Radical Islam

[WICKLC1]

Is Islam in its purest form really a religion of peace and tolerance like poeple say it is? I don't think so. It spread by the sword, it tolerates wars against infidels if they refuse to convert, and it oppresses women and minorities.

Islam has not softened over the years like Christianity and Judaism have, it is still in many ways the same religion that was practiced in the middle ages. Of course there are moderate Muslims who practice a more modern form of Islam, but they do not condemn the radicals, they merely label people who say what I am posting right now as racists. It seems to me that about 25% of Muslims worldwide are radicals, and most of the remaining 75% are silent or try to deny the problems with Islam.

We need to stop being so politically correct that we can't point out the bad things about religions and other groups. We need to realize that there is evil in the world and that we need to fight it to win. Not by being nice to people.

Also, calling the current war a "War on Terror" is just plain ridiculous, it is a war against radical Islam.

No, I do not hate all Muslims, I just think that Islam needs to come into the 21st century, as do other religions to a lesser degree.

I'm sorry if this offends anybody, but I think that someone needs to say this.

 

[Red Door]

It seems to me that about 25% of Muslims worldwide are radicals, and most of the remaining 75% are silent or try to deny the problems with Islam.

And how exactly did you come up with these numbers? Did you use some mathematical formula or did you pull them from where the sun don't shine?

I'm not going to touch the rest of this thread because it's really just not worth a response.

 

[Bill3000]

It spread by the sword, it tolerates wars against infidels if they refuse to convert, and it oppresses women and minorities.

Islam's actually surprisingly low on issues of spreading by the sword. Most conversions were historically voluntary; granted, voluntary to the extent that it was socially advantagous to convert to Islam. But there were no major conversions by the sword outside of the Safivids and some in India. (An islamic power conquering infidel lands doesn't count as "conversion by the sword", by the way - conversion by the sword means forcing individuals to convert.) Granted, the sunni-shiite clashes make the catholic-protestant clashes look like delicious chocolate pudding.

Islam has not softened over the years like Christianity and Judaism have, it is still in many ways the same religion that was practiced in the middle ages.

Modern Islamic fundamentalism is actually a modern movement.

No, I do not hate all Muslims, I just think that Islam needs to come into the 21st century, as do other religions to a lesser degree.

You can't "bring Islam to the 21st century" in the same way that you can do Christianity, because the religion is inherently one that depends more on issues of works, not issues of faith. It's more like Judaism to that extent.

 

[WICKLC1]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274934,00.html

I'm sorry if you think of fox news as radical right wingers, but here it is.

 

[bhsup]

An islamic power conquering infidel lands doesn't count as "conversion by the sword", by the way - conversion by the sword means forcing individuals to convert.

Nope, it does indeed count. Just like the conquests of Pizarro and Cortez should rightfully be counted as conversion by force as well. Catholics did as grand a job as Muslims did in that regard.

 

[Red Door]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274934,00.html

I'm sorry if you think of fox news as radical right wingers, but here it is.

Let's look at this for a second. This poll takes a scenario (the destruction of these people's religion) and smears the data to say one in four Muslim Americans would bomb civilians. In reality, it is saying that civilian bombing would at the least be rarely justified to defend their religion. If you don't think that number would be the same with Christianity/Judaism/Any Religion, you're being purely delusional.

Please, try to get some actual numbers on the number of Islamic radicals and don't make numbers up. It makes your argument invalid until you do.

 

[WICKLC1]

Islam's actually surprisingly low on issues of spreading by the sword. Most conversions were historically voluntary; granted, voluntary to the extent that it was socially advantagous to convert to Islam. But there were no major conversions by the sword outside of the Safivids and some in India. (An islamic power conquering infidel lands doesn't count as "conversion by the sword", by the way - conversion by the sword means forcing individuals to convert.) Granted, the sunni-shiite clashes make the catholic-protestant clashes look like delicious chocolate pudding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests

Actually they converted just about everybody by the sword. Muhammad himself did some of the conquering. They usually forced people to convert, or at least pay tribute, although people of other faiths were tolerated in some places such as Spain.

 

[Tee Kay]

Ah, the daily dose of Islam threads.

Nope, it does indeed count. Just like the conquests of Pizarro and Cortez should rightfully be counted as conversion by force as well. Catholics did as grand a job as Muslims did in that regard.

Uh, no it actually does not. Conquest of a land by people of different religion does not (always) = forced conversions. There would definitely be some cases in both the Islamic Conquests and the Spanish Conquests of forced conversion, however, but that does not necessarily describe the military campaign as a whole. Otherwise, the US invasion of Iraq should also be considered a case of forced conversion as well.

 

[Tee Kay]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests

Actually they converted just about everybody by the sword. Muhammad himself did some of the conquering. They usually forced people to convert, or at least pay tribute, although people of other faiths were tolerated in some places such as Spain.

If by tribute you mean the jizya, then yes, Muslim conquerers did impose a poll tax on non-Muslims as an incentive for conversion (the severity of jizya and the degree at which it was imposed vary from regime to regime), but that hardly counts as forced conversion or conversion by the sword.

 

[bhsup]

Uh, no it actually does not. Conquest of a land by people of different religion does not (always) = forced conversions. There would definitely be some cases in both the Islamic Conquests and the Spanish Conquests of forced conversion, however, but that does not necessarily describe the military campaign as a whole. Otherwise, the US invasion of Iraq should also be considered a case of forced conversion as well.

Hardly. What was the religion of South America before the coming of the conquistadors? After?

What was the religion of North Africa, much of the Middle East, etc before the coming of the Muslim armies? After?

What was the religion of Iraq before the US Invasion? Now? In 20 years?

 

[Bill3000]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests

Actually they converted just about everybody by the sword. Muhammad himself did some of the conquering. They usually forced people to convert, or at least pay tribute, although people of other faiths were tolerated in some places such as Spain.

That's not "conversion by the sword", that's just conquering. Hardly any different than any other empire in history carving an empire.

No, they didn't usually force people to convert - toleration of dhimmis was a mandate, though the toleration rose and fell. But conversion itself usually wasn't forced; most of it was voluntary, albeit voluntary to the extent that it was socially advantageous to do so. The conversion of Egypt and Syria were quite slow.

Hardly. What was the religion of South America before the coming of the conquistadors? After?

What was the religion of North Africa, much of the Middle East, etc before the coming of the Muslim armies? After?

Conversion by the sword means what the catholics did - convert or get tortured, or die, or whatever. That's what the catholics did in South America (after they were conquered) and Spain. Muslims don't historically do that by their tradition; I believe it is in the Qu'ran where they explicitly say "There shall be no compulsion in religion" specifically for this matter. They convert instead by making it socially and economically advantageous for people to convert.

 

[WICKLC1]

Let's look at this for a second. This poll takes a scenario (the destruction of these people's religion) and smears the data to say one in four Muslim Americans would bomb civilians. In reality, it is saying that civilian bombing would at the least be rarely justified to defend their religion. If you don't think that number would be the same with Christianity/Judaism/Any Religion, you're being purely delusional.

Please, try to get some actual numbers on the number of Islamic radicals and don't make numbers up. It makes your argument invalid until you do.

Actually it only said to defend Islam.

Don't you find it at least slightly disturbing that 25% of young American Muslims find homicide bombings ok in some situations?

I don't see many Christians or Jews blowing people up to defend their religion.

The poll fits what I said nearly perfectly: Some Muslims are radicals, and many of the rest don't want to do anything about what their fellow muslims are doing.

 

[WICKLC1]

Also, the poll said that the numbers are much higher in Europe. I would assume that the numbers are also much higher in the middle east.

 

[JollyRoger]

We need to stop being so politically correct that we can't point out the bad things about religions and other groups. We need to realize that there is evil in the world and that we need to fight it to win. Not by being nice to people.

Amen brother. No surrender in the war on Xmas.

Also, calling the current war a "War on Terror" is just plain ridiculous, it is a war against radical Islam.

Yeah, you can't really go to war against a concept, otherwise you forget who the real enemy is and you waste blood and treasure on the likes of secular Saddam.

No, I do not hate all Muslims, I just think that Islam needs to come into the 21st century, as do other religions to a lesser degree.

Maybe you can become the Muslim leader to bring the religion up to modern standards.

I'm sorry if this offends anybody, but I think that someone needs to say this.

Actually, it sounded hide-in-your-mom's-basement defensive rather than offensive.

 

[Red Door]

Actually it only said to defend Islam.

Don't you find it at least slightly disturbing that 25% of young American Muslims find homicide bombings ok in some situations?

I don't see many Christians or Jews blowing people up to defend their religion.

The poll fits what I said nearly perfectly: Some Muslims are radicals, and many of the rest don't want to do anything about what their fellow muslims are doing.

Yes, I find it disturbing. What I also find disturbing is that you do not get that Christians and Jews would say the same thing. Killing others to save your own religion is not a unique thing to Islam. You're taking a poll with smeared data and attempting to apply it to all people. It's just foolish.

Please, find some real numbers on the number of Islam radicals in the world. Here's a hint on how to do that. Take the estimated number of Muslim terrorists in the world and divide that by the number of Muslims in the world. The number you get will be well under 25%, if not 1%.

 

[philippe]

Wickl1, I got one question, you live in the states, have you ever lived amongst muslims?

 

[Holycannoli]

It's the doctrine of the religion that's in question, not how people follow that religion. That's why I say the doctrine of Christianity is one of peace, mercy and humility, and those in history who conquered and killed in it's name were wrong; but Islam's doctrine is not one of peace, mercy and humility, and those in history who conquered and killed in it's name were right according to it's teachings. Mohammed himself conquered and killed to spread Islam. When the religion's founder conquers and kills to spread his religion, marries children and whatnot, you know what's in store for the future.

Like I've done before, I can quote examples.

I do think there are many more moderate muslims in the world than extremists. But why don't they ever speak out? Where are they in the middle east, where they're most needed? You know, having a lot of moderate muslims in the US is one thing, but having them in the middle east where the trouble is actually brewing is another.

 

[Till]

As Bill wrote, conquest != conversion. It can take centuries for a conversion to happen, even if your domestic policy is fully narrowminded.

 

[aelf]

Moderate muslims don't speak out??

 

[SharpMango]

Moderate muslims don't speak out??

no moderate muslims like me choose not to respond to such accusations all the time. one can look in all manner of places for muslims speaking out against extremists. but for that matter, that is in the public media, the actual battle of ideas, out in the streets, thats not a matter for 'outsiders' thats an internal matter and it hence doesnt really get reported much in the news..
there are people in the fringes who always try to create a 'war of civilizations'..
most normal people just want to live a decent life the way they want to.
by the way, if islam actually had practiced 'conversion by the sword'.india would be 99percent muslim now, and egypt had a sizeable christian population throughout the middle ages, syria was 1/3 christian 100 years ago, lebanon was majority christian till 30-40 years ago, bengal was majority hindu till perhaps 400 years ago, indonesia was majority hindu too till they were converted by muslim merchants...
but yeah.
lets bang the drums of hatred

*YAWN*