Ridiculous Things that Idiots Believe About Islam

[cloudy]

Yep, I'm speaking directly to you, amicus, Boxlicker, DesertPirate, Zeb, and numerous other idiots.

1. If you're a Muslim woman, you have to wear a veil (burqka).

Let's just get this one out of the way quickly, shall we? Most idiots seem to think that Muslims hate women, hate looking at them, hate dealing with them. The truth is that thinking that all Muslim women have to wear veils is like thinking that all Christian women have to dress like fundamentalist Mormons (remember those horrid pastel dresses?)

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/4/0/2/38402.jpg?v=1

Both absolutes are absolutely wrong. Forget that stupid notion, mmkay? There are actually more Muslim countries that outright ban the wearing of the veils than there are that require them.

2. Our Founding Fathers Would Never Have Tolerated This Muslim Nonsense!

Many of the Founding Fathers (deists, most of them, not Christians like y'all want to believe) admired the Muslim faith. Thomas Jefferson taught himself Arabic using his own copy of the Quran and even hosted the first White House Iftar during Ramadan.

But wait, there's more!

John Adams hailed the Islamic prophet Muhammad as one of the great "inquirers after truth."

Benjamin Rush, who was so Christian he wanted a Bible in every school, also said he would rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammad "inculcated upon our youth" than see them grow deprived "of a system of religious principles."

Benjamin Franklin once declared: "Even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service."

...and George Washington personally welcomed Muslims to come work for him at Mount Vernon.

Get this: Sultan Mohammed ben Abdallah of Morocco was the first world figure to recognize the independence of the United States of America from Great Britain in 1777.

...and in the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797, the United States declared, "The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Mussulmen [Moslems]."

Can you dig it?

3. Western Cultures Are Far More Humane Than the Bloodthirsty Muslims

This one just cracks me the fuck up.

Muhammad laid out some pretty progressive rules of warfare, and medieval Muslims out-niced the Christians in battle by a landslide. Especially since Muhammad personally issued "a distinct code of conduct among Islamic warriors" that included:

• No killing of women, children or innocents -- these might include hermits, monks or other religious leaders who were deemed noncombatants
• No wanton killing of livestock
• No burning or destruction of trees and orchards
• No destruction of wells

Muhammad's successor codified the existing rules and made them the standard for his army, which probably explains why the Muslim army conquering Europe "exhibited a degree of toleration which puts many Christian nations to shame," in the words of one martial history expert.

The Muslim armies even had a whole honor code that led them to feed the armies of their defeated enemies. I challenge you to show me a corresponding "honor code" among the crusaders.

 

[Handley_Page]

Sadly, such an enlightened view does not sell newspapers or interest the TV viewer.
Of course, the more extreme Muslim sects tar it for the rest of Islam, rather like Westboro' being used as an example of Christianity.

 

[favoritesgoddess]

You really should read the original article at Cracked.com. It was written by Jocopo della Quercia. "Five Ridiculous Things You Probably Believe About Islam."

 

[cloudy]

You really should read the original article at Cracked.com. It was written by Jocopo della Quercia. "Five Ridiculous Things You Probably Believe About Islam."

yep, that's where I got the facts I used, but I didn't include all of them, just the ones I thought were the MOST ridiculous.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The real question is: IF YOU FELL OUT OF AN AIRPLANE WHILE FLYING OVER THE MIDDLE EAST WOULD YOU FEEL BETTER IF YOU FELL INTO ISRAEL OR SYRIA OR IRAN?

 

[oggbashan]

That it is a righteous duty to attack non-Muslims.

Og

 

[Liar]

Yep, I'm speaking directly to you, amicus, Boxlicker, DesertPirate, Zeb, and numerous other idiots.

1. If you're a Muslim woman, you have to wear a veil (burqka).

More to the point - so what? The same branches of Islam that mandates a veil for it's female followers (which of course is not a burqa most of the time, but a hijab or even less cover), have other rules of apperance and behaviour for men also. (Facial hair comes to mind.) As do every religion, one way or the other, woth rituals, dress codes, clen and unclean food et cetera. Just because it seems a strange custom to us, doesn't mean our customs doesn't seem insane to others.

The only aspect of this that is a problem is in places where religious freedom is compromised, where individuals are not allowed to practice the branch of Islam, or other religion, or no religion, of their choice. Outright theocracies, or communities where a certain religious school excerts too much cultural pressure.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

What galls CLOUDY the most is her white heritage.

 

[mythtrav16]

Sadly, such an enlightened view does not sell newspapers or interest the TV viewer.
Of course, the more extreme Muslim sects tar it for the rest of Islam, rather like Westboro' being used as an example of Christianity.

Too true, unfortunately.

I wonder, do non-christian countries like india or japan have a dark view of christianity because it is stories like Westboro and the bad catholic priests that bring christianity in to their headlines?

 

[TE999]

Some Muslims opened up a clothing store downtown, so I stopped in and asked to see some bomber jackets.

Those people sure are moody.

 

[manyeyedhydra]

Recently in Pakistan a man was shot dead by his supposed bodyguard for attempting to reform the country's much abused blasphemy laws. The murderer was showered with rose petals and his actions hailed by parts of the establishment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/05/pakistan-salman-taseer-liberal?INTCMP=SRCH

Back around the crusades the muslim world was more civilised than the west. And yes, the right wing noise machine in the US spouts an awful lot of nonsense about Islam. It doesn't change the fact that a lot of these countries have serious problems nowadays. Their Westboro equivalents are not derided as a joke, they're integrated fully within the judiciary and making decisions that ruin normal people's lives.

 

[Liar]

Recently in Pakistan a man was shot dead by his supposed bodyguard for attempting to reform the country's much abused blasphemy laws. The murderer was showered with rose petals and his actions hailed by parts of the establishment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/05/pakistan-salman-taseer-liberal?INTCMP=SRCH

Back around the crusades the muslim world was more civilised than the west. And yes, the right wing noise machine in the US spouts an awful lot of nonsense about Islam. It doesn't change the fact that a lot of these countries have serious problems nowadays. Their Westboro equivalents are not derided as a joke, they're integrated fully within the judiciary and making decisions that ruin normal people's lives.

Was i sed a few posts up:

The only aspect of this that is a problem is in places where religious freedom is compromised, where individuals are not allowed to practice the branch of Islam, or other religion, or no religion, of their choice. Outright theocracies, or communities where a certain religious school excerts too much cultural pressure.

Theocracy.

 

[manyeyedhydra]

Too true, unfortunately.

I wonder, do non-christian countries like india or japan have a dark view of christianity because it is stories like Westboro and the bad catholic priests that bring christianity in to their headlines?

It goes further back than that. Japan closed itself off in the 1600's because the current shogun was concerned (probably with good reason given Europe's history of clashes between kings and popes) the efforts of European missionaries were undermining his authority.

 

[Liar]

Here's a little something for the tired "Why don't Muslims stand up agaist the extremists?" meme.

Egypt's Muslims attend Coptic Christmas mass, serving as "human shields"

Muslims turned up in droves for the Coptic Christmas mass Thursday night, offering their bodies, and lives, as “shields” to Egypt’s threatened Christian community

Egypt’s majority Muslim population stuck to its word Thursday night. What had been a promise of solidarity to the weary Coptic community, was honoured, when thousands of Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candle light vigils held outside.

From the well-known to the unknown, Muslims had offered their bodies as “human shields” for last night’s mass, making a pledge to collectively fight the threat of Islamic militants and towards an Egypt free from sectarian strife.

“We either live together, or we die together,” was the sloganeering genius of Mohamed El-Sawy, a Muslim arts tycoon whose cultural centre distributed flyers at churches in Cairo Thursday night, and who has been credited with first floating the “human shield” idea.

Among those shields were movie stars Adel Imam and Yousra, popular preacher Amr Khaled, the two sons of President Hosni Mubarak, and thousands of citizens who have said they consider the attack one on Egypt as a whole.

“This is not about us and them,” said Dalia Mustafa, a student who attended mass at Virgin Mary Church on Maraashly. “We are one. This was an attack on Egypt as a whole, and I am standing with the Copts because the only way things will change in this country is if we come together.”

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/3365.aspx

 

[BrazenFellow]

That it is a righteous duty to attack non-Muslims.

Og

Annoyingly, it is a righteous duty to attack non-Muslims under the doctrine of Takfir. Takfirism is an interpretation of the qur'an/koran which ignores the mandate against compunction in religious, that is that you can't convert people by force since they wouldn't be sincere in their beliefs.

Takfirism is what the Al Qaeda brand name believes in. I say "Brand Name" because AQ isn't a single group so much as it's a series of organizations in various areas with loosely aligned goals.

Takfiri belief is at the root of almost all problems regarding "radicalization of Islam", which is a major problem in Western Europe and a growing one in North America. It's where your "home grown terrorists" come from.

So yes, it is a religious compunction to attack infidels, at least for the assholes who insist on making themselves a problem for the Muslim world as a whole and for us as a whole. The mainstream belief systems (Sufi, Shi'a, Sunni) don't believe in leaving huge piles of bodies everywheres. Their instances of doing so are largely motivated by other (political) considerations.

 

[mythtrav16]

Here's a little something for the tired "Why don't Muslims stand up agaist the extremists?" meme.

Egypt's Muslims attend Coptic Christmas mass, serving as "human shields"
Muslims turned up in droves for the Coptic Christmas mass Thursday night, offering their bodies, and lives, as “shields” to Egypt’s threatened Christian community

Egypt’s majority Muslim population stuck to its word Thursday night. What had been a promise of solidarity to the weary Coptic community, was honoured, when thousands of Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candle light vigils held outside.

From the well-known to the unknown, Muslims had offered their bodies as “human shields” for last night’s mass, making a pledge to collectively fight the threat of Islamic militants and towards an Egypt free from sectarian strife.

“We either live together, or we die together,” was the sloganeering genius of Mohamed El-Sawy, a Muslim arts tycoon whose cultural centre distributed flyers at churches in Cairo Thursday night, and who has been credited with first floating the “human shield” idea.

Among those shields were movie stars Adel Imam and Yousra, popular preacher Amr Khaled, the two sons of President Hosni Mubarak, and thousands of citizens who have said they consider the attack one on Egypt as a whole.

“This is not about us and them,” said Dalia Mustafa, a student who attended mass at Virgin Mary Church on Maraashly. “We are one. This was an attack on Egypt as a whole, and I am standing with the Copts because the only way things will change in this country is if we come together.”

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/3365.aspx

Thank you for this. I had heard about the extremists going after the coptics, but I hadn't heard anything about the majority of muslims in that country acting so noble.

Wish the media would give this side of the story more attention. Might change a lot of bigots' minds. (A guy can dream, can't he? )

 

[Stella_Omega]

Too true, unfortunately.

I wonder, do non-christian countries like india or japan have a dark view of christianity because it is stories like Westboro and the bad catholic priests that bring christianity in to their headlines?

If you travel in Europe, and your hosts get drunk enough to feel comfortable doing it-- expect to be asked; "Can you please explain to us what is wrong with Americans and your churches?"

Then they will go on to American style corporatism and politics.

They'll apologise for being so rude, over the coffee and aspirin in the morning.

 

[oggbashan]

That all resistance to Allied forces in Iraq and Afghanistan is based on Muslim fundamentalism.

Some of the people in both countries just don't like foreigners, didn't like the previous government, don't like the present government, hate their neighbours even if they are Muslim, disagree with anyone who challenges their traditional way of life (and in Afghanistan that includes producing opium)and object to interference in their age-old tribal feuds by outsiders.

Og

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The West has always had to murder Arabs, to manage them....like deer and wild horses. Their only real use is as manure.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yep, I'm speaking directly to you, amicus, Boxlicker, DesertPirate, Zeb, and numerous other idiots.

1. If you're a Muslim woman, you have to wear a veil (burqka).

Let's just get this one out of the way quickly, shall we? Most idiots seem to think that Muslims hate women, hate looking at them, hate dealing with them. The truth is that thinking that all Muslim women have to wear veils is like thinking that all Christian women have to dress like fundamentalist Mormons (remember those horrid pastel dresses?)

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/4/0/2/38402.jpg?v=1

Both absolutes are absolutely wrong. Forget that stupid notion, mmkay? There are actually more Muslim countries that outright ban the wearing of the veils than there are that require them.

First, a burkha, to use one of many spellings, is not the same as a veil. The former is a voluminous outer covering that covers the whole body and the latter just covers the face.

I don't believe ALL Muslim women are required to wear such things, and I don't believe anybody actually believes they are. However, the Taliban certainly required it, and other nations ruled by Sharia Law require women to cover their bodies. In some places a woman who exposes any part of her body is subject to attack by religious fundies.

ETA: Those "horrid pastel dresses" might not be very glamorous, but they are certainly better than requiring a woman to wear a chador.

2. Our Founding Fathers Would Never Have Tolerated This Muslim Nonsense!

Many of the Founding Fathers (deists, most of them, not Christians like y'all want to believe) admired the Muslim faith. Thomas Jefferson taught himself Arabic using his own copy of the Quran and even hosted the first White House Iftar during Ramadan.

But wait, there's more!

John Adams hailed the Islamic prophet Muhammad as one of the great "inquirers after truth."

Benjamin Rush, who was so Christian he wanted a Bible in every school, also said he would rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammad "inculcated upon our youth" than see them grow deprived "of a system of religious principles."

Benjamin Franklin once declared: "Even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service."

...and George Washington personally welcomed Muslims to come work for him at Mount Vernon.

Get this: Sultan Mohammed ben Abdallah of Morocco was the first world figure to recognize the independence of the United States of America from Great Britain in 1777.

...and in the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797, the United States declared, "The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Mussulmen [Moslems]."

Can you dig it?

I have no disagreement with you here. Acceptance of ALL faiths is included in the First Amendment. Can you say the same kind of thing about the laws governing places such as Iran and Saudia Arabia?

3. Western Cultures Are Far More Humane Than the Bloodthirsty Muslims

This one just cracks me the fuck up.

Muhammad laid out some pretty progressive rules of warfare, and medieval Muslims out-niced the Christians in battle by a landslide. Especially since Muhammad personally issued "a distinct code of conduct among Islamic warriors" that included:

• No killing of women, children or innocents -- these might include hermits, monks or other religious leaders who were deemed noncombatants
• No wanton killing of livestock
• No burning or destruction of trees and orchards
• No destruction of wells

Muhammad's successor codified the existing rules and made them the standard for his army, which probably explains why the Muslim army conquering Europe "exhibited a degree of toleration which puts many Christian nations to shame," in the words of one martial history expert.

The Muslim armies even had a whole honor code that led them to feed the armies of their defeated enemies. I challenge you to show me a corresponding "honor code" among the crusaders.

I take it you have never heard of Darfur. Nor are you aware of the customs of stoning women for adultery or cutting off the right hand of a thief. You are probably also not aware that, during their conquests of Persia and Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Muslims slaughtered millions of Hindus.

However, that last thing I mentioned and everything you mentioned in this section go back a thousand years or more. Currently, when Muslims take prisoners, they torture and kill them, sometimes on videotape, or else hold them for ransom. The Western Allies follow the Geneva Convention, even though they are not bound to do so, since their enemies do not follow it.

Did you ever hear of the Battle of Hattin? Here is a link to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hattin Read the Aftermath. This is an example of how Muslims treated Crusaders who were taken prisoner - enslavement or death or eventually being ransomed.

 

[colddiesel]

Did you ever hear of the Battle of Hattin? Here is a link to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hattin Read the Aftermasth. This is an example of how Muslims treated Crusaders who were taken prisoner - enslavement or death or eventually being ransomed.

Box you are an ignorant clod:-

When the Mongols (Pagans) took Bagdad in 1257 they killed everyone, about 250,000 people.

On the first crusade the christians sacked Constantinople killing tens of thousands(mainly) Christians_ and Jews for loot.

At Agincourt in 1415 Henry V, the idealised Christian king, ordered the slaughter of all the prisoners (hammered to death)

Cromwell killed all the (Catholic) Irish officers and decimated the men defeated at Drogheda in the 1650's.

Australian troops routinely killed Turkish (moslem) captives at Gallipoli in the 1st WW. No one complained, but when they took their bad habits to the Western Front and did the same to Germans some British officers suggested it wasn't quite sporting ... but they still used them as their shock troops.

After Indian partition and independence 1947 about 1 million Hindus and Moslems were murdered by each other with equal enthusiasm.

All peoples throughout history have killed each other in the name of religion. Fundamentalists of all faiths are the most dangerous. One faith is no worse than any other, they are all bad in equal measure.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

That it is a righteous duty to attack non-Muslims.

Og

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101

Did you ever hear of the Battle of Hattin? Here is a link to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hattin Read the Aftermasth. This is an example of how Muslims treated Crusaders who were taken prisoner - enslavement or death or eventually being ransomed.

Box you are an ignorant clod:-

When the Mongols (Pagans) took Bagdad in 1257 they killed everyone, about 250,000 people.

On the first crusade the christians sacked Constantinople killing tens of thousands(mainly) Christians_ and Jews for loot.

At Agincourt in 1415 Henry V, the idealised Christian king, ordered the slaughter of all the prisoners (hammered to death)

Cromwell killed all the (Catholic) Irish officers and decimated the men defeated at Drogheda in the 1650's.

Australian troops routinely killed Turkish (moslem) captives at Gallipoli in the 1st WW. No one complained, but when they took their bad habits to the Western Front and did the same to Germans some British officers suggested it wasn't quite sporting ... but they still used them as their shock troops.

After Indian partition and independence 1947 about 1 million Hindus and Moslems were murdered by each other with equal enthusiasm.

All peoples throughout history have killed each other in the name of religion. Fundamentalists of all faiths are the most dangerous. One faith is no worse than any other, they are all bad in equal measure.

First, why do you call me an ignorant clod when I cite historic fact? Can you point to any error I made in my previous post on this thread?

Second, why do you call the Mongols of that period pagans? They were largely Buddhist, at least their leaders were. http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/mongol-txt.htm

Third, I am merely refuting Cloudy's ignorant OP. She described Muslims as being kind to their captives, and I refuted her claim. I certaiinly don't consider Saladin to be the only leader in history to kill or enslave prisoners taken in battle.

Fourth, I mostly agree with your last paragraph. However, and without defending anybody, I strongly believe fundy Muslims are worse than the fundies of any other faith. Fanatics are only a fringe, but I believe the Muslim fanatical fringe includes a higher percentage of followers of that faith than can be said about any other major religious group.

 

[Handley_Page]

Box:
" Acceptance of ALL faiths is included in the First Amendment. Can you say the same kind of thing about the laws governing places such as Iran and Saudi Arabia? "

Unfortunately, no: For a number of reasons including the feudal system.
There has been expressed a view occasionally, that the West should treat the near-east in the same way as it treats "us".
For example, the UK has many Muslims, the majority of whom go about their daily lives in peace and serenity. I wonder if the Christians in those mostly Muslim countries can put up their churches almost regardless like Muslims do here?

 

[Liar]

Box:
" Acceptance of ALL faiths is included in the First Amendment. Can you say the same kind of thing about the laws governing places such as Iran and Saudi Arabia? "

Unfortunately, no: For a number of reasons including the feudal system.
There has been expressed a view occasionally, that the West should treat the near-east in the same way as it treats "us".
For example, the UK has many Muslims, the majority of whom go about their daily lives in peace and serenity. I wonder if the Christians in those mostly Muslim countries can put up their churches almost regardless like Muslims do here?

I repeat, theocracy.

It is not in "mostly Muslim" countries where this is a problem. Because in many mostly Muslim countries, they can. And do. It is in theocracies and semi theocracies.