₦airaland Forum

faluasafe: I will advise that u should d ignore further rantings of dis [b]pagan (christian?)[/b]Called saluman.Even if he is sponsored to engage in dis fruitless arguement, I believe u guys ve punctured most,if not all of his belated points.
Let it be clear to u-saluman- dat Islam is such a complete, perfect WAY OF LIFE that even the greatest critic, not a warped mind like u acknowledge.
I rest my case.

Saluman: [size=14pt]1) You have not cited any studies of islamic countries to show how islamic women have it better
2) Many of your muslim intellectual women are even from the West. Tbaba's posts even show that.



You know you have nothing. This thread has nothing showing that women in islamic countries live better. You are complaining about western countries from an islamic point of view while avoiding comparing it with islamic countries.

[/size]

Pitiful

vedaxcool: Lol it seems you try hard to make sense in any thread you post.

vedaxcool: ^
Nice, couldn't have done better. you always live up to your name betathings, but let me add, that certain secular nations in history had the most violent history e.g the soviet union massacre millions all in a bid to be secular, during the French revolution committed violent atrocities why? All in a bid to be absolutely secular and cleanse the state of religious influence. So we see one thing secularity does not guarantee peace. In fact the M.E is always facing one war or another because it is located in a region that is rich in resources, this simple fact have continued to guarantee interference by world powers etc in ensuing unrestricted access to such resource, so we should forgive our simple minded atheist who blames everything including climate change on religion, in fact he calls UK the most violent country on earth yet it is ranked 29 on the peace index, so we should leave his apparent flip flop with the knowledge that while an atheist blames religion for everything wrong in the world and praise man for everything good religion simply says man has to hold himself to account for his misdeeds and shall one day if not in this world be held responsible for his actions of cruelty.

BetaThings: Thanks
Incidentally, I forgot natural resources. The reason why Congo DR is not likely to have peace. Sadly.
Yet Republic of Congo, since it is not rich in resources, does not get so much attention
[size=18pt]
Incidentally, we see that some of the reports are sponsored or influenced
See how the IMF auditor says in his report that the IMF was put under pressure to slant a report against China
[/size]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/auditor-finds-imf-was-pressured-by-us-to-fault-china/2012/12/19/64979dae-4a11-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html

BetaThings: Fact is that a "peace index" report was released
No reason was given for the way countries were placed

BetaThings
Now you, Saluman, hypothesised that secularism can explain the position of countries
In the process, you presented your opinion as a fact.
Your opinion failed to distinguish between correlation (even spurious correlation) and causality
Violence is a social, not a physical science, issue. Hence a simple explanation like yours will not work; normally a multiplicity of factors will be required
Eg poverty can have effect on crime rates. But it cannot fully explain proclivities to crime
Even when you assemble several factors, they will not explain every single case. Explaining about 80% will normally do[/quote:
No I never said that secularism guarantees peace. That would be easily debunked by China or North Korea.

I mentioned that Secular countries are more peaceful according to the peace index. Simple fact that you want to deny.

The criteria for appointing points for peace on the peace index is very clear;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index#Methodology


So keep arguing with simple evidence.

[quote author=BetaThings
Let me mention some points briefly
I never mentioned virtual Islands. I said they are virtually islands. Canada has only one neighbour
Britain is an island that has been very "violent". But history (influenced by geography) explain "Great" Britain's actions
Its problem with IRA (in Northern Ireland) is partly due to religious diversity
Japan's shrine is not an ordinary cementry like the one at Arlington. It is a shrine. Please study Shintoism a little

BetaThings
If you want evidence about influence of geography, read the book I mentioned. It provides compelling evidence
The hypothesis you (Saluman) are pushing (secularism) is not backed by evidence. It is just a weak correlation
Like I have said, if secularism were that important Europe would not have fought WWI and WWII
And WWIII has been averted so far because of EU not because of secularism[/quote:
Nonsense again. I never said that secularism guarantees peace

Secular countries are more peaceful than islamic ones. That is the fact.

[quote author=BetaThings
I admire your admiration for Turkey, but it is not deep enough
But you ignored 2 points - Turkey is a member of NATO and has always wanted to join EU
So why would it not embrace those "virtues" so much loved by Europe

BetaThings
As regards the quest for peace, I am not interested in factors that play to the taste of foreigners
Respect for fa..ots "rights" is considered a virtue
Do you think any sensible country should accept that devilish
I don't care that my country sits at the bottom of the pile behind everybody, that is something we should not even contemplate [/quote:
Does islam teach you to hate? To be a bigot? Why use that word? That discriminatory word against gays?

As for your comment in bold, I wonder why we are talking about gays and why you are satisfied with our country being one of the most underdevloped and least peaceful countries in the world

[quote author=BetaThings
So my questions
When will secularism win Nobel prize for peace?
When will a secular country surrounded by hostile neighbours come tops in that assessment?
Why are secular countries scattered all over the list?
Does that not indicate that other factors are at play?

BetaThings
Now remember a Christian opened this thread. This is of course part of the usual tactic to attack Islam in order to deflect attention from the sordid deeds of Christians. You want me to "face fact" about Islam.
Should we not do the same for Christians in order to strike a balance. Since you are interested in "peace"[/quote:
Yawn. I am not a christian

[quote author=BetaThings
Can you tell me any Christian nation, now or in the past, that has implemented the doctrine of turning the other cheek?
Has there even been a Christian nation that did not have an army?
If they have always had armies, what are the purposes they were used for?
Has any Christian nation failed to respond to an attack in compliance with the doctrine of turning the other cheek?
Has Christian nations attacked other nations in the past?
If yes, were those attacks justified by the need to protect themselves?
Or has any Christian nation attacked another nation for economic advantage? Or for political advantage?

vedaxcool: Pity can't. Watch the video, darn service providers! I guess it is the aljazeera interview? I watched part of the interview where he asked Dawkins, telling me that the universe pop out of nowhere simply sounds like a fairy tale to me why should I leave my beliefs for yours? And that to me represents the simple cruz of the matter, telling me something that sounds like tales of the ancient or a hunch does not gain my sympathy. And in the same video Dawkins said religion is here to stay, the interviewer then asked since you agree that religion is here stay aren't wasting wasting your time on mission against religion?

Dawkins: I won't want to believe I am wasting my time!

Truly all atheist cries against religion is like a waste of time!

BetaThings: It will be hypocritical to sit in judgment on people when you have different social systems, beliefs and needs. Some states in the US have the death penalty on their books. Should a state that does not execute criminals adjudge states that do as violent
So Muslims don't need to become arrogant and start judging based on their own values

Christians often jump at opportunities to rewrite history to favour themselves. The first translation of Quran into English was done by Christians. The first translations of Quran into Nigeria languages were done by Christians. Were these done to enable embrace Islam?

Muslims don't do that. We are not so judgemental and manipulative. Let people apply policies that suit their conditions. It does not make sense for Iceland to be spending so much money on arms. But who would blame military spending of Vietnam, Philippines etc and all the neighbours of China with which China has gone into dispute over the sea near them.

OECD and World banks mean nothing. Where is Washington Consensus on quantitative easing, on liberalisation etc
Having on board, a muslim does not change anything. Turkey is a muslim country but they have restriction on wearing of hijab

BetaThings: Did the "peace" index equate adoption of sharia with being violent?
Isn't that your own (personal) definition? So how does an unproved/untested hypothesis become "evidence"?

BetaThings: Is Japan really a secular state with their PMs often visiting the War Shrine which is supposed to hold the "divine"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni_Shrine
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/18/japanese-mps-war-shrine-china-korea

BetaThings: You would have enhanced your stand by considering alternative hypotheses. You should be wary of simple explanations for social issues. The person who posited Geography as possible explanation for instability around the world provided credible evidence.

BetaThings: You are not interested in objective debate.
So Muslims who only slaves acquire during wars (unlike others who use kidnapping, debt etc to turn others into slaves) are now being projected as "slavers"?
When was the last time a muslim country invaded a Christian country? Reverse the question for so-called secular countries
Anyway slave trade is topical

BetaThings: But the WWII to which the Koreans and Chinese are still sensitive is archaic!
[b]Invasions by America as recently as within the last 10 years are part of archaic history!!
[/b]Did you witness the Korean war? Can you call archaic? Of course not, because it is still shaping relations today

BetaThings: Japan and Germany are not militarised today because of their history. Objective analysts will agree with this
Did secularism stop Europe from fighting 2 wars (that engulfed the whole world) within 20 years?
Is that not the reason that the EU (rather than secularism) won the nobel prize for peace this year?

BetaThings: The truth is that you are ignoring the truth
You blamed just one reason (religion) for the peacefulness of some nations. Yet it did not work in Europe. But you are sticking to that reason!
I proposed 3 reasons (Geography, history, diversity) for crises, you attempted to dismiss it by considering only one - cultural homogeneity

BetaThings: Your position is even faulty. Forget Russia's jostling with the US for military supremacy
The internal crisis in Russia derives from diversity.
It is fighting Muslims in Caucasus because they want independence
It invaded Georgia as recently as 2008 on behalf of Russians living in South Ossetia region of Georgia
(Indirectly the Georgian crisis of 2008 derived from diversity)

The Corsicans (Catalonians) are fighting in France(Spain) today because of history and diversity

Let me ask again: if you put all those top 5 "peaceful" countries in the Middle East, will they remain top 5 peaceful countries?
How come 3 of them are Islands and 2 are virtually islands?

I have made my point. Objective people can make up their mind. It is up to you what you choose to believe

vedaxcool: ^
keep living in your ignorance, I have said that b4 and would say it again, the thread is littered with why Islam does it for women best!

striktlymi: Good morning Tobe,

Though I believe too much attention is being given to the topic of Atheism and Atheists but I guess I understand why this is so. I know for sure that we have very few vocal Atheists on nairaland. When I say Atheists, I mean "True Atheists" those who refuse or reject the belief in deities. These actually are sincere and know the importance of respecting the individual even though they do not necessarily agree with that individual's beliefs. These are tolerant and would believe in God if and only if they can be convinced of his existence. Some of these even live better lives than some Christians and frankly I believe these would make it to heaven.

There is another set, those I choose to call "Atheists wanna be" they believe they are Atheists and are of the opinion that God does not exist. These are different from "True Atheists". They make themselves believe that they are sincere about their conviction but in truth they would go to such length to see religion stamped out of the face of the earth. These believe they have proofs that God does not exist but on close scrutiny, what they call proofs are basically their own opinions and beliefs. Some of these would not believe in God even if you are to show them God physically while some others would prefer to "kill" God if they can. Some of these are driven by 'hate' though they would prefer not to acknowledge this. As you rightly put it, they are Anti-theist and quite frankly these are the ones most in need of 'conversion'.

Sorry to say but Christians can also be divided into two similar groups too. We have those who trully worship God and would do everything to ensure that he is loved and adored. These are 'gentle' and considerate. These are never quick to pass judgement. Fanaticism is not their thing and they all believe in the goodness of the human spirit. These can and do work with Atheist for the greater good. These believe judgement is left only for God. These know the importance of saving a soul. These know also that their soul needs saving first before they can reach out to others.

The other group of Christians are the "if you are not with us then die by fire" kind. Some of these lack a sincere heart. Some of these are hard task masters who want to coerce people to follow their ideal whereas they themselves are exempt from following it. These are very quick to judge and from the way they talk it seems as if they have the list of all those who would make heaven in their hand. These talk as if God is someone they can tell what to do and from the way they do their things you would be tempted to believe that they have the holy spirit in their pockets. These do not tolerate other religion or people who hold a different view. These are also driven by 'hate' though they would prefer to call it a zeal for the house of the Lord. These need conversion too!

I have painted some extreme scenarios up there but this is not to say that it cannot be true. We all should be guided by love, not hate.

Thank you!

vedaxcool: I won't want to believe that you don't know what ignorance means just the same way you failed to understand what peaceful means . . . Anyway carry on living . . .

vedaxcool: The point to which you eluded to earlier all country using your poor definition of what peaceful means, are actually non peaceful, trying to change the scope of the thread after you exposed your weak logic does your position no credit, after all muslim countries are most violent because you say so, not because it is so!

BetaThings: There is no pint arguing with you. Why?
Japan does not have religious diversity. About 90% are shintoists or Budhists
You take Sharia Law as being automatically violent. A capitalist will never judge communism as a a viable economic system

The assumptions made are very simplistic
Have you read that book - The Revenge of Geography?
-The top ranked countries are invariably nearly isolated islands - Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Canada has only US as neighbour, Denmark has culturally Scandinavian countries as neighbours and a large part of its borders abut the Ocean
- Take Danes to the Middle East and put Syrians in Denmark, the ranking will change

Have you looked at history of nations?
- Japan has invaded nearly every country within reach. It has attacked America. Now it is peaceful. Why?

Have you looked at cultural/ethnic diversity?
- Tiv fight Jukuns, Hausas fight Beroms, Itsekiris fight Urhobos/Ijaws. Will that happen in Iceland or Japan?

Look at these
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html

vedaxcool: 1. Both

2. Relations with
neighbouring
countries
Level of
respect for
human rights
(political terror
scale)

Potential for
terrorist acts

Likelihood of
violent
demonstrations

Funding for UN
peacekeeping
missions

Political
instability

And offcourse the issue of homogeneity of a country was clearly overlooked, countries with single race/ethnicity religion will definitely have less strife/conflict which all the top 10 countries in the index have.

tbaba1234: Logicboy again!! you no dey tire.

vedaxcool: Lol! Lol!

my point proven, there violence everywhere and that is what your post implies, now go read the OP and some how manage to understand what is at stake, which simply is there is no peaceful country going by both the OP states and your confused understanding of what peace means! Q.E.D

vedaxcool: In addition, you might want to check the so called top 10, they have one thing in common, homogeneity, in most single race/ethnicity, and religion, and one thing that is clear, most of their criteria/indicators are quite subjective, plus the issue of unreliable statistics from countries (under reporting of crime) offcourse barring unseen hands of global politics the report would still have other holes to grapple with!

tbaba1234: Rankings based on secular values will put more secular countries at the top. It is a no-brainer. Muslim countries have their problems like every nation in the world, secularism is actually one of the problems faced by muslim states. Most muslim states are secular afterall,with elements of the sharia in their constitution. We have not had a true Islamic state for almost a century now.

vedaxcool: ^
Live in your ignorance indeed!

siddiq202: ^^when will you reveal your identity?

Btw you don't have to fool around

Rafidi :
Brunei is not only peaceful but very rich!

Bahrain too was very peaceful and rich,until the recently government crack-down on pro-democracy protesters.

Syria was very peaceful and stable until the recent foreign plot to topple the government and incite small pockets of opposition and sending of terrorists to destabilize Syria by turkey,saudi arabia,qatar and NATO countries.

United Arab Emirates is very peaceful.

Oman is very peaceful.

Iran is relatively peaceful if not for the assasinations of its nuclear scientists by western intelligence organizations,and the Jundullah terrorist group sponsored also by western intelligence to attack government forces from time to time in the south-east of iran.

Uzbekistan,Tajikistan,Turkmenistan,Kirgyzstan,Malaysia,Maldives,Kazakhstan,and Qatar are all peaceful countries one can live in without fear or war.

maclatunji: Indonesia, Morocco, Turkey, The Maldives, Qatar, Kuwait and so on. You could have Googled it.

BetaThings: Mention those secular countries

vedaxcool: ^
This is simply english, if I say, had my slippers worth anything to me, those who have no regards for me wouldn't be allowed to wear it means what? That the slippers itself is worth nothing, to Allah the who Earth is simply worth nothing, that is that!

vedaxcool: ^
The Islamic approach remains the best approach.