How would you respond to this speech about Islam?

The website I listed defines how Sharia Law is practiced in Indoesia. I view that practice and it's beliefs as "radical"...comfortably. I take issues with even this

"Only 36 percent said the law should require women to wear traditionally headscarves" as beign a radical version of islam. As it's Imposing a dress code on woman against their own free will beyond what a normal society would deem appropriate.

example; Our society (I classify as normal western society) will enforce a female to cover their breasts. And even that has been challenged in recent years and woman are free to bare it all should they like. We do not impose any one religion's dress code onto everyone. That's radical. And even the most moderate there believe in this. And that's just one instance of their most FUCKED UP culture.

It defines how it's practiced in Aceh, which is a "special region" of Indonesia that long fought for independence (until the Tsunami wiped them out).
There is no national Sharia. Indonesia is a multiethnic and multi-religious state with a Muslim majority.
It's true that there's a resurgence of fundamentalism and an increasing number of Muslim women wear the jilbab, but that's far from being "radical" and it's not imposed by law.
"Radical" usually refers to politicised Islam (aka Islamism) or terrorist groups (including their support network).
 
It defines how it's practiced in Aceh, which is a "special region" of Indonesia that long fought for independence (until the Tsunami wiped them out).
There is no national Sharia. Indonesia is a multiethnic and multi-religious state with a Muslim majority.
It's true that there's a resurgence of fundamentalism and an increasing number of Muslim women wear the jilbab, but that's far from being "radical" and it's not imposed by law.


Indonesia passed a bunch of laws nation wide(not just limited to Aceh) that while not defined as "sharia" are most certainly inspired by radical sharia and are currently being upheld as listed per that site.

Indonesia’s Blasphemy Laws used Against Minorities

According to Human Rights Watch: The blasphemy law has been used to prosecute and imprison members of religious minorities and of traditional religions. In 2006, a Jakarta court sentenced three leaders of a spiritual movement called the Eden Community - Lia Eden, M. Abdul Rachman, and Wahyu Andito Putro Wibisono - to prison terms of two to three years for violating the blasphemy law. Others prosecuted under the law include members of the many traditional religions practiced in Java, Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi, and other parts of Indonesia. "The blasphemy law criminalizes the peaceful expression of certain religious beliefs," Pearson said. "It hangs like a ‘Sword of Damocles' over the heads of religious minorities and those who practice traditional religions." [Source: Human Rights Watch, April 19, 2010 ~~]

“The blasphemy law also serves as the legal basis for a number of government regulations that facilitate official discrimination on the basis of religion. These include a June 2008 government decree that ordered members of the Ahmadiyah religious community to cease all public religious activities on the grounds that they deviated from the principal teachings of Islam and threatened violators with up to five years in prison. The decree was issued in the aftermath of a violent attack on June 1, 2008, by more than 500 Islamist militants on a group of peaceful demonstrators supporting religious pluralism. More than 60 demonstrators were wounded by the group, who called themselves the Islam Troop Command, and several Ahmadiyah members were hospitalized.” ~~

Arghea Desafti Hapsari wrote in the Jakarta Post, Religious minorities have expressed their support for a group of NGOs that have requested the 1965 Blasphemy Law be reviewed, saying the controversial law is outdated and irrelevant to a democratic Indonesia.“Our society has matured since the law was first established in 1965. Civil society at that time was weak and that is why such laws were put in place and the guided democracy system was used,” PGI secretary-general Gomar Gultom told The Jakarta Post on Tuesday. “But in the Reform era, Indonesians no longer wanted to be ordered around by the state,” he added. [Source: Arghea Desafti Hapsari, Jakarta Post, February 4 2010 |=|]

Under the law, the government also has the authority to charge leaders and followers of suspected heretical groups. Article 1 of the law stipulates that it is illegal to “intentionally publicize, recommend or organize public support for a different interpretation of a religion practiced in Indonesia or a religious ritual resembling that of another religion”. It is also states that “practising an interpretation of a religion that deviates from the core of that religion’s teachings” is illegal. |=|

The 1965 law, he explained, had allowed the state to interfere in what should be a private and religious domain.“Blasphemous acts should be solved by strengthening the faith of each religion’s followers. Blasphemy will always occur; different interpretations are something we can not avoid. But we have to see this as criticism of religious institutions. Their leaders might not care about their followers enough, or they might not have done their jobs well enough to maintain their followers’ faith in their religions,” he said.” |=|


You are trying to move goal posts...but considering how fucked up their muslim centric society is over there...I trust in Ben...and I trust that I don't think I ever want to visit that fucked up, radical shit hole any time soon.

It's not a surprise that if a society is muslim centric...it's a fucked up place in the world.
 
If you exclude the martyrdom loophole that makes a lot more sense to me than "Just accept Jesus and you're good bruh"

I think I disagree with you, but this is just from my perspective. I think it makes more sense to me, that if God is asking for perfection (of some kind), that genuine repentance be sufficient to meet the criteria, whereas simply doing more good than bad and thus earning your way with a 51% grade makes less sense.

This is strictly from an Abrahamic perspective, so to speak, where God cannot unite himself with sin and thus requires perfection. In this view, being only partly sinful, or having the scales tip to the "good" side, will not suffice, it's still like "dirty rags" to him.

I'd also add that if God is supposed to be a personal God akin to a father, that him judging you on such a harsh pass-or-fail grade, is less persuading to me than one that forgives you when you actually mean it.
 
Indonesia passed a bunch of laws nation wide(not just limited to Aceh) that while not defined as "sharia" are most certainly inspired by radical sharia and are currently being upheld as listed per that site.

Indonesia’s Blasphemy Laws used Against Minorities

According to Human Rights Watch: The blasphemy law has been used to prosecute and imprison members of religious minorities and of traditional religions. In 2006, a Jakarta court sentenced three leaders of a spiritual movement called the Eden Community - Lia Eden, M. Abdul Rachman, and Wahyu Andito Putro Wibisono - to prison terms of two to three years for violating the blasphemy law. Others prosecuted under the law include members of the many traditional religions practiced in Java, Sumatra, Borneo, Sulawesi, and other parts of Indonesia. "The blasphemy law criminalizes the peaceful expression of certain religious beliefs," Pearson said. "It hangs like a ‘Sword of Damocles' over the heads of religious minorities and those who practice traditional religions." [Source: Human Rights Watch, April 19, 2010 ~~]

“The blasphemy law also serves as the legal basis for a number of government regulations that facilitate official discrimination on the basis of religion. These include a June 2008 government decree that ordered members of the Ahmadiyah religious community to cease all public religious activities on the grounds that they deviated from the principal teachings of Islam and threatened violators with up to five years in prison. The decree was issued in the aftermath of a violent attack on June 1, 2008, by more than 500 Islamist militants on a group of peaceful demonstrators supporting religious pluralism. More than 60 demonstrators were wounded by the group, who called themselves the Islam Troop Command, and several Ahmadiyah members were hospitalized.” ~~

Arghea Desafti Hapsari wrote in the Jakarta Post, Religious minorities have expressed their support for a group of NGOs that have requested the 1965 Blasphemy Law be reviewed, saying the controversial law is outdated and irrelevant to a democratic Indonesia.“Our society has matured since the law was first established in 1965. Civil society at that time was weak and that is why such laws were put in place and the guided democracy system was used,” PGI secretary-general Gomar Gultom told The Jakarta Post on Tuesday. “But in the Reform era, Indonesians no longer wanted to be ordered around by the state,” he added. [Source: Arghea Desafti Hapsari, Jakarta Post, February 4 2010 |=|]

Under the law, the government also has the authority to charge leaders and followers of suspected heretical groups. Article 1 of the law stipulates that it is illegal to “intentionally publicize, recommend or organize public support for a different interpretation of a religion practiced in Indonesia or a religious ritual resembling that of another religion”. It is also states that “practising an interpretation of a religion that deviates from the core of that religion’s teachings” is illegal. |=|

The 1965 law, he explained, had allowed the state to interfere in what should be a private and religious domain.“Blasphemous acts should be solved by strengthening the faith of each religion’s followers. Blasphemy will always occur; different interpretations are something we can not avoid. But we have to see this as criticism of religious institutions. Their leaders might not care about their followers enough, or they might not have done their jobs well enough to maintain their followers’ faith in their religions,” he said.” |=|


You are trying to move goal posts...but considering how fucked up their muslim centric society is over there...I trust in Ben...and I trust that I don't think I ever want to visit that fucked up, radical shit hole any time soon.

It's not a surprise that if a society is muslim centric...it's a fucked up place in the world.

Blasphemy laws are old (we still have them on the books in Australia and I believe the UK got rid of them in 2008), common and aren't Sharia. The persecution of religious minority groups (especially Muslim minorities like the Ahmadiyya) is certainly an issue in Indonesia, but that's not "radical" or Sharia either.
Yes, "trust in Ben" and revel in his semantic games.
Indonesia and Malaysia are fine places to live. I'd move back there no problem if the opportunity arose.
 
He plays games with the definition of "radical". 163 million Muslims in Indonesia wanting sharia law and not believing Osama was responsible for 911 doesn't make them "radicals".
The Pew poll he references made no mention of "Strict Sharia Law" nor defined what "Sharia law" was. Sharia is an article of Muslim faith, so of course they'll answer that they want it, but when it comes to defining what it is and how it should be implemented, that's another question.
This is one of the problems in this discussion that gets exploited by polemicists on both sides. For apologists, radicals are only the most extreme of the extremists and for critics its any large swath of Muslims that accept basic precepts of faith like the sharia in the abstract.

The reality is something in between. Even moderate Islamists hold beliefs many might consider radical and the classical Islamic tradition also holds such beliefs. However, actors from those two traditions are often at odds with the most radical elements like the jihadist and can be important allies against them.
 
This is one of the problems in this discussion that gets exploited by polemicists on both sides. For apologists, radicals are only the most extreme of the extremists and for critics its any large swath of Muslims that accept basic precepts of faith like the sharia in the abstract.

The reality is something in between. Even moderate Islamists hold beliefs many might consider radical and the classical Islamic tradition also holds such beliefs. However, actors from those two traditions are often at odds with the most radical elements like the jihadist and can be important allies against them.

I'd consider most Islamists to be "radicals" in the "student radical" sense, but even conflating them with the Jihadists is a generalisation that does more harm than good.
Let alone conflating Jihadists/Terrorists with any Muslim that believes in the concept of Sharia.
 
I think I disagree with you, but this is just from my perspective. I think it makes more sense to me, that if God is asking for perfection (of some kind), that genuine repentance be sufficient to meet the criteria, whereas simply doing more good than bad and thus earning your way with a 51% grade makes less sense.
I think we have different definitions of repentence. I believe it needs to be backed up by action, which is why I like the scale of good and bad deeds.
This is strictly from an Abrahamic perspective, so to speak, where God cannot unite himself with sin and thus requires perfection. In this view, being only partly sinful, or having the scales tip to the "good" side, will not suffice, it's still like "dirty rags" to him.

I'd also add that if God is supposed to be a personal God akin to a father, that him judging you on such a harsh pass-or-fail grade, is less persuading to me than one that forgives you when you actually mean it.
Why is he supposed to? This is another problem I have with Christianity, the idea that we're made in God's image. The idea that God has opposable thumbs and a penis seems really weird to me. The unknowable and incomprehensible God of Islam makes more sense to me assuming you accept the idea of God as making sense.
 
I'd consider most Islamists to be "radicals" in the "student radical" sense, but even conflating them with the Jihadists is a generalisation that does more harm than good.
Let alone conflating Jihadists/Terrorists with any Muslim that believes in the concept of Sharia.
But its not just Islamists, the classical Islamic tradition as represented by the schools of law also have plenty of stuff that your average 21st century citizen in a developed country would find pretty retrograde.
 
Quite easy

Fundamentally an ideology of a genocidal pedophile will always be used by a large amount of its followers for female subjugation rape murder and terror and if they can manage it genocide.

For example in comparison, the story of Jesus is rather peaceful and is in no way the same to the the bloodbath murderous rape filled reign of mohammed which the muslims are openly proud of and follow as the perfect example. Islam is in no way similar to Christianity.
Exactly. The Gospels are a big breakthrough away from old Testament mentality. Mohammed is just more of the same. The bible also has orders to kill homos and unbelievers, but the Jesus part that most Christians follow is a big amendment to that.
 
Blasphemy laws are old (we still have them on the books in Australia and I believe the UK got rid of them in 2008), common and aren't Sharia. The persecution of religious minority groups (especially Muslim minorities like the Ahmadiyya) is certainly an issue in Indonesia, but that's not "radical" or Sharia either.
Yes, "trust in Ben" and revel in his semantic games.
Indonesia and Malaysia are fine places to live. I'd move back there no problem if the opportunity arose.

Feel free to go back there than.

Lol....

https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=21979

Shit. Hole. Par for the course with most muslim centric countries.

Trust in Ben.
 
Last edited:
Islam is inherently supremacist, and therefore hostile to everything outside itself. If you believe it, and it's important to you, then you will be hostile to all other ways of life because the religion demands it. Dogs, infidels, food etc.

There is no point in saying 'extreme Muslims' when the ideology is fundamentally extreme.
Kones Weaponized statistics

tYmvOWy.jpg
 
Maybe in a big picture sense but I'm specifically talking about judging a person based on their deeds, both good and bad, vs judging them on whether or not they accept a specific deity.
In that case, Catholics do not believe in Ben g saved by faith alone, only Lutherans do, I think Lutherans view is quite unlogical, in this matter I agree
 
In that case, Catholics do not believe in Ben g saved by faith alone, only Lutherans do, I think Lutherans view is quite unlogical, in this matter I agree

To Luther, having faith in God, doing good deeds and obeying law and order, was one and the same. Anyone who sinned or committed crime, lacked faith. So it essentially amounts to the same. To him, the idea that a man was doing God's work, in God's faith, while at the same time being a sinner or a criminal, was utterly incompatible. Only the faithless could be sinners. There were no lines between good and evil.

He believed that other views on this subject, were motivated by the desire by Catholics to excuse corruption in the Church, and other institutions. That they could still consider themselves to rank among the faithful while committing crimes and corruption. To Luther, the Catholic church was the Anti-Christ, and thus, not Christian.

So it is not as if he was merely saying that one only has to profess Christian belief, in order to receive salvation. He made it so that a man's faith would be manifested in a man's deeds, not his words. And that's partly why his views on religion contributed to a high work ethic. To be faithful, was to be productive to the society, and to obey the law.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your ill-informed post and not watching the op video, ass-whipe.

Did you know that the bible in all is more violent than the Quran? Don't belive me?: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...han-quran-text-analysis-reveals-a6863381.html

Before more comments that ignore the inquisition, crusades, slave trade, etc..watch the video in the OP then get back to me.
Please don't mention the crusades. They were a direct response to centuries of Islamic aggression.
 
Thank you for your ill-informed post and not watching the op video, ass-whipe.

Did you know that the bible in all is more violent than the Quran? Don't belive me?: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...han-quran-text-analysis-reveals-a6863381.html

Before more comments that ignore the inquisition, crusades, slave trade, etc..watch the video in the OP then get back to me.

that is a flawed analysis. Analyzing the "words" Joy, Anticipation, Anger, Disgust, Sadness, Surprise, Fear/Anxiety and Trust is not the equivalent of one scripture telling people to conquer in the name of religion.

For instance throughout the Holy Bible it says to FEAR the LORD. Or the people Angered the LORD for their disobedience. Clearly the bible says to Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you in the New Testament teachings and even if you want to look in the Old Testament Teachings which is more or less a compilation of events that occurred in the past it tells us to:

"If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to return it. 5If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help them with it."
You will not find a "radical" Christian committing mass murderer - that is someone who follows the bible and commits the atrocities.
 
The mental gymnastics and jumping through hoops people do to defend Islam is always a sight to behold.

Also, these same people seem to think that if you judge an ideology on what it teaches, what most of its followers believe and how it is mostly practiced then this makes you a bigot.

And now Indonesia is being used as an example of how Islam can be tolerant and progressive.

main-qimg-3682b3245e3515ae6d5ec10ef357c2b1-c
 
But its not just Islamists, the classical Islamic tradition as represented by the schools of law also have plenty of stuff that your average 21st century citizen in a developed country would find pretty retrograde.

Sure, but since "radicals" is usually a term applied to terrorists or islamists I don't think using it to include fundamentalism (or even retrograde cultural traditions associated with Islam) is in any way useful. They are vastly different in terms of what exactly you'd criticise and any potential threat they might represent.
 
To Luther, having faith in God, doing good deeds and obeying law and order, was one and the same. Anyone who sinned or committed crime, lacked faith. So it essentially amounts to the same. To him, the idea that a man was doing God's work, in God's faith, while at the same time being a sinner or a criminal, was utterly incompatible. Only the faithless could be sinners. There were no lines between good and evil.

He believed that other views on this subject, were motivated by the desire by Catholics to excuse corruption in the Church, and other institutions. That they could still consider themselves to rank among the faithful while committing crimes and corruption. To Luther, the Catholic church was the Anti-Christ, and thus, not Christian.

So it is not as if he was merely saying that one only has to profess Christian belief, in order to receive salvation. He made it so that a man's faith would be manifested in a man's deeds, not his words. And that's partly why his views on religion contributed to a high work ethic. To be faithful, was to be productive to the society, and to obey the law.

That was his view, but in realty it turned out to mean for Most Lutherans that all you have to do is belief, salvation is not weather you did good or bad, all it matters is if you believe in Christ or not. Hitler could’ve been a Christian, and go to heaven, Gandhi is burning in heaven, there is absolutely no way around this for a Lutherans.. Catholics, by having the purgatory idea, put some logic on the Judging system, at least from a human POV.
 
Back
Top