That, and also, Muslim fundamentalists are smarter than Christian one's. Like, Muslims will not claim "Earth is 6000 years old" ..they'll agree that Earth is billions of years old..or they'll also say that God did not create Earth in just six days etc...Muslim fundamentalism will reject evolution in a way that will sound less ridiculous than 6000 years old earth theory.
Yeah...Right...
...Respected members 'Light-of-Mustafa' and 'PrinceZed' over at
bishmikallahuma believes in geocentrism. And do I need to go on about djinns and the likes...??? You are treading into an area that
WILL embarrass you more than you know.
Also, Islam successfully maintained its family structure, social values, cultural baggage etc against secular onslaught while christianity just scummed to it. There are various reasons for that but lets not make it too long..
And the secularists are converting to Islam? Or are they in alliance with the remaining Christians to butt intellectual and ideological heads against the religious oppression of Islam, especially when they see the sorry status of women, of Christians, and of minorities in Muslim countries, and recognize that such
WOULD be their fates if they do not resist?
And that is why Islam is probably the most successful/strongest ideological force in the whole human history.
You have that impression simply because Christendom were in social flux, theologically divided, and politically defanged, then finally stabilized as we see it today. There are still over one billion Catholics, not counting the Protestant sects. Their ideological beliefs are no less powerful just because their religion is no longer politically dominant. However, if threatened, they do not need to reintroduce their religious beliefs into their governments in order for their political leaders to take appropriate measures to resist Islam because those leaders came from them.
Hint: People don't choose religion when they are educated, rational adults like you are. The religion comes in when most of us are " 'sheeple', in other words, those who are borderline medical imbeciles who needs guidance in every aspects of their lives"
..Doesn't the OP talks something about "Islam ingrained itself in the mind of follower" ? For many, Islam becomes a complete way of life instead of just a spiritual guide..and hence once Islam enters a certain geopolitical region...it STAYS there almost forever... Unless, something extra-ordinary like inquisition happens...
That is nothing unique to Islam. All people are capable of accepting deeply whatever religion they chose. But perhaps what make Islam unique is the depth of rules designed to turn rational people into 'sheeple'. I was told in Turkey over 30 yrs ago that it was a religious edict to use my left hand after defecation, it was like 'You gotta be fffking kidding me...!!!' I was so shocked that am certain a bunch of brain neurons must have permanently reconfigured themselves to preserve that bit of memory, like a prehistoric insect embalmed in amber. I can understand the need of such back in the 7th century. But for today...???
Try telling the Christian and his secularist pal that they must use their left hands after personal toilet and see what happens.
Offcourse over time, religiosity varies among followers. Like, I eat with right hand...now why I do that? because my parents trained me as such and main reason for it was Islam I presume. But now, do I think "Oh, I should eat with right hand because Islam says so?" ..no, I don't. Now this is just part of my personality...
Yes, because Islam say so. But then may be Islam is not as 'ingrained' as you think, eh?
Looky here...Rules are
ENACTED for children while understandings are
DEVELOPED by adults. Rational people, aka intellectually and emotionally matured adults, are persuaded to obey principles (not rules) and their obeisance are internally compelled, never externally enforced. The ultimate goal is for the person being sacrificial, which is always from being voluntary, never coerced. Rules are coercions. Principles are persuasions. Less rules and more principles make a nobler religion.
This is why clash of civilization idea disturbs me..the "West" has ~ 60 million Muslims! Islam has now become an inevitable part of Western fabric and it aint going no where. [/b]Why not just live in peace.[/b]
Because the Muslims will not accept certain unalienable and inalienable rights the non-Muslims have declared to be basic to personhood and citizenship.
In
A System of Moral Philosophy (1755), Francis Hutcheson wrote:
"Thus no man can really change his sentiments, judgments, and inward affections, at the pleasure of another; nor can it tend to any good to make him profess what is contrary to his heart. The right of private judgment is therefore unalienable."
Note the highlighted. There is a clear philosophical difference between 'un' and 'in', even though we uses them interchangeably.
Something that is 'unalienable' cannot be severed from the self. The word 'cannot' equals to 'incapable-ness'. If a tree dropped a branch, the branch still retains all the qualities and characteristics that is unique to 'wood', therefore, what is 'wood-ness' is unalienable to both tree and branch. Same for a piece of iron that is separated from the mother lode. Even if that piece of iron is alloyed, what is intrinsic to iron remains the foundation of the new metal, therefore, whatever that is 'iron-ness' is quite unalienable from the separate piece and the mother lode.
On the other hand, what is 'inalienable' can be severed from the self when it is upon
CONSENT, in other words, to be 'alienable' is to be capable of severance, therefore, to be 'inalienable' is to have strong philosophical and legal contexts as to how that severance is achieved. My car is inalienable to me as long as I claim ownership of it. Even if a thief is in complete physical possession of it, it is still my car philosophically and legally. Against the President of the US, I do not give consent to any severance of my freedom of speech regarding his policies, but against a crowded theater, I do give such consent by approving a law that punishes anyone who yells 'Fire' when there is no real fire.
We believe the freedom of thoughts to be unalienable. Its inevitable consequence, freedom of speech, to be inalienable from personhood and citizenship. Personhood is about relating to another person. Citizenship is about relating to political authority. The Muslims do not share the sentiment of the latter -- freedom of speech. We have seen this hostility to the freedom of speech over and over --
EVERY Muslim country. And now, we are seeing that hostility in our countries.
If there is the freedom of thoughts and the inevitable consequence of freedom of speech, then the next inevitable consequence is the freedom of association, which includes everything from trade unions to religions. Pastor Saeed Abedini was sentenced to eight years in prison because of his association with Christianity. The Saudi 'morality' police hunts Christians in Saudi Arabia because of some people's association with Christianity.
All three Abrahamic religions claims to be transnational, transracial, and transtemporal. Whatever Jesus said to be applicable to humanity in Judea over 2000 yrs ago are applicable to Asia 1000 yrs ago and applicable to America today. Same for Islam and Judaism. That mean if there is a single Christian in Iran or Saudi Arabia, there is at least a representative of the 'Christian civilization' in Iran or Saudi Arabia. The 'clash of civilizations' is already underway -- in Muslim lands. So when you said that you are puzzled by this 'clash of civilizations', really you are puzzled that the notion even exists in Christendom but not at all discomfort that it is going on in Muslim countries.
Here is the peace the Muslims seeks: Peace in Muslim countries where Muslims are allowed to do as they please because the local Christians are terrified of them, and peace in Christian countries where the Muslims are allowed to do as they please because the local Christians are terrified of them.
The Muslims achieved the first and are now working to get the other.
Muslims of West will give up their cultural traditions and adapt Western cultural traditions. Cultural traditions have nothing to do with Islam. Like, now many girls are "arrange" married to their spouses..but in new, younger Western Muslim population..this tradition is dying off or isn't present to begin with. My cousin (girl) just found a guy for herself and now she is ready to marry this handsome dude. My grandfather is a 'ultra conservative' Muslim if you will..but he couldn't do jack about it! Cuz we ALL know that this is how it is in USA and American Muslims are just fine with it.
(This would be the model of marriage for ALL young American Muslim that I know of. Same goes for my daughter if I ever had one...)
So things aren't as bad as you might think.
The real -- unspoken -- reason why your cousin can have such a liberated act is because your grandfather is outnumbered, and am not talking about your family. Your cousin have the tacit moral support of the entire Western civilization behind her, not even talking about the legal 'guns' she can bring to the fight. Did your grandfather came from a tribe or cliquish village in Afghanistan? I doubt it. Am confident he is fully cognizant of the moral chasm between his beliefs and of the society your cousin lives in, and am equally confident that if he could have harsh words with her, he will have no problem wielding the Quranic hammer the way Thor does Mjolnir in the comic books and movies.
lol...Islam says that if you give alms from one hand, even your second hand should not know about this. This is an *explicit* command of Prophet Muhammad.
So I guess I have answered your question...
No, you did not. I asked which is more important, give alms or obeying petty rules? Of course, the proper thing in giving alms is to be quiet about it, but the context here is which is seemingly more important to Allah. Personally, I seriously doubt that your Allah is as small minded as the Quran portrayed. To me...Praying five times a day, no matter where and how it can inconvenient others, is just as pretentious as how devout Catholics love to preen their piety.
I never claimed that Islamic Countries are superior to you...
You certainly implied it, especially about how much politics reign within Islam.
What you need to understand is that "Muslims" is not a one, unified group...
When you compare say Malaysia or Turkey with Japan, the results would obviously be in favor of Japan.
But if you compare Pakistan and Japan...the results would be EMBARRASSING..
Hopefully, you are not saying it would be 'embarrassing' for Japan. Aye...Caramba...I see textile products labeled 'Made In Pakistan' while high end electronics hard etched with 'Made In Japan'.
Also, with due respect, Japanese outperform many Western nations too...and in some aspects, even the U.S....
Sure...We have no problem calling Japan a 'peer'. None of us in the notional West are completely the same in everything.
Generalization to the point of Islamophobic/Muslimophobic views.
Not at all.
YOU are the example of this 'generalization'. So far, the most important thing in this discussion is about how much politics reign in Islam. You are proud of it while we are trying to stay away from it.
C'mon. American Muslims should not be addressed as "you" ....Westerners need to realize that Western Muslims ARE westerners just like others.
Don't be a racist.
There is no 'race' call 'Muslim'.
Keep it to themselves? Yeah right.
Fundamentalist Christians actively try to influence policies, infiltrate military, exploit people to trick/force them into christianity , and many other things...
Don't act as if only Islamic fundamentalism is evil while others are holy cow.
They may be 'fundamentalists' but hardly 'extremists'. Sorry, but even though Mitt Romney may be a 'fundamentalist' Christian, never mind Mormonism, his respect and treatment for women is a world of difference from that of a 'fundamentalist' Muslim. May we use your grandfather --
vis-a-vis your female cousin -- as example since you brought him on? Our violent extremist Christians are the equals of your many run-of-the-mill fundamentalist Muslims, the kind that killed their daughters here in the West for being 'too Westernized', that make up Saudi 'morality' police, that persecute Christians in Iran, or that stone alleged adulterous women in Afghanistan.
By our fear of Muslims. Surely you enjoy that. If you want some act out politically, all you have to do is threaten to be offended, and there will no shortage of self hating cowardly Americans, Brits, Germans, Frenchmen, Swiss, etc...hurry to cater to your 'needs'. Your feelings are more important than theirs. All you have to do is dredge up old injustices from their less than illustrious past and throw it in their faces and they will cower.
We actually go like "Oh f*ck..not again...now we would have to face questions of our colleagues again"
Then how do you think we feel? Why is your frustration at our questions more important than our fear of you? After the bus bombing of 1996, the Brits did not retaliate in kind against the local Muslim community. So it is actually easier to face our questions than to face those who commit acts that you pretentiously claims to be offensive to you, or 'un-Islamic'. At least your answers will contain code words and phrases you knew would turn the table against your questioners to portray them as bigots for expressing their legitimate fears.
What do you want Muslims to do? There are fatwas from almost all major Islamic Scholars that terrorism is wrong, enforcing shari'a is haram etc etc...Muslims completely reject the disgusting actions of the loons! What else can we do? You tell sir!
Sorry, but those fatwas are meaningless. If Muslims 'completely' reject those 'disgusting actions', then why are they so persistent the world over, from the ME, to Asia, to Europe, and to the US? What else can you do? How about creating a central moral and religious authority to present a unified institutional face, not just to the non-Muslims, but also to those would contemplate on joining those who would commmit those 'disgusting actions' or are already there?
Take a look at Catholics and contraception, for example. Doctrinally, Catholics are forbidden to use 'the pill' and must rely solely on what is called 'the rhythm method' where the couple must time the woman's menstrual cycles if they do not want children. It is a calendar based form of birth control. Some non-Catholics shares the same belief. But for Catholics who disobey the Church and uses 'the pill', they often attempts to persuade but they do not vocalize their disobedience in Catholic schools, in churches, in religious meetings, etc. As they continues to attend Church and perform assorted Catholic related rituals, they know that using 'the pill' is a violation of Church doctrine. Unless God Himself make clear that 'the pill' is irrelevant to Him, the Vatican is all that stands between Catholics and 'the pill'.
Now look at Islam. You have the extremes of the Saudis and the Taliban. Between them you have various gradations of liberalized Islam. Each claiming itself to be completely 'Islamic' and have its own
a la carte stock of imams and scholars ready to proclaim the others 'un-Islamic'. Fatwas flies back and forth and every which way. If 'extremist' Islam can ignore the fatwas levied, then why should the non-Muslims take the same fatwas seriously and give Islam/Muslims any benefit of doubts? You 'moderate' Muslims seems to have the same problem the world over: That you believe it is more important to pound into us non-Muslims on what is 'Islamic' and 'un-Islamic' than it is to focus your attention on the extremists. If we do not understand, it is our fault, never yours.
Put it this way: Take care of your 'extremist' problem and you will not have to worry about our questions.
We have lost 40,000 men in Pakistan fighting against terror...even more injured, amputated for whole life...what else can one do?
How about first securing your borders, then have complete authority over your country? Ideologies need the human agency in order to propagate and grow. Consequent to that is the human agency need for secure and safe territories to foster those ideologies before propagation. Safe and secure territories does not have to be under one's control. Abandoned and/or neglected will do just fine. Same if political authority that is cowardly and tolerant.
Muslims don't think that...
Sure you do. The potency of political influence and that potency have been the pride of your argument so far.
Why would Western Muslims 'order' some secular,libertine to not to go to brothels etc? C'mon..
I have many Christian, Jewish, even Israeli friends...we all get along together (other than passing some racist remarks about each other every now and then
) ...I don't need to 'order' them "Hey, you can't drink alcohol. Or you can have sex without marriage" etc etc..
Muslims just get along fine. Don't exaggerate, please.
Then what is the point of emphasizing the political aspect of Islam? Politics exists everywhere. Politics exists between boss and employee, siblings, husbands and wives, friends, and so on. Christianity have been mostly politically defanged with us. It is your right if Muslims are not willing to the same to Islam, but do not try to mislead us that if given the chance, Muslims will not unite behind a political party with 'Islamic' political and ideological agendas to try to oppress non-Muslims under Islam.
Am sure you heard of the joke: Dear God, save me from your followers.
That is how I feel about Islam and Muslims: Dear Allah, save me from your followers.
Do YOU have any Muslim friend(s)?
No, I do not.
My point simply was to dispel this myth of yours that people will convert to Islam only because they hate what they are ...
You misunderstood. That was never my myth but what you tried to portrayed by repeated emphasis on the political aspect of Islam. You failed to understand that Islam actually faces two oppositions: The Christians, no matter how nominal they are in rituals they are firm in their belief that it was the Judeo-Christian ethos that brought them to where their world is today, and the equally staunch secularists with their quick response to any perceived intrusions into their liberties.
Such signs are useless and not to be taken seriously. You even see signs "Islam will rule the world" ...LOL...seriously? Who even takes these retards seriously? Just bunch of loons protesting with provocative signs...
The Muslim who murdered Theo van Gogh did take those signs seriously. But I guess the Muslims did not take that seriously either. Same apathy for the death fatwas on Salman Rushdie.
Offcourse, because Roman Church was there...it just developed christian doctrines and became catholic church. Islam didn't have "divine right" or "money for salvation" thing..so much for central authority.
But you avoided the point, which is that there was a central religious and moral authority, and even today, the Vatican is still a significant moral force in all Crhistian sects. And there is nothing in the Bible that says there must be such an institution. It is irrelevant if the Bible is the final compilation of edited testimonies or not. It is irrelevant if the Quran came from the same process or not. So just because the Quran is
THE moral authority in Islam as the Bible is in Christianity, the Quran still needs the human agency to explain and propagate its beliefs and inside this human agency lies the need for structure and human authority.
Why do you think the Christians have the 'ordination' process where the person is assessed if there are sufficient devotion, doctrinal knowledge, experience, and intelligence
BEFORE the candidate is 'blessed' by a representative of God to be a peer in that clique? You are telling me that Islam have no such need and process? Where are those imams with either black and white turbans came from? If Muhammad is alive today, he would be the equivalent of the Pope. His moral authority would be unchallenged, correct? His lieutenants, and their lieutenants, would make up an unofficial official centralized religious and moral authority institution for Islam. Instead, Muhammad being dead, you have imams strained genealogies to see who could claim even the most dubious tie to him via the turban color. They issues fatwas according to fickle politics and money more than from morality.
For Allah's sake, man...!!! The fact that the Muslims postcript Muhammad's name with PBUH and uses his life as instructions for all Muslims means that need for structure exists and is more necessary than before.
Your refusal to acknowledge this truly human need contribute to the mess that all sides sees today: This is 'Islamic' but that is 'un-Islamic' -- while Muhammad figuratively spins in his grave at the theological and moral antics of the lay Muslims and their exalted imams.
Muslims also believe and 'serve' in same God...whatever sect they might be.
Alot of the conflict arise mainly due to politics. OBL didn't attack America because you weren't submitting to Islam. He attacked America mainly because of political reasons. You are a man with military experience. You know better than me.
Osama bin Laden did called America to Islam, as in submission. Yes, he attacked US out of political interests, but that does not mean he dismissed his called duty to expound Islam. But ask yourself the question: What if Osama bin Laden had to seek some degrees of theological acceptance and permission from a central religious and moral authority before he attacked US?
I understand if you are angry because your child is bullied and even accept that your wanting to seek retribution is humanly of a protective parent, but I cannot condone your desire to beat up the bully who is also a child out of that anger.
Do you see the difference?
Instead, Osama bin Laden acted as his own
a la carte religious and moral authority and issued death fatwas as if he was the Pope
ex cathedra. Do not tell me that what he did was 'un-Islamic'. You are no more of an Islamic authority than I and I declare his attack on US very 'Islamic'.
Catholics and Protestants have a whole HISTORY of killing/slaughtering each other due to religious differences...
Worst when either side had political powers in their respective camps. But we see nothing like that now.
Sunni and Shia conflict arise from political difference originally...
And today...???
BBC News - Blast in southwest Pakistan kills Shia pilgrims
At least 19 Shia Muslim pilgrims have been killed by a bomb attack on a bus convoy in southwest Pakistan, local officials say.
Are you saying these Shia Muslims were killed because of politics?
Need and practicality are different thing.
Islam is a global religion now..."who" do you think can be a "central" authority? Some one from Arab? Islam did not have central authority for centuries...
Also, Kings in Islamic World did not decide the fate, doctrine, scripture of religion (like in Christianity)...Islam was always in the hand of Ulemas (Islamic Scholars)...
Any central authority is not possible in Islam, atleast as of now.
Now is the time for Islam to have such an institution. I asked that whether such an institution would make things any worse. If no, then give it a try. The major obstacle I see is that the Saudis control access to Mecca and Medina and that translate to control of your imams. If anyone have the best odds of being that institution, it would be the Saudis. But as long as you continues to refuse to acknowledge the real human need for structure, guidance, and authority, you will always have Muslims doing things that are consider 'Islamic' by some and 'un-Islamic' by others. In other words, your society will forever be in a state of theological and moral chaos.
Why would I want to listen to a man from Arabia? It is not catholcism where a EUROPEAN "pope" says "Oh Africans, you can't use condom. Sorry. Oh you die of AIDS? Too bad. Still you can't use condoms" ...too much for a central authority?
How is this criticism a legitimate defense? But by means make them. It also dilute your declaration that what Osama bin Laden did and what those signs calling for beheadings of slanderers of Islam are 'un-Islamic'. Whatever imams and scholars may say, your criticism mean that Islamic morality is even more flexible than we fear. Congratulations.
Oh yeah, support of dictators, over-throwing of DEMOCRATIC leaders in Muslim world and replacing them with OPPRESSIVE 'shahs' just cuz of oil, supporting extremist wahabi kings, interfering in the affairs of Muslim world, invading Muslim lands, imposing your values on Muslims, sanctioning Muslims if they don't listen to you, propping and supporting Saddam and then invading his country to kill him, etc etc ..all this has nothing to do with Muslim country's problem. All problems is because of Islam offcourse, or cuz Islam doesn't have central authority...yup yup.
Perhaps you would not have such sh1tty leaders? Since Muslims often proclaim Islam to be a 'superior' religion to both Christianity and Judaism, like you implied so much in this discussion, may be you would produce leaders whose morals and characters are visibly superior to the Christian ones? May be your society would be the one who make all the scientific discoveries and inventions instead of waiting for the non-Muslims to make them and then strains the Quran to say the Muslims 'knew' of them first?
Do you think we Muslims will buy this bullsh!t?
Blaming our ills solely on West is wrong but claiming that west has no hand in current Muslim problems is equally wrong and arrogant/denial behavior.
How loud is the voice in the Muslim community that it is wrong to blame most, if not everything, on the West? Not very loud. If anything, they are often derided and even threatened in some ways. So if you want to talk about buying bullsh1t, look at how many loony ideas that Muslims believes to be completely attributable to the West. Even today, you still pretend to have a ridiculous emotional bond to colonialism when so many of the Muslims are living the good life in the Western countries while their fellow Muslims live in poverty and abject misery in Muslim countries. So who is really in denial here?
