Someone here

@itachi uchiha I am sure you think you have intellectual integrity – but I do not see it - actually quite the opposite. I brought up many issues with Islam today in our world – these issues are not really theoretical – rather they are actual problems. Specifically is Muhammad a philanderer – misogynist – pedophile and a genocidal murderer? Is he an ideal man as Daviddunn professed? Are women in Islam generally oppressed and used as breeding machines? Is Islam taking over the world by numbers? Is Islam a real political movement as part of its theology?

@itachi uchihaI have mentioned, all evils from all sources must be addressed. This OP is specifically about Islam thus we should focus solely on Islam and do not bring other topics to conflate and confuse the topic. I have mentioned many times, my thesis do not blame Muslims [human beings] as the primary cause of all Islamic-related evils and violence. Basically most humans who are evil prone are unfortunately [nature] born that way, they did not ask to be evil prone. The real culprit and primary cause of all Islamic-related evils and violence is from the ideology of Islam [partly] which trigger the evil gears in those who are evil prone. Re OP, the regressive left must not be sympathetic to Islam but understand Islam [partially] has malignant and evil elements that are a threat to themselves and humanity. I think the bottle neck in hindering our ability to move forward in this discussion is your lack of knowledge of the Quran and Islam thoroughly and objectively. I suggest you suspend judgment on all matters related to Islam till you have understood Islam thoroughly.

@Preety_India You must clear your ignorance first on what Islam really is by researching and understanding the Quran thoroughly before you can insist your views on Islam are credible. I am not speculating, I have researched sufficiently to understand that Islam [partially] is inherently evil which is inspiring some Muslims who are evil prone to commit terrible evils and violence as it has happened over 1,400 years ago till the present.

Contrary to the pro gay marriage argument that some different-sex couples cannot have children or don’t want them, even in those cases there is still the potential to produce children. Seemingly infertile heterosexual couples sometimes produce children, and medical advances may allow others to procreate in the future. Heterosexual couples who do not wish to have children are still biologically capable of having them, and may change their minds.

To deny people the option to marry would be discriminatory and would create a second class of citizens. Same-sex couples should have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples

@Reciprocality So my point is when it is convient you say they cannot intepret the text any way they wish you also say the opposite. Of course to can refute this by using semantics and thus giving an example of the duplicites of language in general. In the name of Christ people Crusaded to the Middle East raped, murdered, and even ate people. Just because Chiristians don't do so today does not mean their religion is more "moral". And in the Quran it says, quite clearly (if I "interpret"/"twist" the words) that being the aggressor is against the beliefs of Muslims. Right now in the world there is a situation where violence is being used and people are using hatred to use an ideology to grind their personal axes.

Like heterosexuals, many lesbian, gay and bisexual people want to form stable, long-lasting relationships and many of them do. In fact, researchers have found that the majority of lesbian, and gay, adults are in committed relationships and many couples have been together 10 or more years. Being denied the right to marry reinforces the stigma associated with a minority sexual identity. living in a state where same-sex marriage is outlawed can lead to chronic social stress and mental health problems. Psychologists are particularly concerned that such stigma may undermine the healthy development of adolescents and young adults.

My point was quite simple. If you insist that Muslims do not twist the words of the Quran, yet also admit that there are different interpretations by Muslims, then some may view the words as being "twisted" and some not. The Muslims discussing headscarfs on TV were using direct quotes from the Quran and openly disagreeing with translations/interpretations. I know enough about language to know it is not static, although the written word has remained the same for a logn period of time in the Islamic world, actual spoken language everywhere does change. Langauge is alive and I have seen this in biblical texts too. My fav example is "apolocalypse", because the true meaning is not what most people expect it to be. How open child rape in the Catholic church in the west and across the globe? How about nuns teaching Africans they won't catch HIV if they believe in god and are pure of heart? The IRA bombings targetted innocent citizens and blasts were set up to have people run from one explosion into another ... and they didn't scream in the name of Jesus or Allah, yet they still did it because the hatred was there and they felt justified in some way. If we look at all the instances of "evil" we see a pattern of human psychology that propogates these things. Islam as much as Christianity could be argued to both fan or douse the flames. Some people will see it more one eay than the other, but none can seriously conclude and say one is worst than the other where some instances are peaceful and others violent.

I am a lefty. A liberal, a Liberal, a bleeding heart softy. I don't condone the Islam. I wish all religions (including all forms of Christianity and Judaism, along with Islamic faiths) would go straight to hell. Burn all the churches and prayer houses, skin those alive who profess in any stupidity like praying to a god, and deplore and spit on the high priests and shiiit on all god's statutes. But I don't deplore Arabs, or Islamic faithfuls. I am not Islamophobic. I believe the individual should be given all the equal rights that others enjoy. No matter what their background in religion is.

No Muslims would dare to twist God's words for their nut jobs since they are so fearful of an all-powerful god who know everything in their mind. There is no God [an impossibility], what really happened is the psychological psychopathic states of the founder or founders has been imputed into the Quran which could trigger evil impulses in the evil prone who are influenced by those verses directly or indirectly. It is like Hitler writing his Main Kempf and imputing his evilness into it. If anyone were to introduce something like the Quran and its contents at the present, it will never get pass the moral judgment of the average person to influence 1.5 billion people. The Quran compiled in the 7th century unfortunately escaped public censorship when it was accepted blindly by desperate souls searching for salvation. Note an example of the verse below; 22:39. [Pickthall] Sanction [udhina: permission authorised] is given unto those [Muslims] who fight because they [Muslims] have been ẓulimū* [-ZLM; by infidels and hypocrites]; and Allah is indeed Able to give them [Muslims] victory [naṣrihim]; (* offended, wronged). As I had stated a believer is subliminally conditioned as if his whole life is held by the thinnest thread by God's hand. To avoid God's wrath, a believer will do whatever to please God to defend God's cause and religion [his means of salvation at stake]. The condition for one to fight and kill is zulimu [ZLM] which cover a wide spectrum of negatives by non-believers toward Islam [believers' vehicle of salvation]. This is why even the drawing of cartoons is felt as zulimu thus a warrant to fight and kill. Do not imaging these raging Muslims are trying to win votes. The fact is the sight of the cartoons invoke terrible feeling of fears and threat to their salvation, eternal life and paradise. This is how their evil impulse and reactions are triggered and they expressed their rage with sanction of their Allah as in 22:39. Your interpretation of nut cases twisting verses is wrong. This why the wiser religions like Buddhism and Jainism do not include vulnerable evil laden verses in their holy texts because they are aware of human nature within religions. Note the above is merely one verse. There are hundreds and thousand of verses in various degrees of evil in the Quran. [note this is a critical point which you need to update with objectively] The founder of Islam [an individual or group] lacked spiritual intelligence and selfishly included evil laden elements for their own personal interests not aware of its evil consequences to humanity in the future. Jesus [or group] was wiser in capping the evil elements of the OT with an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. love your enemies, give the other cheek, etc. Muhammad or group [spiritually immatured] uncapped the doctrines of the Gospels and reverted to the evils of the OT in active mode and open a pandora box of evils to this day as evident.

Perhaps because systems of religion and systems of civil authority often reflect and support each other, the countries that had reached consensus on the issue by the early 2000s tended to have a single dominant religious affiliation across the population; many such places had a single, state-sponsored religion. This was the case in both Iran, where a strong Muslim theocracy had criminalized same-sex intimacy, and Denmark, where the findings of a conference of Evangelical Lutheran bishops (representing the state religion) had helped smooth the way for the first national recognition of same-sex relationships through registered partnerships. In other cases, the cultural homogeneity supported by the dominant religion did not result in the application of doctrine to the civic realm but may nonetheless have fostered a smoother series of discussions among the citizenry: Belgium and Spain had legalized same-sex marriage, for instance, despite official opposition from their predominant religious institution, the Roman Catholic Church. The existence of religious pluralities within a country seems to have had a less determinate effect on the outcome of same-sex marriage debates.

The Self is not the world and are not the same. Self is what experiences the world. Which raises a question, is the self the body or are they the same? I think it is not the same because the self can also experience thoughts. For example when you listen to your thoughts the self is the one listening or when you visualise a scenario, the self is what sees. The body sort of translates the world to the self. Many people actively look to not distinguish themselves. I believe the need to distinguish or not distinguish comes from outside influences, not from the self. I ask do animals other than humans have a self? I have no idea. The self cannot be what others see as there are many assumptions made by others about an individual. Also, the self is not a feeling, the self experiences the feeling. Many get the feeling to find themselves or to express them self. The body has boundaries with or without the brain as it is merely physical. The self is not physical, it is not something that can be experienced. I ask, are thoughts physical? Thoughts can be experienced, does that make them physical though? (While reading back over I wonder, is maths physical?) "Is the more evolved notice of changes that makes one's self or in the same words conciousnes". I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here. Are you asking if the wiser a person becomes the more they understand the self / consciousness? If that is your question then the short answer is yes. The self is outside of the physical world. A boundary of the self is the physical world as it cannot cross into the world. At this point I am starting to think that the self is the same for everyone. Countering the belief i had before I started typing. Apologies, if I have made big leaps that are difficult to understand. I am willing to discuss further

I think boundaries are created by humans. All except the boundaries of the universe itself, which are its end. For example, where are the boundaries between you and the rest of the world? I don't ask where you think those boundaries might be, I'm asking you to describe what these boundaries are, and the means by which you recognise them. What reason is there to say "this is part of me; that is part of something that is not me"? I have found this an interesting conundrum...

As I think of one's self, I imagine that there should be boundaries which would determine what is one's self. But these boundaries are not so clear to me. Is self maybe an absolute. For example, self is the world, or self and the world are the same. Or is something that can't have a unique answer and is different from person to person. When i think at self it can be my counciousnes, my experience or maybe a charachter that others see. Why we feel the need to distinguish ourselves. Its maybe a survivle tool. Even the borders of which my body with the world should have are not so clear. Or perhaps self is just a feeling with no boundaries, and that's the end of it. I started questioning this indipendently then after searching I found that this is actualy a widly freshly opened question in philosophy and other knowledges. Just typed in google the title of this topic and found a site where my questions are more profoundly debated. The article separates the question to three parts: mind-world, mind-body and self-mind. Then, after reading it, I came up to more questions. Does body have boundaries without mind or brain? Or is it all just a world? Is the more evolved notice of changes that makes one's self or in the same words conciousnes? Is it possible that the answer is not possible within original perspectives?

there are many violent interpretations of the Quran. That is something we should be trying to quash about Islam and I believe the intent of those delineating between people murdering innocents and religious people who oppose such acts. I guess am I really saying that if there was no Islam they'd still be some act of violence being committed on a similar, or more extensive, scale. We're simply stuck in our own time and own relative positions trying to figure out how to deal with the wrongs and rights of human nature.

The left are generally associated with social equality. I think that answer tells us all we need to know about why people on the left are wary of stereotyping a whole proportion of human society. The irony is that social equality is an ideal to work toward not an ideal that can realistically exist in todays world, and if we have equality then people are free to believe what they want to believe. Freedom is limited by society though. Whether we are talking about women's rights, racism or religion the leftist view is one that seems to want to give equal respect to everyone and equal freedom within society without being judged by anything but the current system of justice (by the law of the land). My hardest question in politics is knowing how to reason with irrational ideals. I guess we all must suffer and remain resolute in our opinions of justice and slowly but surely popular opinions will eventually shift to where they will shift. Most people actively oppose violence and by doing so no doubt cause some too. Maybe the "left" comes to the aid of Muslims because they need an injection of equality and justice in their ranks? That seems like a good thing to me. If those wishing for social equality became Muslims they would create a greater sense of equality in that religious group, or rather add weight to the elements within the Islamic community to tip the scales more in favour of basic human rights and equality for all (including homosexuals and women).

In the case of the problem of evils from religions [notably Islam] and believers [especially Muslims] we need to break up the problem of religious related evils and violence into the following respective parts or elements. 1. Humans; 1a. DNA wise, all humans has the potential to commit evil and violence 1b. A percentile [conservatively 20%] of humans are born with an active evil propensity. 1c. 80% of humans do not have an active evil propensity less the dormant potential is triggered. 2. Religions as represented by their holy texts. 2a. The texts of some religions [e.g. Buddhism, Jainism] has negligible leading verses that are likely to inspire evil believers [1b] to commit evils. 2b. The texts of some religions [e.g Christianity, Gita] has some evil elements 2c. The texts of one religion [Judaism] has loads of evil elements that are likely to inspire evil believers [1b] to commit evils. 2d. The texts of one religion [Islam] has loads of evil elements that are likely to inspire evil believers [1b] to commit evils. The quote [paraphrased] from Steven Weinberg is very relevant here; "With or without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things." Religion Is An Insult To Human Dignity. For good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” Obviously the above implied religions with evil elements will inspire believers to commit evils. To really understand the root causes of evils committed by believers we need to take into account all the variables in 1 and 2 above. There are Buddhists who commit evils and violence. A serious analysis will reveal the root cause is 1b, i.e. there is a natural 20% of humans who will commit evil regardless. But as for Buddhism, these Buddhist are not inspired by an evil elements in their religious texts, i.e. see 2a. These Buddhists commit evil purely from their personal natural evil inclinations and that has nothing to do with Buddhism per-se. If oil is discovered in India or Sri Lanka, there will never be wars, evils and violence triggered by Buddhism per se. However for Islam the root causes of Islamic related evils and violence entail a different set of root causes. As with any human beings, 20% of Muslims are born with a propensity for evil and violence of various degrees [1b]. The fact is there are loads of evil elements [2d] in the Quran which are catalysts in triggering the evil propensity in the evil prone Muslims [1b]. What is meant is, without the Quran, then there will be no Quranic-based evils and violence at all. Obviously without the Quran, the natural evil prone will still commit secular evils and violence which must be addressed [in other OP] but that is not related to this OP. So the religion of Islam do partially contribute the Islamic-based evils and violence. So to find effective solutions we must address the relevant critical root causes. In the case of Islamic or Quranic-based evils and violence we must address the evil laden verses in therein which inspire the evil prone Muslims to commit evils and violence. The other main root cause, i.e. DNA based 20% has active evil potential must be addressed as well, but this inherent DNA-based problem is tougher to resolve than evil elements in a holy texts [Quran] from a God that do not even exists in the first place. So the root causes of Islamic-based evils and violence is the combination of the following elements; 1a. DNA wise, all humans has the potential to commit evil and violence + 1b. A percentile [conservatively 20%] of humans are born with an active evil propensity. + 2d. The texts of one religion [Islam] has loads of evil elements that are likely to inspire evil believers [1b] to commit evils. Your inability to identify 2d as a factor of evils and violence committed by SOME Muslims who are evil prone [1b] is due to your shallow analytical skills and ignorance [btw not a defense] of the evil elements in the Quran. The evil elements in the partial evil ideology of Islam [2d] must be singled out for resolution. Those in the regressive left should not be ignorant of this fact [2d and 1b] and ignorantly sympathizing with this aspect of Islam in a stupid [intellectually not meant to be derogatory] manner.

The Bible especially the Old testament more [quantity and quality] evil and violent elements than the Quran. But these evil elements are not presented in such a way that they will easily inspire Christians to commit evils and violence. In addition, the New testament has an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. love your enemies, love your neighbor, give your other cheek, love this and love that etc. If a Christian were to kill his/her enemies, God will surely WTF him/her on Judgment Day for disobedience to the maxim he set.

As I mentioned in another thread ..I'm bisexual. Which means I'm emotionally and sexually attracted to both males and females. It's easy and socially acceptable to date a girl as a guy ..however it's not easy to date a guy in my society. Homosexuality is considered a sin in my country (india). And I don't want to suppress my gay side .today I allowed myself to look at nude pictures of attractive men and I allowed myself to get aroused by it . But I want to build a healthy relationship with a guy . How do I go about dealing with my gay side ? Thanks.

If those who commit evils and violence zealously with the intent they are doing 'good acts' [ihsan] their divine duty for Allah in accordance to what is in the Quran, WHO ARE YOU, me or any one to judge they are wrong?? The critical point here is only Allah can have the final say. Problem is Allah will not communicate to humans directly and will not appear on Earth to make a judgment on whether who is right or wrong. Allah will only make a judgement on Judgment Day. In reality Allah [God] do not exists at all. So, as long as the evil elements in the Quran exists as divine words and commands, SOME [not all] Muslims who are evil prone will be inspired by those evil elements. To them, they are influenced and compelled to do what is expected of them as per the Quran and unfortunately there are evil elements in the Quran to lead these people to commit evils [they deemed in as good]. In general, those who strive [jihad] for the cause of Allah [sabil] in fighting and killing non-Muslims under conditions of zulimu, fasad, etc. are given greater rewards than other Muslims. Allah had condemned the coward Muslims for staying at home and not migrating to fight when Muslims abroad are oppressed and taken advantage of.

Clear, but still not answering the question posed (Which was my point.) I asked why do people defend Islam. My general answer was that people tend to defend attacks on groups of people. Like I said above, we don't all think Muslims condone beheading any more than we think all Christians think homosexuality is a sin. Given that most of us don't really understand the religion of Islam we find it very hard to say anything about it because we (in the west) have a Christian tradition that runs right through our society (and I doubt many of us even speak Arabic either!) It does not matter whether we believe this or that, it is still a prominent factor in western society. We don't really need to be educated about Christian traditions and culture because in the western world we've been brought up in the heart of it. Then we have minorities in our nations (Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, or whatever) and we, being rational people, understand that what other people do on the other side of the world does not represent what our neighbours do and think. Some people forget this and become consumed by hatred. It is quite normal to be consumed by hatred via associating. If a man with one arm murders your family in front of you, you'll likely carry around a psychological profile of all one-armed men in a very negative light even if you understand the irrationality of such a prejudice. This is why I see people being very quick to try and make people see past blind hatred and embrace reason. I don't see it simply as a case of sticking up for what you think is right (not quite sure why you'd stick up for something you thought for wrong so imagine you erred in your writing? Many scholars have gone over the Quran and generally I have heard that the interpretation is a big deal. I am not sure why it is more significant than with the Bible (cannot remember the argument now), but that was a repeated theme I remember reading about.

I can agree that religious institutions have an agenda. People who believe in whatever they believe do so for many different reasons. If you are repressed you use it as a force to oppose repression, if you are scared of death you use it as a comfort, if you have many questions that cannot be answered or tackled you rely in the "faith" of assuming there is a higher order and purpose. These people are quite obviously vulnerable to manipulation and religious institutions have taken advantage of this numerous times in human history. There is no conclusive proof in a matter like this. To think so is to fall into a dogmatic belief. What we can do is a have a considered and balanced discussion about what feeds evil institutions.

Not all Christians are evil either, nor Buddhists. Most certainly some are, and some will murder just as some Muslims. I do understand what you are saying in regard to "religion" as a whole. My qualm is purposefully attacking Islam. If the oil was in India no doubt we'd be talking about Hindu and Buddhist suicide bombers. If the religious roles were reversed and the west was not in power then the Christians would be suicide bombing. The problem is not the specific religion, the problem, as I see it, is that nations which are down-trodden turn to any peace of hope they can find. Some people prey on this and recruit fundamentalists (the specific religion doesn't really matter - note; not even Buddhism escapes this phenomenon). If there was no religion then there would be some other ideology to put to work, maybe nationalistic tendencies, basically some cultural difference, be it language, race or whatever. If we are asking what religions are more prone to being manipulated into hatred, then yes, Islam is probably quite high up there, but I wouldn't put it higher than Judaism or Christianity. They are, as I've said already, pretty much cast from the same mold.

@Preety_India lol that was a question not a statement

So, no religion is not to blame. Human stupidity and greed is generally to blame for humanities evils. Not any god or devil, just plain old people thinking they know better than others and rallying people (wittingly or not) to their own personal "crusade" against X, Y and/or Z ??