Why does Islam exist?

You are spinning, not proving, quite different things. Being right is not bigoted, it is confidence and surety. Nothing more.

 

I did not say it in the name of religion, but political and sovereign security. Different things, I am against politicised religion, even (especially) my own.

 

I know that to be FALSE - Islam/Muslims are NOT against Catholism, only against Judaism.

 

Exactly what a bigot would say.

Yes. But when Muslims say or do something like that its bcecause their religion is violent. You see the contradiction here? Of course not. Why else woukd you say any of the things you have said so far.

 

Bwahahahahahaha, man alive! That is the ********* thing I have ever read. Say that to the Christians in Iran and Egypt, and get back to us on that one. Bwahahahahahaha

 

So, you don't get it at all. Thats my fault?

 

The problem is you don't.

 

I do get it, I articulated it, and I defended it. The disconnect is with your capacity to understand, not with my ability to explain it. You have fallen into the propaganda pit that portrays Islam as peaceful religion of tolerence and understanding. But all it takes is the intellect of a grapefruit to see with your own eyes that is not true. But, watch for yourself. Open your eyes. Open your mind to the truth from another source other than the progressive propaganda machine. These people are serious, and they have the means to achieve their aims and the patience to see it through to the end and success. They are the enemy of everyone on the planet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMLJJEDDDGc

 

Oh of course. The Quran is full of propoganda that Islam is the religion of peace. It really is a religion of violence just that it does not say that anywhere right? Even Muslims don't understand their religion. Its only people like you who can tell them what their religion is about.

Didn't watch the whole video but does it not say in the first few seconds that this is what radicals believe and not the normal Muslims? Totally defeats your point doesn't it.

 

In the name of Christianity?

 

No in the name of America, well known for it's religious tolerance.

 

Muslims ask the same thing about Christianity.....
The answer....Both are wrong......both have been corrupted over the years, like all other organized religions.....

 

Actually Muslims don't really ask that question. They believe that the teachings of Christianity were corrupted long before Islam came which was one of the reasons for the need for another Prophet and a revised set of teaching. But you are right in saying all religions today have been corupted to some degree which is why religions primarily brought to bring peace to society have been the source of more conflict than anything else. The true believer of any religion not only respects the others right to his own belief but strives to act in as moral a way as possible.

 

Are the Westboro baptist church the true practitioners of Christianity? They "follow" every little piece of your precious Bible. Look there is no intelligent argument when trying to pit these two religions against each other. When Comparing - what you can say - is that both can be used for good, or evil, depending on interpretation/application. This is a moderate vs fundamentalist debate not a "which is the more valid moral faith?" because frankly that's a foolish and pointless question. Have you read anything which tries to give a genuine view of Islam... that represent a humanist and moderate view? Or have you just read books which set out to demonize it?

It is true, there is a hijacking, but you don't accord said hijacking to the billion plus people, that's kids stuff. There are things in the Qu'ran that are hard to explain away when trying to theorize against the extremists, and you can understand how it is a great tool for manipulation when trying to promulgate the violent idea of Jihad. But the same can be said for all the monotheisms. Gods call for the destruction of the Amalekites in still interpreted by some solem Rabbis as code for what is happening to the Palestinians. Scripture is up to interpretation first and foremost. The radicalization of Islam is a direct result - I think - of a huge array of issues, such as colonialism, Western foreign policy, the constant meddling and quelling of democracy by western powers in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Bush rhetoric of "they hate America and our freedom." is not even true... they hate American/Western policy for good reason.

Here's just a few Muslim majority countries and their colonial masters:

Lebanon - French

Iraq - Britain

Iran - Britain (and Russia for a bit)

Egypt - Britain

Algeria - French

Just a quick look into the history of these countries and you'll see where the real resentment and cynicism comes from.

Pakistan and Afghanistan were caught up in the Cold War, in which America funded and armed a nut bag radical Islamist in General Zia (and allowed him to build a nulear bomb)... which then led to the arming and CIA training of a bunch of equally nutty extremists in the region to fight the soviets... hench creating a monster. There are lots of cases in which Britain and America have done what they could to stop democracy in these countries, by propping up dictatorships and blocking nationalist movements. In Egypt for example the Wafd party won elections in '28, only to be dissolved three months later on British orders. Wafd won again in 1930 and '36, in '37 they lost the elections which were largely viewed as fraudulant ... they won again the next free elections only to get dismissed again on British orders. The Wafd were a hugely popular nationalist group who overwhelmingly won elections time after time. A lot of the time countries in this region are only as democratic as former colonial masters will allow. Democracies take time to evolve and strengthen, so you can understand the turmoil when democratic movements are quashed at the embryonic stage.

Genuine support of democracy is a matter of self-interest and security for all states, because democracies don’t tend to fight each-other. Based on the “Russet” study critiquing Huntington’s “Clash of Civilisations” and analyst data spanning four decades, democracies are the most peaceful type of dyad. A study by Pippa Norris and Robert Inglehart compared attitudes towards democratic values which was “a comparative analysis of the beliefs and values of Islamic and non-Islamic publics in 75 societies around the globe.” And they found that “In recent years high support for democratic ideals is almost universally found in most nations around the globe.” Democratic values are so universally held that “support for democracy was marginally stronger among those living in an Islamic society.”

Now there are religious fanatics from every creed and they are a pest. We should fight them. But unfortunately I don't think it works like that, western support for democracy is just political rhetoric and little more. Too often we are willing to support terrible regimes and quell nationalist democratic movements on grounds of perceived self-interest, which inevitably leads to radicalisation.

I believe if democracy was genuinely supported in the East there would be no room for fanatics. But yeah, fat chance of that happening.

 

A very succinct semmary of the politics of it.

 

I'm an Atheist and I don't think religions suck. I could care less the rituals and beliefs that others fill their lives with as long as they understand THEIR beliefs are PERSONAL and THEIR beliefs ARE NOT forced on society, government and others.

However, religious dogma does not respect this demarcation so the righteousness of religion continues to be a burden on society...

 

that is like saying I know good Christians... at least until they molest children...

 

I supposed it exists for the truly stupid to have something to believe in,same as Christianity,Mormons,Hinduism etc

 

Well, that's completely untrue. The religious community, ironically enough, is replete with some very clever types. Adherence doesn't negate intellect. It is much more complex than that... at its core is a fear of death. But religion is politicised, a lot of the time you are religious by default, doesn't automatically mean you are stupid.

 

I would disagree. You cannot be an intellectual and believe in Islam,Christianity etc. If you were an intellectual then you should have read enough evidence that there is no God and therefore you would not believe.

 

Actually Islam accepts Jesus as one of the prophents but not as son of God. Islam accepts him as human being, do not describe "gender" for God and angels.

 

The Skopsi were a religious group that practices self-castration. They didn't prosper. No religion is logical but we have a plethora, world-wide, that are seriously strange. Near a town I lived in were two churches where you turned over all your worldly goods to them and then turned over your paycheck to them or, alternatively, worked on the farm and lived in a sheet metal dormitory.

All religions exist for the same reasons.

 

That's strange MOF because you seem - just from a few posts - to be an intelligent web-entity, for want of a better phrase. So I'm thrown off by this simplistic thinking. Look, just to pick out a very simplistic scenario: you are say, Chinese, born into Buddhism... any more or less likely to be good at maths, or anything, or any more likely to be intelligent if for some reason you lost your religion as a child? We're talking intellect, you can absolutely be as religious as hell and still be an incredible linguist, essayist, etc... even scientist, Isaac Newton for example.

Looking at the sheer magnitude of the religious community, to say none of these people are intellectuals is not only silly, it's insulting. Man's propensity to believe in God, whichever God that might be, is as much a political thing, as social, as mental, as spiritual... it's not all down to how smart you are.

 

If you were truly intelligent then you would not believe in any God as there is no real factual evidence that one exists. You claim that people can be intelligent,be a linguist,essayist and even a scientist and still believe in a God but the fact is that if they were really intelligent and I am not talking about banging out a few essays or being able to speak more than one language(I do not think you have to be really intelligent to do that) they would not believe.

If you read some religious books and you are supposed to be intelligent as you claim and you believe what is written in them,like Jesus being the son of God,miracles,walking on water,water into wine etc then a court would find you mentally unstable and lacking an analytical mind also they would probably think you delusional and not too bright.

In days gone by people prayed to trees and rocks,spirits of lakes,fire,Sun,carvings of images and now they have moved to a God who created everything in 7 days and the earth is only 6 thousand years old as it says in the Bible if you count back the generations. Is this intelligent? That is my take on it. Of course opinions differ but to believe in a God,any God is not what intelligent people do.

 

Yes we differ massively, it's just intellectually flawed opinionated thinking. An intelligent man can be deluded, can be conned, hoodwinked or whatever. Or more importantly and intelligent man can be WRONG. It doesn't mean they're not intelligent. By your reasoning you consider yourself more intelligent than Isaac Newton? Along with every religious person in history and on the planet, which is extremely hubristic.