ADVERTISEMENT

How do you deal with Islam?

Noticed the use of "Jihad" was used in the thread.

Was curious about the meaning of Jihad both within Islam and by others outside.

Thought some of the Coolerites might be interested in this attempt to give a meaning to Jihad. The article in part states the following..

“Jihad” literally means striving, or doing one’s utmost. Within Islam, there are two basic theological understandings of the word: The “Greater Jihad” is the struggle against the lower self – the struggle to purify one’s heart, do good, avoid evil and make oneself a better person. The “Lesser Jihad” is an outward struggle. Jihad constitutes a moral principle to struggle against any obstacle that stands in the way of the good. Bearing, delivering and raising a child, for example, is an example of outward jihad, because of the many obstacles that must be overcome to deliver and raise the child successfully. Jihad may also involve fighting against oppressors and aggressors who commit injustice. It is not “holy war” in the way a crusade would be considered a holy war, and while Islam allows and even encourages proselytizing, it forbids forced conversion. In Islamic tradition, the form of jihad that involves fighting requires specific ethical conditions under which it is permissible to fight, as well as clear rules of engagement such as the requirement to protect non-combatants. Scholars have compared Jihad that involves fighting to the Christian concept of “just war.”
Jihad is another Muslim concept Islamic terrorists have twisted into something that it’s not supposed to be.
 
Jihad is another Muslim concept Islamic terrorists have twisted into something that it’s not supposed to be.

Agree.

However, to complicate matters the terms Jihadists and Jihadist terrorists are commonly used interchangeably.
 
Underlying hypothetical question to see how close you two are (even if not practically available to be proven):

If non-jihadi Islam is impossible, would you be in favor of eliminating it?
That's a good question. I'm going to also link something Crazy said in the other Hamas thread, because it's relevant here:



She was a lucky one. I am fine being on the side that says wipe these mother ****ers out.

Most of you should know by now that I'm generally not hostile to religion. However, I honestly don't believe that women are - for lack of a better term - desecrated like that without some sort of belief system that is both 1) inherently patriarchal and 2) personally oppressive. That is to say, I think you need a group of men who are trained to hate themselves for their natural desires and feelings, to transfer that hatred to women, and to accept that such a transfer is okay because women are inferior, in order to get that kind of atrocity. It's a fair question whether such a belief system is worth preserving (I'd say no), and it's also a fair question whether or not it's even worth leaving alone, i.e., whether we might be morally obligated to oppose it (a much tougher question).

The problem I have is that I am absolutely sure that there is such a thing as moderate Islam, because I know there are moderate Muslims, and as a religious system reflects the people who believe it, moderate people will espouse a moderate religion. So I absolutely think we should try to stamp out radicalism without stamping out faith. But I'm not sure we can, not because non-jihadi Islam is impossible, but because I'm not sure such surgical precision in the realm of social engineering is possible.
 
That's a good question. I'm going to also link something Crazy said in the other Hamas thread, because it's relevant here:



Most of you should know by now that I'm generally not hostile to religion. However, I honestly don't believe that women are - for lack of a better term - desecrated like that without some sort of belief system that is both 1) inherently patriarchal and 2) personally oppressive. That is to say, I think you need a group of men who are trained to hate themselves for their natural desires and feelings, to transfer that hatred to women, and to accept that such a transfer is okay because women are inferior, in order to get that kind of atrocity. It's a fair question whether such a belief system is worth preserving (I'd say no), and it's also a fair question whether or not it's even worth leaving alone, i.e., whether we might be morally obligated to oppose it (a much tougher question).

The problem I have is that I am absolutely sure that there is such a thing as moderate Islam, because I know there are moderate Muslims, and as a religious system reflects the people who believe it, moderate people will espouse a moderate religion. So I absolutely think we should try to stamp out radicalism without stamping out faith. But I'm not sure we can, not because non-jihadi Islam is impossible, but because I'm not sure such surgical precision in the realm of social engineering is possible.

only about 35% of muslims live in the Middle East and Africa. and not all muslim nations/ factions in the ME and Africa are currently involved in or have historically been involved in religious violence. we also hear a lot less from the huge muslim nations in Central, South, SE Asia, where the majority of muslims live.

non-jihadi islam is the majority and not the exception.
 
Last edited:
only about 35% of muslims live in the Middle East and Africa. and not all muslim nations/ factions in the ME and Africa are currently involved in or have historically been involved in religious violence. we also hear a lot less from the huge muslim nations in Central, South, SE Asia, where the majority of muslims live.

non-jihadi islam is the majority and not the exception.



Mmhmm
 
  • Sad
Reactions: DANC
only about 35% of muslims live in the Middle East and Africa. and not all muslim nations/ factions in the ME and Africa are currently involved in or have historically been involved in religious violence. we also hear a lot less from the huge muslim nations in Central, South, SE Asia, where the majority of muslims live.

non-jihadi islam is the majority and not the exception.
Is it fair to say that in a majority of Muslim nations, women have fewer rights and more restrictions than men?
 
Is it fair to say that in a majority of Muslim nations, women have fewer rights and more restrictions than men?

They removed the video I posted up above for being too graphic as Muslim militants killed and ripped the leg off a Christian and were quite happy with their work.

It is fair to say that Islam is mostly "moderate" when their population is in so small of numbers that the revelation of their true selves would make them unacceptable neighbors to most. In small numbers they can't act out and impose their backwardness (jizya, women's rights issues, 12th century society) on others so they mostly play along. As their percentage of the total population increases you begin to see the true face of Islam in your society. They become more antagonistic, the rise of jihad groups becomes more normal as in larger numbers they refuse to be ruled by non-Muslims. This continues until they are in large enough numbers that they dominate the society. At that point all the discrimination and violence becomes systemic. People mostly go along because to be anything outside the norm is often a death sentence. There is no room for dissent.

Islam is the antithesis for everything that Western liberalism stands for.
 
only about 35% of muslims live in the Middle East and Africa. and not all muslim nations/ factions in the ME and Africa are currently involved in or have historically been involved in religious violence. we also hear a lot less from the huge muslim nations in Central, South, SE Asia, where the majority of muslims live.

non-jihadi islam is the majority and not the exception.

The Muslims in that area deal with their own jihadist issues but they may be the mythical moderates we need, mainly because at least some of them are much more clear eyed about their religion than people in the West like you are.


"Many Western politicians and intellectuals say that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. What is your view?

Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam."

This guy is right there but he is basically admitting that you have to fundamentally change Islam in order for it to be capable of living in the 21st century. Many "moderates" aren't revolutionary like this guy would be. They just tend to be people who, in the right format, would give you reasons that the jihadis have that they agree with but they themselves just don't have the stomach to do the killing. Those aren't moderates to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: manichi
They removed the video I posted up above for being too graphic as Muslim militants killed and ripped the leg off a Christian and were quite happy with their work.

It is fair to say that Islam is mostly "moderate" when their population is in so small of numbers that the revelation of their true selves would make them unacceptable neighbors to most. In small numbers they can't act out and impose their backwardness (jizya, women's rights issues, 12th century society) on others so they mostly play along. As their percentage of the total population increases you begin to see the true face of Islam in your society. They become more antagonistic, the rise of jihad groups becomes more normal as in larger numbers they refuse to be ruled by non-Muslims. This continues until they are in large enough numbers that they dominate the society. At that point all the discrimination and violence becomes systemic. People mostly go along because to be anything outside the norm is often a death sentence. There is no room for dissent.

Islam is the antithesis for everything that Western liberalism stands for.
It’s the pack phenomenon.

One dog is fine, two will get into some trouble, three or more and they are very dangerous
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUCrazy2
It's fair to say most of the third world is like that, which includes ostensibly Christian sub-Saharan Africa.
Nbc Noice GIF by Law & Order
 
Notice the use of the epithet "you white piece of @^%$."

The view that Jews are "whites" and that "whites" = colonizers and oppressors is one of the main drivers for people in the West (and yes, that woman is of the West, based on her mannerisms, dress, and diction) doing this kind of stuff. It's their morality, grounded in their religious axioms.
 
It's fair to say most of the third world is like that, which includes ostensibly Christian sub-Saharan Africa.

Wellllllll.......

If we're including Southern Africa, incluidng the former British/French colonies of SA, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Tanzania, Mozambique, etc. I would disagree pretty strongly. Though that might be b/c of how they were colonized, etc. and by whom.

Women aren't, by law, second class citizens and I would posit that even in society are seen as closely as equals as you'll see in the 3rd world (yes, I'm aware SA isn't really 3rd world anymore). Not perfect but nowhere near Chad/Angola/DRC. Even those countries pale in comparison to Muslim majority or Muslim goverened countries.

Again, I've only seen what I've seen on the ground and this post could always be seen by my wife and I need points on the board bitches.
 
I mean, come on. You're literally watching people justify genocide on that one.
No one likes to suggest that genocide is acceptable, but at some point if a group of people not just refuse to conform to societal norms, but repeatedly over decades pose threats to all members of a society, what do you do? When these people tell you they will murder you all, rape your women, mutilate your children, & then show you they will follow through, when do you start to believe them? If the citizens are indistinguishable from the terrorists, at what point do you cease to sacrifice “yours” for “theirs”? While uncomfortable, the conclusion seems almost inevitable… is it genocide or self-defense?
 
No one likes to suggest that genocide is acceptable, but at some point if a group of people not just refuse to conform to societal norms, but repeatedly over decades pose threats to all members of a society, what do you do? When these people tell you they will murder you all, rape your women, mutilate your children, & then show you they will follow through, when do you start to believe them? If the citizens are indistinguishable from the terrorists, at what point do you cease to sacrifice “yours” for “theirs”? While uncomfortable, the conclusion seems almost inevitable… is it genocide or self-defense?
What Myanmar is doing to the Rohingya is genocide. They are the victims in this. The Burmese consider them to be colonizers imposed upon them by the British (sound familiar?), so they are denied citizenship, displaced, and killed.
 
Wellllllll.......

If we're including Southern Africa, incluidng the former British/French colonies of SA, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Tanzania, Mozambique, etc. I would disagree pretty strongly. Though that might be b/c of how they were colonized, etc. and by whom.

Women aren't, by law, second class citizens and I would posit that even in society are seen as closely as equals as you'll see in the 3rd world (yes, I'm aware SA isn't really 3rd world anymore). Not perfect but nowhere near Chad/Angola/DRC. Even those countries pale in comparison to Muslim majority or Muslim goverened countries.

Again, I've only seen what I've seen on the ground and this post could always be seen by my wife and I need points on the board bitches.


lee-corso-college.gif


 
They left out a very important part of the article:

The Department of Education, which opened the investigation Tuesday, declined a Jewish Telegraphic Agency request for comment. Its Office for Civil Rights has said that the opening of such investigations does not mean the department believes they have merit, only that the complaint falls under its purview.​
 
They left out a very important part of the article:

The Department of Education, which opened the investigation Tuesday, declined a Jewish Telegraphic Agency request for comment. Its Office for Civil Rights has said that the opening of such investigations does not mean the department believes they have merit, only that the complaint falls under its purview.​

Has the agency ever declined to open an investigation?
 

"Get in your car. I'm gonna let you go." 😄

If that was a white guy, no way she waives him through.

Black folks that are tired of the nonsense are our only hope. They gotta lead the end of this...

Like Grant Heard when he single-handedly got mandatory school masking stopped in Monroe County...last in the state.

White moms and dads demanding mask removals..."GFY domestic terrorist".

The first time a black dude got up there and destroyed those pussies on the board...mask mandate ended. 😄

It's the way it's gonna have to happen.
 
"Get in your car. I'm gonna let you go." 😄

If that was a white guy, no way she waives him through.

Black folks that are tired of the nonsense are our only hope. They gotta lead the end of this...

Like Grant Heard when he single-handedly got mandatory school masking stopped in Monroe County...last in the state.

White moms and dads demanding mask removals..."GFY domestic terrorist".

The first time a black dude got up there and destroyed those pussies on the board...mask mandate ended. 😄

It's the way it's gonna have to happen.
Either that or a handful of instances where some drivers take one for the team & mow some of these folks down to discourage the behavior. Cow catchers would be good…
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT