Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

dialamah

Members
  • Content Count

    4,370
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

dialamah last won the day on July 4 2018

dialamah had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

429 Excellent

1 Follower

About dialamah

  • Rank
    Full Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

18,280 profile views
  1. The attacks in Sri Lanka are horrific and devastating, just as the attacks in New Zealand were.   Hatred, barbarity, cruelty, inhumanity is not limited to any particular 'tribe', but is shared among all of them.

    1. Show previous comments  19 more
    2. BubberMiley

      BubberMiley

      I didn't say I investigated it. I explained the real-world environment that counters the scenario your fake news sources have committed to.

    3. Hal 9000

      Hal 9000

      In France, you can bet there would have to be a provable admission before calling it terrorism - and maybe not even then.

    4. BubberMiley

      BubberMiley

      You're making stuff up now.

  2. Check this out: https://curiouscast.ca/podcast/364/russia-rising/ - especially part 3. The goal isn't to interfere to get someone elected, but to create division/dissension in Western countries. In 2015, Russian Trolls posted both pro and anti-Trudeau stuff, pro and anti-immigration, pro and anti-Muslim.
  3. I don't believe I said they were exactly the same. I don't even recall mentioning Western countries in my comments about Sisi's message of tolerance.
  4. Well, today I am not offended; some other days I might be. I do think that attitudes such as yours create unecessary disunity. I think in some cases, among those that suffer from mental instability, the rhetoric you support and repeat can lead to violence. I think you are blinded by bias. But I think you mean well, so not morally repugnant. On the other hand, I understand why you think that - even in real life I can be quite cutting to people who should know better. Someone I respected a great deal once said I did not suffer fools gladly. If it helps, I consider violent terrorists morally repugnant. Also, rapists and child molesters - morally repugnant. People who prey on the elderly. Parents who torture their kids. I don't even care what religion they are, or if they are no religion at all. Morally repugnant.
  5. Perhaps I only said that there was messaging from Sisi to encourage tolerance and that I thought this a good thing. I should think that such a statement would imply that I recognized a problem, and welcomed attempts to solve it.
  6. 1. I offered up more than JWs. The sermon I linked to for example: I have no idea what particular Christian sect that is. I also mentioned my debates with Evangelicals. 2. Yes, many Christians do believe it is in their spiritual interest to limit relationships with non-believers. I have already opined that I don't think its the majority, but that it is pretty common. I have still not opined what I think the prevalence is among Muslims; its more fun to watch you wave your arms and accuse me of stuff I haven't said. 3. I have to say, amusement is my primary emotion. I don't have any reason to be offended just because you don't believe what I believe.
  7. Agree. I think in large part its because of rhetoric such as that spread by DoP and Goddess and yourself. A news story about ISIS extremists throwing a gay boy off a roof is used by you and them to depict Muslims as homicidal gay-killing fanatics. Meanwhile, a newspaper story about how gay people live underground in Islamic countries, being neither killed nor turned in to authorities by friends and family, is ignored and dismissed as not represetative of Muslims at all. One gay man killed by extremists = Islam. Several gay people protected and loved by their Muslim family and friends means nothing - they're an aberration. How is this a fair and accurate depiction of Islam or Muslims? And which story is more likely to be indicative of day-to-day Islamic life? Throwing gays off rooftops or pretending they don't really exist? Until the 80s, gay-bashing and beating up gay people wasn't terribly unusual and sometimes the gay person died. Did that mean everyone in Canada wanted to kill gays? Nope, and to say so would have been completely wrong. Nonetheless, the behavior by these extremists did reflect a rather widespread societal view that gay people were unacceptable and expendable, a view I have no doubt is still pervasive in the Middle East, Africa and Russia, among other places. But to go from that to asserting that Muslims everywhere want to kill gays would be as stupid as asserting that Canadians want to kill gays because some low-life homophobic extremists killed a gay man in Vancouver in 2001. And as long as only extremists are presented as being "Muslim" there will be resistance from people who have unthinkingly accepted the hyperbolic rhetoric and are now afraid of Muslims. I personally don't much care if Canada decides to limit immigration for some good, evidence based reason. Perhaps, as you have claimed, net benefit to Canada is less than thought. But if Canada decided to limit immigration of Muslims based on the hyperbolic nonsense spouted on these forums I will object, not because Muslims are special or Islam must be protected, but because bullshit should be called out.
  8. I did say "These Christians", intending to limit it to Christians who believe it their duty to remain separate from non-believers. Was no intention to claim "all" Christians believe that.
  9. Agreed; we are improving. Still, if you talk to First Nations today, you'll find they disagree with you about how much we've improved. And just for the record, I think Egypt should be held to account for their lack of effective action in the treatment of Christians. If, as you say, Sisi's Christmas message was in response to international criticism, good. I have to point out, though, that he has been pretty consistent in condemning violence against Christians and has also attended Coptic services do I am inclined to believe he is trying to follow the best of Islam in this regard, instead of the worst. I support that and see no upside to dismissing or denying it. I can applaud progress while at the same time saying more needs to be done.
  10. Yeah he has. He uses abrogation to inform those not scared enough already that any verses about peace don't count. I notice he hasn't done that since you've been around; perhaps he's worried he'll lose one of his few deluded followers. Though you seem pretty committed; maybe he'll give it a go again. You have said so in virtually every conversation we've had about it. The last statement I recall from you was "if a woman chooses to wear it as a fashion statement, I view it is a slap in the face of all the women who are forced." You said a few months ago that you weren't so concerned about protecting women's rights because you consider the hijab as an "expression of Islamic extremism" and feel its justified to ban it on that basis. I do sometimes get a little heated; more often its like today - incredulous amusement at the over-the-top response to my statement: Many religions advise their adherents to avoid unbelievers; be friendly, they say - but do not become close. Islam isn't particularly unusual in that regard.
  11. I agree, you do know the Quran better than I do. Were I ever to convert to Islam, I would reject your version of Islam as being hateful and extreme. I would choose the version exemplified by moderate/progressive Muslims. As an atheist, however, I will just call you out as a bigot and Islamophobe.
  12. Do you even read DoPs posts? If you two didn't believe virtually all Muslims behaved in certain ways, you wouldn't be having meltdowns every time I, or anyone, presented a moderate Muslim behavior. DoP wouldn't constantly post Quranic verses to "prove" that Muslims must be violent and hateful, while claiming that verses about peace and non-violence didn't count. You wouldn't insist that a woman in a hijab must, by definition, be an extremist and/or her husband abusive and controlling. You would allow a range of behavors among Muslims, from extremely conservative on one end to extremely progressive on the other end, with the largest majority at some point in the middle - which I have no problem saying would be conservative. This is a lie. I have not offered an opinion on how widespread the doctrine of not making friends with non-believers might be within the Muslim world. I merely said, in a response to Argus, that its not an uncommon belief in any religion, whereupon DoP jumped in with his Koranic quote and challenged me to demonstrate same in another religion. I did so, and he immediately denied the sermon said what it did. And you are busily defending him; why would you do that if you really didn't think virtually all Muslims believe they must not be friendly with non-believers and thought I was completely wrong by saying there's Muslims who don't believe that. I am not defending Islam. I am pointing out bigotted thinking, Islamophobic attitudes and people who cling to a black/white view of the world despite evidence of gray all around them.
  13. No, in this post to DoP: You can deny all you want that Muslims making friends with unbelievers is not allowed, but you are clearly wrong. And before you try to lie again about what I believe or think I repeat: just like Christians, some Muslims believe association and friendship with non-believers is wrong and some believe it isn't.
  14. You, Argus and DoP have predictably responded to anything about moderate or even progressive Muslims with denial and derision. You three have constantly made accusations about what centrists or moderates think or don't think or believe, ignoring every instance where they've decried Islamic terrorism, expressed concern over oppression of women, or especially in MH's case, attempted to find a middle ground in the discussion of immigration. You three are predictable in ignoring what people say in favor of presenting their positions in as unreasonable a way as possible. The assumptions I make about you and DoP are pretty spot on. Argus is sometimes more moderate than I expect. I inderstand how much you hate having your flawed thinking pointed out, but too bad. You don't like it, start posting reasonably.
×
×
  • Create New...