NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread has probablly been done before, however in the light of today's attacks in England, I decided to start this thread.

Do you, as a member of the World, feel that it is time to end Islam? Let me explain myself before I get bashed by all the wackos out there. In many parts of the world, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, India, Pakistan, etc., etc., there seems to be little to no difference between Islam and Radical Islam. In many parts of the world, it seems as if 7 out of 10 Clerics are Anti-Western and not only support, but promote attacks against the West and against Israel. Just look to Lebanon and Iran and Syria for examples of that.

Now, I am not saying that I support ending all forms of Islam, nor will I say I support all forms of Islam, or anything in between. I know that this thread will probablly be spammed beyond belief, so I will leave my own opinions out of this (at least for now), so the spam level can be kept low. Please, no spam people, I just wanted to start this thread to see what everyone's opinion of Islam is.

Do you feel it is a "religion of peace", as some people claim? Or, do you feel it is a "religion of war", as others claim? Do you think it is a problem with the religion itself, or with the people who "run" it so to speak, namely the Clerics, etc. (I don't know the terms for the really high ranking people in Islam)? Do you feel it needs to be gotten rid of? Or do you think it needs to be reformed? Or, do you feel it needs to be left alone, and that the blame rests with the West and Israel? Or, lastly, do you feel the blame rests all around?

I threw in all those questions so that I won't be able to be spammed by extremeists calling me racist or whatever terms they will spew at me for starting this thread. I am trying to be as fair and balanced as I possibly can, so that a honest discussion can occur.

I will try and make a poll, and try and make it as fair as possible. If you feel that I failed at this attempt, I apologize, I am trying. I do not want this thread to become a flame and spam fest like my last thead did..

First time I heard that discourse was about 1 hour after the Oklahoma bombing.

It's a religion like any other. There are peaceful individuals in it, there are violent individuals in it, there are individuals anywhere between. I doubt outlawing a religion is going to make the violent any less violent, and I would think it could even spur some of the less violent individuals to violence.
The religion isn't the problem, it's violent people who use the religion's trappings to attempt to justify their violence.

The problem with Islam(oh boy ;) ) is it has forgotten it's past.

They have the Religion part down pretty good. They have forgotten the math, science, business and art that they once did well.

Educate the people and the violence will greatly reduce.

http://yakimagulagliterarygazett.blogspot.com/

there's some interesting comments on the subject here, that are worth your consideration if you are really thinking about this issue and not just crying out for attention with the title of your post.

It needs to undergo the same sort of thing that Christianity underwent during the Reformation. And Arab societies need to undergo the same period that the West underwent during the Enlightenment.

Until that happens, no matter what the West does - extend its hand in aid or offer a constant rain of bombs - portions of the Islamic heterodoxy will find Western thought a dire threat to their existence and will demand the destruction of the West.

It needs to undergo the same sort of thing that Christianity underwent during the Reformation. And Arab societies need to undergo the same period that the West underwent during the Enlightenment.

Until that happens, no matter what the West does - extend its hand in aid or offer a constant rain of bombs - portions of the Islamic heterodoxy will find Western thought a dire threat to their existence and will demand the destruction of the West.

It does, but the reformation came as a shock to the established church. It wasn't prepared to fight against more liberal interpretations, which is why the reformation succeeded.

Islam is prepared for that. I'd like to see it survive and learn to live with the rest of the world, but I don't think it ever will. And the rest of us can't afford to wait for it any longer.

Islam is prepared for that. I'd like to see it survive and learn to live with the rest of the world, but I don't think it ever will. And the rest of us can't afford to wait for it any longer.

Well it is slowly happening. Look at Indonesia. They have some powerhouse companies building. I forget the guys name but he is buying up power production all over the place and they automate the plants were only a token presense is needed.

This thread has probablly been done before, however in the light of today's attacks in England, I decided to start this thread.

Do you, as a member of the World, feel that it is time to end Islam? Let me explain myself before I get bashed by all the wackos out there. In many parts of the world, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, India, Pakistan, etc., etc., there seems to be little to no difference between Islam and Radical Islam. In many parts of the world, it seems as if 7 out of 10 Clerics are Anti-Western and not only support, but promote attacks against the West and against Israel. Just look to Lebanon and Iran and Syria for examples of that.

Now, I am not saying that I support ending all forms of Islam, nor will I say I support all forms of Islam, or anything in between. I know that this thread will probablly be spammed beyond belief, so I will leave my own opinions out of this (at least for now), so the spam level can be kept low. Please, no spam people, I just wanted to start this thread to see what everyone's opinion of Islam is.

Do you feel it is a "religion of peace", as some people claim? Or, do you feel it is a "religion of war", as others claim? Do you think it is a problem with the religion itself, or with the people who "run" it so to speak, namely the Clerics, etc. (I don't know the terms for the really high ranking people in Islam)? Do you feel it needs to be gotten rid of? Or do you think it needs to be reformed? Or, do you feel it needs to be left alone, and that the blame rests with the West and Israel? Or, lastly, do you feel the blame rests all around?

I threw in all those questions so that I won't be able to be spammed by extremeists calling me racist or whatever terms they will spew at me for starting this thread. I am trying to be as fair and balanced as I possibly can, so that a honest discussion can occur.

I will try and make a poll, and try and make it as fair as possible. If you feel that I failed at this attempt, I apologize, I am trying. I do not want this thread to become a flame and spam fest like my last thead did..

I do think there is a problem with Islam, but saying that it must be stopped altogether is a bit extreme. After all, Christianity was an extremely violent religion during the Dark Ages, but it eventually learned to get along a little bit better with the rest of the world. I think Islam will also eventually get turned around so that it isn't quite as barbaric a religion as it is now - if the leaders ever decide they want to co-exist peacefully with the rest of the world, that is. Of course, if they don't make that decision - and soon - I will be forced to change my mind on this point.

The fuck does Israel have to do with Islam? We're Jews not Muslims for the most part.

There's a problem with a strain of Islam?

organized religion is just bad in my opinion. all of it. it just gives people an excuse to do bad things.

If we here talk about there being no difference between Islam and radical Islam, we ought to talk about Christianity and radical Christianity.

Well it is slowly happening. Look at Indonesia. They have some powerhouse companies building. I forget the guys name but he is buying up power production all over the place and they automate the plants were only a token presense is needed.

True, but indonesia is fairly moderate.

And anyway, what does industry have to do with the social terrors that islam inflicts on millions of people?

True, but indonesia is fairly moderate.

And anyway, what does industry have to do with the social terrors that islam inflicts on millions of people?

Indonesia is a hotspot for recent dictatorship, voting irregularities, and civil rights abuses which are only recently coming to light. And if it hadn't been for an international force, Indonesian forces would have decimated the East Timor population as it did the last time that region tried to become independent.

Social terrors? If you consider the religion of Islam as responsible for the actions of those who support it, then consider the "social terrors" of Christianity. We caused our own Great Depression, Christians, or avowed Christians, began both World Wars, and many hardcore Christians want to do away with all programs that help get the unemployed back on their feet.

How bout them Turkish?

The problem with Islam(oh boy ;) ) is it has forgotten it's past.

They have the Religion part down pretty good. They have forgotten the math, science, business and art that they once did well.

Educate the people and the violence will greatly reduce.
Or maybe they'll remember the violent conquests of parts of Europe, central Asia and India, the rape and pillage, and the fun of owning slaves and they'll get worse. Time to look to the future, not the past.

How bout them Turkish?

The Turkish have been through what might be considered a period of enlightenment - Kemal Ataturk saw to that.

Care to name a comparable historical event in any other Arab or Muslim country?

How bout them Turkish?

The Ottomans haven't been in power for nearly 100 years, and even back then, they were a mess from about 1700 to 1918...

Islam is a peaceful religion, as is Bhuddism, Christianity...
Unfortunately each of these, and every religon that I didn't mention have/have had violent factions. The difficulty is overcoming these factions and interpretations without harming the rest of the established religon. It's not necessarily a Sunni/Shiite problem, it's not an Isreal/Arab problem, nor is it a West/Mid East problem. These are all convenient scapegoats and pressure points. They make it worse, but they are not the root of the problem. That said, I don't know how to solve it.

(And since I know someone will say that Bhuddism has never had a violent past, look into Eastern history, especially Ikko-Ikki monastic groups)

Indonesia is a hotspot for recent dictatorship, voting irregularities, and civil rights abuses which are only recently coming to light. And if it hadn't been for an international force, Indonesian forces would have decimated the East Timor population as it did the last time that region tried to become independent.

Politically, yes. Indonesia is militant and extremely unplesant.

Social terrors? If you consider the religion of Islam as responsible for the actions of those who support it, then consider the "social terrors" of Christianity. We caused our own Great Depression, Christians, or avowed Christians, began both World Wars, and many hardcore Christians want to do away with all programs that help get the unemployed back on their feet.

I never said Christianity was nice. It hasn't been historically, and it's isn't particularly now. But it has improved steadily over the last 500 years, bringing the western world with it.

I see no potential for that to happen with Islam in the middle east.

Or maybe they'll remember the violent conquests of parts of Europe, central Asia and India, the rape and pillage, and the fun of owning slaves and they'll get worse. Time to look to the future, not the past.

The trouble with educating the people is that they would have to learn from the west. All the most advanced science is only available in the west, because we're the only part of the world rich enough to do it.

And if you send people into the west they'll be corruped by our 'immoral' influence.

The trouble with educating the people is that they would have to learn from the west. All the most advanced science is only available in the west, because we're the only part of the world rich enough to do it.

And if you send people into the west they'll be corruped by our 'immoral' influence.

Education is a good point, most countries in the Middle East sadly have a very high rate of illteracy, especially amongst women. This is certainly is a major disadvantage for the region. Illiteracy is also a disadvantage since it clearly prevents people from freely accessing information, and it makes them more suceptible to indoctrination by radical ideologies. :(

I don't think there is a problem with islam. The fundementalists have twisted the religion so much that can hardly be called islam at all.

If you cherish any kind of religous freedom what so ever you will not proceed down the path of ending Islam. I think the real issue is finding a way Western thought & Islam can find a middle ground & stay in it. Perhaps if we stopped trying to play world babysitter some of the conflict would end. On the same tolken they need to chill out & not take individual bad behavior of some to be the culture of our country or of western ideals.

I don't think that there is a problem with Islam itself, but the strand of Islam that leads to killing in the name of the religion, etc. Religion, while it can be a positive influence in the world, can be exploited for those with bad intentions. Christianity has been a extremely violent force in the past, and there are still some people that kill in the name of Christianity. Hindus have committed violence against Sikhs, Sikhs against Hindus. You can go on and on, but I don't see that the problem is Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. in themselves but intolerance of the other religions in specific thought. Islam has many teachings that peace and preaches against violence as much as another religion.

If you cherish any kind of religous freedom what so ever you will not proceed down the path of ending Islam. I think the real issue is finding a way Western thought & Islam can find a middle ground & stay in it. Perhaps if we stopped trying to play world babysitter some of the conflict would end. On the same tolken they need to chill out & not take individual bad behavior of some to be the culture of our country or of western ideals.

I cherish freedom of thought and belief. Organised religion I'm not so sure about.

The trouble with educating the people is that they would have to learn from the west. All the most advanced science is only available in the west, because we're the only part of the world rich enough to do it.

And if you send people into the west they'll be corruped by our 'immoral' influence.
OOhhhh, wow.

OK. You need a country that's up to date in terms of science? What, you need to teach them rocket science and advances psychology? Or open-heart surgery, maybe?

Send them to: Russia, Japan, China, South Africa, Iran, India, Malaysia, ...

They don't live in huts in there.

I cherish freedom of thought and belief. Organised religion I'm not so sure about.

It can be a force for good, sometimes a force for bad. However, there are a lot of moderates who aren't a problem at all.

Kill their leaders and convert them to christianity.

Damn, I wish they didn't have oil, so they could just stay in their own country and kill eachother.

The sooner we start using something else then oil the better.

I cherish freedom of thought and belief. Organised religion I'm not so sure about.
Humans Organize. Thought & belief will lead to that path. You try to control organizing you then do restrict though & belief.

OOhhhh, wow.

OK. You need a country that's up to date in terms of science? What, you need to teach them rocket science and advances psychology? Or open-heart surgery, maybe?

Send them to: Russia, Japan, China, South Africa, Iran, India, Malaysia, ...

They don't live in huts in there.

I know they have science outside the US & EU.

But science depends on continuous refinement. Most non-western countries, including several that you named, simply don't have the money to sustain that level of research. Which is why they send alot of their students westward.

If the masses of people were taught how to read, and each given their own Koran/Quran, then I think they'd do to Islam what Martin Luther did to the Catholic Church.

If the masses of people were taught how to read, and each given their own Koran/Quran, then I think they'd do to Islam what Martin Luther did to the Catholic Church.

I hope so.

I believe Saudi Arabia is starting to teach more people to read, as well as introducing a kind of proto-democracy. They are the richest and most powerful islamic nation in the world, maybe the others will follow suit.

If the masses of people were taught how to read, and each given their own Koran/Quran, then I think they'd do to Islam what Martin Luther did to the Catholic Church.

Maybe ... but the Catholic Church wasn't abolished. They still seem to be going strong.

I only meant that they could reform Islam, not abolish it. Sorry, the post does sound like I meant something else.

Maybe ... but the Catholic Church wasn't abolished. They still seem to be going strong.

Yep. Fringe benefit of being the One True Church.

(emote: DUCKS!)

I only meant that they could reform Islam, not abolish it. Sorry, the post does sound like I meant something else.

No no no ... my bad. What I mean is, the Protestant Reformation didn't stop the Catholic Church from doing what they'd done for centuries. I don't think an Islamic Reformation will stop the nuts from doing what nuts do best.

EDIT: I am *not* calling Catholics "nuts". I meant the jihad screaming turbanites.

Yep. Fringe benefit of being the One True Church.

(emote: DUCKS!)


Zing!!

(And since I know someone will say that Bhuddism has never had a violent past, look into Eastern history, especially Ikko-Ikki monastic groups)

Heck, Buddhists took over Tibet by force.

I don't see whats wrong with hating the west anyways. When you are at war, you generally don't love the people you are at war with. There are plenty of people in the west who think its ok to hate muslims, why can't muslims hate the west? Seems like a fair trade to me.

I don't see whats wrong with hating the west anyways. When you are at war, you generally don't love the people you are at war with. There are plenty of people in the west who think its ok to hate muslims, why can't muslims hate the west? Seems like a fair trade to me.

we are not at war against a religion, we are at war with an exteremist group that hide behind religion to aid their cause which is our destruction

Do you, as a member of the World, feel that it is time to end Islam?

Why pick on Islam? Let's do away with the whole spectrum of desert monotheism.

If I may point out something, during the split of the prodistants from the catholics, there WAS a great deal of violence on both sides, and a lot of collateral damage. I'm talking about rape of nuns, torture, destruction, and persucution of Jews (which both sides did to take a break from going after each other). The enlightenment also was not without its backlash. It seems to me, that looking at history, Islamic countries are going through the same period that the west and Christanity in general went through (and we DID take a century or so, if not more). It's the same problems, with the same solutions from those afraid to modernize or give up power.

The problem being that in this age of gloabal travel it is easier to get anywhere and the weapons are more powerful.

But the Islamic countries ARE changing along with Islam. Eventually it will get there. But I fear more bloodshed head till it does.

No no no ... my bad. What I mean is, the Protestant Reformation didn't stop the Catholic Church from doing what they'd done for centuries. I don't think an Islamic Reformation will stop the nuts from doing what nuts do best.

EDIT: I am *not* calling Catholics "nuts". I meant the jihad screaming turbanites.

Yeah, actually is did stop the catholic church from doing what it had done for centuries. The counter-reformation was a needed process of self-examination, and helped result in good things like the enlightment.

In any case, even more significant than the reformation (though a product of it) was the thirty years war. Islam has had no comparable event, yet, though maybe it needs one. Part of Islam's problem is that it is a monobloc that no longer has meaningful conversations with itself about its role.

Why pick on Islam? Let's do away with the whole spectrum of desert monotheism.

I also feel that it is time that the freedoms that are granted to religions should be clamped down on.

Believe what you like, I don't care. But just because you pick a particular philosophy doesn't mean you should be granted special legal protection or tax exemptions.

The root cause of these terrorist attacks is not ideology. Ideology is only a justification. Islamic doctrine is slightly easier to convert into radical militarism than other religions, and therefore is frequently used.

The root cause of these terrorist attacks is poverty. If people are hungy and uneducated, they will think with their blood, not with their brain. The G8, instead of trying to fight terrorism with politics and military, they should do it with economics, such as FAIR TRADE. Abolish your agricultural subsidies and tariffs and encourage responsible investment in these areas. China is having success at this: a generally moderate foreign policy, but its economics is rapidly storming the world.

I get the sad feeling that this question may well be moot. Islam is still living back in the dark ages, as several people have pointed out. However, these days, as has also been said, the violence that this sort of meagre state of civilisation tends to spawn can reach all over the world. Only problem is that eventually, the rest of the world will get so angry at repeated attacks that it takes it upon itself to eradicate Islam. Unless Muslims accelerate drastically their religion's evolution and work extremely hard to subvert and destroy the violent elements within it, they're going to find themselves by far the most loathed group on the planet, and when you combine a desire for vengeance, economic demands and enormous military force, you might get a lot of dead Muslims on the receiving end.

I don't see whats wrong with hating the west anyways. When you are at war, you generally don't love the people you are at war with. There are plenty of people in the west who think its ok to hate muslims, why can't muslims hate the west? Seems like a fair trade to me.

Hate on either side is wrong inherintantly. Hatred abegits hatred and violence begits violence.

Funny no one brought up the Isreal argument. So I will! But first a recap on Western influence.

Consiter this, following the fall of the otoman empire after WWI and the Reconstuction of the Middle East prior to and then following WWII, the Middle East was moving pretty fast in the way of techonolgical development and social reform. The Qu'ran was the prime faith that brought with it much of the growth as a society and culture.

Take into note also, that the people of the Middle East were mostly nomatic tribes, and many still are, that survived by constant movement. Prior to the invasions of the British and Russians into the region throughout the last few centuries, the conscept of borders was none-existant or minimal at best. This estiblishment of borders made things forced the people to work towards being "westernized." A large mistake because, in some interepetation of the Qu'ran (in the first book the Cow) it clear states that the people shall respect those unlike them; however, if the people unlike themselves attempt to force change, it is justified that the people, the followers of Muhamad, to return the same pressures, and in some cases fight back.

Fastforward awhile to the estiblishment of Isreal in the 20th century. Biggest mistake ever made, ever! How would you like it if your people had lived in a tradtional, holy land (its no where near Mecca in "Holiness" but its up there), for hundereds of years only to one day have the people who owned the land, centuries ago, show up and say: "Hey its ours give it back!" ? That is, on the most basic level, what happened. And then when the Middle Eastern countries complain about it, and attempt to fight to keep there land the US (and for a period of time the UN) aids Isreal.

To many followers of the Qu'ran, that just tells them right out that Isreal is the invader and hence all force used by Islam to retake its rightful lands is justified. Isreals fault for coming back and the West's fault for not respecting the Middle Eastern way of life in the first place.

The west had it comming to them

------------------

As for the deeper question of what is going to happen to Islam. Well in the US the Chirstian Extremist sects will continue to tell people that Islam is wrong and that it is evil, and as violence in the Middle East grows, this movement will gain more fevor and attempt to force Islam to leave the western culture before Islam has a chance to estiblish itself. As a result a portion of it will die out, but overall the religion will not die out.

------------

What worries me is this sudden growth of religious extremism in the world, both the extremism in Islam, and the growing extremism in Chirsitan Faiths(Catholics are excluded from this generalization due to the fact that Catholics are not a portion of the break away faiths. I don't want to get in the specifics because we would be arguing all day just to reach the conclusion Catholics are very different from many sects of Chiristanity and hence are more in its own state of affairs rather than a portion of Chiristanity). This growth tells me either one of three things is happening: We are returning to a state of Dark Ages where the people are entirely driven by faith (the theocracy world), anti-religion sentiment has grown so much that the remaining amount of people in relgion are becoming more and more extreme, or this generation is made up of returnists, those that want to seek the non-existant "good ol'days."

Scary things are a happening

(Emote: Goes back into cave to hide)

It is HIGH time to dismantle ALL monotheistic religions, because each of them purports to possess the SOLE truth and acuses everybody else of wrongdoing.

Monotheism is highly patriarchal = oppressive towards women, it is bellicose: Judaism perhaps less so these days than it was 2500 years ago, though still quite so, Christianity very much so, and Islam is exclusively jihad=fighting oriented.

OK, jihad was perhaps not meant to be exclusively war, but a fight against failures, imperfections, whatnot, but that doesn't matter. Nowadays, it is a religion of war and must be discontinued -- the sooner-the better, but hopefully by the year 2020.

Christinaity and Judaism should follow by 2040. Buddhism, even though not conceived as monotheist religion, functions as one, so it and Bon may be allowed to stay on for another 50 years, but not longer than that.

At the end of this century, if it is to survive, humanitymust embrace polytheistic values.

Hindhoeism, Tao, Shinto, African nature religions must spread all over the world and the idea that there is only one godhead and that only certain groups have access to it must be eradicated.

If people are hungy and uneducated, they will think with their blood, not with their brain.

But many of the terrorists are western-educated, and sometimes even wealthy. The footsoldiers may be poor but their leaders are certainly from a different pool of individuals and certainly aren't one of the oppressed and downtrodden.

Hindhoeism, Tao, Shinto, African nature religions

Are you implying that the Hindu ,Chinese, Japanese, and African civilizations have never waged war or built empires through conquest?

Muslim nations are religion bound and that is the reason for their cultural stagnation. The Quran is written in fairly black and white terms, alot of which condones and even encourages violence against infidels(anyone who does not follow the word of Allah.). Early on, Islam unified the various arab tribes and cultures in the region, and allowed for a broader culture to arise. Only then to become a hindrance to progress. People often speak of the great science of the time and attribute this to a Muslim population but those advancements were from places with more history and influences than just Islam, namely: Persia, Babylon, Egypt, Jeruselem, Constantinople, etc. Those places traditionally interacted with the world outside Mecca. They were the trade crossroads between the east and west and so got the best of both worlds in regards to science and philosophy. Those more rooted cultures took a little longer to succumb to the narrow view of the world that Islam would give them.
As far as Christianity is concerned it is an interpretational religion that allows for dissenting views, albeit they are often not the best views and the Bible has been interpreted to support certain groups violent and/or exploitative
acts, nevertheless it has the flexibility for reform that I dont see in the Quran.
And yes their is violence in the Bible but not to the extent in which it exists in the Quran. Also I've never come across anything resembling Jesus' pacifist teachings in the Quran. So I dont hold out much hope or sympathy for Islam. Mabye these ancient peoples will shrug of their ideological chains and rediscover their admirable acheivements of pre-Islam.

What causes terrorism (usually) is not exactly poverty. It's:

1) Collective humiliation. When a nation or a group of people has been crushed or exploited by another group, for an extended period of time, and they can't relate to any contemporary positive model.

and

2) Defeated or powerless leadership. Usually, there is terrorism among a group of people only if they feel that their leaders (political, military) have failed them, or are unable to fight back / to make the situation better.


Otherwise, poor people (or hungry people) will often revolt, but against their own leadership, and openly.

This thread has probablly been done before, however in the light of today's attacks in England, I decided to start this thread.
What do today's attacks in England have to do with the title of your thread...:The End Of Islam"?

Do you, as a member of the World, feel that it is time to end Islam?
The short answer is NO. The long answer, is a question back to you. What gives you or anyone else for that matter, the right to declare that it is time to "end Islam"?

Let me explain myself before I get bashed by all the wackos out there.
One does not have to be a "wacko" to trounce the premises that you bring forward in this thread.

In many parts of the world, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, India, Pakistan, etc., etc., there seems to be little to no difference between Islam and Radical Islam.
SEEMS to be no difference? In other words, you really are not sure and you are stating your opinion solely. It is through ignorance and intolerance that hatred is spread, and when it comes to religion, has resulted in the deaths of millions of people over the millenias.

In many parts of the world, it seems as if 7 out of 10 Clerics are Anti-Western and not only support, but promote attacks against the West and against Israel. Just look to Lebanon and Iran and Syria for examples of that.
There is that word SEEMS again. Well is it 7 out of 10? Perhaps it is 8 or only 1? Please post your supporting proof.

Now, I am not saying that I support ending all forms of Islam, nor will I say I support all forms of Islam, or anything in between.
So what brand of Islam will you support? Here again is the issue of tolerance. You probably would have been a natural as a Holy Crusader?

I know that this thread will probablly be spammed beyond belief, so I will leave my own opinions out of this (at least for now),
Too late. You have already splashed your opinion all over this thread.

so the spam level can be kept low. Please, no spam people, I just wanted to start this thread to see what everyone's opinion of Islam is.
Oh, you want MY opinion? There are over one billion Islamic people, and I believe in freedom of religion.

Do you feel it is a "religion of peace", as some people claim? Or, do you feel it is a "religion of war", as others claim? Do you think it is a problem with the religion itself, or with the people who "run" it so to speak, namely the Clerics, etc. (I don't know the terms for the really high ranking people in Islam)? Do you feel it needs to be gotten rid of? Or do you think it needs to be reformed? Or, do you feel it needs to be left alone, and that the blame rests with the West and Israel? Or, lastly, do you feel the blame rests all around?
WOW!! Where to start with all of that. Some questions are legitimate and others are based upon your opinion(s), and are leading questions, assuming that there is something wrong with THE religion. Then you look to blame people for the state of Islam. How arrogant is that?

I threw in all those questions so that I won't be able to be spammed by extremeists calling me racist or whatever terms they will spew at me for starting this thread.
How about we just call you religiously intolerant? It is interesting to note though, that you thought that you might be labeled a racist.

I am trying to be as fair and balanced as I possibly can, so that a honest discussion can occur.
If you wanted to be "fair and balanced" then perhaps a little more research on your part before starting this thread might have been a better choice?

I will try and make a poll, and try and make it as fair as possible. If you feel that I failed at this attempt, I apologize, I am trying. I do not want this thread to become a flame and spam fest like my last thead did..
Do your threads tend to be a flamefest? I couldn't imagine why.

A little side question:

Why are you trying to play God?

Are you implying that the Hindu ,Chinese, Japanese, and African civilizations have never waged war or built empires through conquest?

not very successfuly,lol. Though the Mongols did pretty well but were'nt they animists?

BTW, your poll is totally biased upon your premise that there actually is a problem with Islam (5 out of 6 options). There wasn't even an "other" option, so I couldn't vote.

BTW, your poll is totally biased upon your premise that there actually is a problem with Islam (5 out of 6 options). There wasn't even an "other" option, so I couldn't vote.

Not to be flippant, but it does prohibit the charging of interest. That's extremely backwards. Seriously.

And on the issue of the Crusades, my understanding was that the turks were invading Byzantine and attacking pilgrims on their way to and in Jerusalem (not exclusivly muslim as the religion was only 400 yrs old at the time not 1000 or more like Christianity or Judeaism respectivly) and the moors had been invading the Iberian penninsula (Spain) so I'm not sure we started it. ;)

The fuck does Israel have to do with Islam? We're Jews not Muslims for the most part.

And who do you bomb, shoot and occupy? Who attacks you with suicide bombers for it?

And on the issue of the Crusades, my understanding was that the turks were invading Byzantine and attacking pilgrims on their way to and in Jerusalem (not exclusivly muslim as the religion was only 400 yrs old at the time not 1000 or more like Christianity or Judeaism respectivly) and the moors had been invading the Iberian penninsula (Spain) so I'm not sure we started it. ;)

Neither side had much to recomend it back then. But yes, it's not like Muslims were pacifists before the crusades. Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel)

But this is the Twenty First Century! And all that is ancient history. I may as well hate the Italians because the village my mother was from was sacked by the Romans in the first century AD.

Muslims should stop talking about the Crusades, because they are irrelevant to today. And the west should refuse to engage in this pathetic "who was worse in the middle ages" dialogue. It is pointless and as stupid as the war of Spanish Sucession.

And who do you bomb, shoot and occupy? Who attacks you with suicide bombers for it?

True Israel is in it as deep as anyone if not deeper.

Not to be flippant, but it does prohibit the charging of interest. That's extremely backwards. Seriously.
Actually, that is more of a charitable act, and I really don't see it as backwards. I am sure that they would think that the laws are backwards in our countries for allowing interest rates up to 50% (theft)?

Neither side had much to recomend it back then. But yes, it's not like Muslims were pacifists before the crusades. Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel)

But this is the Twenty First Century! And all that is ancient history. I may as well hate the Italians because the village my mother was from was sacked by the Romans in the first century AD.

Muslims should stop talking about the Crusades, because they are irrelevant to today. And the west should refuse to engage in this pathetic "who was worse in the middle ages" dialogue. It is pointless and as stupid as the war of Spanish Sucession.


lol, I agree I was just responding to something somebody had said about holy crusader earlier :D

Actually, that is more of a charitable act, and I really don't see it as backwards. I am sure that they would think that the laws are backwards in our countries for allowing interest rates up to 50% (theft)?

Judaism does it too. So does Christianity really. Pity the whole fucked up economic system is built on credit.

Neither side had much to recomend it back then. But yes, it's not like Muslims were pacifists before the crusades. Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel)

But this is the Twenty First Century! And all that is ancient history. I may as well hate the Italians because the village my mother was from was sacked by the Romans in the first century AD.

Muslims should stop talking about the Crusades, because they are irrelevant to today. And the west should refuse to engage in this pathetic "who was worse in the middle ages" dialogue. It is pointless and as stupid as the war of Spanish Sucession.
The problem is that with threads such as these that start out with ignorance and intolerance, end up creating more ignorance and intolerance. Next thing you know, a whole new crusade is born. Man somehow cannot not or refuses to learn from history.

Quoting Miodrag:
It is HIGH time to dismantle ALL monotheistic religions, because each of them purports to possess the SOLE truth and acuses everybody else of wrongdoing.

Sorry Miodrag. We have the 1st Amendment.

mon·o·the·ism (mn-th-zm)
n.
The doctrine or belief that there is only one God.

Since Buddhism definitely does not support the idea that there are many Gods, and since the only "deity" in the Buddhist pantheon is Buddha himself, considering he is the only being revered and holy above all else, it can be classified as spiritualistic monotheism. Buddhism does support the idea it is relaxing, that meditation is good, but it is not a particular religion which goes out of its way to shove its teachings down our throats.

Quoting Miodrag:
Monotheism is highly patriarchal = oppressive towards women, it is bellicose: Judaism perhaps less so these days than it was 2500 years ago, though still quite so, Christianity very much so, and Islam is exclusively jihad=fighting oriented.

OK, jihad was perhaps not meant to be exclusively war, but a fight against failures, imperfections, whatnot, but that doesn't matter. Nowadays, it is a religion of war and must be discontinued -- the sooner-the better, but hopefully by the year 2020.

Are you aware, Miodrag, that Jewish women in the time of the Bible were supposed to call their husbands the hebrew equivalent of Master, and yet Judaism isn't what you said?

Islam=exclusively fighting oriented? By the way, the word is "orientated". Perhaps you should learn to use better grammar when trying to make a point. Islam is not fighting orientated. Considering Christians have started both World Wars, it sounds like Christianity is fighting orientated.

Christinaity and Judaism should follow by 2040. Buddhism, even though not conceived as monotheist religion, functions as one, so it and Bon may be allowed to stay on for another 50 years, but not longer than that.

At the end of this century, if it is to survive, humanitymust embrace polytheistic values.

Referring to my first response on the first quote, you have just said your opinion is that Buddhism is monotheistic, so I expect there to be no confusion over what you think it should be classified as.

Bon? What the hell is Bon?

Humanity can survive without having a government outlaw religion. By the way, it won't happen. There will always be poverty in this world, and there will always be class stratification. There has always been, and always will be. Egalitarian notions that people are equal and that wealth should be distributed are delusional. Distribution of wealth would infrige upon civil and intellectual rights, and remove the incentive for entrepreneurship: capital.

The same way about thermonuclear weapons. There has not been such a war because it would be the end, and those in power know that. Thermonuclear weapons have been the best thing humanity has ever invented, because it has effectively made war between nations that possess such weapons impossible because of the sheer outcome of the war. It has made this world use economics as a battlefield, in a productive sort of way.

Hindhoeism, Tao, Shinto, African nature religions must spread all over the world and the idea that there is only one godhead and that only certain groups have access to it must be eradicated.

You can't eradicate an idea. Few people agree with you, and those who do will be labelled delusional. Often, people like you end up in lunatic asylums. You also mean to say "Hinduism". I know how hard it must be for you to spell that simple word correctly.

In short, your opinion is completely laughable. Nothing more needs to be said.

Judaism does it too. So does Christianity really. Pity the whole fucked up economic system is built on credit.
And, every once in awhile the economic system collapses because of it.

And, every once in awhile the economic system collapses because of it.

Well, thanks to credit, we have an economic system. It's a price we have to pay until something better comes.

Islam is a classic case study why religion and politics whould never mix. In large part they end up corrupting each other; religious leaders backing certain kinds of government, government leaders forcing people to worship a certain way, and they cheat each other into systems of corruption and oppression (which in turn breeds fanaticism and militantism). Both have a role to play in society, but they must be kept at arms length from each other. That is not to say that political opinions and political groups can't be derived from religious backgrounds; that is up to individual choice, but religions should never directly legislate a society. It just leads to problems.

Well, thanks to credit, we have an economic system. It's a price we have to pay until something better comes.

And the point of an economic system is? Free money for smart players and the potential to drop us headfirst in the shit because of one idiot's mismanagement? We have enough things that do that already, like politics.

And the point of an economic system is? Free money for smart players and the potential to drop us headfirst in the shit because of one idiot's mismanagement? We have enough things that do that already, like politics.

Unfortunately, yes. And quite often, the people getting the free money are politicians. :(

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc, are religions, but when a group acts together, then it turns into a political entity. No different from an anti-war movement, pro-life movement, etc.

A lot of it is nationalist politics. Remember how after 9/11, everyone in America banded together in this big anti-Muslim crusade? When a Muslim, say, blows up a bus, he is not acting according to religious beliefs, he is acting according to political beliefs. And when several (or hordes) of people with similar political beliefs and some trait to relate to each other (like religion) team up, you get something like this radical Islamic movement.

Lest we not also forget, that Christians have been bombing abortion clinics and other facilities on their own land for years now.

Islam=exclusively fighting oriented? By the way, the word is "orientated". Perhaps you should learn to use better grammar when trying to make a point. Islam is not fighting orientated. Considering Christians have started both World Wars, it sounds like Christianity is fighting orientated.

Not necessarly arguing with you, but why do you keep mentioning the world wars when the only large non-European/American,Canadien, etc. casualities were from countries that got themselves into it. Japan bombed us, then massacred alot of chinese and other asians yes. And I dont think I would call NAZI ideology Christian. And I think The Ottomans were involved and allied with the Austro-Hungarian empire in WW1 and contributed to the fighting. I dont think either war was religously motivated.

Lest we not also forget, that Christians have been bombing abortion clinics and other facilities on their own land for years now.

Those people are not Christians. Anyone who commits a grave sin in the name of God is not acting in God's name, but rather in the name of evil.
The same goes for any religion, really.

Actually, that is more of a charitable act, and I really don't see it as backwards. I am sure that they would think that the laws are backwards in our countries for allowing interest rates up to 50% (theft)?

Well if you charge 50% interest in New York, you'll find the loan will not be repaid, nor can you legally enforce the obligation.

Seriously though, charging interest is a useful tool, and allows the development of modern capital markets. I am not suggesting that it should not be regulated as far as the enforcement of contracts is concerned but much of the wealth that the west has accumulated for everyone depends upon the ability to enforce interest bearing loans.

If we didn't have this mechanism what would happen to banks, municipal bonds, &c. Take scandinavia for example, the entire government system relies upon the ability to raise money by borrowing with interest.

Historically, prohibitions upon usuary existed in the Xtian world as well, however with the development of modern liberal thought, these prohibitions have been rejected. This is not the case with Islam, and is an example of how it has ossified and remained a fundamentally medieval world view in many respects.

The radical muslims are only the ones with power and those who support those with power. Radicals are always these. OBL (Osama Bin Laden) saw America as a potential threat to his power and attacked it and the power he attacked responded. That power itself has become corrupt in the eyes of many which has caused many muslims to look at America as the 'Evil Empire' or whatever. In my opinion America's government couldn't stand the genocide that was happening in the Muslim world and tried to stop it in the Iraq war.

Anyways, the Anti-Americanism isn't as bad as many people realize. In Iran, I believe it was 78% or 87% of all young peoples actually supported the USA. I believe most of the Anti-Americanism is among a few select groups who have (Or had) the promise of power (The Shiites in Iraq, for example) and are taking it out on the USA. Others see the US invasions as an attack on their land and on their people.

In short, the Anti-Americanism and radicalism in Islam is not truely directly because of their religion. In many cases it's about power and for others it's an attack on their people and they're retaliating to the way they see fit. Most Muslims are just trying to live their lives. For the rest, tehy're the ones with power and are the ones who are willing to raise their voice.

Reminds me of the Republicans...

And only retarded Christians bomb abortion clinics and it does'nt happen every day.

The problem is that with threads such as these that start out with ignorance and intolerance, end up creating more ignorance and intolerance. Next thing you know, a whole new crusade is born. Man somehow cannot not or refuses to learn from history.

I agree.

I just don't think that either side should appeal to what happened during the middle ages in order to legitimize what is happening today. (As all too often happens).

Actually, if things continue as it is, analysts are saying Europe will be a predominately Muslim region by the year 2050. Read that in "The World is Flat" I think.

And only retarded Christians bomb abortion clinics and it does'nt happen every day.
I like how you used the word 'retarded'.

Islam is a classic case study why religion and politics whould never mix.
I think you meant should?

Right now in the US, there is a heavy dose of religious and political mixing going on?

I just don't think that either side should appeal to what happened during the middle ages in order to legitimize what is happening today. (As all too often happens).

People forget that these things happend 1,000 years ago. I'm not responsible for the Crusades, nor the Inquisition, or Galileo's persecution, or anything else. That doesn't mean they should be forgotten, but they definitely can't be used as an argument! Use modern examples to argue your point, not ones from 1,000 years ago.

Islam is going through a violent period. Christianity went throught one too but was reformed into a (for the most part) harmless religion now. Granted there are Christian extreamists but it is a minute minority. Hinduism is having a rough time right now too, but it's staying in India. I'm also reminded of the bloody introduction of Buddism into a Shinto dominated ancient Japan.

Islam needs to be reformed but they aren't the only religion that has had a time like this. The truely dangerous line of thought is the one that suggests taking steps to "wipe out" a particular group of people. That leads to tyranny.

Quoting Ouachitasas:
Not necessarly arguing with you, but why do you keep mentioning the world wars when the only large non-European/American,Canadien, etc. casualities were from countries that got themselves into it. Japan bombed us, then massacred alot of chinese and other asians yes. And I dont think I would call NAZI ideology Christian. And I think The Ottomans were involved and allied with the Austro-Hungarian empire in WW1 and contributed to the fighting. I dont think either war was religously motivated.

I notice that there was no question mark in your first sentence. Could it be because you HAD no question? Most Nazis happened to be Church-goers. However, Japan did not start the war, nor did the Ottoman empire.

Neither wars were religiously motivated. If you are incapable of seeing I was making a point by showing how incredibly violent Christians are, in comparison to a criticism of Islam, why bother to post?

Not necessarily arguing with you.

The fuck does Israel have to do with Islam? We're Jews not Muslims for the most part.

I'm an American. I hate to tell you buddy, but there is a hell of a lot of bad propaganda and anti-Semitism out there that makes people think badly of you folks. Personally, I think you're great. You've been, for the most part, trying to move the peace process along down there. I respect any one of you as much as I would a fellow American citizen.To anyone who believes that bull*** about Israel, read "A Case for Democracy". Written by a fomer Soviet jewish prisoner.

And who do you bomb, shoot and occupy? Who attacks you with suicide bombers for it?

The Palistinian terrorists. That's who. Why was Israel forced to build a fence to protect their citizens? Because Palistinians were sending suicide bombers into Israel. The Palistine government is an evil terrorist organization set on wiping Israel off of the earth. Did you know that in Palistinian schoolbooks they don't even show Israel on maps? They spread horrible propaganda about how evil Israel is, and how evil Jews are in general. They air movies showing rabbis cutting the throats of children and drinking the blood. They bomb and shoot the terrorist thugs and liberate the Palistinian people.[

It is HIGH time to dismantle ALL monotheistic religions, because each of them purports to possess the SOLE truth and acuses everybody else of wrongdoing.

Monotheism is highly patriarchal = oppressive towards women, it is bellicose: Judaism perhaps less so these days than it was 2500 years ago, though still quite so, Christianity very much so, and Islam is exclusively jihad=fighting oriented.

OK, jihad was perhaps not meant to be exclusively war, but a fight against failures, imperfections, whatnot, but that doesn't matter. Nowadays, it is a religion of war and must be discontinued -- the sooner-the better, but hopefully by the year 2020.

Christinaity and Judaism should follow by 2040. Buddhism, even though not conceived as monotheist religion, functions as one, so it and Bon may be allowed to stay on for another 50 years, but not longer than that.

At the end of this century, if it is to survive, humanitymust embrace polytheistic values.

Hindhoeism, Tao, Shinto, African nature religions must spread all over the world and the idea that there is only one godhead and that only certain groups have access to it must be eradicated.



It is high time someone dismantled your computer so you couldn't post such rubbish :rolleyes:

Did you know that in Palistinian schoolbooks they don't even show Israel on maps? They spread horrible propaganda about how evil Israel is, and how evil Jews are in general. They air movies showing rabbis cutting the throats of children and drinking the blood.
No I did not know.
What are your sources on that?

Or maybe they'll remember the violent conquests of parts of Europe, central Asia and India, the rape and pillage, and the fun of owning slaves and they'll get worse. Time to look to the future, not the past.

And Christianity was any different? The Spanish Inquisition, the majority of the Crusades...it's not like we did the same to them or anything. But you don't see Christians today thinking, "Hey...there are Jews and Muslims in OUR Holy Land!! Let's kill them all!!" Nor do you see the Islamic world trying to take over all of Europe by force.

In times past, the Islamic world was seen as a strong military force, hence the conquests and the raping and pillaging that followed. That's what they did in wars back then. You defeated a city or nation or area...and you got to pillage their homes, rape their women, take their livestock, enslave them, whatever floated your boat.

Today, wars are fought pretty differently. Military power is not only judged by the size and strength of your army, but by what weapons you have at your disposal. Tanks, airplanes, guns, bombs, nuclear weapons...these are the replacements of the horses, chariots, bows and arrows, and swords of yesteryear.

Times have changed. We need to look to the past to learn from our mistakes, be more tolerant of other cultures. And I'm talking about both Christianity and Islam when I say this. Both need to back out of politics, be more accepting to others...and stop being so psychotic about their views.

I notice that there was no question mark in your first sentence. Could it be because you HAD no question? Most Nazis happened to be Church-goers. However, Japan did not start the war, nor did the Ottoman empire.

Neither wars were religiously motivated. If you are incapable of seeing I was making a point by showing how incredibly violent Christians are, in comparison to a criticism of Islam, why bother to post?

Not necessarily arguing with you.


Well now, that was very snippy.

Oh were horribly violent thats why we havent nuked the whole region and raped the remains. We could. Thats why religious freedom arose in Christian nations, and thats why we allow people from any race, creed, or religion, EVEN MUSLIMS! into our borders. My friend, human beings are violent. Had any other religion or, more approprately, had any other culture taken the seat of power it would have been just as bloody if not more so.
Hell, I don't even fancy myself a Christian, but I am bloody tired of hearing jaded individuals gripe about how Christians are bloodthirsty, violent, and generally disagreeable. Hell the Vikings fit that description and they did'nt settle down until they converted.

And Christianity was any different? The Spanish Inquisition, the majority of the Crusades...it's not like we did the same to them or anything. But you don't see Christians today thinking, "Hey...there are Jews and Muslims in OUR Holy Land!! Let's kill them all!!" Nor do you see the Islamic world trying to take over all of Europe by force.

In times past, the Islamic world was seen as a strong military force, hence the conquests and the raping and pillaging that followed. That's what they did in wars back then. You defeated a city or nation or area...and you got to pillage their homes, rape their women, take their livestock, enslave them, whatever floated your boat.

Today, wars are fought pretty differently. Military power is not only judged by the size and strength of your army, but by what weapons you have at your disposal. Tanks, airplanes, guns, bombs, nuclear weapons...these are the replacements of the horses, chariots, bows and arrows, and swords of yesteryear.

Times have changed. We need to look to the past to learn from our mistakes, be more tolerant of other cultures. And I'm talking about both Christianity and Islam when I say this. Both need to back out of politics, be more accepting to others...and stop being so psychotic about their views.
I agree. Well stated!! :)

No I did not know.
What are your sources on that?

A book writen by a former Soviet Prisoner, Natan Sharanskey. He was also assistant to the prime minister of Israel twice I believe.

The Palistinian terrorists. That's who. Why was Israel forced to build a fence to protect their citizens? Because Palistinians were sending suicide bombers into Israel. The Palistine government is an evil terrorist organization set on wiping Israel off of the earth. Did you know that in Palistinian schoolbooks they don't even show Israel on maps? They spread horrible propaganda about how evil Israel is, and how evil Jews are in general. They air movies showing rabbis cutting the throats of children and drinking the blood. They bomb and shoot the terrorist thugs and liberate the Palistinian people.[

And they bring their baggage with them,

U.S. Department of State Report on Global Anti-Semitism:

"The disturbing rise of anti-Semitic intimidation and incidents is widespread throughout Europe, although with significant variations in the number of cases and the accuracy of reporting. European governments in most countries now view anti-Semitism as a serious problem for their societies and demonstrate a greater willingness to address the issue. The Vienna-based European Union Monitoring Center (EUMC), for 2002 and 2003, identified France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and The Netherlands as EU member countries with notable increases in incidents. As these nations keep reliable and comprehensive statistics on anti-Semitic acts, and are engaged in combating anti-Semitism, their data was readily available to the EUMC. Governments and leading public figures condemned the violence, passed new legislation, and mounted positive law enforcement and educational efforts.

In Western Europe, traditional far-right groups still account for a significant proportion of the attacks against Jews and Jewish properties; disadvantaged and disaffected Muslim youths increasingly were responsible for most of the other incidents. This trend appears likely to persist as the number of Muslims in Europe continues to grow while their level of education and economic prospects remain limited."

I agree. Well stated!! :)


Thank you =]

I feel the problem is full circle. All parties insist on prevoking each other, and now you have this full-blown war.

They bomb and shoot the terrorist thugs and liberate the Palistinian people.[

Yes, I suppose they do.

It's so nice to be liberated of one's posessions, land, government, livelihood and home isn't it? Or even shed the shackles of this mortal coil entirely!

I'm an American. I hate to tell you buddy, but there is a hell of a lot of bad propaganda and anti-Semitism out there that makes people think badly of you folks. Personally, I think you're great. You've been, for the most part, trying to move the peace process along down there. I respect any one of you as much as I would a fellow American citizen.To anyone who believes that bull*** about Israel, read "A Case for Democracy". Written by a fomer Soviet jewish prisoner.
amen

Well now, that was very snippy.

Oh were horribly violent thats why we havent nuked the whole region and raped the remains. We could. Thats why religious freedom arose in Christian nations, and thats why we allow people from any race, creed, or religion, EVEN MUSLIMS! into our borders. My friend, human beings are violent. Had any other religion or, more approprately, had any other culture taken the seat of power it would have been just as bloody if not more so.
Hell, I don't even fancy myself a Christian, but I am bloody tired of hearing jaded individuals gripe about how Christians are bloodthirsty, violent, and generally disagreeable. Hell the Vikings fit that description and they did'nt settle down until they converted

Your original post was plain-out rude.

Do you know how lack of intelligence tends to diminish your point? I.E. grammar errors. Maybe you're just pretending to act like a younger child who learned something in history class, and believes he is an expert. I don't know, nor will discuss.

Almost every culture has displayed "horribly violent" tendencies at one point or another. Thermonuclear weapons will not be used on a large scale simply because it is beneficial to no party. To believe that thermonuclear war will occur is uninformed.

I'm not your friend. And yes, I recognize your sarcasm. Such cunning wordplay from an equally cunning linguist. Perhaps I shall add you to my friends list.

Seat of power? You make it sound already as if each culture, violent in its own respects, is autonomous. Thus, how can it take power from itself? Do you not know how to type a sentence in English without making an ass of yourself?

I'm tired of jaded individuals taking out their religious fundamentalism on Islam. And as for Vikings, I am Dalarnan Swedish, and I can positively say we Northmen didn't frolic about in ships. Only a few number actually did, and most were purely Norweigan. Perhaps you should look up some basic facts about the world instead of looking horribly ignorant.

I really wish people would stop painting this issue with a 10-foot-wide brush. The problem isn't Islam, it's Wahhabism. They are like the Mormons of Islam. A new elitist religion with all sorts of wacky laws, that doesn't even believe the majority of the world's muslims are really muslim. In many ways they remind me of the bible belt televangelists who believe Catholics are Pagans.

Wahhabi extremists are the ones forming terrorist organizations and recruiting among the masses. They are the ones who are organizing all of the attacks, so for all intents and purposes without them there would be no jihad. So please stop dissing the religion of a third of this earth's inhabitants. The infinitely vast majority of them have nothing to do with terrorism and do nothing to perpetuate it.

I really wish people would stop painting this issue with a 10-foot-wide brush. The problem isn't Islam, it's Wahhabism. They are like the Mormons of Islam. A new elitist religion with all sorts of wacky laws, that doesn't even believe the majority of the world's muslims are really muslim. In many ways they remind me of the bible belt televangelists who believe Catholics are Pagans.

Wahhabi extremists are the ones forming terrorist organizations and recruiting among the masses. They are the ones who are organizing all of the attacks, so for all intents and purposes without them there would be no jihad. So please stop dissing the religion of a third of this earth's inhabitants. The infinitely vast majority of them have nothing to do with terrorism and do nothing to perpetuate it.
and I say amen again

. We caused our own Great Depression, Christians, or avowed Christians, began both World Wars
Hideki Tojo was an avowed christian? You might want to inform the historical community, they had it all backwards, they thought he was Shintaoist. Go show them the error of there ways.

Hitler too? Yeah real christian fella there if "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure." is any indication.

The problem doesn't lie with Islam (which is more similar to Judaism and Christianity than most believe), but with it's adherants. Christianity was a VERY violent religion until quite recently, and it's more than 600 years older than Islam. Judaism was also violent at first. And if you compare modern Islam to older Islam, it is alot less violent. I guess religions mellow out with time.

Your original post was plain-out rude.

Do you know how lack of intelligence tends to diminish your point? I.E. grammar errors. Maybe you're just pretending to act like a younger child who learned something in history class, and believes he is an expert. I don't know, nor will discuss.

Almost every culture has displayed "horribly violent" tendencies at one point or another. Thermonuclear weapons will not be used on a large scale simply because it is beneficial to no party. To believe that thermonuclear war will occur is uninformed.

I'm not your friend. And yes, I recognize your sarcasm. Such cunning wordplay from an equally cunning linguist. Perhaps I shall add you to my friends list.

Seat of power? You make it sound already as if each culture, violent in its own respects, is autonomous. Thus, how can it take power from itself? Do you not know how to type a sentence in English without making an ass of yourself?

I'm tired of jaded individuals taking out their religious fundamentalism on Islam. And as for Vikings, I am Dalarnan Swedish, and I can positively say we Northmen didn't frolic about in ships. Only a few number actually did, and most were purely Norweigan. Perhaps you should look up some basic facts about the world instead of looking horribly ignorant.


Yeah I've noticed you're a bit of a grammer NAZI. I'm sorry I missed a puncuation mark somewhere but please don't get your panties in a wad over it.
And I am not Christian nor am I fundamentilist. If you detected my so subtle sarcasm then why did you proceed in elucidating the obvious in regards to my comment on nukes? I merely wanted to engage in discussion. I don't recall ever insulting your intellegence. Mabye you should try to be a bit more civilized in your responses.
I'm sorry "saddle of progress", whatever. When people heatedly speak of Christians and their horrible legacy they seem to leave out things like the Magna Carta, The Renaissance, the Enlightnment, etc. You have to see things in more than black and white, otherwise you are no better than the religous fundamentalists.
Your a viking? :eek: Me too! :D and the rest of northern and western europe.
Damn Norwegians! :D

Okay, I'm new here, so I'll probably get flamed, and I haven't read the entire thread, so I'm flamebait doubly so, but...

On the original topic:

Where there is religion, there are fanatics.

Christianity had the crusades. Not to mention the, last I checked, ongoing conflict between Irish catholics and Irish protestants.
Judaism (Israel) invented the 'preemptive reprisal' AKA, taking revenge for something that hasn't actually happened.
Islam has the whole convert by the sword thing.
Hindu used to have ceremonies that involved not only human sacrifice, but a subsequent feast upon the flesh of the sacrifice.
Buddhism has a reputation for being peaceful, but keep in mind that they invented a system wherein monks are trained to kill people efficiently with their bare hands. Also, Tibet and Japan were converted by force.
The Incans and the Aztecs performed human sacrifice.
Before the europeans came, there was a war going on between two native american tribes that had lasted for decades if not centuries.
There were Druidic sacrificial ceremonies.
Hell, even the Pagans have Rome and Sparta to answer for.

The only religions that have not been used as justification for killings en masse are the ones with no gods, and the ones that are simply too new to have enough of a following.

Hell, even some newer, small religions have gotten in a mass murder or mass suicide.

So Islam is no more evil than Christianity.
But that doesn't really say much, does it?

Not really.

snip

Yeah, true. Anytime you get a large number of people to think alike you've got problems. I think theres an equation somewhere that says "the number of people in a group is proportionate to the level of stupidity in said group". Id est, the "mob".

Islam has the whole convert by the sword thing.
Where did you read that?
In Spain, in the Byzantine Empire, in most of the places conquered by Muslim armies... Islam-friendly tax incentives were used to convert people. "So you still want to be a Christian? A Jew? OK, but you'll pay +50% taxes and you have to send your first-born son to the army." People who wanted to do business, or to make have a easier life, converted... eventually. Or after 2-3 generations.

That's, really, how it worked before the 20th century, in Islam. Call it nasty, unfair, or inhuman... it proved to be MUCH more effective than the "convert or die" approach.

I feel the problem is full circle. All parties insist on prevoking each other, and now you have this full-blown war.
BINGO!!!

The problem doesn't lie with Islam (which is more similar to Judaism and Christianity than most believe), but with it's adherants. Christianity was a VERY violent religion until quite recently, and it's more than 600 years older than Islam. Judaism was also violent at first. And if you compare modern Islam to older Islam, it is alot less violent. I guess religions mellow out with time.

You do know that when Christianity was founded and for about 300 or 400 years afterwards, all Christians were Pacifists. Thats why they didnt try and fight back when the Romans were throwing them into the lions' dens. The early Christians only abandoned their Pacifism after the elders of the religion came together and discussed it for days, because many felt that if they took up arms they would be abandoning the Way that Jesus taught. However, they finally realised that if they did not defend themselves then they would be annihlated by the Barbarians who were tearing through the Roman Empire. From that point until the Middle Ages, Christians did the same thing many of the Muslims are doing now, using religion to justify tourture and . The Crusades were more about military strategy and economics than religion, but religion was used to justify it. Basically, the Crusades were the Christian version of the jihads of the Islamicists. Now, Christianity is for the most part peace loving, wereas Muslims keep destroying. When is the last time you heard a "Christian" nation declare total war or jihad against an entire region of the world? Actually, when is the last time you heard of a "Christian" nation? I'm drawing a blank here. I know that a lot of what I said has already been stated by some people, but I felt that some of it warrented restating.

NAS

Based purely on history, islam has spread insidiously throughout the world. Typically, it has gone (in most countries) something like this:

1) Slow, but steady influx into a country. Situation is peaceful
2) Usually have 4-6 children, so breed faster than indiginous populous
3) Become the majority. Take over by force, and create a muslim state.

The evidence is all around, all north african countries were islam'ised this way (not to mention rape, pillage and taking the natural peoples of the country off in slavetrains, a practice which still exists today). Palestine is a major example of them trying to take over. Saddam was going to give them Kuwait, they all went over there, we kicked his ass, the Kuwaities killed off lots of them, and they tried to go back to the same areas they came from. They then make inroads into Israel and try to say that parts of Israel were theirs too. They have doubled the population since returning even 20 years ago, and the Israelis are in for a shock if they dont boot them out. They tried it on in Uganda, but Mr Amin did the only smart thing of his life and got rid of all of them. They moved into the spoils of the Ottoman empire in turkey, turning that into a muslim state.

And now they are in the United Kingdom.

Yes, most are peaceful. Yes, most condemn these attacks. But we must wake up and end this politically correct blindness. The evidence is all around in the world that even though the small elements (the people) of islam are peaceful, the grand picture is that islam is a huge, lumbering behemoth, intent purely on gain and domination, and if we dont stand against it, it will enslave us all.

Based purely on history, islam has spread insidiously throughout the world. Typically, it has gone (in most countries) something like this:

1) Slow, but steady influx into a country. Situation is peaceful
2) Usually have 4-6 children, so breed faster than indiginous populous
3) Become the majority. Take over by force, and create a muslim state.
That is totally untrue.

Just like Christianity, Islam went through a long phase of military conquests and violent takeovers, through the middle ages and renaissance.
First by the Arabs (7th century), then by the Persians (8th century), the Berberes/Kabyles (8th century), Turks (12th century).
In the far east and in sub-saharan Africa, Islam was spread by missionaries and merchants, until it reached modern-day Malaysia and Indonesia to the east; Zanzibar to the south.
Islam reached its natural geographical expansion around the 15th-16th century. After that, it consolidated for a while... clashed with Christianity... and experience a decline in its political/military power.

So your three points are totally unrelated to major historic events.

Quoting The NAS Rebels:
You do know that when Christianity was founded and for about 300 or 400 years afterwards, all Christians were Pacifists. Thats why they didnt try and fight back when the Romans were throwing them into the lions' dens. The early Christians only abandoned their Pacifism after the elders of the religion came together and discussed it for days, because many felt that if they took up arms they would be abandoning the Way that Jesus taught. However, they finally realised that if they did not defend themselves then they would be annihlated by the Barbarians who were tearing through the Roman Empire. From that point until the Middle Ages, Christians did the same thing many of the Muslims are doing now, using religion to justify tourture and . The Crusades were more about military strategy and economics than religion, but religion was used to justify it. Basically, the Crusades were the Christian version of the jihads of the Islamicists. Now, Christianity is for the most part peace loving, wereas Muslims keep destroying. When is the last time you heard a "Christian" nation declare total war or jihad against an entire region of the world? Actually, when is the last time you heard of a "Christian" nation? I'm drawing a blank here. I know that a lot of what I said has already been stated by some people, but I felt that some of it warrented restating.

And once the Romans converted to Christianity, imagine how they mistreated the pagans. The Crusades had nothing to do with economics or strategy. The region could never have been effectively held, because of the distance and resources required to maintain and reach it, and resupply it, as well as its proximity to the Arab heartlands. In case you didn't know, a certain Pope made calls for a Crusade into the Holy Land, which sparked the whole movement. Thus, religion played the integral role in the military movement of the early second millenium.

Christianity is not, for the most part, peace loving. Christians are killing Arabs in the Middle East, and America, which is for the most part, Christian, suffers the highest rate of murder and death by firearms and other weapons. No country matches us.

The last time I heard a "Christian" nation declare total war.... Let's think a moment. Germany, a mostly Lutheran country... "We will kill or displace all the Slavic untermenschen". As for total war, you said "Christian" nation. Considering no "Islamic" nation is in a state of total war today, your ambiguity eludes your grasp.

Quoting Nationalist Mongolia:
Hideki Tojo was an avowed christian? You might want to inform the historical community, they had it all backwards, they thought he was Shintaoist. Go show them the error of there ways.

Hitler too? Yeah real christian fella there if "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure." is any indication.

The Japanese did not start the Second World War. Perhaps you should learn some basic modern history before posting a response as stupid as that. As for Hitler, he was still a registered Catholic, although for political means. Most of Germany was still Lutheran/Catholic even though a few million were Nazi Party members. Since Hitler was not actively known in any religion or established idea, besides perhaps Darwinism and extreme Germanic-superiority, he could be effectively called a Christian, despite contradictory statements made by him. If you read Mein Kampf, he does make pro-Christian statements. But as you pointed out, he was not very "Christian" in nature, and any Christian statements were made by him purely for political gain.

Yeah I've noticed you're a bit of a grammer NAZI. I'm sorry I missed a puncuation mark somewhere but please don't get your panties in a wad over it.
And I am not Christian nor am I fundamentilist. If you detected my so subtle sarcasm then why did you proceed in elucidating the obvious in regards to my comment on nukes? I merely wanted to engage in discussion. I don't recall ever insulting your intellegence. Mabye you should try to be a bit more civilized in your responses.
I'm sorry "saddle of progress", whatever. When people heatedly speak of Christians and their horrible legacy they seem to leave out things like the Magna Carta, The Renaissance, the Enlightnment, etc. You have to see things in more than black and white, otherwise you are no better than the religous fundamentalists.
Your a viking? Me too! and the rest of northern and western europe.
Damn Norwegians!

I merely wanted to engage you in conversation as well. I simply pointed out errors and things that made no sense, if you took offense, you took it the wrong way. I am civilized, which is why I respond at all. However, in case you aren't aware, there is a rule concerning no personal attacks. You could be banned for calling me a "NAZI", but I really don't care. Just keep your comments on a debate-basis and nothing will go wrong.

The first response, I was annoyed at the fact you had no question, yet seemed to start asking one. I tend to view that kind of behavior as either not-being-able-to-use-my-first-language-properly, or as matter-of-factly-rude. Understand? After all, you took offense when I echoed the very things you said, do you not think you offended me with your original words?

I don't recall seeing you post anything on "nukes", I did make a post in response to someone else talking about nuclear war. Show me where you posted something about "nukes" in response to me, so it can be properly elucidated.

In regards to my comments on Christianity, they were made to show that the comments made in which Islam is seemingly villified are hypocritical. If you didn't get the message, read it again.

I'm in favour of ending terrorism, not Islam.

The problem with Islam(oh boy ;) ) is it has forgotten it's past.

They have the Religion part down pretty good. They have forgotten the math, science, business and art that they once did well.

Educate the people and the violence will greatly reduce.
I agree.

Three Things. One do we even know it was Muslims who bombed London? Most likley it was however are we sure? Second Do we have any right to judge Islam in this way. Should i say all christians need to reform their religon because of what the Nazis did durring World War 2 with the support of more than a Few Catholic Priests/Bishops. Should we flush christianity down the Hole Because of what we Did durring The Crusades?

3rdly although i was raised catholic, I no longer consider myself Catholic Because i think the majority of Organized Religon is Simply a Hoax trying to twist people fears and hopes to gain more power. The Catholic Church Personified this Durring the middle Ages. It is very much what many Islam religons are doing now. Because they dislike the west they are whiping people into a frenzy saying the west is unclean blah blah blah for allah. However this is What the Catholic church did durring the crusades

Sorry Miodrag. We have the 1st Amendment.
Considering Christians have started both World Wars, it sounds like Christianity is fighting orientated.
Christianity had nothing to do with the world wars.

Sorry Miodrag. We have the 1st Amendment.

"WE" do NOT have anything of the sort. We do not live in a country where anything called "1st amendment" exists. Perhaps you do, but that is your own problem.

Since Buddhism definitely does not support the idea that there are many Gods, and since the only "deity" in the Buddhist pantheon is Buddha himself.

Obviously, you haven't got even the vaguest idea of the even most elementary postulates of Buddhism. Buddhism is NOT monotheistic in doctrine and Mahayana is not monotheistic even in practice (but Teravada is, against the genuine teaching of the Buddha himself).

Are you aware, Miodrag, that Jewish women in the time of the Bible were supposed to call their husbands the hebrew equivalent of Master, and yet Judaism isn't what you said?

It is quite obvious that you yourself are unaware that women in most countries of the world -- including the Anglo-Saxon world -- had to call their husbands "Master" (or at least "Sir") until the 18th century, and they continue to do so in certain regions nowadays.

Besides, this "point" you made is totally irrelevant. I had already said quite clearly that monotheism encourages patriarchy (= misogyny).

Islam=exclusively fighting oriented? By the way, the word is "orientated". Perhaps you should learn to use better grammar when trying to make a point. Islam is not fighting orientated. Considering Christians have started both World Wars, it sounds like Christianity is fighting orientated.

If you tried to develop your capacity to understand what is written, you might -- in a few years, perhaps -- master the meaning of my sentence that perplexed you.

1. I said "jihad" means "fighting".
2. I also said that monotheistic idelogies (a.k.a. monotheistic "religions") are all bellicose.
3. your igorance that in English -- BTW, only one of 8 languages I speak and by no means most important one -- the verb exists BOTH as "to orient (oneself)" AND as "to orientate (oneself)" is just that -- your ignorance.

Bon? What the hell is Bon?

It is a quasi-monotheistic religion just like Buddhism. Get yourself an encyclopaedia.

Humanity can survive without having a government outlaw religion. By the way, it won't happen.

"By the way", you have no knowledge of what shall and what shan't happen. And humanity can survive equally well with religion being outlawed or not. And moroever I never said that it should be the government that should outlaw it. It can be the thought police of the Illuminati or the bag snatching gang members.

There will always be poverty in this world, and there will always be class stratification. There has always been, and always will be. Egalitarian notions that people are equal and that wealth should be distributed are delusional.

I never said anything about poverty, so this is coming totally out of the blue. I have no comment on this, because the fact that some people live in poverty has nothing to do with monotheism as opposed to a belief in many Gods and Goddesses.

You can't eradicate an idea. Few people agree with you, and those who do will be labelled delusional. Often, people like you end up in lunatic asylums.

Sure you can eradicate an idea. There was an idea the world over that slavery is permissible, and now it is gone, except in SM sex play. There was an idea for Germans to burn Jews in Auschwitz, but it is gone (for the most German, at the very least).

As for the "lunatic asylum", traditionalist, conservative, self-righteous people like yourself have more chances for that, especially during upheavals which they cannot cope with.

You also mean to say "Hinduism". I know how hard it must be for you to spell that simple word correctly.

No. Not at all. I didn't mean to spell so that retards who know no history would easily understand.

I meant to spell exactly as I did -- "Hindhoeism" -- just like Oxford and Merriam Webster spell this word, albeit listing the spelling as archaic, but NOT obsolete.

In short, your opinion is completely laughable. Nothing more needs to be said.

In short -- though much longer than you probably deserve -- you are despicable.

Anyway...

Hear! Hear! :D

Are you implying that the Hindu ,Chinese, Japanese, and African civilizations have never waged war or built empires through conquest?


Not at all, Japan obviously was quite warlike nation in the XXth century.

What I am saying, though, is that religions that do not purport that there exists ONE SINGLE truth nor that it is only members of that SPECIFIC religion that have an EXCLUSIVE right to interpret that allegedly sole truth -- that such religions might be regarded as more tollerant overall than those who do all the above mentioned.

The Problem is not Islam, but a profound cultural divide that has sprung the west into collision once again with Islam.

The Problem is not Islam, but a profound cultural divide that has sprung the west into collision once again with Islam.
Yeah and a big part of this "cultural collision" is due to the fact that the Islamic states sit on top of the world's largest reserves of oil.

Where did you read that?
In Spain, in the Byzantine Empire, in most of the places conquered by Muslim armies... Islam-friendly tax incentives were used to convert people. "So you still want to be a Christian? A Jew? OK, but you'll pay +50% taxes and you have to send your first-born son to the army." People who wanted to do business, or to make have a easier life, converted... eventually. Or after 2-3 generations.
That's, really, how it worked before the 20th century, in Islam. Call it nasty, unfair, or inhuman... it proved to be MUCH more effective than the "convert or die" approach.

lmfao.
lets just reinvent history. :rolleyes:

lmfao.
lets just reinvent history.
So you haven't studied history much, heh?

The extra tax was called the "jizya" and was applied to all non-Muslims. It was an economic incentive for conversion to Islam. And a way to "milk the conquered people".

In Spain, for example, Jews and Christians were allowed to keep their religion only if they paid the jizya tax. Merchants often converted to Islam in order to increase their profit margin (which would have been too thin with the jizya). Over a few generations, an important part of the population had converted to Islam.

In the Ottoman empire (especially in the Balkans), conquered people had to pay the jizya, but they also had to give their first-born male to the army; they were raised by the state to form the "janissaries" elite troops. Which were sometimes used to quell rebellions... in their home region!

So you haven't studied history much, heh?
The extra tax was called the "jizya" and was applied to all non-Muslims. It was an economic incentive for conversion to Islam. And a way to "milk the conquered people".
In Spain, for example, Jews and Christians were allowed to keep their religion only if they paid the jizya tax. Merchants often converted to Islam in order to increase their profit margin (which would have been too thin with the jizya). Over a few generations, an important part of the population had converted to Islam.
In the Ottoman empire (especially in the Balkans), conquered people had to pay the jizya, but they also had to give their first-born male to the army; they were raised by the state to form the "janissaries" elite troops. Which were sometimes used to quell rebellions... in their home region!

Its good to see whether you realise it or not, that you used the term 'conquered people.'
And I have studied history, and Islam is not the missionary religon you paint it out to be, it is a cold brutal faith, followed sheeplike by its supporters.
The way it treats women too, makes me sick to my stomach, absolutely gutless.

Well it is slowly happening. Look at Indonesia. They have some powerhouse companies building. I forget the guys name but he is buying up power production all over the place and they automate the plants were only a token presense is needed.

Indonesians are largely adhering to Sufi Islam, which is more mystical and pacifist than the Wahabist Islam of Saudi Arabia and Talibani Afgahnistan.

Any culture that neglects and represses half of its population is backward in my opinion.

But it seems there are a few progressive muslim nations out there. The U.A.E. comes to mind and Kuwait. Mabye Bahrain and Qatar also. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I have seen women in these nations drive cars, own buisinesses, appear in public uncovered, etc.

Okay, I'm new here, so I'll probably get flamed, and I haven't read the entire thread, so I'm flamebait doubly so, but...

On the original topic:

Where there is religion, there are fanatics.
Where there is sport there are fanatics. Where there are movies stars there are fanatics. Fanaticism can be directed towards anything, not just a faith.


Christianity had the crusades. Not to mention the, last I checked, ongoing conflict between Irish catholics and Irish protestants.
The troubles have nothing to do with religion! It's a convenient labelling term, rather than saying Original Gaelic Irish (Catholic) and Descendents of Anglo-Scottish colonists (Protestants). A persons surname can put them in either camp.

The conflict goes back to the English conquest of Ireland, not the schism on Christianity.


Judaism (Israel) invented the 'preemptive reprisal' AKA, taking revenge for something that hasn't actually happened.
And what of Rome? Had Rome not been sacked by Gauls, it wouldn;t have embarked on it's "pre-emptive conquests" either. FEAR causes a nation or people to pre-emptively strike, not their religions faith. In Christianity, the presence of God, drives out fear.


Islam has the whole convert by the sword thing.

One rotten apple doesn't mean the whole batch is bad.


Hindu used to have ceremonies that involved not only human sacrifice, but a subsequent feast upon the flesh of the sacrifice.Hinduism is a pantheistic amalgam of many religions into a "all walks are true" kind of faith. Identical to "new age" in that manner actually.(Ironically). Thus there are many practices included under Hinduism, which are not indicative of every Hindu's life.


Buddhism has a reputation for being peaceful, but keep in mind that they invented a system wherein monks are trained to kill people efficiently with their bare hands. Also, Tibet and Japan were converted by force.
The Incans and the Aztecs performed human sacrifice.
Before the europeans came, there was a war going on between two native american tribes that had lasted for decades if not centuries.
There were Druidic sacrificial ceremonies.
Hell, even the Pagans have Rome and Sparta to answer for.

All reasons why I chose Christianity.


The only religions that have not been used as justification for killings en masse are the ones with no gods, and the ones that are simply too new to have enough of a following.Well, technically you've contradicted yourself, for I've read words of Buddha that urge people to NOT follow gods.

The "godless" faiths of Taosim and Confucianism merged with Buddhism to form the Chinese religion.


Hell, even some newer, small religions have gotten in a mass murder or mass suicide.

So Islam is no more evil than Christianity.
But that doesn't really say much, does it?

To determine what is more evil, one needs to look at the teachings of the faith, not the actions of a person who SAYS they are following that faith. One can easily see deviation from stated beliefs in that case.

The life of Jesus was one of selfless sacrifice to the point of dying for his friends, and any who would accept his atonement. Including yourself. Jesus died for you, so that you could live eternally.

Muhammad on the other hand waged war, razed cities and killed combatants to create a physical kingdom on this planet (rather than Jesus spiritual kingdom).

You can thus compare both men's teaching and lives (for both are the relevent exemplars followed) when determining which faith is "more good" rather than looking with confusion on the hypocritical actions of purported followers. Including my own hypocrisy. ;)

But it seems there are a few progressive muslim nations out there. The U.A.E. comes to mind and Kuwait. Mabye Bahrain and Qatar also. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I have seen women in these nations drive cars, own buisinesses, appear in public uncovered, etc.

And what about Indonesia!!??!! It's already been mentioned.

Gosh, are people reading previous posts or not?

Indonesia is easily the worlds largest Islamic nation, is Sufi, is very progressive as it's had females running the country, driving cars and engaged in all levels of life.

(All quotes are from Miodrag)
"WE" do NOT have anything of the sort. We do not live in a country where anything called "1st amendment" exists. Perhaps you do, but that is your own problem.

Yes. My problem is that my country has a constitutional amendment that strongly supports the freedom of expression, in an obviously sane and reasonable manner.

Obviously, you haven't got even the vaguest idea of the even most elementary postulates of Buddhism. Buddhism is NOT monotheistic in doctrine and Mahayana is not monotheistic even in practice (but Teravada is, against the genuine teaching of the Buddha himself).

If you hadn't taken my words out of context, you would have seen this: "Since Buddhism definitely does not support the idea that there are many Gods, and since the only "deity" in the Buddhist pantheon is Buddha himself, considering he is the only being revered and holy above all else, it can be classified as spiritualistic monotheism.", which explains itself. After all, it is not polytheistic, or animism, and "spiritual" is far too ambiguous. In the context of Buddha being the first to transcend, and revered, he is a non-deity in their religion.

...Islam is exclusively jihad=fighting oriented.

OK, jihad was perhaps not meant to be exclusively war, but a fight against failures, imperfections, whatnot, but that doesn't matter. Nowadays, it is a religion of war and must be discontinued...

v. or·i·ent·ed, or·i·ent·ing, or·i·ents (ôr-nt, r-)
v. tr.
To locate or place in a particular relation to the points of the compass: orient the swimming pool north and south.

To locate or position so as to face the east.
To build (a church) with the nave laid out in an east-west direction and the main altar usually at the eastern end.
To align or position with respect to a point or system of reference: oriented the telescope toward the moon; oriented her interests toward health care.
To determine the bearings of.

Again, you should have used the word "orientated". You said "Islam is exclusively jihad=fighting oriented". Another note, when you try to criticize my grammar, you probably don't want to use this sentence: "your igorance that in English". It wasn't just the one word you didn't spell right.

It is quite obvious that you yourself are unaware that women in most countries of the world -- including the Anglo-Saxon world -- had to call their husbands "Master" (or at least "Sir") until the 18th century, and they continue to do so in certain regions nowadays.

Why would I discuss Anglo-Saxons when the topic on hand was the immediate Jewish situation? Care to provide evidence of any Anglo-Saxon regions still requiring women to call their husbands the equivalent of "Master" or "Sir"? ("had to call their husbands 'Master'... and they still continue to do so in certain regions...")

"By the way", you have no knowledge of what shall and what shan't happen. And humanity can survive equally well with religion being outlawed or not. And moroever I never said that it should be the government that should outlaw it. It can be the thought police of the Illuminati or the bag snatching gang members.

I have no knowledge of what "shall and what shan't happen"? Coming from someone who said "At the end of this century, if it is to survive, humanitymust embrace polytheistic values."?

Of course humanity can survive despite religion bans or not. But what you just said contradicts your original statement.

Regarding government, I assumed your idea was for government to ban the monotheistic religions, considering it is the real only centralized power in the world capable of even remotely conducting such an operation. Care to provide proof of your thought police or Illuminati or "bag snatching gang members", though I'm sure the last quote was purely sarcasm out of you? You aren't Winston Smith, you know.

Sure you can eradicate an idea. There was an idea the world over that slavery is permissible, and now it is gone, except in SM sex play. There was an idea for Germans to burn Jews in Auschwitz, but it is gone (for the most German, at the very least).

As for the "lunatic asylum", traditionalist, conservative, self-righteous people like yourself have more chances for that, especially during upheavals which they cannot cope with.

The idea of slavery has not been eradicated. And you took me out of context yet again. I referred to religion. Considering I can think about the Jews who burned in Auschwitz, that idea has not been eradicated also. Most of its supporters have since abandoned their support, but the idea has not been "eradicated". Only in a 1984-esque Newspeak-language sense could an idea ever be eradicated, through a process of unthinkability. I particularly enjoy Dominating. You should try it.

I never said anything about poverty, so this is coming totally out of the blue. I have no comment on this, because the fact that some people live in poverty has nothing to do with monotheism as opposed to a belief in many Gods and Goddesses.

You seemed to hint at underlying egalitarian notions. Most arguments against monotheism I have seen usually stem from anger over social situtations, which are blamed on the Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, Temples, etc. I'm sure you understand.

Interesting point you made on the archaic spelling of Hinduism, which you said as "Hindhoeism". After an extensive web search, I found that the archaic spelling is "Hindoeism". But very interesting, not even obsolete. Here in America, we don't spell it like that, nor get the chance to see alternate spellings.

In short, we both said harsh words. My opinion rests within my posts, as I'm sure yours does as well.

Originally Posted by Ouachitasas
But it seems there are a few progressive muslim nations out there. The U.A.E. comes to mind and Kuwait. Mabye Bahrain and Qatar also. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I have seen women in these nations drive cars, own buisinesses, appear in public uncovered, etc.



Originally Posted by Kalawak
And what about Indonesia!!??!! It's already been mentioned.

Gosh, are people reading previous posts or not?

Indonesia is easily the worlds largest Islamic nation, is Sufi, is very progressive as it's had females running the country, driving cars and engaged in all levels of life.

I would have to agree with Bahrain and Qatar. Although they have quite a ways to go with their own civil, judicial, and political rights development, they are a modernizing force. After all, Al Jazeera is located in their region.

Kalawak, not to pick on you, but he was stating what came to mind. He didn't set out to make a list of every possible progressive nation. And Indonesia has a ways to go as well, having several incidents recently of civil rights abuses. But you're certainly right about modernization. It just will take time.

Quoting Ouachitasas
Any culture that neglects and represses half of its population is backward in my opinion.

I would agree that any culture that does practice that is certainly not democratic, but that doesn't make it necessarily backwards.

Yeah and a big part of this "cultural collision" is due to the fact that the Islamic states sit on top of the world's largest reserves of oil.

"Congratulations. You're one step closer to reaching bottom." ;) I'd have to agree. The oil is seen as a lure to draw in Western cultural influence, which is exactly what the Arabs resent. Finally someone who understands.

Quoting Maggeh:
Christianity had nothing to do with the world wars.

No shit. I said "Christians".

*bump*

No shit. I said "Christians".

Anything else you want to blame us for?
The bread didnt arrive, must be those damn Christians again.

Its good to see whether you realise it or not, that you used the term 'conquered people.'
And I have studied history, and Islam is not the missionary religon you paint it out to be, it is a cold brutal faith, followed sheeplike by its supporters.
The way it treats women too, makes me sick to my stomach, absolutely gutless.
In another message about Islam, I explain the conquests that have happened between the 7th and 16th century. I've NEVER seen that Islam didn't go through a conquest frenzy.

But the whole idea that Islam spreads by "a highest birth rate" as someone has proposed in this thread, is historically inaccurate. This is just a 20th-21th century trend. That's why I posted this message in the first place.

Anything else you want to blame us for?
The bread didnt arrive, must be those damn Christians again.

I was making a point.

"Us." Meaning you are Christian. Is it Christianly to take someone out of context like you did, and use ambiguous meanings to insult? No, and I don't appreciate it. If you have something to say, why not say it where someone can respond back intellectually? I could easily directly insult you. But what's the point of doing so? No one important enough cares.

Considering the amount of people on here resort to smart-ass quips, I wouldn't expect anything on the lines I requested.

Quoting Miodrag
In short -- though much longer than you probably deserve -- you are despicable.

This is a personal attack, and I strongly recommend removing it or face deletion. I kept my debate to a nonpersonal level, I expect the same out of you.

*bump*

Fanatics.

The problem about Islam is that there's too many fanatics in the muslim world.