Islam's No1 problem

[Minardiau]

I was speaking to my uncle about this who is a muslim.

After the conversation we both came to this conclusion.

The biggest problem with Islam is that for a religion of it's size it does not have a unifying body like the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbery to maintain and controll the extremists.

He went further when I mentioned the evangilical churches of the US. He said by and large they still swear observance to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Anyone got anything to add?

[foxtrot023]

that is a good analysis. Basically the radical islamists are holding their religion hostage, using it as a means to further their own agenda. The majority of Muslims must act and get their religion back from the violent radicals

[ed316]

Buddhist don't have a central figure either and we do fine.

[Minardiau]

But that has always been a religion of peace so to speak. Plus it's not that wide spread despite the numbers who follow it

[foxtrot023]

Buddhist don't have a central figure either and we do fine.


you could say that it revolves around the idea of Budha, plus it has monks and other religious figures which stick with Buddha original teachings

[Oxley]

Mindi. Muslims are people too.

[hauptman]

The Islam should have some people who write against the Islam from inside the Islam like Nietzsche and Feuerbach did in Europe.

[ed316]

you could say that it revolves around the idea of Budha, plus it has monks and other religious figures which stick with Buddha original teachings


More then anything it has to do with personal responsibilties.

[MaDuce]

In Islam any one can declear themselfs scholars and issue fatwas to suit their needs.

[Ordie]

All religions are open to intrepetation.

For example in Islam you have the following:

Shia
Sunni
Wahabbist
Ismaili
Sufi
Salafis
Ibadis
Ijtihad (Progressive Muslims)
Ahmadi

Then you have

Druze
Alawites

The problem with modern Islam is that Saudi's are funding and exporting Wahabbist Imams throughout the world. This is a fundamentalist branch of Islam. In Saudi Arabia, if you don't make the cut for university, there is always a career as an Imam. So what you get are people who are not well educated and have a narrow outlook. What you get is a lot of anti-semitic sermons, and imposing Saudi customs and norms that have nothing to do with Islam.

A possible solution is for the creation of Islamic Theological Studies in major universities outside of the Middle East. People who undergo these studies usually undertake pre-requisite classes in the humanities, science, mathematics, language etc...

The outcome is a person who is well rounded and and able to bridge the gap.

[Daniel1115]

The biggest problem that I see with it is that Islam is much more than a religion - it encompasses everything from politics, economics, social behavior, education, etc.. Toss in the cultural customs tribes maintain when they adopt Islam as well as their interpretations and there is room for countless dilemnas.

The arrival of the Kalifa won't solve problems. By now, the Sunnis and Shia already have their feet well planted in the ground. Neither will want the other to assume power. And the only realistic way for the Kalifa to return, and with complete control over all Muslims, is for Islam to be conquered and the opposing faith to follow the tennants and banner of the other...

[LazyLob]

Anyone got anything to add?

Yeah, what happens if the "pope of islam" turns out to be an extremist himself? Then we're buggered.

[bluffcove]

The main Islamic leaders and voices are all too closely involved with politics in the middle east, something not seen in christianity since Benedict got sword happy over Jeruslam!

There is room for antidisestablishmentarianism in here somewhere but Ill see how the thread progresses before expanding on that point.

[3rdMillhouse]

I was speaking to my uncle about this who is a muslim.

After the conversation we both came to this conclusion.

The biggest problem with Islam is that for a religion of it's size it does not have a unifying body like the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbery to maintain and controll the extremists.

He went further when I mentioned the evangilical churches of the US. He said by and large they still swear observance to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Anyone got anything to add?

Makes sense, it's a good point. Problem is, religion becomes dangerous when you start to think of it as the sollution to all you problems. When you start to interpret holy writings by the letter, things get wrong. And that's what all terrorist are doing. The think that 13 centuries old ideas are suitable for the present times.

But some are just not wanting peace
Their whole life is death and misery
But do you think that they care
They benefit from death and pain and despair

[dangerclose]

He went further when I mentioned the evangilical churches of the US. He said by and large they still swear observance to the teachings of the Catholic Church.


Uhh .. negative.
The evangelical churches of the U.S. still observe the authority of scripture not the teachings of the catholic church. Example they don't deify Mary, the mother of Jesus because ..... it's not biblical.


Islam's #1 problem is it's source material. These terrorists are not radical, they are orthodox and are simply following the commandments set for them by muhammhed in the koran.

This is not comparing the two because there is no comparison but look at what Jesus commands those who follow Him to do "Love those who persecute you." to what muhammhed commands of his followers.

[jojo]

I honestly believe that a large part of the problem is a lack of "education", in the accepted sense. A large percentage of the Muslim world is uneducated and illiterate. They have little concept of the outside world, or the "mindset" of other cultures. Their horizons are extremely narrow, and this both tunnels and inhibits their understanding. And an uneducated person is easily led by those he trusts. To me, this at least in part accounts for the "mass" unrest. However, I have yet to understand why it is that many of the bombers are both well educated and, frighteningly, "home grown".

[Flamming_Python]

The biggest problem in Islam could well be that it's a young religion, and all young religions advocate agressive conversion (from Juadism to Christianity to Buddhism, all at one time were subject to extremism, and converted many people as well). Until that is that religion provokes so many conflicts, that the people of that religion realise that it is much more important to have peace and stability than to get everyone to agree to your views. The nature of a religion then changes.

Some leaders and politicians (though far from most) realise that they can harnass this faith in a single idea to increase their own power, and thus they start preaching the virtues of that idea (in this case Islam), and soar above the popularity of more balanced politicians.

I admit though that I do not have to much knowledge about this field, so the above interpretations could be very argueable.

[ed316]

The biggest problem in Islam could well be that it's a young religion, and all young religions advocate agressive conversion (from Juadism to Christianity to Buddhism, all at one time were subject to extremism, and converted many people as well). Until that is that religion provokes so many conflicts, that the people of that religion realise that it is much more important to have peace and stability than to get everyone to agree to your views. The nature of a religion then changes.

Some leaders and politicians (though far from most) realise that they can harnass this faith in a single idea to increase this power, and thus they start preaching the virtues of that idea (in this case Islam), and soar above the popularity of more balanced politicians.

I admit though that I do not have to much knowledge about this field, so the above interpretations could be very argueable.


Read about Buddhism and force conversions. :roll:

Tell me what is extreme Buddhism?

[americanbychoice]

The biggest problem with Islam is that for a religion of it's size it does not have a unifying body like the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbery to maintain and controll the extremists.

He went further when I mentioned the evangilical churches of the US. He said by and large they still swear observance to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Yeah, what happens if the "pope of islam" turns out to be an extremist himself? Then we're buggered.

This is what I'm saying about my own Catholic faith... it doesn't matter if the Pope is good or not if the asshats underneath are doing bad sh!t.

Did the Pope solve pedophilia in the Catholic church?
Did the Pope solve "Catholic" terrorism in Northern Ireland?
Has the Papacy been a source of a LOT of corruption within the church itself in the history of the Catholic church?

It doesn't matter if there is a Pope or not when it comes to the cleanliness of the everyday layman practitioner of the faith. It doesn't take a Pope to make a good Catholic, although a good Pope does help.

/no longer interested in theorizing about what ills Islam... IMO, until the individual regular layman practitioners want to save it rather than blame America or Israel for all the ills of the Muslim world, then who cares?

[Flamming_Python]

Read about Buddhism and force conversions. :roll:

Tell me what is extreme Buddhism?

Buddhism itself sort of broke out of Hinduism (correct me if i'm wrong), so it already is a mostly developed religion.

However, it did do a lot of converting across a large area. Just because there is no well-known record of any extermism in that religion, doesn't mean it never existed.

Extremism would include anything that advocates aggressive conversion (not neccesserily by the sword), in which it would actively subvert other beliefs (e.g. Paganism) in that area in order to spread its own point of view better. While in itself such an action is not extremist, it could very easily fall to extremism if the preachers of that religion adopt the point of view that they are absolutely right and that other points of view have no merit.

[ed316]

Buddhism itself sort of broke out of Hinduism, so it already is a mostly developed religion.

However, it did do a lot of converting across a large area. Just because there is no well-known record of any extermism in that religion, doesn't mean it never existed.

Broke away? How?


Then do tell.

You need to read about things before posting.

[Enigma]

The biggest problem with Islam is that for a religion of it's size it does not have a unifying body like the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbery to maintain and controll the extremists.



The Ahmadiyyah Muslim Community does have a Head.

The following are pics from an annual convention. The Pictures are of members taking part in “Baiat” (initiation ceremony (Pledge)).

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/9541/4tm2.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/9073/7cj2.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/7651/11sz2.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/3274/untitledra6.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://img281.imageshack.us/img281/142/untitled77oq6.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/9127/untitled66ck8.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/4141/untitled56ey8.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/8189/untitled33fa3.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/575/untitled5vf4.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/884/untitled3cy6.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/1402/55hn8.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://img281.imageshack.us/img281/6849/44rv0.png (http://imageshack.us)

http://img270.imageshack.us/img270/6938/45iu4.png (http://imageshack.us)

[ed316]

Extremism would include anything that advocates aggressive conversion (not neccesserily by the sword), in which it would actively subvert other beliefs (e.g. Paganism) in that area in order to spread its own point of view better. While in itself such an action is not extremist, it could very easily fall to extremism if the preachers of that religion adopt the point of view that they are absolutely right and that other points of view have no merit.

Force conversion is not accepted and proselytizing is not part of Buddhist teaching. Buddhism tolerates others views and teachings.

Like I said read up on it and do tell me about Extremist Buddhism. Info?

[Flamming_Python]

Force conversion is not accepted and proselytizing is not part of Buddhist teaching. Buddhism tolerates others views and teachings.

Like I said read up on it and do tell me about Extremist Buddhism.

Like I said it is a mature religion already, perhaps since it was formed, as it learnt the lessons of others. Otherwise what would be the point of breaking off in the first place? Then again it could have started out like all the others, but the religion itself would have changed over time.

Therefore there may or not have been extremist versions of Buddhism, but it would have happened such a long time ago that there may be very little record of it.

A much better example for me to explain would be that of Judaism. In ancient times they were converting quite a lot. The most recent conversion AFAIK would be the Kazar Empire in the modern Caucauses and Southern Russia. A whole people converted to Judaism (but little is known about how they can converted, or how many people didn't convert at first). Nowadays it seems to me that Judaism has changed in a way, and now hardly actively converts at all, preffering to strengthen it's support among the people that already believe in it.

[ed316]

Like I said it is a mature religion already, since it was formed, as it learnt the lessons of others. Otherwise what would be the point of breaking off in the first place? Therefore there may or not have been extremist version of Buddhism, but it would have happened such a long time ago that there may be very little record of it.


The teachings have been the same since day one. Basically you are talking out of your ass. Why don't you tell me about Buddhism since you seem to know so much?

[ed316]

Like I said it is a mature religion already, perhaps since it was formed, as it learnt the lessons of others. Otherwise what would be the point of breaking off in the first place? Then again it could have started out like all the others, but the religion itself would have changed over time.

Therefore there may or not have been extremist versions of Buddhism, but it would have happened such a long time ago that there may be very little record of it.

A much better example for me to explain would be that of Judaism. In ancient times they were converting quite a lot. The most recent conversion AFAIK would be the Kazar Empire in the modern Caucauses and Southern Russia. A whole people converted to Judaism (but little is known about how they can converted, or how many people didn't convert at first). Nowadays it seems to me that Judaism has changed in a way, and now hardly actively converts at all, preffering to strengthen it's support among the people that already believe in it.


Like I said read about Buddhism before posting. There will be no need for records it can be pass on by word of mouth. Chinese and Indian culture kept extensive writings. I guess they are trying to protect a bunch of monk's reputation then.

[Flamming_Python]

The teachings have been the same since day one. Basically you are talking out of your ass. Why don't you tell me about Buddhism since you seem to know so much?

Take it easy FFS. I don't know much about Buddihism, and I don't know much about its teachings, which is why i'm not debating Buddihism, but rather debating how it became a world religion. Everyone tribe in every part of the world believed in something. Pagan beliefs. How did these pagan beliefs disappear? They would have a had a firm base of support as well, even if they had many people who only loosely subscribed to it. How did that base of support disappear?

By the spread of Buddihsm, how could they have convinced people to be Buddihsts if they just said, you should believe what you already believe?

[jojo]

The biggest problem in Islam could well be that it's a young religion, and all young religions advocate agressive conversion (from Juadism to Christianity to Buddhism, all at one time were subject to extremism, and converted many people as well). Until that is that religion provokes so many conflicts, that the people of that religion realise that it is much more important to have peace and stability than to get everyone to agree to your views. The nature of a religion then changes.

Some leaders and politicians (though far from most) realise that they can harnass this faith in a single idea to increase their own power, and thus they start preaching the virtues of that idea (in this case Islam), and soar above the popularity of more balanced politicians.

I admit though that I do not have to much knowledge about this field, so the above interpretations could be very argueable.
You make a valid point, which ties in with my point about the illiterate "masses". During early European Christianity the "masses" were deliberately kept ignorant. For example, the church banned the translation of the Bible from the Latin. Scientists of the day were persecuted for putting forward ideas which conflicted in any way with the church view of things. It was about POWER! And to facilitate keeping power, it helps if you keep the masses ignorant. And to some degree, that is what is happening in the Muslim world today. The 21'st century -- medieval doctrine. Scary.

[ed316]

Take it easy FFS. I don't know much about Buddihism, and I don't know much about its teachings, which is why i'm not debating Buddihism, but rather debating how it became a world religion. Everyone tribe in every part of the world believed in something. Pagan beliefs. How did these pagan beliefs disappear? They would have a had a firm base of support as well, even if they had many people who only loosely subscribed to it. How did that base of support disappear?

By the spread of Buddihsm, how could they have convinced people to be Buddihsts if they just said, you should believe what you already believe?


Maybe because people liked the message. You do not have a clue about Asian/Buddhist culture. I'm cool seems like you haven't done your homework.

Tell me do you know anything about Buddhism? If you want to look for pagan beliefs/Anamist you just have to look to SE Asian culture. Ever heard of the Silk Road? In Buddhism people go to the religion not religion comes to you ie; proselytizing.


Read up on it. Just making yourself look bad.

[c62]

Tell me what is extreme Buddhism?
That's when you're extremely nice to someone...:):):)

[Flamming_Python]

Maybe because people liked the message. You do not have a clue about Asian/Buddhist culture. I'm cool seems like you haven't done your homework.

Tell me do you know anything about Buddhism? If you want to look for pagan beliefs/Anamist you just have to look to SE Asian culture. Ever heard of the Silk Road? In Buddhism people go to the religion not religion comes to you ie; proselytizing.


Read up on it. Just making yourself look bad.

I was merely fowarding the suggestion, and I said from the start that I could very well be wrong. If you're tolerant of other peoples views as your religion teaches, then be tolerent. If i'm wrong, point it out with logic and evidence, but equally don't start telling me that i'm "making myself look bad".

This could very well be because the development of grand religious ideas in Asia (Indian sub-continent especially) started a long time before those in other parts of the world. There may have been wars, thought, there may have not been, at which point new religions started to spring up in response to this bloodshed.

Yes then assuming that everything you're saying is true then Buddihsm is an ideal religion. But then again it seems to me like more as more of a way of thinking or philosophy, as religion in the conventional sense requires an absolute truth that is not compaitible with the absolute truth of others.

[DongFangBuBai]

I can think of 3 problems:

1) Islam has no equivalent of 'render to caesar what is caesar's and render to God what is God's (as in bible)' - therefore, there is no distinguishing between state and religon.

2) Pope Benedict XVI said Islam teaches that God's "will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." The risk he sees implicit in this concept of the divine is that the irrationality of violence might thereby appear to be justified to someone who believes it is God's will. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1535812,00.html)

3) Islam allows for fellow muslims to be declared infidels if they disagree with a certain teaching/believe.

[ed316]

I was merely fowarding the suggestion, and I said from the start that I could very well be wrong. If you're tolerant of other peoples views as your religion teaches, then be tolerent. If i'm wrong, point it out with logic and evidence, but equally don't start telling me that i'm "making myself look bad".

This could very well be because the development of grand religious ideas in Asia (Indian sub-continent especially) started a long time before those in other parts of the world. There may have been wars, thought, there may have not been, at which point new religions started to spring up in response to this bloodshed.

Yes then assuming that everything you're saying is true then Buddihsm is an ideal religion. But then again it seems to me like more as more of a way of thinking or philosophy, as religion in the conventional sense requires an absolute truth that is not compaitible with the absolute truth of others.


The only thing I told you to do is read up on Buddhism and that's it.

BTW we, Buddhist, don't claim to be the "true" or "ideal" religion. You can choose to follows the teaching or not. Whatever floats your boat. Many people don't follow the teachings because there IS NO god/creator in Buddhism.

[Flamming_Python]

The only thing I told you to do is read up on Buddhism and that's it.

BTW we, Buddhist, don't claim to be the "true" or "ideal" religion. You can choose to follows the teaching or not. Whatever floats your boat. Many people don't follow the teachings because there IS NO god/creator in Buddhism.

Fair enough. Like I said it is a religion that is different from other religions.

Yet someone could not start out a Christian or a Muslim and then be a Buddhist at the same time. Once they have converted to Buddism, they lose their old identity. Or am I wrong?

Let me ask you another question. Do you advocate Buddism as a way to solve the ills of this world, by teaching people the idea of tolerence through Buddhism. Do you believe that certain Buddhists could justify the means by the end, and start to spread their views at the expense of other conventional points of views. Or is that not permisable in your religion? Sounds like it's not.

[ed316]

Fair enough. Like I said it is a religion that is different from other religions.

Yet someone could not start out a Christian or a Muslim and then be a Buddhist at the same time. Once they have converted to Buddism, they lose their old identity. Or am I wrong?

Let me ask you another question. Do you advocate Buddism as a way to solve the ills of this world, by teaching people the idea of tolerence through Buddhism. Do you believe that certain Buddhists could justify the means by the end, and start to spread their views at the expense of other conventional points of views. Or is that not permisable in your religion? Sounds like it's not.

What indentity? You are still you.

Every religion teaches tolerance it comes down to the individuals to adhere to it. To advocate is to proselyitise. How many times do I have to tell you proselytizing is against the Buddhist teachings? You come to the Buddha's teaching not the other way around.

[khukuri]

But that has always been a religion of peace so to speak. Plus it's not that wide spread despite the numbers who follow it

buddhist myth number one... there have been standing buddhist armys until themaoist invasion when they realised they were gone be focked militarily...

In Islam any one can declear themselfs scholars and issue fatwas to suit their needs.

Not really... But people do that anyway, when they open new sects. Like in any other religion, group and politics etc...


The biggest problem that I see with it is that Islam is much more than a religion - it encompasses everything from politics, economics, social behavior, education, etc.. Toss in the cultural customs tribes maintain when they adopt Islam as well as their interpretations and there is room for countless dilemnas.

Its true but its not the root of the problem...


Islam's #1 problem is it's source material. These terrorists are not radical, they are orthodox and are simply following the commandments set for them by muhammhed in the koran.

Pure politically motivated byllshyte, the terrorists are infact radicaland not ortodox, anybody who know anything about the history of wahhabis and other terrorists now that theyre neoradical and not orthodox. People who love to point out that islam in itself is terroristics say that but its knwon to be rethoric garbage by people who dont know what theyre talking about... nice one...(or not)



The biggest problem with Islam is that for a religion of it's size it does not have a unifying body like the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbery to maintain and controll the extremists.


I dont agree, the unifing of europe made it easyer to convert europe in secular ways because religion was controlled in one body and state had loads of power over religion. But still, even some likes the outcome I think its quite fascistic and dont like it at all. Religion should be a personal thing, not controlled by some central power. This is about faith after all. Second of all it doesnt matter if its centralized, sects who carry out terrorism dont really care about unifying bodys anyway, theyre blowing up mosks in Iraq for gods sake, do you really think they would care about a central body?

[bluffcove]

"The main religious leaders of Islam have polticial agendas." -

Would you agree? thinking with reference to the high status with which Iranian scholars are held being as they are a "beacon" state for Islamic law.

[khukuri]

"The main religious leaders of Islam have polticial agendas." -

Would you agree? thinking with reference to the high status with which Iranian scholars are held being as they are a "beacon" state for Islamic law.

You mean like if other religious leaders dont have political agendas. Like the Pope or dalai lama?
Personally I cant see big organisations like that without political agendas, they wouldnt become that big if they hadnt in the first place. But I do strongly dislike it ...

[bluffcove]

The last time the pope declared a war - things got messy, We (the christian west) haven't risked it since. and that was a few centuries back.

A minority of Extrmist clerics however make a habit of declaring fatwahs and militant (as opposed to personal) Jihads .

[khukuri]

A minority of Extrmist clerics however make a habit of declaring fatwahs and militant (as opposed to personal) Jihads .

Christian American minority clerics dont need to declare "jihads", they just help electing a president that does it for them... Religious movements in west dont need to declare wars themselves, they do it by lobbying theyre govrements... I m not saying its the exact same thing, but in the long run, theyre both trying to do similar things but in different ways...

[nullterm]

The Islam should have some people who write against the Islam from inside the Islam like Nietzsche and Feuerbach did in Europe.

I have to say that is a brilliant point. The greatest critics of Christian religion have been Christians themselves. If a Muslim came along and was critical of Christian behaviour, it would be rejected because it comes from outside the community. However, if a Christian is critical it is much more likely to lead to debate and change.

If Muslims are against radicalism, then they themselves must challenge the religious basis on which that radicalism is based on. I doubt you would get large numbers of radicals adandoning their ways, but hopefully you would reduce the number of those at risk of falling into the radical footsteps. Muslims themselves need to find the path for their own religion.

[bluffcove]

Iran is a theocracy. It preaches dissent. and encourages violence, this reflects badly on the relgiion at the crux of the nations existence.

America is a liberal western democracy with some intersting views on international affairs, but these are more likely to be motivated and associated with trade economny and security than with the religion of its leaders.

(desperately trying to forget bush calling the war on terror a "crusade" or nicking operational titles from the Qu'ran)

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

Christian American minority clerics dont need to declare "jihads", they just help electing a president that does it for them...

yes we all foresaw 9/11 and elected G.W. with our foresight and knowledge from our magical crystal ball that foretells the future...

[khukuri]

yes we all foresaw 9/11 and elected G.W. with our foresight and knowledge from our magical crystal ball that foretells the future...

Sorry I forgot that the war in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. However it has nothing to do with the point, the discussion was about the political aim and influence of religious leaders. My point is that western religious leaders also strive to affect policies but by different ways. So you mean the american christian far right doesnt have ideas about things and lobby them into politics?... you seriously think that the iraq war idea was born after 9/11? How naive...

[khukuri]

If Muslims are against radicalism, then they themselves must challenge the religious basis on which that radicalism is based on.

they would come to the answer that its partly a political one, and then you would get some interesting thoughts...

[bluffcove]

There is not a problem with Islam by any means there is a problem with the wests perception of Islam due ot the actions of particularly vocal extremists.

This perception of Islam as a villent religion is created by the fact that a nation built on Islamic principles in Iran routinely threatens its neighbours and the values held dear to western liberal society.

There is no reciprocal precedent for this in recent history.

The worlds only christian theocrtacy is the vatican which last decalred war - 'king ages ago!

American policy is dictated by things outside of relgion, GLOBALISATION OIL CASH TRADE SECURITY MARKETS. It is not a christain threat that the world "would" face from the US because christianity is not hte founding factor in American domestic or foreign policy, culture maybe but not policy.

Iran and the Taleban have perverse Islam as the standing tennets of their government ahead of all else, secondary to that they are keen to destroy our ideals of life.

At some point regardless of whether it is wrong for us to fight them, their are people in this world that would do us harm if we didnt engage with and destroy them. Let someone else decide who was morally right and wrong at a later date for the time being the standing traditions and beliefs of western liberal democracy are threatened by a terrorist group inspired by extremist teachings emanating from a Muslim Theocracy that wants my nation destroyed. Hence - Im rightly narked off with them!

vis a vis - bish bash bosh - Jobs a good 'un.

[getl0st]

All of you have got it all wrong.

The primary issue with Islam today is Control.

The Islamic world has seen the influence of Religion deminish in the Western World due to much better education, freedom, especially freedom of thought, expression and speech, much of which is influenced by Modern Culture, particulary since the advent of Television and the Internet.

I think you will find that the leadership of the Islamic World is sh1t scared of loosing the control over their believers. If you compare the draconian restrictions some dictators have subjected their populous too and compare it to Shariah Law you will see that they are very similar.

Look at what happens to any of the Middle Eastern countries that addopt Sharia Law, they go straight back to the 5th century and as such remove the influence from the modern world, and thus reduce the influence of the outside world.

The problem isn't really Islam, the problem is the Leadership of Islam. Some of these people are outright evil and will do anything to maintain their power and contol over the people they are meant to represent.

Now if I was a Muslim and saw what alot of Muslims were doing in the name of Allah today, I would be absolutely disgusted and would be seriously reconsidering whether I would want to maintain my association with such a religion.

So therefore, the problem with any religion, isn't really the religion, the problem is with the people within the religion.

[khukuri]

There is not a problem with Islam by any means there is a problem with the wests perception of Islam due ot the actions of particularly vocal extremists.

This perception of Islam as a villent religion is created by the fact that a nation built on Islamic principles in Iran routinely threatens its neighbours and the values held dear to western liberal society.

That I agree with, but from other eyes, the same western liberal societys threaten, occupys and overthrows regimes, whether theyre democratic or not in their own political/economical interest. Im not comparing Uk to taliban, but why are somethings image setting why other are not. Why is the french occupation of algeria up to the 60:ies not image setting for western liberal societis while supporting terror have to be image setting for islam. Im trying to argue from both ways here... outside the box. However this is another discussion...


American policy is dictated by things outside of relgion, GLOBALISATION OIL CASH TRADE SECURITY MARKETS. It is not a christain threat that the world "would" face from the US because christianity is not hte founding factor in American domestic or foreign policy, culture maybe but not policy.


I wouldnt agree here, not completly atleast. The us policy is in the end dictated by those who have the power to be apart of it. Its everything from corporations, unions, amnesty to big christian groups. As whole, youre right, the us is not Iran or the Taliban. But saying that religion is not dictating things I think is quite wrong. There is a strong religious movement that is trying to affect things, and in some cases they succed. The difference from other countries is that they dont have total power, but power they do have. Basicly, Im trying to point out that in some islamic countries, the religious leaders have managed to get absolut power, while in western countries religion no more has absolut power, but power they do have, and they try to increase it every day. With other words, other religions are trying to do the same thing, theyre just failing at it. Its nothing unique with islam, its just that islam in this time an age have managed to get a grip on some nations. This leads to the theological discussion we had in the begining of this thread, ie "islams no1 problem"...


have to get to bed now, good night and thx for a good discussion:)

[Rifleman]

He said by and large they still swear observance to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Anyone got anything to add?

Oh my no!


As I may have mentioned before my Father is a blue blood but my Mom was a southern farm girl he hitched to in college. I do not think the two sides ever spoke. Every summer I would go south to spend a couple weeks at the farm.

"I SAY THE FOLLOWING ONLY IN REFERENCE"

To be short and to the point I learned that down there they did not like ******s, Catholics and jews....in that order. I found that odd since back home I lived in an Irish/Catholics neighborhood, went to school with black kids and after school I would hang out with mom at work. She was a private nurse for 3 little old jewsih ladies. One day I asked why they had numbers written on their arms...the Holocaust!

What is happening in the world today is not about religion, it is a culture war and that my friend is baddd mojo!

[I'mOnlyHalfPolish]

Sorry I forgot that the war in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. However it has nothing to do with the point, the discussion was about the political aim and influence of religious leaders. My point is that western religious leaders also strive to affect policies but by different ways. So you mean the american christian far right doesnt have ideas about things and lobby them into politics?... you seriously think that the iraq war idea was born after 9/11? How naive...

yes because during his first term from 2001-2004 we had a mini vote in march of '03 in which we re-voted him into office...

annnnd on a side note, I'm a conservative Christian from perhaps one of the, if not THE most conservative state in the US and home of the current president. i can say i have absolutely no clue what this "American Christian far right" jive is all about...if what you mean is that somehow politics are preached in Church, I can tell you I've never, ever, ever, ever, ever heard politics mentioned in Church (we tend to focus on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the gospel). I can also say that I've never, absolutely never heard the words muslim or islam ever mentioned in any Church I have ever been too, ever.