[Azure Angel]

PoD, can you give me your opinion on how to solve issue of immigrants crossing Mediterranean sea into Europe?

[Pants-of-dog]

PoD, can you give me your opinion on how to solve issue of immigrants crossing Mediterranean sea into Europe?

In general, the best way for developed nations to reduce immigration from developing nations is to provide some sort of support for the local economy of the developing nation. Or, minimally, stop meddling (militarily or otherwise) in these developing nations.

Please note that this thread is about Muslim immigration to Australia, so any answers I give will be applicable to Australia as well.

[Frollein]

While I could start arguing about religion in general being socially normative, let's stay closer to the topic and regard Islam specifically. That religion most certainly is socially normative, so your argument falls flat - again. And my premise and its conclusion still stands.

No, it is not always so. For example, I work with a Muslim man who does not discuss religion, has no trouble taking orders from the female managers, and is otherwise not trying to make his religion the norm in the office.

On the contrary, he is behaving exactly as his book prescribes he should as long as he is in the minority. I'm sure, taqiyya has been mentioned on these forums a few times. Muslims are allowed to lie, to omit the truth and to ostensibly break the rules of their ideology (drinking alcohol, for example) to deceive the infidels and gain their trust.

My premise is and always has been that Islam is an ideology. And it is.

Thus, your premise (that religion and ideology are the same thing) is false.

Nope. See above. Your repetition doesn't make your assertion correct. Since I already made my arguments (and refuted yours), we'll not take another ride on that carousel. Everyone can read what you and I wrote and draw their own conclusions.

No, you didn't. You excused Muslims holding misogynist views by saying that they had been "born that way":

If we are at the point where you are telling me that I am not making the claims that I making, then the discussion is pointless.

Actually it is you who claims he's not making the claims that he's made before. I understand it is difficult to keep track if one's constantly shifting one's standpoint, but do try. It's all here in this thread.

Right, and since the vast majority of Muslims chooses to not convert, but to stay Muslim, they thereby choose to support Islam's stance towards gays, women and infidels. Stop trying to evade the point, the whole discussion is here on display, anyone can read what you wrote a few pages back. It's neither smart nor especially sophisticated of you.

Again, you are assuming that Islam has no diversity of belief, and you are assuming that Islam is necessarily normative. Neither of these assumptions are correct.

Again, you are assuming that Islam has a diversity of belief, and you are assuming that Islam is not normative. Neither of your assumptions are correct. Note how your kind of argument consists only of unsubstantiated declarations and is therefore worthless.

My argument, otoh, is based on the fact of what is written in the normative instrument of Islam - the Quran - and on the logical conclusion that every adult who chooses to convert to Islam (or to stay Muslim if he was brought up as one) affirms the laws and rules written down in said book. There is no "diversity of belief" in Islam because the nature of the religion doesn't allow for it. There is only one book and what's written in it mustn't be changed in any way and followed to the letter.

Stay on topic. You are the one defending Muslims standing by silently while people are killed and enslaved in the name of their ideology, so spare me your whataboutism.

If you are making moral arguments, it is perfectly logical to point out that you do not apply the same morality to your side of the struggle you claim exists.

My argument wasn't moral, just because it used Nazis as an example. It just applied the structure of your defense to a comparable situation.

I knew that you couldn't stand having me applying it to Nazi Germany, because Nazis were evil white people and Muslims are poor brown victims. It's your moralism that's upset, but that doesn't mean I'm being moralistic, too. On the contrary.

No, I shouldn't. If I'd do that, Muslims would already be in a position to kill and terrorize women, gays and infidels with impunity. That movement should be stomped into the ground before it ever reaches a position of power.

Since Christian clergy do not have the power to kill and terrorise women, gays and infidels with impunity, your comparison is false.

No, it's not. For one thing, the only reason Christian clergy doesn't have this power is because that power had been taken from them. They didn't give it away voluntarily. Second, I didn't bring in Christian clergy as a point of comparison, you were. The intents and strategy of Islamist ideology are dangerous and must be stopped, quite independently of what the Christian clergy, Hindu priesthood or the postman are up to.

[Pants-of-dog]

On the contrary, he is behaving exactly as his book prescribes he should as long as he is in the minority. I'm sure, taqiyya has been mentioned on these forums a few times. Muslims are allowed to lie, to omit the truth and to ostensibly break the rules of their ideology (drinking alcohol, for example) to deceive the infidels and gain their trust.

Oh, I see. You secretly know that my co-worker is actually just waiting for the proper moment to behead us all. That is completely rational, an entirley verifable argument, and not paranoid at all.

Nope. See above. Your repetition doesn't make your assertion correct. Since I already made my arguments (and refuted yours), we'll not take another ride on that carousel. Everyone can read what you and I wrote and draw their own conclusions.

Religion is not necessarily socially normative. Ideology is. Until you address that, you have not addressed my argument.

Actually it is you who claims he's not making the claims that he's made before. I understand it is difficult to keep track if one's constantly shifting one's standpoint, but do try. It's all here in this thread.

Then feel free to quote me.

Again, you are assuming that Islam has a diversity of belief, and you are assuming that Islam is not normative. Neither of your assumptions are correct. Note how your kind of argument consists only of unsubstantiated declarations and is therefore worthless.

Both of those assumptions are correct.

There are feminist Muslims. There are transgender Muslims. There are communist Muslims and capitalist ones. By your logic, none of these people exist. By my logic, they do.

And they do exist.

Your ad-hoc assumption to keep believing they all think the same thing is to accuse them all of lying.

My argument, otoh, is based on the fact of what is written in the normative instrument of Islam - the Quran - and on the logical conclusion that every adult who chooses to convert to Islam (or to stay Muslim if he was brought up as one) affirms the laws and rules written down in said book. There is no "diversity of belief" in Islam because the nature of the religion doesn't allow for it. There is only one book and what's written in it mustn't be changed in any way and followed to the letter.

Well, then there are no Muslims at all anywhere in the world, because none of them actually affirm every rule and law in Islam.

My argument wasn't moral, just because it used Nazis as an example. It just applied the structure of your defense to a comparable situation.

Yes, it was. You were inplying how the ones who look on are just as guilty as the ones who kill and mutilate.

I knew that you couldn't stand having me applying it to Nazi Germany, because Nazis were evil white people and Muslims are poor brown victims. It's your moralism that's upset, but that doesn't mean I'm being moralistic, too. On the contrary.

I ignored your bit about the Nazis. it was irrelevant.

No, it's not. For one thing, the only reason Christian clergy doesn't have this power is because that power had been taken from them. They didn't give it away voluntarily. Second, I didn't bring in Christian clergy as a point of comparison, you were. The intents and strategy of Islamist ideology are dangerous and must be stopped, quite independently of what the Christian clergy, Hindu priesthood or the postman are up to.

Again, you should worry about threats that are actually significant threats. You should prioritise them in terms of the actual likelihood of something happening.

The likelihood of ISIS taking over your country and making most people want to follow Sharia is less likely than winning the lottery.

[Azure Angel]

There are feminist Muslims. There are transgender Muslims. There are communist Muslims

Send them to Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Pakistan and see how they would fare there.

Just because someone calls himself/herself transgender Muslim or gay Muslim does not make that possible according to Quran.

[Pants-of-dog]

Send them to Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Pakistan and see how they would fare there.

What makes you think that there are no Saudi, Somalian or Pakistani women, transgenders, or workers who want equality?

Just because someone calls himself/herself transgender Muslim or gay Muslim does not make that possible according to Quran.

Why do you get to decide who is Muslim?

[Azure Angel]

Are you fucking serious?

What makes you think that there are no Saudi, Somalian or Pakistani women, transgenders, or workers who want equality?

I did not say workers, I said gay and transgender people, and yea they want equality but their Muslim majority will never give them that.

I do not decide who is Muslim, Quran does.
You do know what Quran tells what to do with gays, right?

[Pants-of-dog]

Are you fucking serious?

Yes.

I did not say workers, I said gay and transgender people, and yea they want equality but their Muslim majority will never give them that.

You quoted my text where I said "communists", so I assumed you were discussing worker's rights as well.

I do not decide who is Muslim, Quran does.

Why is your interpretation of the Quran the right way of determining who is Muslim?

You do know what Quran tells what to do with gays, right?

Yes, I have read it. It says many of the same things as the Torah and the Bible.

[Azure Angel]

You quoted my text where I said "communists", so I assumed you were discussing worker's rights as well.

This is my mistake, I apologize.

Why is your interpretation of the Quran the right way of determining who is Muslim?

There is no multiple interpretation in Quran on what to do with gay people.

There is a clear law.

Yes, I have read it. It says many of the same things as the Torah and the Bible.

Why do Jews and Christians then do not behead gays, transgender or women?

[Pants-of-dog]

There is no multiple interpretation in Quran on what to do with gay people.

There is a clear law.

...according to you.

Why do Jews and Christians then do not behead gays, transgender or women?

Because Abrahamic laws are actually more complicated than a simplistic reading of these passages.

[Azure Angel]

...according to you.

...according to deaths of countless gay people in Islamic countries.

[Frollein]

On the contrary, he is behaving exactly as his book prescribes he should as long as he is in the minority. I'm sure, taqiyya has been mentioned on these forums a few times. Muslims are allowed to lie, to omit the truth and to ostensibly break the rules of their ideology (drinking alcohol, for example) to deceive the infidels and gain their trust.

Oh, I see. You secretly know that my co-worker is actually just waiting for the proper moment to behead us all. That is completely rational, an entirley verifable argument, and not paranoid at all.

You used him as proof that he doesn't follow the norms of behaviour set by the Quran. I showed that he does. Whether or not I believe that he is out to behead you is completely beside the point of the argument you were trying to make.

Nope. See above. Your repetition doesn't make your assertion correct. Since I already made my arguments (and refuted yours), we'll not take another ride on that carousel. Everyone can read what you and I wrote and draw their own conclusions.

Religion is not necessarily socially normative. Ideology is. Until you address that, you have not addressed my argument.

You accuse me of not adressing your argument while at the same time trying to sidestep it by changing the subject from Islam - which does set norms of behaviour - to religion in general. Ridiculous. I'm ignoring your point about religion in general, because this thread is about Islam specifically. So stay on the topic of Islam and prove that Islam is not socially normative.

Actually it is you who claims he's not making the claims that he's made before. I understand it is difficult to keep track if one's constantly shifting one's standpoint, but do try. It's all here in this thread.

Then feel free to quote me.

I already did in my last post. If you are too lazy to reread your own posts, too bad. I'm not babysitting you.

Again, you are assuming that Islam has a diversity of belief, and you are assuming that Islam is not normative. Neither of your assumptions are correct. Note how your kind of argument consists only of unsubstantiated declarations and is therefore worthless.

Both of those assumptions are correct.

There are feminist Muslims. There are transgender Muslims. There are communist Muslims and capitalist ones. By your logic, none of these people exist. By my logic, they do.

By my logic, who is or isn't a Muslim is defined by the norms of the ideology. They are written down in the rule book, also known as the Quran. If they don't follow the rules, they are not Muslims, no matter what they call themselves. By your logic, everyone is exactly what they imagine themselves to be. It doesn't work that way, at least not outside liberal la-la-land.

My argument, otoh, is based on the fact of what is written in the normative instrument of Islam - the Quran - and on the logical conclusion that every adult who chooses to convert to Islam (or to stay Muslim if he was brought up as one) affirms the laws and rules written down in said book. There is no "diversity of belief" in Islam because the nature of the religion doesn't allow for it. There is only one book and what's written in it mustn't be changed in any way and followed to the letter.

Well, then there are no Muslims at all anywhere in the world, because none of them actually affirm every rule and law in Islam.

Unfortunately, there are, which is why we are having gays thrown off of high buildings, for example.

My argument wasn't moral, just because it used Nazis as an example. It just applied the structure of your defense to a comparable situation.

Yes, it was. You were inplying how the ones who look on are just as guilty as the ones who kill and mutilate.

I was pointing out how your argument of defense is wilfully applied to one group (Muslims) but not the other (Germans), regardless of their identical behaviour. Logic, not moralism, dictates that both groups get the same judgment. Either passive bystanders are innocent of the crimes of the hard ideologues and are in fact proof of a "diversity of ideology", or they are collectively accomplices in every crime that is commited in the name of their ideology. You can't assign shared responsibility based on your preferences for some group or the other. Either the silent majority of Germans under Nazi rule get a free pass, same as your Muslim wards, or the Muslims are judged as stringently as the Nazi Germans. You don't get to cherry-pick who you want absolved.

I knew that you couldn't stand having me applying it to Nazi Germany, because Nazis were evil white people and Muslims are poor brown victims. It's your moralism that's upset, but that doesn't mean I'm being moralistic, too. On the contrary.

I ignored your bit about the Nazis. it was irrelevant.

No, you ignored it because it blasts your defense of the poor Muslims. Feel free to ignore anything you can't counter, it just makes you look even weaker to the readers of this thread.

The likelihood of ISIS taking over your country and making most people want to follow Sharia is less likely than winning the lottery.

That's your baseless assumption, which I am going to ignore.

[Pants-of-dog]

...according to deaths of countless gay people in Islamic countries.

I have no idea how deaths somehow provide support for the idea of only one possible correct interpretation of any religious text.

-------------------------

You used him as proof that he doesn't follow the norms of behaviour set by the Quran. I showed that he does. Whether or not I believe that he is out to behead you is completely beside the point of the argument you were trying to make.

As long as we agree that there is a diversity of action amongst Muslims, and that we have no verifiable way of showing that a Muslim's apparent lack of interest in beheadings is actually an elaborate lie.

You accuse me of not adressing your argument while at the same time trying to sidestep it by changing the subject from Islam - which does set norms of behaviour - to religion in general. Ridiculous. I'm ignoring your point about religion in general, because this thread is about Islam specifically. So stay on the topic of Islam and prove that Islam is not socially normative.

Islam is not necessarily socially normative because some (I would even say most) Muslims do not go around trying to convince others to live as good Muslims.

I already did in my last post. If you are too lazy to reread your own posts, too bad. I'm not babysitting you.

Yes, but what you quote from me should actually support your accusations.

By my logic, who is or isn't a Muslim is defined by the norms of the ideology. They are written down in the rule book, also known as the Quran. If they don't follow the rules, they are not Muslims, no matter what they call themselves. By your logic, everyone is exactly what they imagine themselves to be. It doesn't work that way, at least not outside liberal la-la-land.

You don't get to decide who is Muslim.

Unfortunately, there are, which is why we are having gays thrown off of high buildings, for example.

No, because these people killing gays have no doubt been imperfect in their fulfillment of other Muslim laws.

I was pointing out how your argument of defense is wilfully applied to one group (Muslims) but not the other (Germans), regardless of their identical behaviour. Logic, not moralism, dictates that both groups get the same judgment. Either passive bystanders are innocent of the crimes of the hard ideologues and are in fact proof of a "diversity of ideology", or they are collectively accomplices in every crime that is commited in the name of their ideology. You can't assign shared responsibility based on your preferences for some group or the other. Either the silent majority of Germans under Nazi rule get a free pass, same as your Muslim wards, or the Muslims are judged as stringently as the Nazi Germans. You don't get to cherry-pick who you want absolved.

Fine. Germans are not responsible for Nazi atrocities. I never said otherwise, so can we get back to the discussion?

No, you ignored it because it blasts your defense of the poor Muslims. Feel free to ignore anything you can't counter, it just makes you look even weaker to the readers of this thread.

Please see above.

That's your baseless assumption, which I am going to ignore.

I did not think you could refute something so blindingly obvious.

[foxdemon]

Religion is not necessarily socially normative. Ideology is. Until you address that, you have not addressed my argument.

....

Both of those assumptions are correct.

There are feminist Muslims. There are transgender Muslims. There are communist Muslims and capitalist ones. By your logic, none of these people exist. By my logic, they do.

And they do exist.

Your ad-hoc assumption to keep believing they all think the same thing is to accuse them all of lying.

OK, I'm going to step in here. Islam is both religion and ideology. It is a total way of lie, encompassing all aspects of an individual and a community's existence. It achieves a level of totalitarianism that Stalinists could only dream off. Islam is very much about governance and law. Ordinary people are expected to follow 'those who know' (ie: the scholars) on most aspects of life. There are five levels of judgement on the appropriateness of any particular activity, ranging from obligatory, recommended, allowed, disapproved off and forbidden. Most of you would have heard of 'halal'. That is the middle level of allowed.

Yet, as PoD points out, not all Muslims will be following the rightly guided path all the time. There certainly are all sorts of deviants, misfits, funky and cool people, etc. This should be no surprise as we are talking about 1.2 billon people so some diversity is only to be expected. However, a little point many westerners fail to realize is that reform in Islam means throwing out innovation. So don't expect those who have left the rightly guided path to be definitive of the future direction of Islam.

I get the feeling PoD doesn't actually know much about Islam. Might I direct his attention to a book by N.S. Naipaul Among the Believers.

For everyone else (I'm looking at you in particular, Frollein), I would like to point out that it will be a person who thinks just like PoD who will eventually bring an Iconoclasm to Islam and free all those diverse Muslims from the terror of theocracy.

[Pants-of-dog]

OK, I'm going to step in here. Islam is both religion and ideology. It is a total way of lie, encompassing all aspects of an individual and a community's existence. It achieves a level of totalitarianism that Stalinists could only dream off. Islam is very much about governance and law. Ordinary people are expected to follow 'those who know' (ie: the scholars) on most aspects of life. There are five levels of judgement on the appropriateness of any particular activity, ranging from obligatory, recommended, allowed, disapproved off and forbidden. Most of you would have heard of 'halal'. That is the middle level of allowed.

Yet, as PoD points out, not all Muslims will be following the rightly guided path all the time. There certainly are all sorts of deviants, misfits, funky and cool people, etc. This should be no surprise as we are talking about 1.2 billon people so some diversity is only to be expected. However, a little point many westerners fail to realize is that reform in Islam means throwing out innovation. So don't expect those who have left the rightly guided path to be definitive of the future direction of Islam.

I highly doubt that progressive voices within Islam will be the dominant voice of Islam in the near future. I assume that being a progressive Muslim is much like being a progressive elsewhere (i.e. every day you have to drag your entire society, kicking and screaming, as forward as possible, while most people are trying to drag it the other way) except with a Youtube video of your own beheading.

I get the feeling PoD doesn't actually know much about Islam. Might I direct his attention to a book by N.S. Naipaul Among the Believers.

I tend to associate with secular Muslims, just as I associate with secular Jews and secular Sikhs and secular Christians. I live in a city with a 9.6% Muslim population.

[foxdemon]

I tend to associate with secular Muslims, just as I associate with secular Jews and secular Sikhs and secular Christians. I live in a city with a 9.6% Muslim population.

My step mother is Muslim (Indonesian) and I have Muslim relatives as a result. Also I know quite a few people in Indonesia (a neighboring country) who are Muslims. As a result I am more familiar with the human side of Muslims than the average westerner. As you say, many Muslims are just ordinary people, some being progressive, trendy, like to joke, etc. And, like yourself, I tend to make friends with these ones but not have so much to do with the more strict Muslims.

One idea N.S. Naipaul introduced in his book was the notion of a universal global culture. He used the example of people from all sorts of back grounds, in the book he described Iranians, adopting a more materialistic way of life. People in most parts of the world are involved in a global collective culture, at least if they live in an urbane setting. Those from rural settings remain in a traditional Weltanschauung. It should be noted that many Muslim immigrants to western countries come from third world rural backgrounds and are rather traditionalist in thinking compared to urbane Muslims from such places as Jakarta, Cape Town or Istanbul. The clash we are observing in places like Europe and Australia isn't, in my opinion, a clash of civilizations but rather a clash between the old traditional ways and the new global urbane ways.

I'm sure you will agree that the 'othering' of Muslims evident on this thread only serves to obfuscate promising solutions to defusing the current conflict between western communities and the third world rural traditionalists. I think one comment you made shows the way forward. Your definition of religion and ideology shows how region can be personal and not political. Were progressive Muslims (and members of any other political/religious proselyting faith, specifically Christianity) to drop the ideological/ political aspect of their creed, then they would be no longer threatening to communities around them. I wonder if the Vietnamese idea of combined Church/Temple/Mosque might work? They seem to have neutered both Islam and Christianity by combining them with and thus forcing their ministers/priests/imams to accept eastern spiritual values over western/middle eastern theocratic ideology.

Regardless, the Islamic theocratic and their goons remain a clear and present threat to all. Only strength will stop them. Before you say it, this applies to Christians too. After all what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I look forward to the day when there will be mass anti Christian rallies in Australia.

[Dagoth Ur]

Azure one thing and one thing only makes one a muslim: a profession of the shahada to your community. No matter how sinful or heterodox you are if you still believe in the Shahada you are a muslim.

Also point out exactly where the Quran forbids any economic view outside capitalism. I think if you actually read it you'll find there are almost no prohibitions within the Quran itself (even drinking alcohol is not explicitly forbidden but rather looked down upon) and that the legalistic codex that many claim the Quran to be is in fact a combo of hadith and fiqh.

Anymore assistence you need with understanding Islam?

Edit:
Oh and I agree with the above post. Especially as a muslim I want to see all salafists rooted out and hung from lampostsm

[Azure Angel]

Anymore assistence you need with understanding Islam?

It is written law in Noble Quran that women should be stoned for adultery, is it not?

Do you support this law?

You can not just cherry pick which parts of Islam you like and which you do not and pretend those who you are not fond of do not exist.

[skinster]

^ telling others not to cherry-pick.

[Dagoth Ur]

The Quran also says to he merciful. (oh and the quran says to stone both of them)

Do you support this law?

You can call it cherry-picking, I call it having modern eyes.