[Skybird]

Originally Posted by RedMenace

Skybird, I apoligize if I had offended you, I admit my tounge might have been a bit sharp, but you must understand, when you say that Islam is a dangerous religion in itself, I find that odd, for I have met maybe hundreds of Muslims in my lifetime, and not one of them ever went for my throat.

I do not deny that Muslim extremists exist, that would be ridiclious to deny such a fact, but you must understand that extremists make up the tiniest minority of Muslims, the tiniest tiniest minority. The problem is, these extremists are also the loudest. They don't speak with words or letters, but with bombs and weapons.

That's why this Islamophobia disgusts me, you are GIVING in to what the extremists want, they want you to fear Islam, they want you to hate Islam. But 99.9% of Muslims are normal people, its that 0.1% that you should hate.

I accept your apology. No need to talk about it again.

No, I am not fooled by extremists. You hear little from me about the terror of extremists. Terror itself is not what could brake or threaten our societies. The damage is done by the medias hyoping the hysteria around it.

But I talk about the ideology. The violence in Islam is not there despite Islam's teachings, but because of it's teachings. It is a very grim, unforgiving, and aggressive "religion", tailored to religiously excuse ongoing "conquest" and at that time back then, to bolster Muhammad's personal power and position. The history of Islam is not so aggressive because it violates it's teachings, but because it honours them. Even at Muhammad's lifetimes Muslims already attacked other Muslims for not being Muslim enough. Later this excuse was further perverted to justify the slave trading in northern Africa - Muslim slave traders were the most brutal of all times.

Compare that to the Western history, were wars and violence were not ordered or justified by Jesus (Muhammad called for around 60-70 wars and tribal attacks during his lifetime, committed mass murder and genocide, ordered murder of personal critics, already had slaughtered men before he appeared the first time as a Kahin on the stage, and traded prisoners like goods - later in the medieval some Muslim rulers used the skulls and skeletons of infidel enemy as material to build towers and walls), but were done in explicit violation of the Christian message. when considering this, how can you seriously tell people Islam is as peaceful as any other religion? When you consider the character and deeds of the historical Muhammad, how can you say his heritage is a message of peace to the world? Muhammad last but not least spread his influence on the Arabian peninsula by intimidation, bloodshed and terror! His own secretaries repeatedly fled from him to save their lives when noticing certain details that indicated how very much Muhammad was lieing to the people when telling them about Allah! That initially he may have been motivated by wanting to overcome the grown social injustice and communal tension that came as a consequence of the growing privileges of the monopole-like position of the Qurayish cannot hide that he became a murderous gangster in the later times.

What is considered to be Christianity, not only had the old testament, but as a consequence of Jesus' appearing there is the new testament as well. Compared to that, Islam has no new testament, it is stuck with the blood-dripping Violante old testament exclusively. It also knows no figure that compares to the revolutionizing importance that Jesus had for the Christians (and "founding" Christianity so to speak: no Christ, no Christianity). The medieval church tried to suppress with fire and sword any kind of heresy or thinking that could endanger its political and earthly interests and power ambitions, but after some time it more and more had to give ground to the development of Western reason, Western philosophy, there was the influence of the Renaissance and age of enlightenment. ISLAM NEVER HAD COMPARABLE DEVELOPMENTS! It is stuck where the Christian church was - in the medieval. That is because it was far more successful in keeping those ways of doing alive by which both Islam and churches in the beginning tried to fight heresy and secure their power status: the overwhelming majority of possible reformers, promising alternative thinkers, people wishing to develop and modernise the Islamic dogma - got murder, arrested or executed.

And while all this unfold and remained until the present, you see a constant ongoing ethnically cleansing in territories that are held by Islam. In all Muslim nations, foreign religions and cultural representation from abroad is declining since centuries. In all nations there is sometimes more, sometimes less pressure put onto Christian or Jewish communities. Never, nowhere, these communities were increasing (with the exception of the Jews fleeing into the Ottoman empire and being welcomed only because they brought the knowledge about the superior western weapon technology with them). While you are forbidden to carry a bible in your suitcase when visiting Saudi Arabia, Islam aggressively pushes into the West, claiming rights for itself that it refuses to others.

I had written longer essays, even separately posted texts of up to 25 pages about the creation and development of the Quran and Hadith, the problems the introduction of "ideosynkritische" punctuation brought to these texts and prevented any kind of "authenticity", and on other details of Islamic history like for example it's understanding of law and values completely colliding with our Western values and communal structures ordered by our constitutions (which base on completely different set of basic ethical and moral preconditions to which Islamic moral is simply this: hostile), so please understand that I do not write all this stuff again (forum members would lynch me for trying that, btw.).

There were some Germans who initially fell for the Nazis without realising how evil an ideology it was. They only saw the positive things in it: Hitler created new jobs, the youth was caught by the youth organisations and their weekend activities which was about adventurous expeditions into the forest, there was a promise of national pride again. nothing wrong in that if only Hitler would have left it to this. Such Nazis were a problem, and were not: They were are a problem because by being fooled and blinded they actively supported the Nazi regime, or had sympathies for it - lacking insight into the regime does not spare them from their share of responsibility, imo. They were not a problem in that they were no perpetrators by conviction, no evil" people. They were stupid maybe, or blind, and later did not wish to admit the nature of Nazism for not having to admit that they were guilty to some serious degree. - But do these people change the general evil nature of Nazism? I ask this with regard to what westerners call "moderate Muslims". I must remind you that many of the hate preachers, "fundamentalists" and activists of today - do not leave the ground of Islamic teaching and scripture when they fire their tirades against us. whereas the way of relaxed living of scaled moderate, Western Muslims is not what Muhammad has ordered people to do. You will find it hard to find justifications in the Curran why western democratic open societies and Muhammadanism could be regarded as compatible. the grim truth is that those you call extremists are more representative for Islam than those Westernized Muslims who had soften up their faith so much that in earlier times they would have been in danger of being accused and maybe killed by their own communities.

I was alonger while in Turkey, and Iran. Outside the Western-style cities and tourist traps, in the poor countryside, I found Islam like it really is meant by Quran and Hadith and Sharia. It is very much alive, accumulating more and more power and pressure, and it is grim, very grim. True Islam has nothing to do with the well-meaning illusions so many westerners have. even many Muslims are not having a complete picture of their religion. For example they do not know that as Muslims in Muslim countries they are not free but have an unavoidable obligation to treat dhimmis, people of the book (Jews and Christians) in a discriminating, intentionally humiliating way in order to make them feel humiliated and humbled and inferior. they also do not know that they are not free to choose if they wish to engage in active fighting against us infidels, or not. But as a matter of fact the Quran defines it as an obligation, and Muhammad named the hesitant ones as fools that only fear death and killing because they do not know what really is good for themselves. "Moderate" Muslims refusing to do so - are violating their faith. You see, this is just as an example why I do speak about the ideology, not the individual man. In Islam, Quran and Hadith are an authority that is non-negotiable, undiscussable, the uncompromised centre of authority. That both are not authentic, have been changed millions of times, have been manipulated and tailored by many, does not change that they are perceived as if the quran has been coming directly from Allah, "as is". In the end it all is not about quran, which was caused by Muhammad, or Hadith, which was caused by Muhammad, or Allah, who was identified and defined by Muhammad - in the end it all focuses on Muhammad as the the centre and origin of all Islam. That's why I call it Mohammedanism, like the academical tradition also often did until some decades ago.

This criticism of Islam is as much racist as would be criticism of Neonazis be called racist. I can only say it with - i think it was - Voltaire: "Islam is the most stupid of all religions", and I would add: "it is also the by far most aggressive and dangerous one".

This is a selection of (German) literature that I have given earlier before, in one of those longer essay. I would recommend these for a beginning, especially the books by Raddatz, if you happen to understand German.
Some of the books are available in English as well. Reading the itself Quran should be supported by an academical, competent analysis to make you aware of the inner contradictions and contradicting statements that are sometimes separated not only by paragraphs and pages, but whole chapters (Suras). A novice can easily jump them and never learn about them that way. for example it is said at one position that Muslims are forbidden to commit suicide. This quote then is given as an example that the quran prohibits suicide attacks and this terrorism cannot be seen as representative for Islam - Islam is not guilty and responsible for terror. Wrong! Because at another position Muhammad explicitly encourages, excuses and demands that fighters shall not fear to get killed if only they fight against the infidels, for heavenly pleasure will be theirs in paradise. Islam very well permits and excuses suicide attacks - I would even conclude it demands them just one example of a pattern that repeats itself over and over again. Only a public not knowing about such things can be deceived by that. Which unfortunately is the case.

Literature:



Bürgel, Johann: - Allmacht und Mächtigkeit: Religion und Welt im Islam. 1991

Deschner, K.-H.: - Das Christentum im Urteil seiner Gegner. (Islam-relevant chapters). 1986

Goldziher, Ignaz: - Muhammedanische Studien 1+2, 1971 (a standard work and must-read)

Lewis, Bernard: - Die Welt der Ungläubigen, 1983 (Lewis is another most essential author)
- Die politische Sprache im Islam. 1991
Nagel, Tilman: - Staat und Glaubensgemeinschaft im Islam, Band1, 1981
- Geschichte der islamischen Theologie, 1994
- Die islamische Welt bis 1500. 1998
Raddatz, Peter: - Von Gott zu Allah? Christentum und Islam in der liberalen

Fortschrittsgesellschaft. 2001
- Von Allah zum Terror? Der Djihad und die Deformierung des Westens. 2002
- Allahs Schleier – Die Frau im Kampf der Kulturen. 2003
Scholl-Latour, Peter: - Kampf dem Terror – Kampf dem Islam? Chronik eines
unbegrenzten Krieges. 2002
Tibi, Bassam: - Kreuzzug und Djihad. Der Islam und die christliche Welt. 2001

- Die Krise des modernen Islam: Eine vorindustrielle Kultur im wissenschaftlich- technischen
Zeitalter. Islamischer Fundamentalismus als Antwort auf eine doppelte Krise. 2000