I make it short, since I am tired of endlessly repeating myself over the years, and am tired of this western craving for endlessly relativising things in an most indiscriminated and simplistic manner until no standards are left anymore that could define what to tolerate - and what better not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Abd_von_Mumit
Islam, like any other ideology and religion, evolves and changes.
|
No. It was extremely successful in preventing exactly this. Mostly with brute force. It was successful where the church in the medieval finally failed, and thus had to allow certain chnages and developements that finally led to the modern Western order of values, cultural arts, laws and liberties, economical and scientific capabilities, freedoms, and forms of politcal and social ruling. The societies in Islamic countries, especially on small communal and family level, still reflect the social order of the Arab tribes in the early medieval. Islam is better not judged on the basis of some tourist ressorts that give a Westenrized impression in order to make cash by that. In Turkey, for example, 80-85% of the populationm lives outside the great cities, in the poor countrysdie and rough Anatolia. The level of ultra-orthodox hardcore-Islam I witnessed there was almost shocking. Using a time machine and travel back one thousand years couldn't create a greater impression. To comparable degree I say the same about Iran, only that here in the great cities the traditional european, especially French influence from past times is more present. In Turkish cities, the attenpts to appear western-style are more focussed on the immediate present.
Quote:
|
Do not treat medieval superstitions as current beliefs of the Muslim population.
|
Check your reality, you definetly do not live on the same planet as I do. I have had longer stays in Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Marocco, Jordan, and shorter hops into some more, and also did quite a lot of reading and studying. Both my personal impression and the assessement of western research and academics are referring to exactly this superstitous nature of Islam even in the present, and nthat this has seen almost no major chnages over the past 10-12 centuries. You try to give Islam an appearance that makes it comparable to Western developements in history. But the history oif Islam in fact is a history of stangnation and constant self-iteration instead of critical self-analysis. Everything in Idlam is cenrttred around Muhammad. The Quran - Muhammad is the origin. Hadith - Muhammad is the origin. Sharia - internal part of the Hadith - Muhammad is origin. The concept of Allah - Muhammad is the origin. All "theological" basis of Islam came from the moth of muhammad, and he often spoke them out when he was in need to justify what he was doing. "I do it because it is Allah'S will." "I do it becasue Allah, Gabriel or the little green man told me so." "You shall not doubt me for I fulfill the will of Allah." etc etc etc. It is self-justification, nothing more. The example to live by for the faithful - is Muhammad's life, or better: the way Islam glorifies him in an attempt to gloss him over and ignore the brutality and crime that dominated Muhammad's life.
Like those that follow the teachings of the Christ are called Christians, and followers of Buddha are called Buddhists, I insist on using the old academic term for Islam that was common language until the last worldwar, roughly, and that is "Muhammedanism", because we talk of peopole following what muhammad has told them to do, and if they are offended by that precise definition, that is okay for me for I am used that Islam and Muhammedans are alwys offended by something, by anthing, or if they cannot have their way or are rejected to be seen as equals if they have nothing to offer that makes them a civilisation of equal quality and values.
Muhammad secured his power by teaching an social educatioin that kept people in ignorrance and felt it to be a sin to seek for answers outside of Muhammad's personal system of thoughts. In this, Muhammad was by a far lead the most successful opressor of all human history. He still rules the world and have his ways - even from the other side of the grave. Disgusting.
Anyone demanding me to see that as a civilisation of equal value - I laugh in his face.
Just for your information, I am neither a Christian nor a Jew. Old dust like abraham and Joshua does not interest me. If you want to trade, find references to violance, war and submission directly from Siddharta, or Jesus. From the bible I only accept one part to be Christian: the four gospels. What was before cannot be Christian, for christ was non-existent before. What came after that, must not be Christaina, for Jesus was no more there.
Quran, on the other hand, is a Muhammad-exclusive production. Even if it got distorted, diversified, ursurped, reviewed, changed and distorted in the first four centuries. And much of the violance in the name of Islam is directly motivated, based and founded in Quranic scriptures. And before you refer to BBC again to welaen what I say: yes, I have red the better part of Quran, and even more important: several historcial analysis and comments on it that got me into it. For me it is not more than extremely dangerous, often self-contradictoy Kitsch, and in that combination, truly unique.