The Problem with Islam

[MrFun]

So I used to have this unwavering respect for Islam, always loudly claiming that the opressive and terrorist acts carried out by Muslims were those of a minority fundamentalist/extremist sect and not representing the values of moderate Muslims.


But recently, I have begun to rethink my thoughts on Islam, terrorism, and violations of human rights. For some reason, the historical experience of Christianity in Europe took a different path from that of the historical experience of Islam.

European Christianity had its periods of oppression and blood-thirst: Inquisition, Crusades, and so forth. And yet, by the time of the Enlightenment, European Christians were beginning to relax somewhat in the presence of non-conforming Christians, agnostics, and atheists.

What happened in the historical experience of Islam? Because today, we still have entire Islamic countries that base their laws on theocracy and rigid interpretation of the Koran whereas we have no examples of Christian nations that do the same (only with the Bible). What led Muslims to reject their own people's great cultural, intellectual, and scientific achievements they had made during the Middle Ages? There was a possibility that Islam could have flowered and grown by reconciling the coexistence of secular knowledge with religion just as it has happened with European Christianity. What happened? What are people's thoughts on this?

And one more thing; why do I not hear enough so-called moderate Muslims loudly denouncing terrorism, and violations of human rights done by fanatical Muslims? I'm talking about moderate Muslims who could do so in relative safety, if they live in Westernized countries.

[Vesayen]

I hope I have not misundestood what you are saying.

It is a fallacy to think religions are all on some linear line of development.

Islam arose at a different time and was influenced by a different world. Why would it be prone to "peace" or "war"? I do not think it is fair to say a religion is predestined to be "good" and if it becomes "bad" it has fallen off some natural path.

One big factor for it's current violence is it's violent origin and it arose in a very, very violent region of the world. Tribal, clan and sectarian strife in the middle east had been on for countless generations, just because a new religion had been accepted over time does not mean it was going to change the culture of violence.

Also, Islam had great sucess for a time, expanding itself through military action, which may have helped reinforce the belief that since it was once expanded militantly, succesfully, it is "destined" to do so again.

[notyoueither]

Re: The Problem with Islam

Originally posted by MrFun
And one more thing; why do I not hear enough so-called moderate Muslims loudly denouncing terrorism, and violations of human rights done by fanatical Muslims? I'm talking about moderate Muslims who could do so in relative safety, if they live in Westernized countries.

Why should they give a ****?

Where are the loud denunciations of Mugabe by American blacks?

[Omni Rex Draconis]

American blacks did not choose the colour of their skin; Mugabe is irrelevant to them. Muslims choose to be Muslims.

I am with MrFun here. This goes beyond general apathy; there is silence where there should be loud repudiation.

I am not asking for a public mea culpa for every fanatic - I did not expect it from the Christians for Koresh.

I do, however, expect a TRUE religion of peace to get a little more upset at being tarnished, fairly or not, with the taint of terrorism.

[Omni Rex Draconis]

Does taint tarnish?

[Dinner]

Except American blacks aren't Africans and most of them have absolutely no idea about African countries much less what occurs in Africa. One would think Muslims know about the notable mouth pieces of their religion and that terrorism is among their co-religionists has become so common.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Vesayen
I hope I have not misundestood what you are saying.

It is a fallacy to think religions are all on some linear line of development.

Islam arose at a different time and was influenced by a different world. Why would it be prone to "peace" or "war"? I do not think it is fair to say a religion is predestined to be "good" and if it becomes "bad" it has fallen off some natural path.

One big factor for it's current violence is it's violent origin and it arose in a very, very violent region of the world. Tribal, clan and sectarian strife in the middle east had been on for countless generations, just because a new religion had been accepted over time does not mean it was going to change the culture of violence.

Also, Islam had great sucess for a time, expanding itself through military action, which may have helped reinforce the belief that since it was once expanded militantly, succesfully, it is "destined" to do so again.

Uh, yeah I'm well aware that religions develop differently from one another, thanks.

I just want to know how Christianity overcame its own militant, violent history to reconcile secular knowledge with religious faith.

What led Muslims to renounce their own cultural and scientific achievements they had made in the Middle Ages? Couldn't this era had been a possible time for Muslims to have begun to fully reconcile their faith with secular knowledge?

[MrFun]

Re: Re: The Problem with Islam

Originally posted by notyoueither


Why should they give a ****?

Where are the loud denunciations of Mugabe by American blacks?

I would have thought moderate Muslims would be concerned about any possible growing prejudice against their religion because of the actions of the stupid, extremist Muslims.

Not to mention that I'd like to think moderate Muslims would feel morally repulsed by the actions of Muslim terrorists and oppressors.

[Ramo]

I think that mainstream Muslims need to denounce computer illiteracy among Americans because they apparently are unable to search for "Muslim denunciations of terrorism" on google...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ramo
I think that mainstream Muslims need to denounce computer illiteracy among Americans because they apparently are unable to search for "Muslim denunciations of terrorism" on google...

I would thought rather than Google, to hear what other people's thoughts are on this issue . . . .


you know, like having conversation.

[Ramo]

A conversation about what? Your laziness? Or your whining about your laziness?

I should add that the first link from exactly the same google search that I suggested is pretty decent...

[David Floyd]

My thoughts --- Islam may indeed be a peaceful religion, as Muslim moderates claim. Of course, there's the minor matter that it was spread through conquest - in comparison, early Christianity was not spread through conquest, although that certainly happened later. Interestingly enough, outside of the Crusades, most of the violence perpetuated by Christians was against other Christians. But I digress.

It's completely fair to say that Christianity has just as violent a past as Islam does. The difference is, militant Islam is alive and well today, whereas militant Christianity is not. I 100% dispute the claim that Islam is, today, a peaceful religion. I also dispute the claim that Islam, as it is practiced in many, if not most countries, is a morally valid way of life, except in situations where practicing Muslims are tempered by Western values. It's certainly not a very enlightened way of life. One need only look at the British schoolteacher in the Sudan, or the Wahabbist schools in Saudi Arabia, or the Muslim woman who was flogged for being raped. Another example, by the way, are the American and European Muslim citizens who actively supported and continue to support radical Islam, both financially and in other more overt ways.

Yes, there are a bunch of ignorant ****s who call themselves Christians - the people who blow up abortion clinics, ban books, restrict science, etc. Fortunately, those people neither run countries nor form the majority in any country. There are plenty of ignorant ****ing Muslims, and unfortunately those people DO run countries filled with other ignorant ****ing Muslims who are more than happy to strap bombs to themselves and blow up non-Muslims (or even Muslims who aren't radical enough or aren't members of their particular sect) for Allah.

As to why it developed this way? I don't know, my first guess would be that it ties in with culture, and my second guess would be that it has to do with the differences in terms of wealth and affluence. Why did democracy only flourish in Western Europe and the US (and other Western nations - Canada, Australia, etc.)? Why has democracy never really seemed to catch hold in places like Asia, Russia, Africa, or the Middle East? I bet the two quesions are related, and I bet the answers are the same - people who aren't as personally prosperous have less to lose, and have also had less of an opportunity to receive an education to help them overcome religious mania (much more true in Africa and the MidEast than in Russia and China, I know). Of course, they haven't had much personal prosperity because of a historic lack of freedom, and, dare I say, capitalism.

So, the queston becomes, what combats the rise of dangerous religious fundamentalism? I think the answer is a truly free society, coupled with an economic system conducive to the accumulation of wealth, of which there is only one - capitalism. Of course, freedom and capitalism aren't concepts you can introduce overnight with any hope of success in most of these areas - the recent elections in Russia and the continuing turmoil in Iraq are examples. Obviously you can't go back in time, either.

So, if we want to be truly serious, as a nation/civilization in stamping out religious extremism, whether it's Islam, Christianity, or anything else, we have to do two things: 1)Don't pull any punches when it comes to confronting terrorism and religious violence. I'm not saying that I support the Iraq war, which had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or religion. I am saying that we need to be ready to proactively confront regimes who are either actively sponsoring terror/religious extremism or the obvious potential to do so. The Taliban in Afghanistan is an obvious example. But so is Iran. So is the Sudan. So is Saudi Arabia. The list goes on. To do this, by the way, we need to get serious about developing an alternate energy source so that we can tell the oil sheiks to **** themselves. 2)The second thing we have to do is to make sure we are strongly promoting science and education in our own countries, along with ensuring our continued wealth through economic freedom (capitalism, yes, that's a dirty word to some of you, but let's face it - it works). We also need to make sure that if and when we do wage "pre-emptive war", that we have a plan in place to foster those things - science, education, and wealth - in other nations. Bringing everyone else up to our level is the only way to cure them of religious extremism. Rational, educated, wealthy people don't strap bombs to themselves, because they know that any religion that commands them to do so is a pile of donkey ****, not worth the papyrus it was originally printed on with the Giant Pencil From Above.

Quick disclaimer - my comments regarding capitalism aren't meant to spark an economic debate. While I personally think that integrating socialism with capitalism is a pretty bad idea, I also think that the capitalist/socialist hybrids that make up much of Western Europe are CERTAINLY preferable to many alternatives, and that such systems are conducive to science, education, and the creation of wealth. They just aren't, IMO, the best ways of doing so.

[Blake]

Capitalism what?

The Buddhists who embrace Buddhism most strongly* are VERY peaceful, and trust me, the Buddha was no capitalist .


The question is not whether the religion is a peaceful one, but whether it's a freedom-loving one. If a religion embraces the concept of "Wield not power over others, let not others wield power over you", then it is a peaceful one.

The word Islam means submission. It's followers do not embrace true freedom.

What else need to be said?

[David Floyd]

Well, I think that people who are both uneducated and poor are typically the targets for those seeking to recruit soldiers for their crusade. Practically speaking, if people are educated and enjoy a high standard of living, then regardless of their religion, they aren't going to embrace violence. As a case in point, the world's moderate Muslims mostly live in countries with a high standard of living, where a good, non-religious education is easily obtainable.

Put another way, when people have some sort of hope, fundamentalist/violent religion becomes fairly irrelevant. If that hope is true Buddhism, that's fine with me. For most people, that hope is going to stem from upward mobility in society, or at least the potential of upward mobility.

[BeBMan]

And one more thing; why do I not hear enough so-called moderate Muslims loudly denouncing terrorism, and violations of human rights done by fanatical Muslims? I'm talking about moderate Muslims who could do so in relative safety, if they live in Westernized countries.

Just in the recent teddy-teacher-case you could hear such voices. In other cases too. If it's "enough" that's always debatable, as well as what constitutes "enough".

As for the whole Europe - Islam thing, that's a huge debate. I'll just throw in one historical point that played a role for Europe: even before the enlightenment the heavy conflicts (sometimes with religious background) between and within Euro countries led to a certain learning process in many ways, also in religous questions (like granting certain religious liberties after the 30 yrs war).