Islam a real religion?

adrian_indy

Believer= There is a Batman
Agnostic= There could be a Batman
Atheist= There is no Batman
Anti-theist= I hate the idea of Batman
Michael Keaton= I'm Batman

Back to Islam vs. other religions, I still don't think that a case could be made that all religions currently are equal in respects to violence. It does seem that Islam at the moment is more prone ot political and religious based violence. But all of this is impossible to quanitify since most Islamic countries are or close to being theocracies, we do have to deal with propoganda from all governments and religious groups what will seek to alter perception of reality, different economies......it's too complicated to truly gauge.

That being said, I truly enjoy reading about history, but we have to fair in our assessments. Yes, we could look back at most religions and find atrocities that make us shudder. I never debate or even attempt to bring up things like the Spanish Inquisition or Crusades unless a modern christian is attempting to justify those things....which is rarely the case. As far as the Crusades or the Spanish's conquest of the new world, yes we could sit back and look at the new testament and say this does not jive, they are being hypocrites and so on. But we also have to remember a couple of points.

First...losing doesn't always make you the good guy and winning doesn't make you the bad guy. While the Spanish's conquest was sole based on greed in South and Central America, it's not as if the natives they encountered were living in some peaceful utopia. Their high borns and priests were sacrificing the poor by the thousands in savage rituals to appease their gods. They constantly were at war with eachother. They were in no sense "the good guys".

As far as the Crusades...yeah, they were stupid. Even if I though god in miracles were real, the Jerusalem is just a crappy piece of dirt. But that aside, we also have to remember how close Europe came to becoming Islamic. Muslims were constantly invading and at one point conquored much of Spain. The dirty little secret of that part of the world is where the Spanish and Italians got such nice tans. Guess what....it's not from the sun. It was from the Moors.

And as far as the Inquistions go, would't you want to know who in your community was a witch or a werewolf?

Azdak

Back to Islam vs. other religions, I still don't think that a case could be made that all religions currently are equal in respects to violence. It does seem that Islam at the moment is more prone ot political and religious based violence.

I think you have to consider religions within the context of the local cultures and customs. We tend to focus on a cariacature of a swarthy, bearded extremist, originating from the Middle East. I would counter that with American Muslims, who, for the most part, are pretty much like other Americans. I would not consider American Muslims "more prone to political and religious-based violence" especially when compared to the growing number of christian extremists in the US. American Muslims are not preaching for Islamic control of America the way that Christian Dominionists are.

I don't know, maybe it's Middle Easterners in general who are more prone to political and religious-based violence, not just Muslims. Or there are other political or cultural factors at work in those countries.

That being said, I truly enjoy reading about history, but we have to fair in our assessments. Yes, we could look back at most religions and find atrocities that make us shudder. I never debate or even attempt to bring up things like the Spanish Inquisition or Crusades unless a modern christian is attempting to justify those things....which is rarely the case. As far as the Crusades or the Spanish's conquest of the new world, yes we could sit back and look at the new testament and say this does not jive, they are being hypocrites and so on. But we also have to remember a couple of points.

First...losing doesn't always make you the good guy and winning doesn't make you the bad guy. While the Spanish's conquest was sole based on greed in South and Central America, it's not as if the natives they encountered were living in some peaceful utopia. Their high borns and priests were sacrificing the poor by the thousands in savage rituals to appease their gods. They constantly were at war with eachother. They were in no sense "the good guys".

I can understand your position--I often find myself getting impatient with white liberals who want to portray native americans in this hemisphere in an idealized way. I don't have a problem overall with the "*kitten* happens" view of history. Sometimes people move from place to place, one group conquers another, etc.

To me, the problem arises when the "propaganda" goes in the other direction--when the sea pirates are glorified as "explorers" and their exploits portrayed as bringing Christianity and "civilization" to the "pagan savages", instead of the looting and genocide that actually occurred. If we are going to be honest and provide a "fair assessment", let's be completely honest.

As far as the Crusades...yeah, they were stupid. Even if I though god in miracles were real, the Jerusalem is just a crappy piece of dirt. But that aside, we also have to remember how close Europe came to becoming Islamic. Muslims were constantly invading and at one point conquored much of Spain. The dirty little secret of that part of the world is where the Spanish and Italians got such nice tans. Guess what....it's not from the sun. It was from the Moors.

Now, I'm confused. So, we have to give the Spanish sea pirates a pass because these things happen, and, anyhow, those natives were pretty yucky and probably deserved to be slaughtered anyhow. But the savagry of the Crusaders is justified because we had to defend ourselves against the evil Muslim hordes who were going to destroy European "civilization". Didn't Muslims have the same right to invade and conquer as Spanish sea pirates? Not to mention spread their religion and convert "heathens"?

As previously stated, from an historical standpoint, the Crusades are a fact of history, not significantly different from any other expeditionary force that decided to go out and conquer someone else's territory. Part of the original request for aid from Western Europeans came from Byzantine rulers who were being threatened by Turkish Muslim armies. *kitten* happens.

However, just as with the Spanish sea pirates, the issue arises from the glorification and distortion of these events and the propaganda and lies taught to children in Western/Christian influenced schools. Which once again, perpetuates the stereotype of the "evil, warlike Muslims", when in fact it was the European Crusaders who engaged in an orgy of violence against tens of thousands of Jews and Eastern Orthodox Christians before they ever saw a Muslim.

Not only that, but while European "civilization" consisted primarily of eating dirt and f@cking goats, it was Muslims who preserved our cultural heritage--the culture of ancient Greece, and our knowledge of medicine, astronomy, arithmetic, etc.

I guess I've kind of wandered off the path here. To circle back to the original topic, I guess I think that Americans in general make a mistake if they judge Islam primarily by the history of post-1967 Middle Eastern events. I think that what we see as religious-based extremism and/or violence is also driven by other factors such as nationalism, self-determination, repressive governments, poverty, etc. In most parts of the world where Muslim "extremism" appears most prevalent, the people have had to live under repressive governments, supported largely by Western countries who wanted cheap oil. What we see as "extremism", they see as "liberation" from corrupt Western culture and influences.

I am not trying to be a Muslim apologist. My feelings towards Islam are about the same as towards any type of organized religion. I just felt like playing devil's advocate.

adrian_indy

Back to Islam vs. other religions, I still don't think that a case could be made that all religions currently are equal in respects to violence. It does seem that Islam at the moment is more prone ot political and religious based violence.

I think you have to consider religions within the context of the local cultures and customs. We tend to focus on a cariacature of a swarthy, bearded extremist, originating from the Middle East. I would counter that with American Muslims, who, for the most part, are pretty much like other Americans. I would not consider American Muslims "more prone to political and religious-based violence" especially when compared to the growing number of christian extremists in the US. American Muslims are not preaching for Islamic control of America the way that Christian Dominionists are.

I don't know, maybe it's Middle Easterners in general who are more prone to political and religious-based violence, not just Muslims. Or there are other political or cultural factors at work in those countries.

That being said, I truly enjoy reading about history, but we have to fair in our assessments. Yes, we could look back at most religions and find atrocities that make us shudder. I never debate or even attempt to bring up things like the Spanish Inquisition or Crusades unless a modern christian is attempting to justify those things....which is rarely the case. As far as the Crusades or the Spanish's conquest of the new world, yes we could sit back and look at the new testament and say this does not jive, they are being hypocrites and so on. But we also have to remember a couple of points.

First...losing doesn't always make you the good guy and winning doesn't make you the bad guy. While the Spanish's conquest was sole based on greed in South and Central America, it's not as if the natives they encountered were living in some peaceful utopia. Their high borns and priests were sacrificing the poor by the thousands in savage rituals to appease their gods. They constantly were at war with eachother. They were in no sense "the good guys".

I can understand your position--I often find myself getting impatient with white liberals who want to portray native americans in this hemisphere in an idealized way. I don't have a problem overall with the "*kitten* happens" view of history. Sometimes people move from place to place, one group conquers another, etc.

To me, the problem arises when the "propaganda" goes in the other direction--when the sea pirates are glorified as "explorers" and their exploits portrayed as bringing Christianity and "civilization" to the "pagan savages", instead of the looting and genocide that actually occurred. If we are going to be honest and provide a "fair assessment", let's be completely honest.

As far as the Crusades...yeah, they were stupid. Even if I though god in miracles were real, the Jerusalem is just a crappy piece of dirt. But that aside, we also have to remember how close Europe came to becoming Islamic. Muslims were constantly invading and at one point conquored much of Spain. The dirty little secret of that part of the world is where the Spanish and Italians got such nice tans. Guess what....it's not from the sun. It was from the Moors.

Now, I'm confused. So, we have to give the Spanish sea pirates a pass because these things happen, and, anyhow, those natives were pretty yucky and probably deserved to be slaughtered anyhow. But the savagry of the Crusaders is justified because we had to defend ourselves against the evil Muslim hordes who were going to destroy European "civilization". Didn't Muslims have the same right to invade and conquer as Spanish sea pirates? Not to mention spread their religion and convert "heathens"?

As previously stated, from an historical standpoint, the Crusades are a fact of history, not significantly different from any other expeditionary force that decided to go out and conquer someone else's territory. Part of the original request for aid from Western Europeans came from Byzantine rulers who were being threatened by Turkish Muslim armies. *kitten* happens.

However, just as with the Spanish sea pirates, the issue arises from the glorification and distortion of these events and the propaganda and lies taught to children in Western/Christian influenced schools. Which once again, perpetuates the stereotype of the "evil, warlike Muslims", when in fact it was the European Crusaders who engaged in an orgy of violence against tens of thousands of Jews and Eastern Orthodox Christians before they ever saw a Muslim.

Not only that, but while European "civilization" consisted primarily of eating dirt and f@cking goats, it was Muslims who preserved our cultural heritage--the culture of ancient Greece, and our knowledge of medicine, astronomy, arithmetic, etc.

I guess I've kind of wandered off the path here. To circle back to the original topic, I guess I think that Americans in general make a mistake if they judge Islam primarily by the history of post-1967 Middle Eastern events. I think that what we see as religious-based extremism and/or violence is also driven by other factors such as nationalism, self-determination, repressive governments, poverty, etc. In most parts of the world where Muslim "extremism" appears most prevalent, the people have had to live under repressive governments, supported largely by Western countries who wanted cheap oil. What we see as "extremism", they see as "liberation" from corrupt Western culture and influences.

I am not trying to be a Muslim apologist. My feelings towards Islam are about the same as towards any type of organized religion. I just felt like playing devil's advocate.

No reason to be confused...we are basically in agreement on every point if you read all of my posts, I think. I am not justifying the crusades, just pointing out that the history of the conflict is muddled. The only point I think I differ on is the part where you said that Western Christians killed .. ... ... before they ever saw a muslim. I might be wrong, and I don't have time to look it up, but I think the Moorish invasion of Spain occured 2-300 years before the first crusade. I could be wrong, it's been a while since I read up on it. As a matter of fact, I seem to remember a French guy nicknamed "The Hammer" who was able to top their spread into france. If he didn't stop, there is a good argument to be made that europe would have been subjugated by the muslims.

And like I was saying, probably in a less articulate way, I agree, it would be hard to judge modern Islam due to their repressive governments.