Top Religious Leader of Saudi Arabia bans Chess

The BBQ Pit
281

Still desperately ignoring the fact that such young ages for brides even of respected community leaders were not particularly unusual in many contemporary cultures, I see.

Only a convinced thoroughly bigoted Islamophobe could be so obsessed with the possibility that one of Muhammad’s last bride could have been as young as 9 while blithely ignoring the fact that Guru Nanak’s bride was almost certainly no more than a year or two older, going by the customs of the time and the known example of his own sister’s marriage at age eleven.
Of course, one doesn’t have to be a bigoted Islamophobe to agree that some fundamentalist-Islamist cultures’ insistence on retaining the custom of child marriage, and citing scriptural authority to justify it, is a bad thing. However, the vast majority of Muslim-majority countries in fact legally forbid child marriage. And plenty of non-Muslim individuals (e.g., many advocates of Hindu-communalism ideologies) also cite their own religious scriptures to justify their continuing support for child marriage.

So once again, the Islamophobes are ignorantly using the child-marriage issue as an excuse to blame and smear Islam in general and undifferentiated, completely disregarding the fact that child marriage, like all the other phenomena they’re trying to blame on Islam, is neither unique to Islamic communities nor universal in Islamic communities.

282

It not only this one issue I have with islam. Its the whole package including the societies which are structured according to Shariah. Hinduism also has some repulsive aspects, no argument on that. Islam is unique in being the only major world religion started by a conquering warlord, and it shows, in the moral precepts which are dictated and the type of society that Muhammed believes should be created.

The rest of the world has moved on from thinking conquering warlords are suitable role models or examples on which we should structure our governments. Islam is literally stuck in a medieval mind set, and it can’t be changed since Muhammed was the seal of the prophets and no reform or new messenger is possible.

283

It’s always hilarious watching idiot liberals navigate the cognitive dissonance of supporting Islam, which stands in stark contrast to every thing they claim (i.e., lie) to believe in. Imposition of religion into every aspect of the subjugates’ lives? Check. Horrible misogyny? Check. Rampant homophobia? Check.

284

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Tell that to the Amidists and the Tibetans.

285

And the conservatives claim to despise Islam while promoting the Christian equivalent.

286

Amitabha is not a diety, he was a monk (probably mythical). Its true that some schools of Buddhism have adopted various spirits as objects of veneration, much like Catholic saints. But its a central tenet of Buddhism that there is no creator diety to worship.

287

Especially not now that you’ve had your ass so thoroughly kicked for your flagrant ignorance concerning that issue, I surmise. Remember, coremelt, every time you start imagining you know what you’re talking about with regard to Islam vis-a-vis the rest of the world, just repeat to yourself a few times “Seven years old in Delaware as late as 1880. Seven years old in Delaware as late as 1880”. :dubious:

Wow, you’re really clutching at straws here. “Help, I’m doing a really shit-ass job at arguing that these particular oppressive beliefs and practices are unique to Islam, so I need to find something I can claim is unique to Islam to blame them on!” :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=coremelt]
Islam is literally stuck in a medieval mind set, and it can’t be changed since Muhammed was the seal of the prophets and no reform or new messenger is possible.
[/QUOTE]

You sound exactly like a fundamentalist-Islamist tyrannical radical mullah, with your insistence on the immutability of your particular interpretation of Islamic doctrine and its utter and permanent necessary incompatibility with modern ethical principles.

Fortunately, I don’t take the word of fundamentalist-Islamist tyrannical radical mullahs about what the rules are for valid Muslim actions and beliefs, and I sure as shit am not taking your word for it either. Funny how the Islamophobes who pretend to be so upset about the actions of fundamentalist-Islamist tyrannical radical mullahs are so eager to act as their obsequious mouthpieces when it comes to defining what Islam is “supposed” to be and what “true” Muslims are “allowed” to do.

Like I said, you Islamophobes don’t really care about condemning or reforming specific oppressive practices in the specific Islamist-extremist communities that practice them: you just care about trying to persuade people to hate “Islam” in general and in its entirety.

What you really can’t stand is not the fact that some Muslims endorse stupid and oppressive beliefs and practices in the name of their religion, but the fact that many Muslims don’t. If only all Muslims would be as committed to intolerance and injustice as you and your radical-extremist mullah buddies insist they ought to be, you wouldn’t have all these embarrassing collisions with reality hampering your efforts to peddle your broad-brush bigotry.

288

Except that nobody here is condoning such doctrines on the part of radical-extremist Islamists or anybody else.

We liberals are staunchly and consistently declaring that theocracy, misogyny and homophobia are unacceptable, whether endorsed by stupid narrow-minded chess-banning Saudi muftis, violent Salafist murderous terrorists, or any other representative of any other ideology. No inconsistency or “dissonance” there whatsoever.
What’s upsetting you Islamophobes is simply the fact that we liberals aren’t stupid enough to fall for your bullshit about these atrocities being a necessary and inevitable attribute of Islam as a whole and per se.

289

Nice goalpoast move there from “no supernatural being” to “no creator deity” once you realized that you were wrong about the former statement.

Yes, many Buddhists do worship supernatural beings that they consider deities, regardless of the fact that they don’t see such beings as an omnipotent universal creator along the lines of the Abrahamic religions’ deity.

Your ill-informed naive-essentialist approach to religious history is sabotaging your understanding not only of Islam but also of Buddhism.

290

Well then I’m sure you can point to an Islamic majority country which you think is a great example of a liberal successful society free of intolerance and where there is gender equality and freedom of religion? Should be easy right?

No one is denying there are millions of moderate muslims, but there is much higher percentage of what we would consider extremists than other religions . Evidence, Pew Polls on attitudes to shariah throughout the muslim world:

Especially check the percentages for those that believe stoning should be the punishment for adultery and death should be the penalty for apostasy.

Islam is at its heart an intolerant religion because its creator (muhammed the conquering warlord I mean, not god) explicitly intended it to be one, its a system for controlling people, the name even means submission.

And I understand Buddhism just fine thanks. Buddhism has merged with a lot of pre-existing animism in many countries so sure there are plenty of spirits acknowledged. But we have the words of the historical guatama buddha and he is perfectly clear that there is no creator diety.

291

This, I do not know. I know the Crusaders killed very profligately, but I don’t know what their rape habits were. I don’t have a good source on the subject. I don’t find it at all unlikely or doubtful that they raped their little cocks off, but it isn’t anything I’ve ever read in a good historical source.

Their treatment of Jewish villages was unreservedly murderous. Was there rape? I’d definitely appreciate a good reference.

In fact, this is interesting: here is a link to someone’s research paper, suggesting that the First Crusade, at least, was strangely continent with regard to rape. Just the first thing that popped up in a Google search.

292

I’ll leave the rest of your ignorant rant for others to deal with. The last part I’ve just quoted shows that you practically epitomize “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. Regarding religion, the name “Islam” means “Submission to God”. Nice of you to leave that little tidbit about God out.

293

No it doesn’t. The word Islam on its own just means surrender or submission. The phrase “surrender to god” is longer “alaistislam lillah”. The name of the religion is “submission”, not surrender to god.

http://muslimvoices.org/word-islam-meaning/

294

No, but then I can’t point to any Hindu-majority country which I think is a great example of a liberal successful society free of intolerance and where there is gender equality and freedom of religion, either. (Or, for that matter, any Jewish-majority country that meets that high standard.)

But I’m not stupid or bigoted enough to assume that the specific problems with the countries in question must be directly and inevitably attributable to innate and ineradicable faults in their majority religion.

[QUOTE=coremelt]
No one is denying there are millions of moderate muslims, but there is much higher percentage of what we would consider extremists than other religions

[/quote]

Which doesn’t prove a damn thing about any hypothesized intrinsic nature of Islam as a whole and per se, rather than about the situations and cultures of Muslims in this particular historical context.

[QUOTE=coremelt]
Islam is at its heart an intolerant religion because its creator (muhammed the conquering warlord I mean, not god) explicitly intended it to be one, its a system for controlling people, the name even means submission.

[/quote]

This is your statement of faith concerning your beliefs about Islam, rather than a statement of fact about Islam.

And it’s another example of your illogical doublethink concerning individual Muslims vs. Islam as a whole, too. First you acknowledge that there are indeed “millions of moderate Muslims”, and then you lurch back to spewing hysterical generalizations about Islam being “a system for controlling people”. Gee, that “control system” doesn’t seem to be working so well on all those millions of moderate Muslims, does it? :dubious:

Like I said, what you Islamophobes really hate is the fact that many Muslims aren’t intolerant oppressive fanatics. It gets in the way of your efforts to proclaim that Islam is inevitably and irrevocably nothing but a force for evil.

[QUOTE=coremelt]
And I understand Buddhism just fine thanks. Buddhism has merged with a lot of pre-existing animism in many countries so sure there are plenty of spirits acknowledged. But we have the words of the historical guatama buddha and he is perfectly clear that there is no creator diety.
[/QUOTE]

You can’t really claim to understand Buddhism “just fine” if you can’t even correctly understand a simple sentence in my previous post (and it would be nice if you could learn to spell the word “deity”, too).

I wasn’t claiming that Buddhism acknowledges a creator deity: I was mocking your weaselly attempt to shift the goalposts from your earlier incorrect claim that “there is no supernatural being” in Buddhism to the more defensible “there is no creator deity” in Buddhism.

295

Dude, your own linked cite supports Monty’s interpretation here rather than yours:

(Emphasis added.) As your source makes clear, Muslims typically do interpret the name of their religion as implying the concept of surrender or submission specifically to God.

(And by the way, the Arabic phrase you tried to quote is more correctly “al-istislam li-llah”.)

296

Yes and thats what I’m judging the religion on. On the practical real world examples of muslim majority countries where Shariah is law and islam is deeply entwined with government. Trying to argue that some imaginary version of Islam is good but every actual example of places where it has power are bad is just as futile as the die hard communists who still believe communism could work if only it was done properly.

There are around 45 countries where Islam is dominant, has a formal defined roll in government and where society is structured on islamic principles. And you know what? Those countries are all pretty shitty places that have terrible human rights records, appalling wealth inequality and corrupt governments. I think its very telling that most Muslims in India admit they are better off in India than they would be in Pakistan.

297

Say, Kimstu; you really, really, really liked Groundhog Day, didn’t you?

298

Why do you believe that that proves that the fundamental problem is Islam rather than political theocracy? AFAICT, all “practical real world examples” of political theocracies have been pretty much horrible for human rights and religious tolerance.

If what you’re clumsily trying to argue is that Islamist political theocracy is a fundamentally bad thing, you won’t get any disagreement from me. But when you try to extrapolate from that to claim that the religion of Islam as a whole and in general is a fundamentally bad thing, that’s when you’re letting bigotry overwhelm logic.

[QUOTE=coremelt]
Trying to argue that some imaginary version of Islam is good

[/quote]

Nobody’s arguing in favor of any “imaginary version” of Islam. Islam as practiced by good people doing good things is good, and Islam as practiced by bad people doing bad things is bad. All “versions” of Islam practiced by real-life people are equally real, not “imaginary”.

[QUOTE=coremelt]
but every actual example of places where it has power are bad

[/quote]

Yes, political theocracy is a bad thing. Nobody is disagreeing about that.

You seem somehow incapable of distinguishing between Islam as a religion and Islamist political theocracy. You appear to believe that I’m arguing in favor of a hypothetical Islamist political theocracy that would be better than the ones that actually exist. But I’m not. I’m not in favor of any kind of political theocracy.

[QUOTE=coremelt]
There are around 45 countries where Islam is dominant, has a formal defined roll in government and where society is structured on islamic principles. And you know what? Those countries are all pretty shitty places that have terrible human rights records, appalling wealth inequality and corrupt governments.

[/quote]

Sounds like the common feature there is political theocracy rather than Islam per se, since you carefully omitted Muslim-majority countries where Islamist theocrats are not running the country and structuring the society.

If anybody around here were trying to defend political theocracy, you would have sure showed them with that devastating argument!

[QUOTE=coremelt]
I think its very telling that most Muslims in India admit they are better off in India than they would be in Pakistan.
[/QUOTE]

Most Jews in the US think they’re better off in the US than they would be in Israel, too. I eagerly await your inferences from this “very telling” fact about the fundamental evils of the Jewish religion in general and as a whole.

299

I’ve never actually seen the movie, as a matter of fact. But I hear somebody’s made a messageboard adaptation of it?

300

So explain to me why political theocracy is so prevalent amongst islamic majority countries but not other religions? Where are the Christian, Buddhist or Hindu countries run as political theocracies? Israel doesn’t count its officially a secular state. Holy See? Ok you got me on that one but its a micro state.

What is it about Islam that means muslim majority countries are much more likely to be political theocracies than countries with other majority religions? Possibly just possibly its because the teachings of the religion actually state thats the form of government you are supposed to have. Or it could just be a bizarre coincidence I suppose?