https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-48881737/how-one-website-helps-hundreds-seek-asylum


Taleb Al-Abdulmohsen lives in Germany now – but there was once a time where he lived and worked in Saudi Arabia, and was incapable of safely expressing his atheism. Renouncing Islam – known as apostasy – is punishable by death under sharia law.

After successfully seeking asylum in Germany, he decided to set up the website wearesaudis.net to create an information resource for others to do the same.

It’s now a go-to resource for people all over the Arab region.

Why is it that we can come on here and bash Mormonism all we want to and that is okay? But heaven forbid we bash this god forsaken religion called Islam, that is willing to murder people for no reason other than that the murdered person wants to quit believing and to leave their religion. If this religion was hijacked, is it possible that it was hijacked by several entire Nations, as in the religious rules as established by their Prophet being adopted as federal laws of those nations? To suggest that an entire religion spanning several countries around the world and even outnumbering christianity in population is bad (unless that bad religion is mormonism) would be politically incorrect and would risk having your post deleted. I think that we can at least acknowledge that some religions are more dangerous than others and that some of them are even worse than Mormonism. You've got to say it as you see it.

It is sad that even on a forum dedicated to overcomming religious repression, that we're not supposed to suggest such things. I have to wonder what the families of those who were murdered would think of such political correctness coming from the interior of the most free nation on earth. How can those who have escaped Islam recover (RFM style) if no one is allowed to say certain things that are at the core of their oppression (threats of being murdered)? At least the mormon church only threatens to kill you. They probably didn't actually kill anyone that we know of. "Rather than reveal..... I would suffer my life to be taken". How difficult was it for you to even talk about those pre-1990 temple oaths, even while knowing that the laws of our respective states would protect you? Why don't others reveal those God forsaken mormon blood oaths, even now that the mormon church itself appears to have abandoned them? How would you feel if the Mormon church had the legal authority to murder you for your apostacy as those pre-1990 endowment "penalties" imply they could? Some things are worse than Mormonism.



Edited 13 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2019 09:53AM by azsteve.

There are a number of problems with that analysis.

First, the United States is NOT the freest nation in the world. That is part of the American mythology, but if you look at indicators of freedom the US has fallen significantly down the list. Of course, one can disregard those findings if one wants but such willful ignorance is neither empirical nor objective. It is, in fact, religious faith in nationalistic garb, a phenomenon that history has proved every bit as dangerous as religion itself.

Regarding Islam, the truth is that that religion is both worse and better than Mormonism. Why? Because it is far less monolithic and there are countries/regions in which it is much less restrictive and inhumane than Mormonism. Being familiar with Mormons, almost all of us would say there are good and bad, virtuous and evil. Is there any reason that would not be true of other religions, particularly ones hundreds of times larger than the LDS church?

The problem isn't with criticism of Islam, or particular Islamic governments. It is when all nuance is lost and people declaim against all Muslims or all Muslim countries. At that point the criticism ceases to be about the religion and becomes instead ethnic bigotry.

Plus, Islam has as much variety as Christianity does. It's not one monolithic, cohesive faith. The westernized Muslims that I know in the U.S. are completely fine. For the most part, you wouldn't pick them out from anyone else.

Exactly. And that is true of some Moslem countries as well.

Honesty requires some degree of precision when talking about complex issues.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Plus, Islam has as much variety as Christianity
> does. It's not one monolithic, cohesive faith. The
> westernized Muslims that I know in the U.S. are
> completely fine. For the most part, you wouldn't
> pick them out from anyone else.

Islam has nowhere near as much variety as Christianity does. It's partly a numbers game - Islam has fewer members than Roman Catholicism, a shorter history and a substantial presence in fewer countries.

Buddhism has more variety than Islam, as does Judaism.

Unlike Buddhism and Christianity, it has been violent from the beginning, and was founded a warlord, and a pedogamist.

> Islam has nowhere near as much variety as
> Christianity does. It's partly a numbers game -
> Islam has fewer members than Roman Catholicism, a
> shorter history and a substantial presence in
> fewer countries.

False. There are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, about 1.1 billion Catholics.


----------------
> Buddhism has more variety than Islam, as does
> Judaism.

This just indicates how little you know about Islam.


------------------
> Unlike Buddhism and Christianity, it has been
> violent from the beginning, and was founded a
> warlord, and a pedogamist.

Islam has been violent at times and in places. The same is true of Christianity and of Buddhism, whose temples at various points maintained their own armies and fought wars either for their governments or independently.

You are again speaking of things you do not understand.

"This just indicates how little you know about Islam."

Perhaps next time I'll just cut and paste and pretend the words are my own.

I've been studying Islam since my teens. You can blame Lawrence of Arabia for that. Films like that gave me a Romantic delusion about the religion that was soon shaken off by seeing how it worked in reality. In some alternate universe, there may well be a Jordan who ended up foreskinless, and fanatically Muslim, but it didn't happen here.

"Islam has been violent at times and in places. The same is true of Christianity and of Buddhism, whose temples at various points maintained their own armies and fought wars either for their governments or independently."

Islam has always been spread by the sword. Right from the beginning. The same is NOT TRUE of Buddhism and Christianity, whose founders did not engage in military action and which spread initially through voluntary conversion in a hostile environment.

Both Jesus and Buddha were said to have lived lives of celibacy (later life in tbe case of Gautama). Mohammed on the other hand married multiple women (far more than his followers are allowed to) including pre-pubescent girls. That is not up for debate.

Gautama renounced violence and statecraft early on, and Jesus never got into these. Mohammed was from the beginning of his religion.

Mohammed was much, much worse than Joseph Smith and much more destructive. There are of course some parallels which led to Smith being called the American Mahomet.

Brigham Young comes closer, but again he was not responsible for the slaughter of so many people or the conquest of vast swathes of territory.

Again, the fundamentals. You said there are more Catholics in the world than Muslims. Can you substantiate that?



ETA: Of course you have no answer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2019 12:00AM by Lot's Wife.

You still haven't answered this one -

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, the United States is NOT the freest nation
> in the world.

Which one is then?

You keep accusing me of cutting and pasting my material. Perhaps you could provide an example?

Surely you are not making this shit up. Right?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You keep accusing me of cutting and pasting my
> material. Perhaps you could provide an example?
>
>
> Surely you are not making this shit up. Right?

You know the answer to that one. You even confessed to it on that Peruvian thread. Whoops, shouldn't have told you that, you'll go back and edit it.

"the United States is NOT the freest nation in the world"

Just curious which is, in your opinion? It sure as hell isn't either Sweden or Canada, which are creaking at the seams just now.

I've known and worked with many Muslims from foreign countries.

They all told me that in America they felt free to practise Islam as they saw it -- and not as some other goverments forced them to. It was their choice.

It doesn't matter what religion it is if it's something that you are forced to do by an autocratic or totalitarian regime.

You can't say all Muslims are [whatever] -- they are all different.

A M E N !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Very courageous.

Stereotyping all Muslims as terrorists,women hating fanatics etc isnt accurate and is an example of bigotesd stereotyping of the worst kind.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stereotyping all Muslims as terrorists,women
> hating fanatics etc isnt accurate and is an
> example of bigotesd stereotyping of the worst
> kind.

Islam has the worst track record on women's rights of all the major religions and that's saying something! The other ones are bad enough.

"Stereotyping all Muslims as terrorists,women hating fanatics etc isnt accurate and is an example of bigotesd stereotyping of the worst kind."

COMMENT: Stereotyping all Muslims as terrorists, women hating fanatics is indeed not accurate and should be called out. But characterizing the doctrines, scriptures and social practices of Islam as inspiring such attitudes and behavior *is* accurate, and also should be called out. (I suppose the German people were right not to call out members of the National Socialist Party (Nazis) because, after all, there were some very good people among them, and God forbid they hurt their feelings by condemning their *religion*.)

If a person chooses freely to practice a religion and if that decision helps them to be a better person, then we should support that decision, even if they want to be, or remain to be mormons. But like in Mormonism, the evil-creep of bad influences are likely to remain and to work against them for as long as they associate within a toxic organization or to identify with a toxic culture. One day you're relatively innocent and within just a few hours in the temple, the idea of threatening to have your throat sliced open is not a problem (as it should be a problem). There must be a Muslim equivalent to this somewhere considering that some people will kill you for drawing a cartoon that offends them. It's not the people that are evil in these cases. It's the perpetuation of evil teachings. To the degree that the people of any ethnic group do not believe in poisionous religious beliefs, there should be no prejudice against them. Ethnic bigotry is wrong as long as the toxic beliefs are not ingrained in the ethnic culture. When the evil teachings are ingrained in to the ethnic culture, then you need to call it out for what it is.

Why would anyone choose to believe in a diverse religion, to share the name with others who don't believe what you believe? Let's say that in one group of mormons, drinking alcohol and smoking are okay. Maybe even the Bishop smokes. But in another group of mormons, you can be excommunicated or even justifiably murdered for your words alone. What value would such a religion have? After a while, it's not even a religion, but just a culture that shares a name with others who believe quite differently than you do. Why even bother going through the motions of claiming to believe in such a case? Believe what? Why don't mormons just call themselves Catholics? Those muslims who really do oppose violence and oppression have a duty to separate themselves from the murder and oppression in practice by their fellow muslims through some meaningful means. Otherwise, I give them little to no credit and hold suspicions against them. It's not bigotry. It's self defense. How many children do you know named Adolph (why not name your kid after Hitler)? Why is Mohammed such a popular name amongst Muslims? The guy taught bad things (and maybe a few good things too, just as Joseph Smith did). None the less, he advocated some really bad teachings. You don't name your kid after a religious leader and still fully oppose his teachings. At least not if you're thinking clearly. Some Christian's may do a lot of bad things on their own. But Jesus didn't tell us when it is or is not okay to kill someone.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2019 08:46PM by azsteve.

Islam has a lot of good people trapped in it for sure, but Islam stands out among the major world religions for violence from beginning to end. Few major religions started from such a bloodbath of conquest and forced conversion. Not even Christianity.

The Crusades, the Thirty Year's War, destruction of the Aztecs, etc, etc, etc.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2019 09:10PM by anybody.

You give him too much credit. He just wants attention.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You give him too much credit. He just wants
> attention.

No, that's you, Mrs LogicalCanuckExmo

That Mohammed was a warrior and warlord is something acknowledged by Islam itself and by mainstream historians. This is not up for debate.

I notice that you refuse to answer my question on your statement that "the United States is NOT the freest nation in the world". As I asked earlier, what is then? (If you say Sweden or Canada, your argunent will be ripped to shreds.)

Keep talking. Very well said! I agree with you 100%.

In my book a religion is per se responsible for the effects of its teachings and doctrines--ALL OF THEM. The fact that some individuals and sects manage to quietly distance themselves from the more "evil" doctrines and practices of the religion--while continuing to give silent, worshipful, lip service to the foundational claims--does not warrant a free pass from responsibility. In my book embracing the foundational claims that inspire others to engage in discriminatory social policy, and outright evil acts, is enough of itself to warrant condemnation--particularly when keeping silent in the wake of the effects of such claims.

And you're right. There is a certain hypocrisy on the Board from the top down when we are allowed and encouraged to trample all things Mormon, but God forbid we over-generalize about Islam.

There are even aspects of Mormonism which are actually likable, and there are also many good Mormon people out there. I am even friendly with some to this day.

There are even aspects of Islam which are good. Cleanliness, although not all Muslims do this well. Islamic calligraphy can be beautiful and some of its architecture (although the homes many ordinary people live in are even more hellish looking than some of those in the west).

I agree with you as well, Henry.

I can't figure out why Islam gets so much protection compared to other religions. I find Islam especially toxic. True, there are all types so generalizing all Muslims is wrong.

I've yet to encounter believing Muslims who flat out repudiate the passages in the Koran that are, well, dangerous and violent. They just make excuses like the other religions about interpretation, metaphor, etc. I've met ex-Islamic atheists who got tired of the cherry picking and apologetics, just like atheists from other religions.

Like I've said before here, if a religion is truly a religion of peace, the most orthodox followers would be extremely peaceful. They are not.

It's puzzling enough to me how religious people can bash Mormonism while being defensive of their own (faith-based is faith-based, it's just a matter of degree). However, religious and nonreligious alike seem hesitant to bash Islam at the levels we bash Mormonism every day here. Go figure.

It's very simple. Some strands of Islam have a propensity towards extreme violence*, and so when one of rhese incidents occurs, people feel the need to overcompensate in defending those Muslims who are not involved in such activities.


* Suicide is against Islam, so theologically suicide bombers are in a strange place.

There are Christians who think it is justifiable to bomb abortion clinics. No one tells other Christians to abandon their faith because there are some homicidal people in it.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are Christians who think it is justifiable
> to bomb abortion clinics. No one tells other
> Christians to abandon their faith because there
> are some homicidal people in it.

Erm yes they do! Every time someone criticizes radical Islam, someone else engages in this kind of whataboutery.

If your neighbor (or whoever) has mental health issues and tells you that you're the one with issues, that is largely (but not totally) irrelevant. That is because you could both have issues, or that they are deflecting from their own. But if either of these scenarios is the case, it doesn't cure their mental health issues.

So many bigots! Muslims are diverse in case you havent noticed. Not all women wear the hijab or whatever and some of the ones who do, do it is as matter of choice.Threads like this make me embarrassed to be here Yes, criticizing certain practices is one thing, but lumping everyone together or blamibg todays'Muslims for things that happened hundreds of years ago is bigoted

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So many bigots! Muslims are diverse in case you
> havent noticed. Not all women wear the hijab or
> whatever and some of the ones who do, do it is as
> matter of choice.Threads like this make me
> embarrassed to be here Yes, criticizing certain
> practices is one thing, but lumping everyone
> together or blamibg todays'Muslims for things that
> happened hundreds of years ago is bigoted

Discussing their founder is not bigoted at all. He is the man they use as a role model. Then there's all the stuff they get up to in mainstream Islam which Christianity got past decades or centuries ago.

Islam is easily the least attractive major religion out there.

So many bigots! Muslims are diverse in case you havent noticed. Not all women wear the hijab or whatever and some of the ones who do, do it is as matter of choice.Threads like this make me embarrassed to be here Yes, criticizing certain practices is one thing, but lumping everyone together or blamibg todays'Muslims for things that happened hundreds of years ago is bigoted.

COMMENT: This is not an issue about diversity, or about stereotyping, or even about blaming!

It is an issue about core religious doctrines, and what they teach, and the actions they inspire by those who take such doctrines literally and seriously. And, it is about association with such doctrines, regardless of what a person specifically believes or does within that association.

Moderate Muslims may well be innocent in their actual beliefs, attitudes and actions. But they nonetheless adhere to a tradition of "divine" exclusivity; a tradition that authoritatively condones violence and the subjugation of women in support of that exclusivity. In order words, there are consequences of mere association--regardless of what one personally believes or does. (And that applies to Mormonism too, by the way!)

Frankly, people who are unable to see and criticize Islam for what it is at its core, and who call those of us who can "bigots," scare me much more than moderate Muslims do.

I stand.by what I said. I didn't say.Mohammmed was perfect, but he lived in a different time with different standards. I said that blaming todays' Muslims for past deeds is wrong. They werent there. Got it?

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I stand.by what I said. I didn't say.Mohammmed was
> perfect, but he lived in a different time with
> different standards. I said that blaming todays'
> Muslims for past deeds is wrong. They werent
> there. Got it?

And Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Confucius and Zoroaster all lived in different times - long before their less sophisticated successor. And none of them went round engaging in mass murder and raping children while they were on their missions AFAIK. Is this just a case of "different times and different standards"? If I murdered someone forty years sgo in Cambodia, was that okay then because of different times and different standards? Should I be let off in that hypothetical situation?

I stand.by what I said. I didn't say.Mohammmed was perfect, but he lived in a different time with different standards. I said that blaming todays' Muslims for past deeds is wrong. They werent there. Got it?

COMMENT: NO! I don't get it! Nobody is blaming all practicing "Muslims" for "past deeds." We are blaming ISLAM--as the religion defines itself by its doctrines and its "mission statement"--for the present and past deeds that it inspires and continues to inspire, both individually and socially. And we are saying that association with such religious "values" carries with it moral implications and responsibility--regardless of what such a person personally believes or does.

I disagree with him on Communism, but
Anthony Burgess wrote in 1989: "The old opposition was between the Free World, so-called, and the Communist world. But now Marxism is seen as an out-of-date philosophy based on 19th-century materialism, and the new Europe, which means the overseas Anglophone world as well as the polyglot Continent, will be, if not Judaeo-Christian, at least liberal and humanistic and nostalgic for some kind of faith. The opposition to this will not be atheistic Communism but fundamentalist Islam. Islam cannot be absorbed into the new comity. I foresee its becoming more and more intolerant and also militant. We are going back to the Middle Ages."

Ding Ding Ding!
Jordan manages to work in Communism and Marx crap into yet another thread.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding Ding Ding!
> Jordan manages to work in Communism and Marx crap
> into yet another thread.

Says the woman named after a frickin' AYN RAND character!!!

Also Anthony Burgess was a far superior writer than Ms Rand was. He could at least predict the future in his books. His prediction is partly right about Islam, which has grown ever more fanatical, even in places like Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Tunisia and Sri Lanka which were previously moderate Muslim areas.

As I have said multiple times, I don't agree with Rand about much. I did like a few aspects of the character in her book: a strong independent female who was not religious, who stepped out of collective thinking to thinking for herself. That's it. Period. You're the one obsessed with linking everything to political systems.

I selected that name over a decade ago. UNLIKE some people, I am not going to change my name or post using multiple names.

I don't insert Rand's politics into everything. That's YOU trying to divert and distract as usual.

I am not going to discuss whatever Rand's politics were and whatever they might mean now or how they relate to whatever political agendas you have. Any further discussion you have about this will serve as further proof of your agenda.

People of all religions do bad things because no one is perfect. But we should set our ideals high, even though we can not meet them much of the time. The so-called prophet Mohammed set the bar very low to begin with. Those muslim followers today may have adopted some ideals set by Jesus also as they strive to be better people. But Islamic ideals are generally set low to begin with. That is why many people can claim to be faithful followers while they rape and enslave others, and base governments on those same low-level ideals that mohammed taught.

The whole religious diversity thing is of no value when people of your same faith are committing atrocities and you sit there in your own supposed enlightened state and claim that you don't believe in doing those same things yourself, but then you don't remove yourself from affiliation with them, nor publicly denounce them and their bad actions. How do you separate out the good from the bad when it's all the same faith? Moderate Jews may not believe and act the same way as orthodox Jews do. But it's not like some Jews believe that murder is okay under some conditions, while others don't. You can't take religious diversity to such extremes and have anything left to base any legitimate faith on.

Today's so called peaceful muslims appear to be trying to hijack Islam from Mohamed's followers (not the other way around). The fact that no one can speak definitively for these people leaves the religion open to anarchy. Who is their Prophet, Pope, or other leader today, for all of those people to follow? All they have are the religious police of various governments, and a very lose band of Mullah's who have only regional influence over their followers. Those regional followers believe radically different things from one region to the next. Sometimes murder, enslavement and rape is acceptable, sometimes not so much. How do we separate religion from ethnicity under these conditions? The religion sets the stage for and is the platform, upon which the people identify themselves in their ethnicity. To them, all other muslims are apostates.

If we put this delema in to a business perspective, their brand is fragmented. The intellectual property ownership is in dispute. The product itself is flawed and varies from one manufacturer to the next. Customers of the product made by some manufacturers are being harmed by the product. There is no warranty. And no one is taking responsibility to change this situation. Other than that, the product and brand are recommended highly by some people, and no one is supposed to disparage this product. The reason the product sells so well is that many of the customers buy it upon threats of death as the only alternative. As I said, some things are worse than Mormonism. You've got to say it as you see it.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2019 08:58AM by azsteve.