Whenever I hear the word Islam or Muslim, it is usually followed by the word death, killed, bombed, massacred, slaughtered, etc. It seems to me that the only thing that Muslims enjoy in life is dying and killing. I simply can’t understand how someone could live such a life.
Well, you have to expect that when Western forces are occupying Islamic countries and killing people. If it upsets you so much, don’t read newspaper reports about what the Western forces are doing.
Or don’t associate with people whose solution to the problem of some Muslims’ aggression is to wish death on all Muslims.
Then how do you explain about 1.5 billion Muslims still being alive right now?
The vast majority of them don’t.
You got it right, the only thing you don’t realize in your naivity is that Mohammed already figured that out 1400 years ago. That’s the reason he founded that “religion” in the first place, the same reason for all sect leaders to this very day, the latest relatively successfull one being L Ron Hubbard with Scientology. And that is the birth defect that distinguishes Islam from the true religions that still exist on this planet (Buddism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Animism), who actually (at least initially) focused on the irrational spiritual needs of individuals to believe in some divine power. 2 of them have an actually known founder and both didn’t use their message for personal gains, contrary to Mohammed.
Islam is not being defiled by extremists, it is being used exactly as intended by its founder, as means of worldly power. Face it, Violence is a birth defect of Islam, through the centuries muslims wiped out 99% of the christians who were the majority population in every single country from northern Africa to Iran and the reason was always the same, the christians didn’t answer muslim violence in kind until it was too late. Same can be said about the other religions in asia, they face the same problem with Islam.
Oh? Where was the Muslim violence in Al-Andalus?
And what of the Islamic Renaissance that was wiped out by the crusades? Where would we be if the Islamic scholars hadn’t rescued the Greek philosphers from European obscurity?
And the Crusades weren’t a reaction to Islamic aggression - the were homogenising series of conflicts, dictated by the Papal authorities against Muslims, Jews, other non-Catholic christian groups and anyone else who stood in teh way of Vatican power.
And before throwing accusations of “inherent aggression” in any religion, examine all of them - the evangelical trend exists in all of them, and the rationale for this can be found in Christianity too. The Islamic faith may have fought against “non-believers” but they saw Christianity and Judaism as “of the book”, i.e. monotheistic religions coming from the same source, and over many periods of Islamic history, these groups were protected in the various Islamic empires.
Oh, so now we’re going to bring the Pope into it? 
We’re talking about the current office holder who says that condoms increase AIDS; who ain’t doing anything to get serious with priests fucking children for the past half century, and probably a lot longer; and who is restoring a Holocaust-denying bishop to office.
I can’t imagine why any Muslim might think that the Pope and his crew lack a degree of moral authority :rolleyes: when the Pope criticised Islam by saying:
“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
I say:
“Show me what the Catholic Church brought that was new by institutionalising the sexual abuse of children and by the bishops, cardinals and popes protecting those vile criminals and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as the Church’s tolerance and protection of pederasts who were and still are in the heart of the Church right up to the Pope, who has done fuck all about it because he is too busy promulgating bullshit about condoms, AIDS, Holocaust-denying bishops, and other absurdly ridiculous ornaments of the living Catholic faith.” :rolleyes: :evil:
This is almost completely horseshit, because it fails to account for the vast majority of Muslims, and Muslim societies, that are relatively peaceful, prosperous, and tolerant…
If someone were making the crass generalizations equivalent to yours on Judaism here, they would be banned from this site in short order…
It’s getting a little old at this point. We have at least one member here who is a Muslim, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t appreciate being likened to a death cult-member as I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t appreciate everyone referring to you as a “Nazi” simply because you’re a German national…
Consider this an informal warning. You have the right to your opinion here. But I am pretty sure you are not a theology nor seminary student. What you do not have the right to do is disparage an Abrahamic religion with conspiratorial affirmations without very specific evidence…
Including Abraham and Jesus Christ, the leaders of trivial sects a long time ago?
What reason distinguishes one prophet (or in my view one deluded person, whether prophet or adherent) from another?
Do tell about Animism as one of the ‘true’ religions.
And about the features which distinguish a ‘true’ religion from the rest.
Yes, well, that’s certainly unique to Islam.
Unlike, say, Christianity which has a divine power which meets the rational needs of individuals who are able to demonstrate the existence of that power to objective observers who do not share their belief.
Unlike, say, centuries of Catholic Popes who, when not busy fucking their concubines, denying their bastard children, and otherwise defiling their office, exercised their power to increase the wealth of Rome, being their wealth.
Evidence?
It’s how they got there in the first place and every non muslim was subject to massive discrimination.
Short answer is they didn’t, I already wrote about that in an earlier post.
Yeah, let’s forget the 300 year killing spree prior to the crusades.
Where exactly in the new testament can that be found?
Right, that’s why christians in turkey, iran, iraq, egypt etc. today only comprise tiny fractions of the population, when they started out with 99% in all those regions.
I actually meant Buddha and Jesus. So make that 3.
Nothing. The only difference was, those two weren’t violent, neither is their message, that was the point.
One whose original purpose is spiritual in nature and only spiritual.
You place too much emphasis on irrational, of course christianity is as irrational as any other belief. Read the sentence without it to get my actual point.
Since when did Popes found a new religion? They used it for their gains, no doubt about it, Jesus didn’t really get that much out of it, though, quite the contrary, if you believe the story.
Fair enough, would you care to point them out to me?
Massive? Considering almost all historians show that in the Middle Ages, non-Muslims were accorded a much greater status by Muslims than non-Christians in Christian lands, I find your grasp of that period’s history woeful. This is just one example of the historical analysis that proves my point (and before you throw the fact that non-Muslims were “heavily” taxed may I remind you that Jews were not only heavily taxed by the Christian states in Europe, but the were often then expelled so as not to repay any loans that the rulers may have taken out from them - for example King John and the expulsion of the jews from England):
http://libro.uca.edu/ics/ics5.htm
The Koran – a syncretistic book with elements drawn from Judaism and Christianity – envisioned a polity which was stratified along religious lines. This was an accurate representation of Arabian society in the time of Muhammad, when pagan Arab tribes coexisted with Christian and Jewish ones. Thus the Koran describes a society dominated by Muslims (assumed to be Arabs), with provision made for approved religious minorities, characterized as dhimmis (“protected” peoples) or “People of the Book” (those with a revealed scripture recognized by Muslims as divinely inspired – that is, Christians and Jews). When the Arabs burst forth from the Arabian peninsula and extended control over great numbers of non-Arab, non-Muslim peoples, they found themselves obliged to encompass this vast religious and ethnic diversity within the Koranic framework, as further defined and elaborated in the growing corpus of Islamic law.
The meticulous legal structuring of social and economic relationships between the dominant Muslims and the subordinate Christians and Jews who found themselves within the Empire underlies the generally harmonious interaction of religious groups in the Islamic middle ages. Dhimmis suffered civil and legal disabilities in comparison with Muslims, but they also enjoyed the security that inhered in formal juridical status. Three ramifications of this status are particularly relevant to the situation of Christians and Jews in al-Andalus. First, by accepting status as dhimmis, members of religious minorities were effectively excluded from participation in political power. Although, under special and always temporary conditions, Christians and Jews did attain considerable political power, the only way to achieve substantial upward mobility in the society at large was to convert to Islam. Second, the system had built-in inducements to assimilation in the form of tax incentives (exemption from the jizya or poll tax) for those who converted. Third, the formal recognition of religious differences meant that Islamic society sanctioned among religious minorities a relatively high degree of cultural enclosure. That is, by granting the persistence of the primary factor that made peoples distinct from one another --religion – Islamic society put less pressure on religious minorities to accept its values than it placed upon non-Arab Muslims.
You may find it advisable to read the entire article carefully to understand the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims in their empires.
Having written about something before does not make it correct
Yeah, let’s forget the 300 year killing spree prior to the crusades.
I’m quite happy to discuss the 300 year “killing spree”. For every war and conflict sho highlight, I am able to provide on for Christian Europe
Where exactly in the new testament can that be found?
Christianity isn’t just built on teh New Testament - Christians have, and will, use teh Old Testament when it is conveniant to do so, especially when acting aggressively
Right, that’s why christians in turkey, iran, iraq, egypt etc. today only comprise tiny fractions of the population, when they started out with 99% in all those regions.
That is most facetious arguement yet. Are you saying that Christianity always existed in Europe, Africa, the Americas, Austral-Asia etc? Or did it surplant pre-existing belief systems?
Even if there were places and times in europe where christians treated non christians worse than muslims non muslims, the significant point for today is, the christian world has evolved since then, whereas the majority of muslims still impose 1400 year old standards in their realms. And last time I checked Sharia is unalterable, so it is highly undesirable for me to see even a tiny bit of it realized in the western world. You need to nip things in the bud, every accomodation only allows this archaic system to gain a foothold here.
That’s why I wonder that you basically repeat your statement here. Next thing you’ll probably tell me is that muslims invented the numbers.
Ok, let’s compare the first 300 years of christianity to the first 300 years of islam and count all wars against non-believers of each faith.
I’ll start:
-
624 battle of Badr , expulsion of the Banu Qainuqa
-
625 battle of Uhud, expulsion of the Banu Nadir
-
627 battle of the trench; Banu Quraiza massacred
-
629 attack on the byzantian garrison Muta
-
630 Mohammed reaches Mekka, breaching a peace treaty with the Kureish from 628, massacres them
-
630 siege of Ta´if and Tabuk.
-
Nov 633 battle of Zumail
-
634: raid on Gaza and Caesarea 4000 christian, jewish and samaritan peasants die
-
636 persians are being defeated near Quadisiya on the western riverbank of the eurphrates
-
637 the city of Ktesiphon, center of the christian church in persia, conquered and razed. The city doesn’t exist anymore, it would be 35km southeast of baghdad.
-
639: al-Bahnasa(egypt), cities of Faiyum, Abwait, Nikiu: Entire non muslim population murdered
-
639/640 conquest of the byzantian fortress of Farma
-
17.Sep 641 Alexandria pillaged, christian philosophers school destroyed, muslims find ivory containers with greek and latin books. (Btw. If muslims allegedly saved the greek knowledge, how did it manage to survive the couple of hundred years before muslims even arrived at the world stage?)
-
642: conquest of Dvin: population extinguished.
-
642 victory against the persians near Nehawend in Medien
-
642 Libya, byzantian city of Pentapolis is conquered, the population forced to either convert or pay the Jizya
-
643 Tripolis destroyed
-
649 Istachr (residence of the Sassanides) conquered and razed.
-
650 attack on Euchaita (today: Armenia)
-
703 first attacks on Syracus(Italia)
-
711 Tarik ben Ziyad attacks the iberian peninsula
-
711 muslim troops under Muhammad Kassim reach Kabul
-
712 Musa conquers Sevilla and Mérida
-
712 Salamanca conquered and pillaged
-
725 Autun pillaged
-
728- 734 further attacks on Syracus(Italia)
-
732 got their asses kicked near Tours and Poitiers
-
734 Avignon conquered Rhone valley pillaged
-
737 second push to the north in france, got their asses kicked again, lost Avignon
-
781 Ephesus pillaged, 7000 greeks kidnapped to slavery
-
793 Narbonne set aflame
-
795 Astorga conquered.
-
813 Nizza pillaged
-
ca. 828: island of aegina in the gulf of korinth raided, inhabitants either killed or enslaved
-
829 Centumcellae (Italy) razed
-
831 Palermo conquered, only 3000 of 70000 inhabitants survive the attack
-
832 Marseille pillaged
The list is incomplete and it’s only 200 years, but I am too lazy now.
I wonder: When was the last time christians have actually fought a war against non christians for at least partially religious reasons?
Of course they surplanted pre-existing belief systems and they also used a shitload of violence, particularly in the americas, the whole point of argument here is when each religion started to use violence and how it affects the reality of each group today.
And contrary to islam, the christian society didn’t start with blood, it evolved to violence, mostly because church leaders started to also wield political power, and then away from it once they lost that again. Islam started out with violence and since it is also a complete sociopolitical system I doubt it will ever evolve away from it.
So, to summarise your position, you have an antipathy towards religions founded upon violence and aggression. Correct?
In that case what about Sikhism. It’s very tennants subscribe it’s members to wear the Five Ks - Kesh (uncut hair), Kara (a steel bracelet), Kanga (a wooden comb), Kaccha (cotton underwear), and Kirpan (steel sword). It was created in the midst of aggression and war, it developed through war and violence and its holy book and gurus advocated the taking up of arms. Do you have the same level of disgust for us?
Correct, if the intrinsic violence is still an issue in todays world. But it’s not that alone. For me, with Islam it’s the entire basket of violence on all levels, subliminal and open, in- and outward, discrimination against anything not male hetero muslim(women, non believers, apostates), the eternal combination of politics and religion through sharia (which is on the rise in the entire muslim world), the general backwardness of islamic societies on all levels, which is imho no coincidence, but causally linked to their foundation in islam.
And not the least their insolence of voluntarily coming to us and instead of adopting to our standards trying to establish spaces where they unchangedly apply theirs. This is nothing short of a land grab which I bet in time will be dealt with accordingly.
You can wear whatever you like, as long as it is actually your free decision and not imposed on you by anyone. Sword is a no go here though.
And could you elaborate what you mean “developed through war” and advocate the “taking up of arms”? Is there a sense of mission to spread the faith using violence? I don’t know anything about Sikhism but the few snippets I found didn’t convey that impression. I read about overcoming egoism and the rejection of priesthood because everyone has the innate potential to commune with god. Particularly the last part pretty much makes all the difference to me, since it allows for scrutinization and saves your faith from being institutionalized for worldly purposes with all the negative consequences (like with the catholic church and the pope a couple of hundred years after the foundation of christianity).
And I couldn’t find any hint that either of the first 3 gurus lead any aggressive wars, so I don’t think your religion qualifies for “founder was aggressive”.
Just like orthodox Christian or Judaic cultures then - both patriachal hiearachies. And while we are at it - what about the Jewish religion? Isn’t that based upon violence. One of the earliest acts against humans was the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden. And who’s brother killed who? And which tribe tried to eradicate another? I take it converting people and ruling over them is bad but genocide isn’t
And by backwardness what standards do you use? The same backwardness that would excommunicate doctors and parents for assisting a nine year child gaining an abortion after she had been raped? Or do you mean educational backwardness? Or economic? Becauise there are as many Christian nations that have low attainments in both
And not the least their insolence of voluntarily coming to us and instead of adopting to our standards trying to establish spaces where they unchangedly apply theirs. This is nothing short of a land grab which I bet in time will be dealt with accordingly.
500 years of European colonialism and you have the audacity to say that?
You can wear whatever you like, as long as it is actually your free decision and not imposed on you by anyone. Sword is a no go here though.
Why thank you, I appreciate your generous gesture
And could you elaborate what you mean “developed through war” and advocate the “taking up of arms”? Is there a sense of mission to spread the faith using violence?
Less so than Christianity, that’s for sure
I don’t know anything about Sikhism but the few snippets I found didn’t convey that impression.
Snippets seem to be your basis for your arguement against Muslims so why should that stop you now
I read about overcoming egoism and the rejection of priesthood because everyone has the innate potential to commune with god. Particularly the last part pretty much makes all the difference to me, since it allows for scrutinization and saves your faith from being institutionalized for worldly purposes with all the negative consequences (like with the catholic church and the pope a couple of hundred years after the foundation of christianity).
Infact theological scrutiny iss just as restrictive within orthodox Sikhism as any other. Sikhism is institutionalised, and no we do not have an form of priesthood that is comparable with priests, vicars, rabbis or imams, but there is a structure that exists that in everyday life that is no different.
And I couldn’t find any hint that either of the first 3 gurus lead any aggressive wars, so I don’t think your religion qualifies for “founder was aggressive”.
I am afraid that you will need to expand your horizens beyond snippets. Then you will understand that the 10 Gurus constitute a single continuity in the eyes of the Sikhs. The teachings of Nanak (the first Guru) is equal to the last (Gobind), and the ten Gurus combine with the Granth Sahib (the Holy Book) to make up the 11 teachers.
In the 20th century, it was a so-called Christian country that murdered over 6 million people merely because they were of a different faith.
If you are in fact referring to the Nazis, you should keep in mind that it wasn’t really based on ‘faith’ per se.
Not only did the Nazis try to abolish Christianity for something more ‘Germanic’, such as old paganism, but they also didn’t consider the Jews as a religious group. They thought of them as a Race (Kind of like the Zionists still do today, except they don’t want to kill themselves but rather kill others).
True, but now you have to compare the significance of each group within their respective societies and the effects that has on the aforementioned groups within their societies. Orthodox christians are not even a fraction of a fraction of the population in western europe (I guess in parts the US is still a bit different there, too) while in the muslim societies they are easily in the medium to high 2 digit percentage range.
Backwardness on all levels, educational, economic, social, political, cultural, compared to western europeans. And the south american excommunication thing is just as backwards, you got that right. Their societies aren’t on our level either, but when they come here they usually manage to bridge the gap.
Yes, since colonialism is a thing of the past and generally acknowledged as a very bad deed in europe.
In Christianity it is zero. That didn’t prevent the churches and their leaders from spreading the faith with violence, guess what happens when a faith actually commands violence and powerful clerics come into play.
The funny (and sad) thing is, that critics of islam are usually much better informed than those who defend it on some misplaced sense of solidarity.
2 simple facts about Islam:
- Quran is the unalterable word of god, it must not be interpreted nor changed. There are over 200 imperative calls to violence against various non muslims in it, which is a completely different thing than the violent parts of the bible, all of which are within allegorical stories, frozen in space and time. No calls to violence in the new testament, which actually is the foundation of christianity.
But it’s not just that this stuff is in the quran, it is the obvious fact that it is taken serious and not just by minorities. While only a couple of thousand worldwide may be actual terrorists, there are varying levels of general support of their positions in the majority population, even in europe, that is the problem.
- Mohammed was gods prophet, the perfect man, a normative example, devout muslims should emulate his actions in their daily life. I guess if you think really hard about it you can see how this is a problem in todays world.
That’s too bad for you.
So did they lead aggressive wars then or not and do you establish parallel societies in britain, cause my main problem is not what muslims do at home, but what some of them try to do at my home, and I can just repeat, I don’t just mean terrorists with my critics, as Nick always seems to think.
True, but they had a bet each way with the “Gott mit uns” belt buckle.
You still insist upon using the term muslim societies as if the the muslim worls is some sort of homogenous group. They are no more homogenous than the christian world. Socilogical and anthropological studies completely blow that arguement out of the water. Nigerian muslims are NOT the same as Malaysian, who in turn are not the same as Saudis, who are in turn not the same etc etc. The fact that some of their religious and cultural manifestations are similar does not negate the fact that there are equally relevant differences. Within those cultures there maybe groups who wish to develop some sort of orthodoxy but, again, that is no different from other religious groups.
Backwardness on all levels, educational, economic, social, political, cultural, compared to western europeans. And the south american excommunication thing is just as backwards, you got that right. Their societies aren’t on our level either, but when they come here they usually manage to bridge the gap.
I think this just highlights the sheer level of cultural arrogance in your arguements.
Leaving aside the arguement about religion, what right does Europe have to decide and dictate at what level a culture should be and why should be directly comparable with Europe and the West? Cultural “development” not linear. That sort of cultural arrogance, developed from so the so-called Enlightenment was demolished by host philosophers after the war - just look at the works the postmodernists, Foucault, the Frankfurt School, etc
Yes, since colonialism is a thing of the past and generally acknowledged as a very bad deed in europe.
Just because European nations do not physically occupy vast tracts of the planet does not mean that colonialism no longer exists. What about neo-colonialism, economic colonialsim, cultural colonialsim or spheres of influence?
The funny (and sad) thing is, that critics of islam are usually much better informed than those who defend it on some misplaced sense of solidarity.
Misplaced? What gives you the right to dictate who I can and cannot feel a sense of solidarity for?
2 simple facts about Islam:
- Quran is the unalterable word of god, it must not be interpreted nor changed.
Wrong!! The interpretation of the Koran is known as the Tafsir and has a tradition going back as far as days after Mohammad. And just like the Bible, there were a variety of versions of the Koran in the early days. Just like in Christianity, when the “orthodox” new testament was decided upon by the Councils in the 4th and 5th centuries, so was the Koran over time.
There are over 200 imperative calls to violence against various non muslims in it, which is a completely different thing than the violent parts of the bible, all of which are within allegorical stories, frozen in space and time. No calls to violence in the new testament, which actually is the foundation of christianity.
Oh - so where do these come from?
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword”
“He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”
But it’s not just that this stuff is in the quran, it is the obvious fact that it is taken serious and not just by minorities. While only a couple of thousand worldwide may be actual terrorists, there are varying levels of general support of their positions in the majority population, even in europe, that is the problem.
How is it that you are able to disassociate the actions of the christian religion from the actions of European people, when the very foundation of European cultures is Judeo-Christianity, with its deep roots in the laws, actions, beliefs etc of these cultures, but aren’t able to do so for Islamic nations and cultures?
If people are downtrodden, treated like crap by external agencies, and have no means of expressing their desperation, then yes, they will support and congratulate anyone who strikes a blow against their perceived oppressers. BTW it wasn’t only some of the peoples in Islamic nations who celebrated 9/11. There were celebrations and shouts of support across Latin American, and African nations. Read Tariq Ali’s Clash of Fundamentalisms
- Mohammed was gods prophet, the perfect man, a normative example, devout muslims should emulate his actions in their daily life. I guess if you think really hard about it you can see how this is a problem in todays world.
Why? Many Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists etc believe the same about their prophets
So did they lead aggressive wars then or not
Well they didn’t get their empire by saying pretty please
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_empire
and do you establish parallel societies in britain, cause my main problem is not what muslims do at home,
Every culture tries to create parallel societies - whether religous or not. The Jewish community in Edgeware have the Eruv for example. And what about the British enclaves in teh Costas of Spain?
but what some of them try to do at my home, and I can just repeat, I don’t just mean terrorists with my critics, as Nick always seems to think.
In your home? You mean your living room or kitchen? Because if you mean the wider space then it is their home too