Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think that's a bit of an overreaction.

Poe's Law in effect, maybe?

But the Muslim Brotherhood is substantial;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

The Society of the Muslim Brothers (Arabic: جماعة الإخوان المسلمين‎, often simply: الإخوان المسلمون, the Muslim Brotherhood, transliterated: al-ʾIkḫwān al-Muslimūn) is the Arab world's most influential and one of the largest Islamic movements, and is the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states.[1][2] Founded in Egypt in 1928[3] as a Pan-Islamic, religious, political, and social movement by the Islamic scholar and schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna,[4][5][6][7] by the end of World War II the Muslim Brotherhood had an estimated two million members.[8] Its ideas had gained supporters throughout the Arab world and influenced other Islamist groups with its "model of political activism combined with Islamic charity work".[9]
The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ...ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state." The organization seeks to make Muslim countries become Islamic caliphates and to isolate women and non-Muslims from public life.[10] The movement is also known for engaging in political violence. They were responsible for creating Hamas, a U.S. designated terrorist organization, who grew to infamy for its suicide bombings of Israelis during the first and second intifada.[10] Muslim brotherhood members are suspected to have assasinated political opponents like Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmoud an-Nukrashi Pasha.[9][10][11]
The Muslim Brotherhood started as a religious social organization; preaching Islam, teaching the illiterate, setting up hospitals and even launching commercial enterprises. As it continued to rise in influence, starting in 1936, it began to oppose British rule in Egypt.[12] Many Egyptian nationalists accuse the Muslim Brotherhood of violent killings during this period.[13] After the Arab defeat in the First Arab-Israeli war, the Egyptian government dissolved the organisation and arrested its members.[12] It supported the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, but after an attempted assassination of Egypt's president it was once again banned and repressed.[14] The Muslim Brotherhood has been suppressed in other countries as well, most notably in Syria in 1982 during the Hama massacre.[15]
The Muslim Brotherhood is financed by contributions from its members, who are required to allocate a portion of their income to the movement. Some of these contributions are from members who work in Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich countries.[

It was voted into power after Mubarak was deposed in Egypt
Is the joint largest party in Bahrain
It is alleged to be a dominant force in the Syrian conflict
It's leader in Iraq is the Vice-President
Voted into power in Gaza as Hamas in 2007, there have been no subsequent elections held
Is part of the ruling coalition of Algeria
Has had significant power in Sudan since 1989

It is also present in Kuwait, Jordan, Yemen, Oman, Somalia, Tunisia and Libya

Very different to those who comprise Westboro.

 Monster Rain wrote:
I think that's a bit of an overreaction.

Poe's Law in effect, maybe?

If not, his viewpoint is easily the most vile in this thread. Thankfully as he said, he wont be back.

Edited.

Omg seriously? Unbelievable.

@all: DakkaDakka is not a soap box for generalized condemnations of cultures and religions. It's a big internet; there are other places to discuss those kind of opinions. Thanks.

Edited.

 Ahtman wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I become angry at injustice, persecution and bigotry

And that anger has made you into what you hate, it seems.

Less of the one liners and actually make up your counter claim, show me that there are nations under islamic rule that treat women equally, or at least as near to equally as the West does?

I said islamic nations don't treat women well, as a result of being islamic, and I resent that and because of that I resent islam, you're countered with 'then you're bigoted against muslims as that's not the case'... So show me the countries I'm wrong about?

As a liberal, as a believer in equality for people despite color, gender, disability, sexuality, I find islam's condemnation of homosexuality repellent, I find it's segregation and second class relegation of women repellent. I would find it as repellent in a political party and I doubt I would still attract your label of bigotry for it? Would I?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I become angry at injustice, persecution and bigotry

And that anger has made you into what you hate, it seems.

Less of the one liners and actually make up your counter claim, show me that there are nations under islamic rule that treat women equally, or at least as near to equally as the West does?

I said islamic nations don't treat women well, as a result of being islamic, and I resent that and because of that I resent islam, you're countered with 'then you're bigoted against muslims as that's not the case'... So show me the countries I'm wrong about?

As a liberal, as a believer in equality for people despite color, gender, disability, sexuality, I find islam's condemnation of homosexuality repellent, I find it's segregation and second class relegation of women repellent. I would find it as repellent in a political party and I doubt I would still attract your label of bigotry for it? Would I?

Just to clarify, are you counting secular islamic nations, or islamic nations where Sharia does have play?

So far we have
Darth Blessed
Darth Brianicus
Darth Britanicus
come on people!

 djones520 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I become angry at injustice, persecution and bigotry

And that anger has made you into what you hate, it seems.

Less of the one liners and actually make up your counter claim, show me that there are nations under islamic rule that treat women equally, or at least as near to equally as the West does?

I said islamic nations don't treat women well, as a result of being islamic, and I resent that and because of that I resent islam, you're countered with 'then you're bigoted against muslims as that's not the case'... So show me the countries I'm wrong about?

As a liberal, as a believer in equality for people despite color, gender, disability, sexuality, I find islam's condemnation of homosexuality repellent, I find it's segregation and second class relegation of women repellent. I would find it as repellent in a political party and I doubt I would still attract your label of bigotry for it? Would I?

Just to clarify, are you counting secular islamic nations, or islamic nations where Sharia does have play?

Hmmm, I'd be willing to bet the treatment of women directly correlates to the control the religion has over the nation's affairs, from Secular all the way through to Theocracy.

Kyrgyzstan. 95ish % Muslim population. They had a woman President before we did.

BUT, they are hardly hard line Muslims there. They have a national alcohal, as an example.

Pretty secular nation as well. Relatively "westernized" as well, being a former Soviet satellite.

 Frazzled wrote:
So far we have
Darth Blessed
Darth Brianicus
Darth Britanicus
come on people!

Darth Stompa?

 djones520 wrote:
Kyrgyzstan. 95ish % Muslim population. They had a woman President before we did.

BUT, they are hardly hard line Muslims there. They have a national alcohal, as an example.

Pretty secular nation as well. Relatively "westernized" as well, being a former Soviet satellite.

It's the booze that makes the difference, not enjoying alcohol is the mark of uncivilized heathens the world over.

 djones520 wrote:
Kyrgyzstan. 95ish % Muslim population. They had a woman President before we did.

BUT, they are hardly hard line Muslims there. They have a national alcohal, as an example.

Pretty secular nation as well. Relatively "westernized" as well, being a former Soviet satellite.

Isn't that the former Russian republic that bills itself as a kind of anti Iran, complete with rock concerts and such?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
So far we have
Darth Blessed
Darth Brianicus
Darth Britanicus
come on people!

Darth Stompa?

I like Darth Stompa. It seems...appropriate.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

It just blows my mind, to then go to the hospital and inflict further wickedness... They are not animals, animals would not do such a thing, they are devils, monsters, and should be wiped from the earth. So utterly vile and inhuman, all in the name of 'faith'.

Muslims are "devils" and "monsters" that "...should be wiped from the Earth?"

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I said islamic nations don't treat women well, as a result of being islamic, and I resent that and because of that I resent islam, you're countered with 'then you're bigoted against muslims as that's not the case'... So show me the countries I'm wrong about?

You do know that there is a difference between nations and individuals, right?

 Frazzled wrote:

I like Darth Stompa. It seems...appropriate.

Vader did kill the younglings.

 Frazzled wrote:
I like Darth Stompa. It seems...appropriate.

Beat me to it But who is his Master? Always two there are, a Master and an Apprentice

The word "Islam" in the context of the religion does not mean peace. It means submission or surrender, as in submitting to the will of God as written by their prophet.

The big problem is that Islam has never gone through a Reformation. In fact they kind of went through a "reverse reformation" in the 13 century. Prior to the 13th century you could find a lot of Islamic theologians that were interpreting the Koran in more metaphorical terms. This group lost out big time and they have been stuck in literalist mode for 8 centuries.

Here is a paragraph from an unpublished essay I wrote that gives a snapshot of an Islamic theologian that was very influential in hardening Islam into a pure fundamentalist religion.

___
The Herald of the Dark Age of Islamic Science and Philosophy was Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali. Al-Ghazali was a brilliant and articulate theologian. While the ruination of Muslim philosophy and science cannot be completely rested upon his shoulders, his influence on the development of Muslim theology is of paramount importance. Ghazali rejected reason for faith and the path he followed to reach this conclusion was detailed in his important work The Deliverer from Error. His most influential work may have been Revivification of the Sciences of Religion, which stressed the supreme importance of obeying the will of God as expressed in the Qur’an and hadith. Ghazali’s Incoherence of the Philosophers is an argument against theism and deism and closes the door to any allegorical interpretation of the Qur’an. Regardless of any disagreement on how Ghazali’s ideas spread throughout the Muslim world, or how long the process required, it is indisputable that modern orthodox Muslims fully embrace a literal translation of Qur’an and the sunna of the Prophet. While these latter beliefs remain at the core of Islam, the Islamic veil of science and reason cannot be lifted.

------

The poor treatment of women in these now Islamic societies predates Islam and is largely the result of the social organization of patriarchial, tribal and nomadic groups. The Quran is a permanent enabler of these practices.

 djones520 wrote:
Kyrgyzstan. 95ish % Muslim population. They had a woman President before we did.

BUT, they are hardly hard line Muslims there. They have a national alcohal, as an example.

Pretty secular nation as well. Relatively "westernized" as well, being a former Soviet satellite.

There's really no need to exagerate. The number is closer to 80% muslim population.

I kind of like them though. They're an interesting mix of influences, with a nice history of violence and high hopes going forward.

 dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

It just blows my mind, to then go to the hospital and inflict further wickedness... They are not animals, animals would not do such a thing, they are devils, monsters, and should be wiped from the earth. So utterly vile and inhuman, all in the name of 'faith'.

Muslims are "devils" and "monsters" that "...should be wiped from the Earth?"

The ones that shoot a bunch of women for the outrage of them seeking education and then double up by following any survivors to the hospital so they can shoot them, their nurses and doctors and a mediator, in the name of Islam and Allah, yes, those muslims are devils and monsters and I wish them terrible fates. Do you hold them otherwise?

Because that is what I wrote, regardless of your snipped quote.

 dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I said islamic nations don't treat women well, as a result of being islamic, and I resent that and because of that I resent islam, you're countered with 'then you're bigoted against muslims as that's not the case'... So show me the countries I'm wrong about?

You do know that there is a difference between nations and individuals, right?

I do, and can I assume that you not showing me the countries I'm wrong about means I'm not wrong about any Islamic countries?

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I like Darth Stompa. It seems...appropriate.

Vader did kill the younglings.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 xole wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Kyrgyzstan. 95ish % Muslim population. They had a woman President before we did.

BUT, they are hardly hard line Muslims there. They have a national alcohal, as an example.

Pretty secular nation as well. Relatively "westernized" as well, being a former Soviet satellite.

There's really no need to exagerate. The number is closer to 80% muslim population.

I kind of like them though. They're an interesting mix of influences, with a nice history of violence and high hopes going forward.

Wasn't an exageration, working off of memory, which does seem to have been wrong. More recent studied do indicate a cloer to 90% total. Last time I was there I did get the vibe that Islamists were trying to gain ground in the country, though almost everyone I spoke to about their religion treated it as something they were simply born into, and weren't really all that observant of.

 djones520 wrote:

 xole wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Kyrgyzstan. 95ish % Muslim population. They had a woman President before we did.

BUT, they are hardly hard line Muslims there. They have a national alcohal, as an example.

Pretty secular nation as well. Relatively "westernized" as well, being a former Soviet satellite.

There's really no need to exagerate. The number is closer to 80% muslim population.

I kind of like them though. They're an interesting mix of influences, with a nice history of violence and high hopes going forward.

Wasn't an exageration, working off of memory, which does seem to have been wrong. More recent studied do indicate a cloer to 90% total. Last time I was there I did get the vibe that Islamists were trying to gain ground in the country, though almost everyone I spoke to about their religion treated it as something they were simply born into, and weren't really all that observant of.

That's the vibe I got. You travelled there? Exciting. How was it?

One question I would want to ask you OT folk is, do you think a religion is capable of being damagingly flawed?

If so, how would you tell that a religion is like that?

If not, why not?

I've been deployed there a couple times. Just about a year on the ground there all together.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

The ones that shoot a bunch of women for the outrage of them seeking education and then double up by following any survivors to the hospital so they can shoot them, their nurses and doctors and a mediator, in the name of Islam and Allah, yes, those muslims are devils and monsters and I wish them terrible fates. Do you hold them otherwise?

Yes. I consider them to be humans.

At any rate, that is the closest to clarity you have come in this thread. Previously it seemed as though you were specifically targeting Muslims, as opposed to people who do terrible things.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Because that is what I wrote, regardless of your snipped quote.

I know what you wrote, in fact I directly quoted you; without any form of editing. The snipped portion was my interpretation of that quote given your history, and comments within this thread.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I do, and can I assume that you not showing me the countries I'm wrong about means I'm not wrong about any Islamic countries?

No, you cannot make that assumption.

Of course you will almost certainly do so anyway; as you have repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot discern between a Muslim and a Muslim nation.

 dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

The ones that shoot a bunch of women for the outrage of them seeking education and then double up by following any survivors to the hospital so they can shoot them, their nurses and doctors and a mediator, in the name of Islam and Allah, yes, those muslims are devils and monsters and I wish them terrible fates. Do you hold them otherwise?

Yes. I consider them to be humans.

Biologically, that would be correct. I was stating that their actions have separated them from humanity or notions of the humane, they are not human beings, they have become something less, something worse, something that requires removal.

 dogma wrote:

At any rate, that is the closest to clarity you have come in this thread. Previously it seemed as though you were specifically targeting Muslims, as opposed to people who do terrible things.

I do not believe Islam brings good things to the planet. I would absolutely state that individual muslims can be great, wonderful people, but I believe overall, the religion and many who act in extremis in it's name and according to it's dictates, bring misery to the world. I also believe the 'good majority' view extremists as higher on the list of their priorities than a non-believer.
I'm not targeting muslims, I am certainly targeting Islam.

 dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Because that is what I wrote, regardless of your snipped quote.

I know what you wrote, in fact I directly quoted you; without any form of editing. The snipped portion was my interpretation of that quote given your history, and comments within this thread.

Your interpretation was a long leap to a highly flawed outcome. I was referring to the extremists, I then went on later to broaden my discussion to the impact of Islam where ever it is dominant in a nation. I do not see modern Islam as a positive influence on humanity, because the nations where it is in ascension seem to be very unpleasant places, in several parts of the world, with separate cultures and histories, unified most readily by their religion, so when we ask why all these places across the world are shitholes where women are treated in totally repulsive ways, we could easily conclude that they are so treated because of Islam, especially when such practices are condoned or even invoked by religious courts and religious police. There are other places in the world where women are not treated well, but in Islamic nations, it is justified and sanctioned by the local religious leadership, national religious leadership and international religious leadership, so, I conclude it is not favorable to women.

I can read the Quran, witness the nations where it's teaching as dominant and say that women in islamic nations are not treated well, further that the Quran condones and encourages it.

Ill treatment + Instructions from the holy book on ill treatment + multiple peoples, cultures and customs all treating women as second class through to property = A misogynistic religion.

 dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I do, and can I assume that you not showing me the countries I'm wrong about means I'm not wrong about any Islamic countries?

No, you cannot make that assumption.

Of course you will almost certainly do so anyway; as you have repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot discern between a Muslim and a Muslim nation.

I can most certainly tell the difference, I asked you for a nation, one, that treated women equally... Or is it that you cannot find one, not a single nation and instead must rely on westernized individuals or families? Those educated beyond the braying fanaticism of the education to one single book?

But continue to rail against the question, weave as you might...

Darth Stroyer

dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

It just blows my mind, to then go to the hospital and inflict further wickedness... They are not animals, animals would not do such a thing, they are devils, monsters, and should be wiped from the earth. So utterly vile and inhuman, all in the name of 'faith'.

Muslims are "devils" and "monsters" that "...should be wiped from the Earth?"

I think MSG was using "devils" and "monsters" in specific reference to people who shot up a hospital already filled with their handiwork, irrespective of their religious affiliation. That they happen to be Muslim in this instance likely has little bearing on the judgement of said devils and monsters, but rather is based upon the aforementioned heinous actions. At least, that was my interpretation of the statement when I agreed with him.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I do not see modern Islam as a positive influence on humanity...

Then what do you see it as?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I can most certainly tell the difference, I asked you for a nation, one, that treated women equally...

You never asked me that question. My name is not "Ahtman".

 dogma wrote:

You never asked me that question. My name is not "Ahtman".

Hey man. Ahtman is inside all of us

The key cause of Islamic violence is this: modernization. While modernization is a good thing and utterly inevitable, much of the Middle East is stuck in the past, thanks to a long series of ethnic warfare and foreign meddling. As a result, Islam as a religion is stuck in a juvenile stage of development, one that all religions must go through in order to survive. This stage is always marked by extremist activity - look at Christianity and the Crusades. Add in the complications caused by centuries of Western meddling and you have an explosive crucible of a region caught in a hellish state of constant violence caused by factors so complex and multifarious (and often ancient) that to completely understand them would require multiple lifetimes worth of study to begin to grasp.

Frankly, if Islam cannot change soon, if it doesn't mature and reform itself to fit in with modern mores, then it will eventually die, if only because its radical adherents drive everyone else away and manage to kills themselves all off before they can create more children.

It's an insane situation on all accounts.

~Tim?

LordofHats wrote:

 dogma wrote:

You never asked me that question. My name is not "Ahtman".

Hey man. Ahtman is inside all of us

I didn't consent to that.