A call for sanity - Council of Ex Muslims

[Tiberius]

In no way shape or form do any of the persons in this video defend Islam, but they do defend the right for Muslims to practice their religion.

This statement contradicts itself. How can you say "their not defending that religion but are defending their right to practice it" i.e teach it, live it and in some cases die by it. That IS defending that religion.

No it doesn't. I despise the BNP, I oppose facism, communism, socialism, etc. However, I am a supporter of freedom, and the freedom to support or subscribe to any ideology that you want to. Thus, whilst I do not support the BNP or any other facist political party, I fully support the ability for those parties to exist, and for people to become affiliated with them.

It's like saying I do not agree with the Catholic church and its ideologies but I am ok with them teaching people that babies that die at birth go to hell as they have not been baptized. Or as later taught (due to outrage from their believers) go to limbo for a time.

Yes, and there is nothing contradictory about that. Just because you don't agree with such a position doesn't mean the position is untenable. You can disagree with the actual teachings, but support the freedom of such religions to teach them. This is what freedom is about...

You cannot disagree with a predefined unchangable ideology without disagreeing with the teachings of that ideology. Just like I cannot say I am a muslim but I do not belive in what Islam (the Qu'ran and Sunnah) teaches, it is contradictory.

Agreed, but that isn't what we are saying here. The guy in the video isn't saying that he believes in Islam; he is saying the opposite. However, he still supports the rights of believers of Islam to practice their beliefs.

[Citereh]

The video is not conveying a tolerance to the ideology of Islam, it is conveying that you should not tar all Muslims with the same brush. And I don't give a toss that you don't agree, you asked me if I agreed with the video and I do.

Again you contradict yourself. Why are muslims called muslims? Because they are labelled such by themselves by means of a belief system. That belief system is the very reason they call themselves a muslim not a christian or a sikh.

So by saying tolerate the muslim not the muslims beliefs you are indeed contradicting yourself. You cannot have one without the other, and just because there are muslims around the world who may not agree or actively practice a particular teaching of their religion. Does not mean to say that we should have to tolerate an intolerant fascist political ideology such as Islam.

And thank you for pointing out that you don't give a toss about me not agreeing with you. I am glad we have such a discerning admin on this wonderful forum.

No it doesn't. I despise the BNP, I oppose facism, communism, socialism, etc. However, I am a supporter of freedom, and the freedom to support or subscribe to any ideology that you want to. Thus, whilst I do not support the BNP or any other facist political party, I fully support the ability for those parties to exist, and for people to become affiliated with them.

I can understand where your coming from here Tiberius, but how can one say I believe in freedom of speech and expression but not oppose a person, group or organisation of any kind which basic principles go against every type of freedom you seek to promote? It is counter productive.

If you oppose fascism you naturally oppose Islam just as you would oppose Nazism. Yes they are in fact very similar in definition.

Yes, and there is nothing contradictory about that. Just because you don't agree with such a position doesn't mean the position is untenable. You can disagree with the actual teachings, but support the freedom of such religions to teach them. This is what freedom is about...

Again my friend I understand your good intention here to say we all have the right to believe and say what we wish. But again I will have to disagree with this notion of an all encompassing freedom to allow anything even if it is blantantly immoral.

If you are willing to associate yourself with a belief system which teaches that you will go to hell and be tortured for eternity for, lets say; homosexuality. Then you are agreeing to be labelled by said belief system, and by doing so you are not above criticism.

If a belief system is made up of immoral beliefs that impede upon the very nature of freedom as in the freedom to have sex with who you please no matter there gender, without fear of discrimination or persecution. How can you protect it by saying "but they should have the freedom to believe such things". It is completely and utterly wrong.

Agreed, but that isn't what we are saying here. The guy in the video isn't saying that he believes in Islam; he is saying the opposite. However, he still supports the rights of believers of Islam to practice their beliefs.

I think my previous statement to Leo on the authenticity of the author of this video explains my position on how your statement is inaccurate with regards to the council of ex-muslims manifesto and what they stand for, and what Islam teaches. They are truely in contradiction of each other and therefore the author if genuine cannot support such a system as he would be attacking his belief in the very fabric of what freedom is.

I appreciate your tactful disagreement Tiberius.

Kind Regards,

Citereh

[Tiberius]

Again you contradict yourself. Why are muslims called muslims? Because they are labelled such by themselves by means of a belief system. That belief system is the very reason they call themselves a muslim not a christian or a sikh.

This has nothing to do with Muslims not being Muslims. This has to do with non-Muslims accepting that like all religions, Islam has various sects, and Muslims subscribe to lots of different beliefs within them. Just like not all Christians believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, not all Muslims believe that all infidels should die.

So by saying tolerate the muslim not the muslims beliefs you are indeed contradicting yourself. You cannot have one without the other, and just because there are muslims around the world who may not agree or actively practice a particular teaching of their religion. Does not mean to say that we should have to tolerate an intolerant fascist political ideology such as Islam.

We aren't saying this at all. It has nothing do with tolerating their beliefs, but everything to do with supporting their right to believe. We live in a world where people shouldn't be punished for the way they think, or or what they believe.

The thing about beliefs is that they are changeable. However, I guarantee you that nobody has ever changed their belief because it was forced on them by others. No Muslim is going to start thinking homosexuality is perfectly OK if we decide to punish them for thinking it is an abomination. The only way to change minds is to discuss things on equal terms; to treat people with respect, not with anger. To do otherwise is to become the very fascists you claim they are!

And thank you for pointing out that you don't give a toss about me not agreeing with you. I am glad we have such a discerning admin on this wonderful forum.

He doesn't have to agree with you, nor does he have to care that you disagree with him. That is his right, just as much as it is yours.

I can understand where your coming from here Tiberius, but how can one say I believe in freedom of speech and expression but not oppose a person, group or organisation of any kind which basic principles go against every type of freedom you seek to promote? It is counter productive.

You aren't listening. I do oppose such groups, so far as to voice my opposition directly to them. However, since I support freedom of speech and expression, I have to let them believe what they want, even if it goes against my own beliefs, or the very freedoms that grant them that privilege.

I've said it before here, and I'll say it again: The risk you run with freedom of speech is that one day you might lose it. If you support freedom of speech, then you must support the speech of those who want to censor and to control. You don't have to agree with them, but you have to support their right to say what they believe.

If you oppose fascism you naturally oppose Islam just as you would oppose Nazism. Yes they are in fact very similar in definition.

I suggest you actually talk to the Muslim members of this forum; you might learn a few things about Islam.

Again my friend I understand your good intention here to say we all have the right to believe and say what we wish. But again I will have to disagree with this notion of an all encompassing freedom to allow anything even if it is blantantly immoral.

Immoral in your eyes, but perhaps not in other peoples'. Homosexuality is perfectly moral in my eyes, but is immoral for some religious (and non-religious) people. Why do my morals and ethics take precedent over theirs?

Also, I never said I would "allow" anything. Freedom of speech and expression lets you believe and say whatever you want, but when it comes to actually interfering with people's lives, it is a very different matter. For instance, whilst I would support the right of some Christians to protest gay marriage, I would have the protesters arrested if they attempted to interrupt marriage ceremonies themselves. Likewise, I support the rights of Muslim women to wear whatever clothing they want, but if they are being forced to wear something against their will, I would have the perpetrators prosecuted.

If you are willing to associate yourself with a belief system which teaches that you will go to hell and be tortured for eternity for, lets say; homosexuality. Then you are agreeing to be labelled by said belief system, and by doing so you are not above criticism.

Which is why I am not willing to associate myself with such belief systems. There is a massive difference between agreeing with someone's beliefs, and letting them believe and speak about them. I do not agree with those beliefs, but I will defend their right to believe them, and I will defend their right to speak about them.

If a belief system is made up of immoral beliefs that impede upon the very nature of freedom as in the freedom to have sex with who you please no matter there gender, without fear of discrimination or persecution. How can you protect it by saying "but they should have the freedom to believe such things". It is completely and utterly wrong.

Beliefs cannot impede on the freedom of anything. Believers can. Which is why I am saying that such beliefs are fine for people to have, and fine for people to discuss, but if they start acting on them and violating other people's rights, then this is where I draw the line.

When I say they have the freedom to believe such things, I am not trying to protect their beliefs. Rather, I am trying to live up to my values and belief in freedom of speech and expression. I will oppose such beliefs; I will try to get them to change, but I will never deny a person's right to believe whatever they want, as I would not wish the same on me.

Have we really forgotten the Golden Rule in this modern era? What ever happened to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"...

Put yourself in another person's shoes for one moment. Imagine if your government suddenly decided that because most of the world believes in God, atheism would suddenly become a criminal offense. How would you feel? One of your core beliefs has been made illegal because other people aren't respecting your right to believe what you want. This is how a lot of religious people feel when governments take it upon themselves to be dictators of moral order. It's wrong, and it's more like fascism than Islam can ever be.

[The Grand Nudger]

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." -Source?

(American President, always wondered if this was lifted from somewhere, if not, screenwriter rocks.)

[KichigaiNeko]

Hey Kich,

The niqab is a topic which to this day is still argued fiercely about by muslims alike all over the world, as certain verses of the Qu'ran and the Sunnah give different interpretations of what is required of women on this specific subject but according to their scriptures it is required....and yes it is wrong.....very wrong.

Reference below:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/007-veils.htm

Kind Regards,

Citereh

I can understand the whole wrapping your face against the desert wind and the sand blown in with it but in western cultures it is an impediment since we rely so heavily on our face being identifiable to authorities and friends etc.

I feel the video here is trying to point out that like many tiny minority groups... fundamental islamists are deliberately making life hard for the majority of their fellows who are not as wound up about the Quran or their religion, or what version the like.

Have to agree very strongly here with Tiberius and Rhythm. ...

Do as you would be done by...BEFORE you are done by as you did

Be calm Citereh...

[Citereh]

This has nothing to do with Muslims not being Muslims. This has to do with non-Muslims accepting that like all religions, Islam has various sects, and Muslims subscribe to lots of different beliefs within them. Just like not all Christians believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, not all Muslims believe that all infidels should die.

Agreed.

We aren't saying this at all. It has nothing do with tolerating their beliefs, but everything to do with supporting their right to believe. We live in a world where people shouldn't be punished for the way they think, or or what they believe.

Agreed with regards to not being punished.

The thing about beliefs is that they are changeable.

Disagree with regards to Islam. To reform Islam you would have to first get rid of Muhammad and second get rid of the Quran. You would have to take out a great portion of that book which is violent. You cannot change the Quran. You cannot reform it.

The Holy Qu'ran - Yusuf Ali
Surah 5, verse 3. "This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion." - How can your reform something which is perfect?

I agree forcibly trying to change ones mind is not the answer. Education of those who are willing to see Islam as the abomination that it truely is, is the priority. But those who are well versed in the teachings of Islam will never allow such things for fear of hellfire and other such nonsense.

He doesn't have to agree with you, nor does he have to care that you disagree with him. That is his right, just as much as it is yours.

This was merely my attempt at sarcasm, in return for Leo's unprovoked pompousness towards my original genuine question. I am well aware no one is obligated to agree with me. I ask that we forget this one please.

You aren't listening. I do oppose such groups, so far as to voice my opposition directly to them. However, since I support freedom of speech and expression, I have to let them believe what they want, even if it goes against my own beliefs, or the very freedoms that grant them that privilege.

I stand corrected with regards to your position on objecting to certain dogmatic beliefs and apologise for perhaps missing your point, but I also still stand by my statement, that passicism could be our undoing against such aggressive ideologies.

I suggest you actually talk to the Muslim members of this forum; you might learn a few things about Islam.

May I suggest you actually read the Qu'ran and reference the Sunnah (Ahaddiths) for yourself and not go on what perhaps some narcistic Islamist tells you. I can recommend the Oxford World Classics Qu'ran by M.A.S Abdel Haleem and the below website for Hadith references.

http://www.searchtruth.com/hadith_books.php

As to Islam being fascist, please refer to the below link for an explanation.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/04/sina-i...scism.html

Also, I never said I would "allow" anything. Freedom of speech and expression lets you believe and say whatever you want, but when it comes to actually interfering with people's lives, it is a very different matter. For instance, whilst I would support the right of some Christians to protest gay marriage, I would have the protesters arrested if they attempted to interrupt marriage ceremonies themselves. Likewise, I support the rights of Muslim women to wear whatever clothing they want, but if they are being forced to wear something against their will, I would have the perpetrators prosecuted.

Would you class indoctrinating childeren who are then relentlessly mentally tormented by the prospect of eternal hell fire if they do not believe in the despicable beliefs of their parents, interfering? I would.

Would you class "real" muslims (I use the term real as they are actually following their religious scriptures as they are written) who protest around the world with placards that for example call for the murder of people who insult/criticise Islam, interfering? I would. Or is that acceptable in your definition of freedom of speech? They are only saying how they feel and aren't physically hurting anyone.

The saying "the pen is mightier than the sword" can be adapted slightly to something like: "An idea is deadlier than the action" and it would pretty much sum up why I do not believe such out spoken opinions should be tolerated.

Beliefs cannot impede on the freedom of anything. Believers can. Which is why I am saying that such beliefs are fine for people to have, and fine for people to discuss, but if they start acting on them and violating other people's rights, then this is where I draw the line.

Without believers, religious teachings are nothing more than characters on paper. What point is there in them having such beliefs if they are not ready to fight verbally or physically those who oppose what is right in their oppinion. Take these quotes for example from the Qu'ran:

“Muslims are the vilest of animals…”

“Show mercy to one another, but be ruthless to Muslims”

“How perverse are Muslims!”

“Strike off the heads of Muslims, as well as their fingertips”

“Fight those Muslims who are near to you”

“Muslim mischief makers should be murdered or crucified”

Hate speech? Incitement to violence? Sounds like it to me, but a knowledgeable Muslim would have to disagree. The unaltered verses actually say jew, christian or unbeliever. They are the literal words of Allah via Muhammad and therefore deemed acceptable to those that believe in such scriptures and is why you have such ignorant people spouting such vile beliefs.

Have we really forgotten the Golden Rule in this modern era? What ever happened to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"...

If we did unto them as they do unto us, such as they teach in the above verses of their religion; we would be in a much graver situation than we are in now.

Put yourself in another person's shoes for one moment. Imagine if your government suddenly decided that because most of the world believes in God, atheism would suddenly become a criminal offense. How would you feel? One of your core beliefs has been made illegal because other people aren't respecting your right to believe what you want. This is how a lot of religious people feel when governments take it upon themselves to be dictators of moral order. It's wrong, and it's more like fascism than Islam can ever be.

I would only need to look back a 100 or so years of western society to see exactly what you are talking about, and people had to fight and die for the privllege we now have to believe in such enlightened freethinking.

Kind Regards,

Citereh

[The Grand Nudger]

Abrahamic religions have a core of ethnocentrism, and even though most believers find ways to wave away the less choice sentiments contained therein, they remain. Tacit approval is approval nonetheless.