Islam, bad religion?

[sphenodont]

Does the pope shit in the woods?

Probably not. He's got a pretty nice house, with working plumbing and all.

 

[CZroe]

1.6 billion to be exact.

If they all wanted us dead,.. we would probably all be dead.

To be exact, I doubt that is truly "exact."

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Countering these absolutes with lazy references to other religions in a bygone age accomplish little.

Shoving your head up your ass far enough to ignore what Christianity is STILL doing in the world accomplishes less.

 

[disappoint]

It is obviously the worst or the major religions by any meaningful measure. It is responsible for creating almost all of the religiously motivated of the world's terrorists, for example. It also, unlike most religions, condones violence against those who refuse to follow it. It demonstrably breeds a kind of violent fanaticism that other religions don't. Countering these absolutes with lazy references to other religions in a bygone age accomplish little.

Is that written in the Quran? I'd like to see a quote of that.

 

[sphenodont]

Is that written in the Quran? I'd like to see a quote of that.

To be fair, most of what Christianists believe is written in the Bible isn't there, either.

 

[Newell Steamer]

To be exact, I doubt that is truly "exact."

You are correct - 1.57 billion; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world

 

[Kadarin]

Is it a bad religion? I guess that depends on whether most Muslims are horrified by the events around Charlie Hedbo, or whether they honestly believe that the victims got what they deserved for insulting the Prophet and Islam.

A couple of things are clear: Islam as it is practiced currently inspires a lot of truly awful behavior in its name, and its values (as it is currently practiced) are hostile to ideals of freedom of speech and expression, and equality.

My belief is that the world would be a better place if Islam did not exist.

 

[sourceninja]

...

 

[Black Octagon]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...h-anjem-choudary-editorials-debates/21417461/

That very article says its author is a "radical Muslim cleric." Here's a more moderate view, on the question of whether Islam condones killing of 'infidels': http://www.justaskislam.com/32/does-islam-say-kill-the-infidels/

And another on jihad: http://www.justaskislam.com/50/could-someone-clarify-jihad-for-me/

And another on suicide bombings: http://www.justaskislam.com/55/is-suicide-bombing-ok-in-islam/

 

[Black Octagon]

The extremists are winning because we lack the convictions to stop them.

That, and maybe the fact that our continued interference in the Middle East gives the extremists the very 'evidence' they need to radicalise otherwise-moderate Muslims around the world

 

[ultimatebob]

The simple fact that the word "jihad" doesn't mean what most people think it means, including misguided zealots, is enough to to answer your own question.

Sorry, but it most people think that "Jihad" means "Holy war", then that's what it now means.

That's just how language works. Words change meaning over time, and tyranny of the majority rules.

Next you'll be telling me that the word Gay still means happy because some dictionary from the 1940's has it as a definition.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The difference between the westbro nut jobs and the muslim extremist nutjobs is that westbro isn't winning. They are not getting recruits and income at an insane pace, they don't have armies large enough to overrun towns and overturn governments in africa/middle east.

The extremists are winning because we lack the convictions to stop them.

That is a completely glib take on a very complicated subject.

Stopping radical Islam is not as simple as having "convictions." It's intrinsic to the faith of Islamic extremists to view the West as the Great Satan, and to feel as though dying as a martyr is not only worthwhile but something to be desired. This makes it nearly impossible to craft an approach that can be effective in watering down or eliminating Islamic extremism.

If we treat them harshly, we are, from their standpoint, waging a holy war against Islam, which will be a rallying cry in recruiting new members (the reports are that the men involved in the Charlie Hebdo attack were catalyzed to train with al Qaeda by seeing images of Abu Ghraib). If we treat them less harshly, they feel they have won and will continue to attempt to impose sharia law anywhere where there are Muslims in significant numbers. It's really a tricky nut to crack.

 

[justoh]

Shoving your head up your ass far enough to ignore what Christianity is STILL doing in the world accomplishes less.

Yeah. Obviously we have to treat them with equal disdain. Just 80 years ago catholicism was the most dangerous religion, through its open alignment with fascism and anti-semitism, to say nothing of all the harm later caused by mother theresa, the stupid bitch.

 

[Black Octagon]

Sorry, but it most people think that "Jihad" means "Holy war", then that's what it now means. .

Just because most people in the WEST think it means holy war doesn't mean that that's how Muslims feel about it. Did you read my earlier link?
http://www.justaskislam.com/50/could-someone-clarify-jihad-for-me/

I've discussed this with dozens of Muslims in my life, from educated and privileged ones at uni to the humble sandwich-shop owner down the road from my front door. Knowing what jihad means is a pretty fundamental aspect of calling yourself Muslim. Just because you or I probably never heard the term before 9/11 does NOT mean that it's in any way esoteric among Muslims.

 

[Black Octagon]

If we treat them harshly, we are, from their standpoint, waging a holy war against Islam, which will be a rallying cry in recruiting new members (the reports are that the men involved in the Charlie Hebdo attack were catalyzed to train with al Qaeda by seeing images of Abu Ghraib). If we treat them less harshly, they feel they have won and will continue to attempt to impose sharia law anywhere where there are Muslims in significant numbers. It's really a tricky nut to crack.

Agreed, but if we treat them less harshly then it's trickier for them to convince the moderate majority that we are some big enemy needing to be faught.

 

[SSSnail]

That is a completely glib take on a very complicated subject.

Stopping radical Islam is not as simple as having "convictions." It's intrinsic to the faith of Islamic extremists to view the West as the Great Satan, and to feel as though dying as a martyr is not only worthwhile but something to be desired. This makes it nearly impossible to craft an approach that can be effective in watering down or eliminating Islamic extremism.

If we treat them harshly, we are, from their standpoint, waging a holy war against Islam, which will be a rallying cry in recruiting new members (the reports are that the men involved in the Charlie Hebdo attack were catalyzed to train with al Qaeda by seeing images of Abu Ghraib). If we treat them less harshly, they feel they have won and will continue to attempt to impose sharia law anywhere where there are Muslims in significant numbers. It's really a tricky nut to crack.

Not really tricky, to be honest. They want to be martyrs, right? They want to be with their god? Let's help them along. All of them. Just form two lines - civilized citizens of the world, or the martyrs line... I don't have a god that I'm dying to see.

 

[Dirigible]

Yes. It is an evil religion.

 

[sourceninja]

...

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Yeah. Obviously we have to treat them with equal disdain. Just 80 years ago catholicism was the most dangerous religion, through its open alignment with fascism and anti-semitism, to say nothing of all the harm later caused by mother theresa, the stupid bitch.

Why do you have to go back 80 years? Yeah, the Vatican aligning with the fascists and Nazis in WWII was a major atrocity, but it's not like Christianity has cleaned up its act since then.

Mother Theresa was a star-fucking sadist
Missionaries are constantly spreading the gospel at swordpoint and wiping out other cultures
Northern Ireland is pretty recent.
Rwanda was mid 90s, Christians have the blood of about a million people on their hands for that one
Even more recently the Christians in Bosnia waged genocide on innocent muslims and slaughtered somewhere between a quarter million and half a million.

If a radical Islamist kills 12 it's a outrage while the Christians are racking up body counts that make 12 look like a disagreement at the Teddy Bears picnic. And you don't have to go into the distant past to find evidence that Christianity is far more dangerous and far more violent than radical Islam.

 

[disappoint]

That is a completely glib take on a very complicated subject.

Stopping radical Islam is not as simple as having "convictions." It's intrinsic to the faith of Islamic extremists to view the West as the Great Satan, and to feel as though dying as a martyr is not only worthwhile but something to be desired. This makes it nearly impossible to craft an approach that can be effective in watering down or eliminating Islamic extremism.

If we treat them harshly, we are, from their standpoint, waging a holy war against Islam, which will be a rallying cry in recruiting new members (the reports are that the men involved in the Charlie Hebdo attack were catalyzed to train with al Qaeda by seeing images of Abu Ghraib). If we treat them less harshly, they feel they have won and will continue to attempt to impose sharia law anywhere where there are Muslims in significant numbers. It's really a tricky nut to crack.

So you're saying it's possible.

Yeah. Obviously we have to treat them with equal disdain. Just 80 years ago catholicism was the most dangerous religion, through its open alignment with fascism and anti-semitism, to say nothing of all the harm later caused by mother theresa, the stupid bitch.

What harm caused by Mother Theresa? I really don't know what you're referring to and I don't have the inclination to read her entire biography to just get to that one part, so if you could disseminate just that it would be helpful, thanks.

 

[SunnyD]

Sorry, but it most people think that "Jihad" means "Holy war", then that's what it now means.

That's just how language works. Words change meaning over time, and tyranny of the majority rules.

Next you'll be telling me that the word Gay still means happy because some dictionary from the 1940's has it as a definition.

Unfortunately it's the people that are wrong. The meaning never changed, just a few idiots' interpretation of it.

For example the Quran defines a jihad as one's own struggle, or war if you will, of their own spiritual self with their faith. It is an person, internal thing. It can easily be seen where one can pervert this definition to suit it to be used as a tool for terrorism, thereby making jihad the equivalent of a crusade. But it should also be abundantly obvious that doing so is fundamentally wrong according to the Islamic faith, as jihad has nothing to do with anyone other than yourself and your faith in Islam itself.

Your example of gay on the other hand is completely different. Gay has been adopted as a valid slang word for homosexual orientation. There is no misinterpretation - it began as slang jargon and has been adopted into language as such.

For the record, I am not Muslim, not am I a practicing participant of any faith or religion.

 

[Markbnj]

That very article says its author is a "radical Muslim cleric." Here's a more moderate view, on the question of whether Islam condones killing of 'infidels': http://www.justaskislam.com/32/does-islam-say-kill-the-infidels/

And another on jihad: http://www.justaskislam.com/50/could-someone-clarify-jihad-for-me/

And another on suicide bombings: http://www.justaskislam.com/55/is-suicide-bombing-ok-in-islam/

The issue isn't really about whether or not they condone those sorts of acts. It's always a radical fringe doing that kind of stuff. The interesting question to me is whether in fact the principles of Islam are incompatible with civil liberty.

 

[maddogchen]

Question:
Islam, bad religion?

Answer:
Yes, because all religions are bad..mmmmkay???

 

[GagHalfrunt]

What harm caused by Mother Theresa? I really don't know what you're referring to and I don't have the inclination to read her entire biography to just get to that one part, so if you could disseminate just that it would be helpful, thanks.

Mother Theresa was a sadist, a star-fucker and a financial fraud. She positioned herself as a champion of the poor and sick and flew around the world kissing ass of the rich and famous, lived in the lap of luxury and collected money to supposedly go to ease the suffering of her "children". She actually spent the money on churches and publicity to glorify herself while doing pretty much nothing to help the people that she was using as a way to scam money. She intentionally and willfully allowed the suffering to keep suffering because she thought it was good for them and brought them closer to god.

 

[justoh]

Mother Theresa was a sadist, a star-fucker and a financial fraud. She positioned herself as a champion of the poor and sick and flew around the world kissing ass of the rich and famous, lived in the lap of luxury and collected money to supposedly go to ease the suffering of her "children". She actually spent the money on churches and publicity to glorify herself while doing pretty much nothing to help the people that she was using as a way to scam money. She intentionally and willfully allowed the suffering to keep suffering because she thought it was good for them and brought them closer to god.

But poverty is a gift from god!