I am and what I do. However she adds extra bits with me and makes everyone feel that I must have a long beard, my wife and daughter must be hidden behind steel walls and so on. But I know what Islam is about and she does not. That is the reason she talks about what Quran endorses but in reality she does not know a thing. And she can’t even give “ONE verse” from Quran to prove herself and we have been here before. And the biasness in her mind is very much evident as she does not agree with whatever you said where you agreed with bits of my post. You post another one against me and she would be the first one to agree with you.
And anyone who talks about Shia and Sunni killing tell me that why there haven’t been this much violence between these two sects before 9/11? Although Sunni and Shia has coexisted for centuries. All of the Muslims know that USA & Co crept into few countries and CIA started all this? Even in Iraq at the time of Saddam Hussain you never heard of Sunni Shia conflict, Why? Does that remind me of old “divide and rule” strategy?
Em10 - ////its odd to me that the worst exponent of this is Anjem Choudary, who spits on us essentially, yet takes lots of hand outs, how is that possible, he isn't ill, not disabled, and did work once, so why is the taxpayer funding this odious man and his family////
Please find that out and let me know? Write a petition to UK govt and I would be the first one to sign that. Or perhaps as I said earlier few govt and intelligent services need these sorts of people for their own objectives. Obviously Hook, has gone and so has Abu Qatada, unless they breed another one that they can use to defame Islam, they need Anjem Choudhery.
Karl – I appreciate your post and only thing I would like to say is that anyone is welcome to my home to see how my family live, dress up or anything else. Naomi tells about who I am and what I do because I told what I am and what I do. However she adds extra bits with me and makes everyone feel that I must have a long beard, my wife and daughter must be hidden behind steel walls and so on. But I know what Islam is about and she does not. That is the reason she talks about what Quran endorses but in reality she does not know a thing. And she can’t even give “ONE verse” from Quran to prove herself and we have been here before. And the biasness in her mind is very much evident as she does not agree with whatever you said where you agreed with bits of my post. You post another one against me and she would be the first one to agree with you.
@Keyplus - You are being disingenous again when you imply that there was little violence between sunni and shia muslims prior to 9/11, and if you know you religion as well as you claim - you know you are being disingenous.
Sunnis and Shias have been slaughtering each other over centuries, visiting all sorts of atrocity upon each others communities. There is little so fierce or so barbaric as an internecine war, a civil war, or a war between rival religious factions, as our own european history should inform us.
There was a time of relative peace between the 2 - somewhat unusual, between 1910 ish to around 1970, but only because they both kind of banded together following the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" when facing up to arab nationalism and increasing secularism. The reason for the more recent face-offs have been down to instability in the region, creating opportunities for old scores to be settled and ancient hostilities to be re-opened in such instability and power vacuums.
Sunnis and Shias have been slaughtering each other over centuries, visiting all sorts of atrocity upon each others communities. There is little so fierce or so barbaric as an internecine war, a civil war, or a war between rival religious factions, as our own european history should inform us.
There was a time of relative peace between the 2 - somewhat unusual, between 1910 ish to around 1970, but only because they both kind of banded together following the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" when facing up to arab nationalism and increasing secularism. The reason for the more recent face-offs have been down to instability in the region, creating opportunities for old scores to be settled and ancient hostilities to be re-opened in such instability and power vacuums.
Keyplus, so now, according to you, Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza were in the pay of the British Government or some other body that you think is determined to undermine Islam. Is the Muslim Brotherhood, like the Pakistan Taliban, in the pay of the CIA too? That organisation doesn’t appear to be encouraging a rosy view of Islam either.
What did you say on 6 July that you think had such an impact? Except perhaps to those who don’t know you as well as others, nothing you say ever has an impact here – you should know that. And why would I want to give one verse from the Quran to prove myself? The Quran means nothing to me. I don’t understand what you’re saying. What do you want me to prove? Furthermore, I don’t misrepresent you – ever - in fact, not for the first time, I defended you the other day and went as far as having a nasty post about you removed, so what you are saying is purposefully dishonest, Keyplus, and you know it. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you’re not - and that shouldn’t surprise anyone.
What did you say on 6 July that you think had such an impact? Except perhaps to those who don’t know you as well as others, nothing you say ever has an impact here – you should know that. And why would I want to give one verse from the Quran to prove myself? The Quran means nothing to me. I don’t understand what you’re saying. What do you want me to prove? Furthermore, I don’t misrepresent you – ever - in fact, not for the first time, I defended you the other day and went as far as having a nasty post about you removed, so what you are saying is purposefully dishonest, Keyplus, and you know it. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you’re not - and that shouldn’t surprise anyone.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
This clip has been posted in a couple of threads elsewhere, but for those who missed it, it’s worthy of posting again here. I’ve said many times that the young will eventually abandon the oppression of fundamentalism in favour of freedom – and this boy is one example of that. No doubt there are many more kids who think like him. I hope so. (Note what he says about women’s rights).
//I’ve said many times that the young will eventually abandon the oppression of fundamentalism in favour of freedom – and this boy is one example of that//
This boy isnt criticizing islam, in his own words hes crticizing how religion is manipulated
""when you manipulate religion and enforce extremist regulations in the name of religion even though religion doesnt command that"
As for what atheists and critics of islam will so obviously pick up on, about the beating of wives, you will find that most Muslims agree with him, that it is wrong.
Also, can someone please find me the definition of a civilised society?
Lightbulb, the Koran advises husbands to beat disobedient wives. Are you saying the Koran is wrong?
//Also, can someone please find me the definition of a civilised society?//
From Cambridge Dictionaries. A society or country that has a well developed system of government, culture, and way of life and that treats the people who live there fairly.
Islam, by its treatment of women alone, is therefore uncivilised.
//Also, can someone please find me the definition of a civilised society?//
From Cambridge Dictionaries. A society or country that has a well developed system of government, culture, and way of life and that treats the people who live there fairly.
Islam, by its treatment of women alone, is therefore uncivilised.
-- answer removed --
//Islam, by its treatment of women alone, is therefore uncivilised. //
Its funny how its always the same argument wth you. The simple truth is the majority of muslim women are happy how they are, yes, some may not be, but the majority are Why else do you think that women convert in huge masses and why even if they could be fined (like in france) they still wear Burkhas (not that they have too)
as usual you will come up with the usual reasons that you do. But remember, the Western world hasnt always been "civilised". In fact, i would go as far to say that many western worlds have, in the past, been less civilised than eastern/muslim countries.
http://
Of course, i will accept in reent years, many muslim countries have suppreseed rights, of both women and men, however as much as you believe this is to do with Islam and as much as they believe they are justified by islam, they are not. All they are justified by are a lust to rule and the introduction of democracy as a new thing after they were former colonies of Britain etc, so they have had to adjust. And am not saying this is Britains fault. Im saying that they are adjusting, as evidence from recent revolutions etc
Its funny how its always the same argument wth you. The simple truth is the majority of muslim women are happy how they are, yes, some may not be, but the majority are Why else do you think that women convert in huge masses and why even if they could be fined (like in france) they still wear Burkhas (not that they have too)
as usual you will come up with the usual reasons that you do. But remember, the Western world hasnt always been "civilised". In fact, i would go as far to say that many western worlds have, in the past, been less civilised than eastern/muslim countries.
http://
Of course, i will accept in reent years, many muslim countries have suppreseed rights, of both women and men, however as much as you believe this is to do with Islam and as much as they believe they are justified by islam, they are not. All they are justified by are a lust to rule and the introduction of democracy as a new thing after they were former colonies of Britain etc, so they have had to adjust. And am not saying this is Britains fault. Im saying that they are adjusting, as evidence from recent revolutions etc
Lightbulb -//The simple truth is the majority of muslim women are happy how they are, yes, some may not be, but the majority are//
And you know this how? Where is your evidence to back up this facile statement.
I would suggest that you are stating an opinion. If I were a muslim woman asked by her husband if I were happy with the way things are my response would be yes. Rather lie than be beaten.
And you know this how? Where is your evidence to back up this facile statement.
I would suggest that you are stating an opinion. If I were a muslim woman asked by her husband if I were happy with the way things are my response would be yes. Rather lie than be beaten.
i watched the programme and couldn't help but despair
http://
http://
Latest Posts
Why Were The Edinburgh New Year...
News17 mins ago
News51 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles82 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.