[Doofy]

Originally Posted by segovius

Yes, you must find it bizarre. It's called logic.

You just agreed that Muslims who know they're going to be martyred by killing innocent people drink take drugs and shag call-girls - again, do you find that oppressive and/or repressive?

Correctinated.

[Y3a]

Islam is a cult, revolving around many who claims to represent God, which in and of itself is a heretical act.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Islam is a religion, revolving around many who claim to be God's servants, which in and of itself is a lovely act.

Fixed.

Taliesin

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Fixed.

If it were a religion and not a cult, it'd be easy to leave.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Doofy

If it were a religion and not a cult, it'd be easy to leave.

Definition of cult please - don't Google it. I'd like your own definition - that is if you have any original thoughts...err... actually you can Google it if you like......

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by segovius

Definition of cult please - don't Google it. I'd like your own definition - that is if you have any original thoughts...err... actually you can Google it if you like......

Easy to get into. Hard to leave.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Easy to get into. Hard to leave.

I'm afraid that's an ungraded mark.

As it happens my first degree was in part on Cults although the term is somewhat frowned on in academic circles.

One of the more commonly quoted definitions of "cult" was articulated at an ICSA/UCLA Wingspread Conference on Cultism in 1985:

Cult (totalist type): A group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.), designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community. (West & Langone, 1986, pp. 119-120)

Sorry. No banana.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by segovius

I'm afraid that's an ungraded mark.

Don't give up the day job to become a professor or anything. My answer is exactly the same as the definition which you quoted, minus the "devotion" part (which isn't a defining feature of a cult at all).

Originally Posted by segovius

As it happens my first degree was in part on Cults although the term is somewhat frowned on in academic circles.

Oooo... Aren't you the clever one?

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Don't give up the day job to become a professor or anything. My answer is exactly the same as the definition which you quoted, minus the "devotion" part (which isn't a defining feature of a cult at all).

Oooo... Aren't you the clever one?

Not really, it just looks that way when I'm talking to you.

You really need to raise your game.

Btw - this statement: My answer is exactly the same as the definition which you quoted, minus the "devotion" part is erroneous.

1) "A group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing"

Islam cannot be this as it is not a cohesive group. You could perhaps argue (and you would be wrong on other grounds) that groups such as the Shi'i or Sufis are a cult but not Islam as a whole because there is no unity of belief which is a pre-requisite for a cult.

2) "Unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures"

'Unethically" refers to the ethics of a society in which the alleged Cult arises - therefore Cults arising in Islam must be judged by Islamic ethics.

Further, 'isolation' would only apply to converts and Islam has a large basis of traditional Muslim peoples.

3) "information management, suspension of individuality"

There is no over-ruling authority to enforce this. another pre-requisite of a Cult.

4) "...suspension of critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it,"

Sounds like some people in the West.....

5) "designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community"

As above. There are no 'Popes' in Islam so no overall "leaders". Someone like as-Sadr may be a Cult-leader as may his group and perhaps OBL if he was alive and al-Q actually existed, but Islam is not.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by segovius

Not really, it just looks that way when I'm talking to you.

You sound like some of the idiots I used to teach - i.e. completely unaware of the fact that just because something doesn't look like an academic answer it doesn't mean it's wrong.

Originally Posted by segovius

You really need to raise your game.

Or lower it, probably, if I'm to continue attempting to converse with you.

No, I kid. I'm really impressed with your multiple degrees. Honestly. I will submit to your now-disclosed superior intelligence.

[Doofy]

Oooo. You edited. I wish I had enough degrees to be able to do that.

Originally Posted by segovius

Btw - this statement: My answer is exactly the same as the definition which you quoted, minus the "devotion" part is erroneous.

1) "A group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing"

Islam cannot be this as it is not a cohesive group. You could perhaps argue (and you would be wrong on other grounds) that groups such as the Shi'i or Sufis are a cult but not Islam as a whole because there is no unity of belief which is a pre-requisite for a cult.

islam is a cohesive group, bound by a unity of belief in the status and teachings of some bloke from 1,600 years ago.

Originally Posted by segovius

2) "Unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures"

'Unethically" refers to the ethics of a society in which the alleged Cult arises - therefore Cults arising in Islam must be judged by Islamic ethics.

Self-referential. Cults arising in the cult must be judged by the cult's ethics? What were your degrees in? Food service?

Originally Posted by segovius

3) "information management, suspension of individuality"

There is no over-ruling authority to enforce this. another pre-requisite of a Cult.

It's self-managing. You can get belief systems to do that kind of thing if you set them up correctly.

Originally Posted by segovius

5) "designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community"

As above. There are no 'Popes' in Islam so no overall "leaders". Someone like as-Sadr may be a Cult-leader as may his group and perhaps OBL if he was alive and al-Q actually existed, but Islam is not.

Hmmm... So islam wasn't originally designed to advance the militaristic ambitions of your illiterate "prophet" then?

Has Scientology stopped being a cult simply because L. Ron popped it?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Hmmm... So islam wasn't originally designed to advance the militaristic ambitions of your illiterate "prophet" then?

segovious is not a muslim, so it not "his" illiterate prophet, but yes you're right, Islam was not designed to advance prophet Muhammad's militaristic ambitions. While indeed the prophet engaged in military activity, it was only in defense against a war started by polytheistic Mecca, and the Quran accordingly allowed only the self-defense-war or the liberating war for the purpose of liberating people that asked for help and that were persecuted because of their belief in the one God.

Was prophet Moses or David any less prophets because they engaged in military activities?

Taliesin

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Well,

VVVVVVV

Uhhhh.... what i meant by my comments in regard to India are:
-The Indians under British rule didnt resort to violence nearly as much as islamists do. (and funny enough they got what they wanted....their freedom)

Right ?

Bad example since all the rioting in France is by immigrants from the muslim world as opposed to the indigenous people of that region.

But yeah, India's rebelion and responce to social injustice was a much more peacful one than the way the islamists have chosen to handle it. But , dont confuse that with the conflict between hindus and muslim(surprise surprise) which has cause quite a lot of blood shed.

Cheers

PS>> any of what i said untrue ? im pretty sure that thats the general overview of what took place.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Oooo. You edited. I wish I had enough degrees to be able to do that. islam is a cohesive group, bound by a unity of belief in the status and teachings of some bloke from 1,600 years ago.

Wrong.

Shi'ism is cohesive, Sunnis are a cohesive group but Sunnis and Shi'as are opposed. Both are subsets of Islam therefore it is the subgroups that are cohesive (if that) and not the parent group which by definition contains opposing elements.

Self-referential. Cults arising in the cult must be judged by the cult's ethics? What were your degrees in? Food service?

Wrong.

As there are no universal ethical codes then a cult arising in the east can only be judged as heterodox to the degree it diverges from the ethics of the east.

If that is not the case then you are heterodox because you do not follow say, Hindu dietary restrictions and all people who do not follow likewise might be also correctly termed a cult.

Fortunately this nonsense is well...nonsense.

A Christian cult is judged by Christian culture not anyone elses.

It's self-managing. You can get belief systems to do that kind of thing if you set them up correctly.

Unintelligible.

Hmmm... So islam wasn't originally designed to advance the militaristic ambitions of your illiterate "prophet" then?

Fraid not.

If you wish to discuss Islam (and you do seem obsessed to the point of it being an idée fixe - is this the latest equivalent of 'fear of black men with their enormous manhoods taking our women'?) the I really would recommend actually knowing something about it.

Either that or confine your discussions to others of your ilk at the Legion or BNP monthly raffle or wherever mission HQ is these days.

Has Scientology stopped being a cult simply because L. Ron popped it?

No. It will stop being a cult when it divides into factions such as Scientology A and Scientology B if each claim the truth and contradict each other. At that point It will cease to be a cult and A and B will be the cults.

[vmarks]

Sounds like a distinction without any real difference.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by segovius

Unintelligible.

I'm pretty sure that everyone else who speaks English understood my meaning. As you did not, it's obvious that any further conversation with you would be utterly pointless.

Originally Posted by segovius

If you wish to discuss Islam (and you do seem obsessed to the point of it being an idée fixe - is this the latest equivalent of 'fear of black men with their enormous manhoods taking our women'?) the I really would recommend actually knowing something about it.

Either that or confine your discussions to others of your ilk at the Legion or BNP monthly raffle or wherever mission HQ is these days.

Yay, get that tar brush out!

So let's see... ...you don't understand English... ...you apply the BNP tar brush whenever it suits you with no reason other than your political dogma telling you to... ...you hint at having more than one degree as if to somehow imply that your posts are valid (we're all impressed with your degrees, trust me, even those of us who decide whether your work will give you a pass or fail).

Yep. Pointless discussing anything with you, so I shall no longer bother. It's no skin off my nose if you wish to continue in ignorance.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Uhhhh.... what i meant by my comments in regard to India are:
-The Indians under British rule didnt resort to violence nearly as much as islamists do. (and funny enough they got what they wanted....their freedom)

Right ?

Right, Gandhi was the right guy with the right attitude at the right time. Had Gandhi appeared with the same attitude before ww1 and ww2, the brits would have easily executed him and his movement wouldn't have gained anything and others would have chosen the violent way.

Fact is Britain couldn't hold many of its colonies because the british empire collapsed during and after ww2. In the case of India, there was a violent resistance and the non-violent resistance led by Gandhi, who became popular because of his character, his piety and generosity, so the Brits chose to cooperate with that non-violent resistance in order to leave India in friendly terms, which was a wise decision.

Another important difference to other conflicts is that England already granted the indians an indian congress where they could develop politics and could adress and represent all indians, where they could discuss and even criticize the british colonists. Indians were part of the british military and even were used in the worldwars gaining experience in statehood and military defense..

Equally important was that the indians were a population of 350 million people while the british colonists were just a number of 100,000, so that even without the devastating effect of ww1 and ww2 on the british empire, it would have been difficult to keep hold of India, after the resistance-movement started in earnest.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Bad example since all the rioting in France is by immigrants from the muslim world as opposed to the indigenous people of that region.

Not really, the rioters are mostly french people living in France in the third generation with french papers, speaking the language, being born there... and eventhough the majority has an islamic identity, if you want to turn it into a race, only a minority actually practices their faith or know much about it or are interested in it, that's I guess the same with every youth-generation, that is more interested in drugs, sex and entertainment, regardless of culture, and as can be seen in TV there is also a non-muslim-part in the riots through the participating blacks whose grand-parents came from sub-sahara-africa.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

But yeah, India's rebelion and responce to social injustice was a much more peacful one than the way the islamists have chosen to handle it. But , dont confuse that with the conflict between hindus and muslim(surprise surprise) which has cause quite a lot of blood shed.


Cheers

PS>> any of what i said untrue ? im pretty sure that thats the general overview of what took place.

You seem to have the fix idea, that wherever there are muslims there is trouble, in the sense that muslims cause all the trouble in the world because they are inherently violent either because of the military activity of the prophet or because of the territory-ideology developed later. I hate to burst your bubble, hmm actually I love it, but you are completely on the wrong train on this one, and it's a train that is also used by way more radical and xenophobic forces than you wish to be part of.
Fact is wherever two groups of humans with two radically different worldviews meet on the same spot, trouble is not far. Examples? European settlers-native americans, european settlers-native australians, european natives-jewish immigrants, african tribes-other african tribes (for example in Ruanda between the Hutus and the Tutsis).

On top of these tensions between different worldviews, there is another one that underlies spots of trouble and that is the lack of a state that represents all its people equally. Examples? Russia, Israel, Thailand, Great Britain...

You are off course free to limit your perception to islamic militancy, like mojo and Doofy, and currently it's the "sexy"-one in media, because it's clearly defined, with two clear sides blaming the other for the violence, media-compatible and sensational and fortunately for the reporters happening in places not too dangerous to report from, compared with black Africa and south-america.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

If it were a religion and not a cult, it'd be easy to leave.

In Islam it is very easy to leave the religion, namely when your heart loses faith in God's existence and His uniqness. The Quran has many verses talking about those that become muslims (ie. those who submitted their selfes to God) and then become disbelievers again, and nowhere in the Quran does it advocate that those losing faith should be in any way punished for it in this life, but that judgment lays in God's hand who will decide on judgment day.

There are though parts of muslims, espescially the fundamentalist ones who want to revive the sharia-laws, which were created over 200 years after prophet Muhammad's death, and that not surprising rooted themselves mainly in the Hadith-collections created around the same time, so much, that many sharia-laws directly contradict the Quran.

Taliesin