What's wrong with Islam?

[BigBirdZ28]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
BBz28, the question that was raised here is why terror grows so much on islam than on other religions, and is there something with this specific religion wrong that makes people moral values of human life lower in the 21th century while in all other religions its not like that, mostly.

But you went and made it an anti-islam thread.
Stop being so childish, no1 said one religion is better than the other.
If you want to flame a judaism-islam war go do it on someplace else, that wont work here.

I dont have a problem with anyones religion, even if I did, my religion does not allow me to lash out, persecute or discriminate against them in anyway.

On the contrary, it's an Islamic states's obligation to build & maintain a Sinagouge when the country has even a handful of Jews.

Moses was a Jew.

I'm sorry if ive come off in the wrong way.

 

[jacques]

Iceblaze, you have to admit that the "why is islam so stupid and violent" and "anti islam" threads are very close to each other.
Please stop being so childish. (you can also say that to me if you want to)

 

[IceBlaZe]

Jacques, you really offended me now!
Stop putting words in my mouth!
No one said Islam is stupid, only you did.
No one here is anti-islam, all this thread does is question the density of fanatics and terrorists in the Islamic religion.
If from that you presume 'stupid' something is wrong with you, seriously.

 

[G-Man]

"- Jews will be encouraged in sinagouges to kill themselves in the name of god and take thousands of non-jews with them.

Militant Israelies are already kill Palestinians while they pray in their mosque."

It's not what I said and it's not true.


"- When Israel's goverment will say that killing civilians is an acceptable way of resistance.

Israel's Government is already killing innocent civilians. Were any of the assasinated Palestinians tried in court ? No, so Guilty until proven innocent. "

Every country kills civilians by accidents. I ment targeting them. Israel's targeted killings are against men who were wanted and knew it. Israel could'nt arrest them and therefore has the right to kill them if they don't turn themselves in.


"- When Jews will terrorise dozens of countries.

Israel already spys on theirr best friend the US, carry out bombing runs into other countries when they see fit, did I forget Tanks infront of schools & soilders monitoring bread lines ? "

Terror is targeting civilians. We don't bomb other countries "as we see fit" and we don't put tanks in civilians areas in order to fight the civilians but in order to fight the terrorist their goverment supports


"- When Israel will support terror orgenizations that fight it's enemies.

Mosad. "

The mosad isn't targeting civilians


"- When Jews will force goverments to support their religion by bombing their cities.

Sinai ? "

What does it have to do with Sinai?!?


"- When Israel will be condemned and ignored by Jews from other countries for signning a peace treaty with muslim states.

Some are already condeming Israel for using Judaism's name to steal land."

They have the right to have whatever political position they want. But it's not what I said. Do you see jews condeming Israel after signning the peace treaty with egypt like muslim countries, including yours, did?


"On the contrary, it's an Islamic states's obligation to build & maintain a Sinagouge when the country has even a handful of Jews. "

I didn't hear about any muslim country that condemned the taliban for not allowing Jews to pray to their gods.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Moderator Action: Alright, get back on the topic, enough with the arab-Israeli wars in this thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I would like to hear more from the gentleperson from Bahrain, mainly, addressing the posts here, not dismissing them. I think it would be interesting to get this perspective, and I would allow the obverse, if it is done as this one, with facts and quotes from scholars.

 

[kobayashi]

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
You have forgotten Malaysia which is Muslim, which is democratic, which has no local terrorists to speak of. And I definitely know my home country better than you do.

BN 00:16 Malaysian Court Convicts 19 Members of Muslim Cult of Treason

Kuala Lumpur, Dec. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Malaysia's High Court found 19 members of an Islamic cult guilty of treason for trying to overthrow the government, Malaysia's Bernama news agency and Agence France-Presse said.

The 19 members of al-Ma'unah, including leader Mohamed Amin Razali, face the death penalty. Defense lawyers are preparing mitigation pleas, AFP reported.

The cult members were accused of stealing more than 100 weapons from Malaysian military armories and killing two hostages after a standoff with security forces in July 2000. Six other members of the cult were jailed for 10 years after pleading guilty to trying to ``wage war'' against the state last December.

Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has accused the al-Ma'unah cult of trying to overthrow the government with a view to setting up an Islamic state. The cult has about 1,800 members, most of whom are members of the fundamentalist Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party, Deutsche Presse- Agentur said last December. The martial arts cult, which taught members they were invulnerable to bullets, practices a mixture of Islam and Malay and Indonesian shamanism, DPA said. The group describes itself as a self-defense army for suppressed Muslims, the British Broadcasting Corp. said.


--Andrew Hobbs in Sydney at ahobbs@bloomberg.net, or in the Sydney
newsroom on (612) 9777-8601 nw

 

[jacques]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Jacques, you really offended me now!
Stop putting words in my mouth!
No one said Islam is stupid, only you did.
No one here is anti-islam, all this thread does is question the density of fanatics and terrorists in the Islamic religion.
If from that you presume 'stupid' something is wrong with you, seriously.

Ok ok I over reacted when using the word stupid. But Mr G-man really gets on my nerves because he always confuses palestinian terrorists and islam (though he will say he doesn't).

You just have to read his post to understand that:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BigBirdZ28
G-Man, let me know when you would like me to start a "What's wrong with Judaism" thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can do it when:
- Jews will be encouraged in sinagouges to kill themselves in the name of god and take thousands of non-jews with them.
- When Israel's goverment will say that killing civilians is an acceptable way of resistance
- When Jews will terrorise dozens of countries
- When Israel wil support terror orgenizations that fight it's enemies.
- When Jews will force goverments to support their religion by bombing their cities.
- When Israel will be condemned and ignored by Jews from other countries for signning a peace treaty with muslim states.



Since he made those comparisons, that means he only considers palestinian terrorists.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Jacques, most of the palestinien terrorists die for the fight against the ZIONISTS and not against the Israeli occupation.
They fight for the continous fight for the obliteration of Israel.
So a lot of G-Mans remarks are true.

'- When Jews will terrorise dozens of countries
- When Israel wil support terror orgenizations that fight it's enemies.
- When Jews will force goverments to support their religion by bombing their cities.
- When Israel will be condemned and ignored by Jews from other countries for signning a peace treaty with muslim states.
'
All that applies to all muslim terrorists, not just palestiniens.
Iran, Iraq, Syria, all support terrorism.
Also, a lot of muslims condemn and ignore countries like Egypt and Jordan that made peace with Israel and the USA.
Muslim terrorists DO terrorize a lot of other countries other than Israel, including India, USA, even Jordan! (King Abdallah was almost assasined by muslim terrorists).

 

[jacques]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Jacques, most of the palestinien terrorists die for the fight against the ZIONISTS and not against the Israeli occupation.
They fight for the continous fight for the obliteration of Israel.
So a lot of G-Mans remarks are true.

All that applies to all muslim terrorists, not just palestiniens.
Iran, Iraq, Syria, all support terrorism.
Also, a lot of muslims condemn and ignore countries like Egypt and Jordan that made peace with Israel and the USA.
Muslim terrorists DO terrorize a lot of other countries other than Israel, including India, USA, even Jordan! (King Abdallah was almost assasined by muslim terrorists).

There's still the confusion between islam and terrorists in this thread...

Now, why does islam breed so much terrorism. I'll tell you why. Every religion/priest brainwashes its adepts, and can lead them to almost whatever they want. Think about Abraham ready to sacrifice its son.
Maybe some of the muslims leaders nowadays consider they have good reasons to use terrorism I don't know. Other religions in western world have also their weapons, which are maybe even more efficient, lobbying.
Terrorism is just some kind of low scale lobbying, it has the same goal, get what you want. The difference is that it uses violence, that's sad.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by jacques
Since he made those comparisons, that means he only considers palestinian terrorists.

No I didn't. This thread was posted after the sept.11 attacks, that as you know were conducted by muslim fanatics. Just look at the list of suspects they had right after the attacks - Iraq, Hizzbalah, Lybia or Iran. All muslim non-Palestinians.
Just look at the numbers - Al qaida has thousands of men. It's about 100 times bigger then the IRA. And that's without considering it's close relations with the Islamic Jihad (~10,000 people) and the Hizzbalah, that are a legitimate body in Lebanon and so have over 50,000 members and 1,000,000 supporters.
Show me such a network of non Islamic terror groups. I'd be surprised if all the non Islamic terrorists together will be as many as these three orgenizations only.

Therefore I think it's obvious something's wrong when one population has such a huge amount of terrorists within it.

 

[Vrylakas]

I think my posts earlier in this thread pretty much sum up my thoughts, with one exception:

We've all been tossing around the term "medieval" to describe some of the very traditional values modern Islamicists are trying to propagate, but their success over the past few decades has really been stunning. I realized this while reading some military histories recently.

The Arabists of the post-WW II era attempted to modernize the Arab lands but their insistance on provoking repeated military confrontations with Israel (driven by populist rhetoric) that they could not win branded them as failures in the eyes of the Arab man on the street - hence the turn towards traditional Islam (in fundamentalist form). The equation of moderninity with the West is a catastrophe for the Islamic world because it dooms them to... well, to a medieval living standard. This unfortunately is an old story in the Islamic world: John Keegan (Brit military historian) mentions how the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century had a massive population growth rate, but while in 1800 the population was 24 million it had only increased to 25 million by 1900. Why? Because the Ottomans also had an equally massive mortality rate, caused by a religious ban on doctors. The Ottoman Empire should have had one of the largest (if not the largest) population in Europe but because of its rejection of some sciences (medicine having been an early Arab Islamic specialty, BTW), its population was reduced to that of medium-level European states. I know that part of the reason behind the allied success against the Ottomans in the First Balkan War was due to the relatively sparse population dispersion in Thrace in 1912.

The militaries of the modern Islamic states of the Middle East are equipped with some of the most modern and sophisticated weaponry conventional forces can have - but they buy it all elsewhere. With the exception of some old Ba'athist states like Egypt, Syria and Iraq, the Islamic states have none of the social capacity to study and develop new technologies and build them from the ground up in their own countries. This is indicative of something very seriously wrong with the educational, economic and social infrastructures. There are only a handful of countries in the world who have the whole process "in-house" (most Western countries, China, Brazil, Japan, South Africa, etc.) and all countries import some technologies - but only a handful are completely at the other end of this scale, incapable of maintaining even the most rudimentary research and manufacturing processes. That most Islamic regimes (with very noted exceptions) can only gain access to higher technologies by either buying them or by sending their sons abroad to study in foreign universities should be a cause for serious concern to them, and the brand of Islam espoused by the fundamentalists is not going to help the situation.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Vrylakas, I've read your post but I did not get your point.
Can you explain what you are going at while saying all this?

 

[BigBirdZ28]

If we're to get back to the topic "What's wrong with Islam?", then let's side line MUSLIMS for a while & deal with the religion itself, without the flavour added to it by global cultures.

I'm not in any way offended by the topic title, on the contrary, if your going to ask the hardest questions, i'd rather you asked me(or any other muslim) than the news. Often the news doesn't have the time to go into detail, explaining issues, rather, they report the news.

So let's start afresh. Feel free to start another thread & we'll see where we end up .

btw, for future reference/flames, this person is a dude .

 

[Vrylakas]

IceBlaZe wrote: Vrylakas, I've read your post but I did not get your point.
Can you explain what you are going at while saying all this?

Sorry IceBlaZe - brevity is definitely not one of my virtues, although I do try to shoot for clarity.

My point was that while all societies have traditional elements that resist moderninity, Islam in particular seems to be burdened with an extraordinarily powerful resistance to modern globalistic development. This is not new, as I pointed out with the Ottoman example. I invoked the particular example of armaments, which are produced under license all over the world - but not in most Islamic countries; they just buy them from someone else. This is a dangerous thing for any country, to be so dependent on imported technology.

Again, all societies have people on their fringe who want to hold back the encroachment of modernism and sometimes even react violently - Timothy McVeigh being Exhibit A for the U.S. - and they often dream of returning to some mythical "pure" historical time they've invented in their fantasies, but Islamic culture seems to be particularly susceptible to these types of ideologies, being wracked and convulsed with them on a regular and cyclical basis. There were a string of Ottoman reformers from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries who tried to bring the empire into the modern era politically, economically and militarily but were repeatedly beaten back (and usually killed) by radical clerics who denounced their reforms as infidel technologies and techniques not suitable for the Islamic empire. The result: a pathetically weakened Empire (hence islamic world) that was easy prey for predatory European empires and local adventurers. A Moslem cleric quoted in Monday's Wall Street Journal said of his personal relationship to his religion, "Islam is not a religion for me, it's an ideology." Is it because Islam (the religion) still permeates its society to depths that the Christian world hasn't seen for 1200 years? Is it because of something in the Quran? I don't know. But it's an effect I've seen described by many scholars of Islamic history, some Western and some Islamic - and I'd like to understand it more because it clearly is playing a role in the current crisis in the Moslem world.

See - I can't be brief...

 

[Vrylakas]

BigBirdZ28:

We've been discussing many of the things that have been going wrong in the Islamic world, but I'd like to talk for a moment about something that's going right: Can you tell me something about the current reforms underway in Bahrain? It hasn't been receiving much headline news since the Afghanistan crisis, but it is an important development. It is my contention that democracy in southeast Asia took root only after it was demonstrated first by the Japanese, then others like the South Koreans, Singapore, etc. that democracy was very compatible with Asian society and did fuel economic prosperity; they saw it could work and when it did it did wonders. I think the Islamic world needs just such an example now, proof that a native, non-Western democracy can develop successfully and healthily. I had high hopes for Khatami in Iran, but the conservatives have stalled his reforms so my eyes now turn hopefully to Bahrain. What do you think? I know there's been a traditional tension between the Gulf kingdoms and the inland Arab states but do you think there'd be an impact of a successful Bahrainian democracy elsewhere?

 

[G-Man]

Vrylakas -
I think many muslim countries should become democracies. Jordan and Egypt, along with the states of the persian gulf, are more liberal then european countries when they became democracies. But that's might also be why they don't become democracies. It's like Russia in the 19th century - they don't have enough people that support democracy. I never heard of any orgenizations there that support democracy. And even if there were any no one will support them because the western world won't fight against the only leaders that support him.
Also don't expect HAttami too much. He might be considered a liberal but he still supports the idea of the big devil - small devil.

 

[BigBirdZ28]

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Can you tell me something about the current reforms underway in Bahrain? It hasn't been receiving much headline news since the Afghanistan crisis, but it is an important development.

Sure, for daily news/updates you can check this or this paper.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
It is my contention that democracy in southeast Asia took root only after it was demonstrated first by the Japanese, then others like the South Koreans, Singapore, etc. that democracy was very compatible with Asian society and did fuel economic prosperity; they saw it could work and when it did it did wonders.

Actually, the first democracy Arabs were exposed to was the state that Mohammed & his followers setup

Originally posted by Vrylakas
I think the Islamic world needs just such an example now, proof that a native, non-Western democracy can develop successfully and healthily. I had high hopes for Khatami in Iran, but the conservatives have stalled his reforms so my eyes now turn hopefully to Bahrain. What do you think?

Actually, things are going really well in Kuwait, which has had a parlimentary system for quite a while now.

In alllllllllllllll honesty, I dont think there will be a big "on the ground" difference between the current traditional monarchy & the soon to be constitutional monarchy. For the sole reason, that things werent really that bad to begin with anyway ! Sure, some people wanted a democracy more than others, but

In other words, I can't really see many freedoms being enhanced. Sure, freedom of speech in some ways (newspapers, etc...), but almost all other freedoms will stay the same simply becuase there is nothing much left to free-up !

Originally posted by Vrylakas
I know there's been a traditional tension between the Gulf kingdoms and the inland Arab states but do you think there'd be an impact of a successful Bahrainian democracy elsewhere?

Actually, Bahrain hasnt had any real problems as such with any other of the Arab states, except for the (now settled) border dispute with Qatar.

Thanks for your questions man .

As for Gman's comment, if most people dont support democracy, then what's the problem ?

I get the constant feeling that your just trying to pick at anything to portray us as uneducated animals. I have never given any Jew a wrong look let alone hurt one.

 

[kobayashi]

I just wanted to bring up the question of whether a religion is defined by what its holy book says or what its followers believe or do.

I mean its no good if the Koran says be tolerant of other religions if missionaries in most Islamic countries will be beaten up when they stand in the street and try to convert muslims to other religions.

Also, if Islamic priciples are built into the law of a country then there is intollerance.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by BigBirdZ28

Actually, the first democracy Arabs were exposed to was the state that Mohammed & his followers setup

...

As for Gman's comment, if most people dont support democracy, then what's the problem ?

I get the constant feeling that your just trying to pick at anything to portray us as uneducated animals. I have never given any Jew a wrong look let alone hurt one.

Your comment about Mohhamad's democracy is the problem. I'm really not sure how much do people know about Democracy and how much they're allowed to learn about it. I know in a lot of non-democratic regimes there have restrictions on the subject.
Also I don't like the way you say I'm against muslims. Didn't you read my first post in this thread?

 

[Vrylakas]

BigBirdZ28 wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
It is my contention that democracy in southeast Asia took root only after it was demonstrated first by the Japanese, then others like the South Koreans, Singapore, etc. that democracy was very compatible with Asian society and did fuel economic prosperity; they saw it could work and when it did it did wonders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, the first democracy Arabs were exposed to was the state that Mohammed & his followers setup.

Almost all of the major religious groups started similarly, but as they spread geographically the need for a moral formalized decision-making process and structure imposes some rigidity, and the result is almost always - actually, so far, always - someone or some group taking advantage of the new structures and seizing control. Early Christianity was also very egalitarian and utilized something vaguely similar to democracy - but as it spread to the Roman Empire that all went out the window. The more primitive North American Indians also developed primitive "democracies" (most famously the Iroquois) but the more developed Central American Indians were all brutal tyrannies. Those early "democracies" all work great on a small and limited scale, but expansion spells their doom. Association with a government is deadly to religion, and always transforms it.

From the Abbayids on, however, Islam has only known variations of absolutist governments, whether they be an a local Caliph, the Ottoman Sultan, a sheik, or a Ba'athist dictatorship. Aside from the earliest development phase, democracy is (largely) foreign to Arabs.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
I think the Islamic world needs just such an example now, proof that a native, non-Western democracy can develop successfully and healthily. I had high hopes for Khatami in Iran, but the conservatives have stalled his reforms so my eyes now turn hopefully to Bahrain. What do you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, things are going really well in Kuwait, which has had a parlimentary system for quite a while now.

Quite limited though, no? The ruling Kuwaiti dynasty still has a powerful ability to micromanage and interfere in political matters. Also, as I understand the voting franchise is still very limited.

In alllllllllllllll honesty, I dont think there will be a big "on the ground" difference between the current traditional monarchy & the soon to be constitutional monarchy. For the sole reason, that things werent really that bad to begin with anyway ! Sure, some people wanted a democracy more than others, but

What thought were you going to finish in that last sentence? The Gulf kingdoms in general, while more socially conservative have tended to be far less susceptible to the poverty and anger that wreaks such havoc in the rest of the Middle East. I suspect - and this is just my conjecture - that this is due to the smaller populations of these Gulf states, which allows the oil wealth to be spread far more equitably. Also, since most are geographically isolated somewhat as islands, peninsulas or are surrounded by deserts, this has cut down somewhat on the border and population tensions that simmer elsewhere (as you noted).

In other words, I can't really see many freedoms being enhanced. Sure, freedom of speech in some ways (newspapers, etc...), but almost all other freedoms will stay the same simply becuase there is nothing much left to free-up !

I had heard of demonstrations and a rapid growth of fundamentalist-related violence in Bahrain in the 1990s with calls for political liberalization coming from intellectuals,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
I know there's been a traditional tension between the Gulf kingdoms and the inland Arab states but do you think there'd be an impact of a successful Bahrainian democracy elsewhere?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, Bahrain hasnt had any real problems as such with any other of the Arab states, except for the (now settled) border dispute with Qatar.

Yes, as I note above. But do you think Bahrain could ever be an example for Syria or Iraq? Yes, Egypt and Jordan are pseudo-democracies and by Arab standards are quite liberal, but they also use brutal means to stifle dissent and both imprison political prisoners. The point of a democracy is not that it becomes pro-Western but that by empowering its citizens to become involved in the running of the country it is much less likely to resort to violence to solve its internal and external issues, and parallelly is able to support prosperity for the maximum number of its population.

Thanks for your questions man.

Thanks for answering. Dialogue is the only way.