Again, so you are saying the more than 90% of Muslims who have a greater knowledge and degree of study regarding Islam than you do are doing their religion wrong? You believe it's only the small percentage of violent Muslims that are doing it right?
I am not saying any such thing. I am saying that the text is convoluted and inconsistent, I don't know if they agree or not, maybe they just overlook that bit.....I can't speak for them. I can say that Islam is a contributing factor due to it's mixed message. It is easily used to promote violence. DD
I think the solution is to continue to point out the faults, so that eventually it moderates itself, or it's followers understand that not everyone has to follow their archaic rules. DD
If you haven't picked up on the solution (promote reason and peace) then you haven't been paying attention.
Lets promote peace by giving a nation they detest more money than all the other nations we lend money to combined and kill over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. I say its a good start. O and have protests every time a new mosque is built saying we are trying to spread sharia law in America.
No, that is not my point. You say that it is the Koran that teaches people to be violent and that is why Muslims are violent. But I am showing you that the Bible is actually MORE violent in its text, and you don't see nearly as much violence done in the name of Christ. Why is that? If the Bible is more violent, shouldn't Christians be committing violence? That is a big hole in your argument that the religious texts make people do violent things. That was my point. You missed it completely.
Even your denial is saying that. So the huge majority of Muslims which are nonviolent are just overlooking parts of their religion? You know this because you understand their text which is in Arabic, better than the huge majority of Muslims who have grown up and studied the religion? It's amazing that you believe you have a greater understanding of Islam than the majority of most Muslims. That's my problem with your argument. The problem is that you've seen certain verses and believe you have a greater understanding, and the billion or more Muslims that aren't violent are just ignoring part of their religion or don't understand it as well as you do.
That is not a problem at all. If the billion or so people read it and chose to ignore it, good for them, makes for a better world, they are not the issue here. DD
Ah, sorry. And the bible did get people to do some heinous things, but Christianity moderated itself and turned allegorical - let's hope Islam matures that way too. DD
You misunderstand what I'm saying the problem is. The problem is that you act like you understand and know more about Islam than the billion or more Muslims. According to you the only way they could be peaceful is if they ignore parts of Islam.
Ok, we're making a bit of progress here. So why did Christianity moderate itself??? We have proven that violent texts is not necessarily connected to violent practitioners. This is why I call ATW out. But what is it that happened that led to Christianity moderating. Was it a shift in ideology? It wasn't. And that is why the problem with Islam is NOT with its ideology or its text. It's with something else.
Because they adopted more of the new testament. I can't wait for the new Koran with a new prophet that preaches peace, can you? DD
No, that is your take, you don't know me, or how I act, do I think Islam is flawed? Yes, I do....I think the text is flawed, as is the "Take everything literal" way of interpetting it. True, just like the bible, you have to ignore the parts that say to strike down the infidels.....update your beliefs based upon what is happening in the world today versus listening to the ramblings of a goathearding shepard from 1300 or 2000 years ago as some sort of actual dogma. DD
As long as you have oil in the Persian Gulf that props up dictatorships which are willing to tolerate the crazies in exchange for stability, nothing will change. Much of the Muslim world is rather poor. They are concentrated in areas like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Afghanistan, etc... They are easy prey for radicals who have access to money. When your government can't properly build schools or even enforce the rule of law and foreigners come in with money to fund free educations and food, people will turn to them even if they are crazy religious lunatics. Solving this problem will require a wholesale change in the way things work. Poorer areas will need to figure out how to limit the marginalization of poorer Muslims. Gulf countries will have to crack down on radical groups. (which they are slowly starting to do) But this won't change over night. Tons of Saudi money still ends up in places like Pakistan and in parts of Africa. Hell take Somalia for example. Somalia never had a very strict interpretation of Islam historically. But they've been deprived so long that when radicals came in with money, they were able to turn much of the population. Now you see burqas in the streets of Mogadishu. Bottom line, people are willing to accept radical religion if it means stability. But to suggest it is as simple as a "new prophet" is silly. These are structural issues that have allowed radical Islam to spread.
I can think of Jainism but I can't think of any other religion that has never experienced an act of violence or in some perverted way justified it... what "few" were you thinking of? Please do not say Buddhism (conquest of Ashoka/Samurais/So-go-ka-gi) or Shintoism (kamikaze), because that would be incorrect. And do you really want something like Jainism replacing the other severely flawed faiths? One could argue that something like Jainism is severely flawed in of itself.
I probably shouldn't have said "currently", but rather, "exist(ed)", since human history is littered with thousands upon thousands of dead faith systems. But yeah, Jainism replacing Abrahamic faiths would be just fine with me. Not a perfect scenario, but certainly better. (And while Buddhism isn't spotless, it has a far, far better track record... both in theory and practice)
No, it's because Christianity was filled with a barbarian nomadic people for much of the middle ages. It wasn't until European colonialism and conquest created immense wealth that it could experience an enlightment and evolution. Islam actually was far more peaceful and evolved during the middle ages - without radical elements and a far more open to other religions and cultures. Most of the Islamic extremism of the type yall rail against today started in the 1940's. Muslims are pissed off because of the way they are treated by the west. They feel they are being put on the defensive, and that has become ingrained for good reason. The propping up of dictatorships, Israel, exploitation for their oil, and the abject poverty of most of the countries plays into that. Throw on the dismissive and condescending attitude of people such as yourself, and you get a nasty formula. That doesn't excuse the violence, but it's just is what it is. You want it to end, than you solve the problem. Painting Islam as inherently violent which is a lie is only deepening the hatred, and is a type of cruel judgement in and of itself. All the peaceful muslims who read the trash you and your buddies write up in these threads only get angered more and you know what - instead of making friends and working with them, you are just antagonizing the very people who are the ones who are trying to turn the tide. It's foolish at best, and bigoted at worst.
