Could this be counter productive???

[tater]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Tell me exactly how Islam in the developing world is and has been worse then say Christianity?

You really feel the need to defend Islam? Let's see, 50% of their population are in effect slaves. Property. These 50% are called "women."

50% slavery is bad enough for me to not need other reasons, but we can certainly name them.

Regarding Christianity, there were without question many Christian atrocities over the years. Regardless, progressive, western liberalism was born in "Christian" societies. I'm very open to you arguing that this was in SPITE OF Christianity, but none the less, it was allowed to succeed. Such pluralistic liberalism has never—and will never, IMHO—evolve in Muslim lands.

So your main problem is not so much with Islam but with the Arabic language? This is getting complicated.

Presumably, your problem here is a language problem. This is fine, as I don't understand ANY finnish, so I'm at a loss there.

For much of the last few hundred years, the bulk of the world's Muslim population has not actually been able to understand Arabic. The Qur'an is written in arabic. As a result, people practicing Islam were able to be fairly moderate, and even have customs at odds with "real" Islam (as practiced in, say Arabia). The most populous Muslim country, for example is Indonesia, and the fact that the vast majority of Indonesian muslims are fairly moderate I think is directly related to the fact that they can't actually read their holy book.

In places where the large majority CAN read the Qur'an, you'll note that they are MORE "fundamentalist." That's because the really awful bits in Islam are actually in the Qur'an.

My point was that increasing arabic literacy in non-arab muslim countries increases radicalism. This is demonstrable, and why "Islamism" is on the rise. The principal way that the Saudis spread their flavor of Islam is via arabic (and coincident koranic) teaching.

Keeping muslims ignorant of what the koran says is in effect a moderating influence.

[Safe-Keeper]

The Saudis have spent huge sums teaching people around the world to be literate in arabic. Before this, they were Muslims—but were less devout because they didn't actually understand the qoran. Now, many more can read it. Islam was not "hijacked," it is what it is. Anyone who can read arabic can easily be "radical" since it's right there in B&W.

The only problem with that hypothesis is firstly that the Qur'an isn't more violent and unjust than the horrific stuff found throughout the Old and New Testament, and secondly, that I can imagine very few people reading it cover to cover if it is half as hard and dull to read (not to mention offensive) as the Bible.

When a Christian reads the Bible and comes across bigotry, injustice and hatred, he or she rationalizes it away. "Oh, he was speaking to the Pharisees, and I'm not a Pharisee". "Oh, but that's the Old Testament, it doesn't count any more". "Oh, but you see, that's just a metaphor for something completely different". Why would Muslims be any different?

Not saying there isn't lots of scary stuff in Islam, but saying they're violent because they read the Qur'an is like saying that any German who picks up and reads a copy of Mein Kampf will inevitably turn into a Nazi. It just doesn't work that way.

You really feel the need to defend Islam? Let's see, 50% of their population are in effect slaves. Property. These 50% are called "women."

This is the kind of hyperbole that makes people shrug and turn away whenever Islam is criticized. You're saying that 50% of Muslims, or 100% of their women, are slaves -- one hundred percent -- and you expect us to take you seriously.

When a Christian reads the Bible and comes across bigotry, injustice and hatred, he or she rationalizes it away. "Oh, he was speaking to the Pharisees, and I'm not a Pharisee". "Oh, but that's the Old Testament, it doesn't count any more". "Oh, but you see, that's just a metaphor for something completely different". Why would Muslims be any different?

Muslims are different because accoeding to some its only the fundamentalist fruitcakes whoi are really muslims.

In places where the large majority CAN read the Qur'an, you'll note that they are MORE "fundamentalist." That's because the really awful bits in Islam are actually in the Qur'an

So if you take the tribal belt in Pakistan where most people are illiterate in their own language let a lone a foriegn one how are there so many fundamentalist nuts?
Ah that would be because they are being told what the book says and what it means by the fruitcakes from Saudi
In the same vein other mid-east and N.african countries with high levels of literacy will be as fundamentalist as saudi if your "theory" were true. But they are not so it isn't.

and this also only if you agree to regularly pay the demanded protection money

Errrrrr....protection money? Isn't that the tax system where the people who go to a church pay church taxes and if you don't pay the church tax as you don't go to the church you pay the other tax.

[CaptainHaplo]

Safe-Keeper, you are totally misrepresenting the Xtian theology in regards to the old and new testament - as well as trying to exclude the reality of the specific teachings of islam.

First of all, there is a reason there are two distinct "sections" of the bible - the Old being the "LAW" - which one was to obey - and did in fact have nearly countless images of violence, whereas the New transitioned from Law - to "Grace" - where violation of law could be forgiven. I challenge you to show me one single instance in violence against innocence being advocated as proper action by xtians in the new testament. They were there in the old testament - but not the new. As for the "well so in so was talking to a pharisee" - I can only assume your referencing specific letters (primarily by Paul) to various churches. While these letters were doctrinal advisements to those churches - they are currently still applicably in that they show how a person or group can wander from the proper path.

I fully recognize that there are some moral and ethical issues in the new testament (specifically on the issues of the rights of women and the lack of condemnation of slavery), yet modern doctrine has in fact adapted to this using Grace as the lever to do so.

However - therin you have the largest difference between the two religions - where Xtianity "matured" via the change from law to grace - to forgiveness rather than physical punishment for transgression - Islam never has - and never will. The Old testament held the promise of such a change in prophesy - the quran and associated works does not ever foretell of such a change in the theology. In fact, it makes it clear that such a change will not come about.

As for the "old testament" not counting - theologically - it doesnt - it has been superceded. It is a history - and a guide to the expectations of the actions a righteous man would portray - but the COMMANDMENTS are not longer commands - because violation of them no longer demands sacrifice, only repentance - for the sacrifice has already been paid. The old testament becomes thus a guardrail - with the new testament grace being the tow truck that can pull your soul out of the ditch should you drive off the road.

Regarding women and islam - when the holy texts make it clear that the woman has no rights over and above what her husband or father grant unto her, what exactly would you call her? After all - the honor of the male outweighs the life of the female in islam - which is why "honor" killings are justified in islam. So if a female life is less than some nebulous mental abstract in your head, if a female has no control over her own life - but is at the direction of a Patriarch at all times - even to the point where he can kill her if he feels like it - what exactly would you classify a woman as? If you take the texts literally - which you want to do so badly with xtian texts - then a woman is property under islam. Yet again - xtianity has moderated - islam has not. In fact - only where the literacy of the commoner is such that they cannot read what they believe is there any "moderation" - not in the religion - but in how it is carried out.

It is not hyperbole that you choose to ignore - but reality. In doing so, you choose to wear blinders - so don't be suprised if your blindsided.

Safe-Keeper, you are totally misrepresenting the Xtian theology in regards to the old and new testament

Don't listen Safe Keeper, the preacher man can't even get his claims right about the new testament which he claims to follow.

Originally Posted by tater

You really feel the need to defend Islam? Let's see, 50% of their population are in effect slaves. Property. These 50% are called "women."

50% slavery is bad enough for me to not need other reasons, but we can certainly name them.

Regarding Christianity, there were without question many Christian atrocities over the years. Regardless, progressive, western liberalism was born in "Christian" societies. I'm very open to you arguing that this was in SPITE OF Christianity, but none the less, it was allowed to succeed. Such pluralistic liberalism has never—and will never, IMHO—evolve in Muslim lands.

Just like women are treated badly in markedly christian communities.

And BTW, what has enabled the wealth of the various mostly christian western nations? War and subjugation of the rest of the world. So if the muslims were to follow the west's lead they would most certainly try to take over the world through war. Are you saying they shouldn't be as power hungry as the christians?

Presumably, your problem here is a language problem. This is fine, as I don't understand ANY finnish, so I'm at a loss there.

For much of the last few hundred years, the bulk of the world's Muslim population has not actually been able to understand Arabic. The Qur'an is written in arabic. As a result, people practicing Islam were able to be fairly moderate, and even have customs at odds with "real" Islam (as practiced in, say Arabia). The most populous Muslim country, for example is Indonesia, and the fact that the vast majority of Indonesian muslims are fairly moderate I think is directly related to the fact that they can't actually read their holy book.

In places where the large majority CAN read the Qur'an, you'll note that they are MORE "fundamentalist." That's because the really awful bits in Islam are actually in the Qur'an.

My point was that increasing arabic literacy in non-arab muslim countries increases radicalism. This is demonstrable, and why "Islamism" is on the rise. The principal way that the Saudis spread their flavor of Islam is via arabic (and coincident koranic) teaching.

Keeping muslims ignorant of what the koran says is in effect a moderating influence.

So you'd rather keep the people in the developing nations illiterate? The Quran has been translated to English too you know so even if they learned to speak bad English as the Americans they would still have access to it.

Maybe literacy levels aren't the problem here either.

[Skybird]

Oh Mann, Islamophilia has struck again.

http://www.amazon.de/Allahs-Schleier...325661&sr=1-25

A woman is possession of her man.

She is life stock that is breeding Muslims for the islamic missionising effort of the future, and djihad. Compares to the role of fertile healthy women in Nazi Germany's vision of family planning: "soldiers for the Führer". That way, women also are the major weapon for demographic warfare. Algeria's dictator Boumedienne told the UN: "Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women." The palestinians are breeding as if it were the last year on earth, palestinian birth rates create an imemnse pressure in the palestinian territories, and inside israel - a threatening developement of Israel that in europe nobody want to hear of. In Europe, Muslim birth rates are such that Muslim social low classe shift the social and demographic balances of the infested nations towards growing influence on education, politics, legislation and law enforcement.

Women are driven by satanic energy, their desires must be controlled by their husband by "discharging" them in the act of sexual intercourse that is strictly controlled by religious dogma and magic beliefs to keep the process under control so that Satan cannot be set free, only weakened when discharging his energy. For the same reason, cintrolling satan, women must be whipped and must be kept in an obeident, passive, weak state. they are dangerous. Sexual intercourse is like opening a security valve before the pot explodes and all the demonic energy is set free. Call the ghost busters, so to speak.

By nature, women are dirty, and demonic. In many places their lifes is worth less than the life of a village dog.

Beating women is recommended, for the above reasons, if they are disobedient - or if not.

A man can have up to four wifes. but no wife can have four men.

A legal statement by a women is not even half the worth like a legal cofnession of a man. Reports by male witnesses weigh heavier. A female's testimony is inferior to that of male witnesses.

Women's right to claim a hertitage is only for half of the heritage that a man deserves.


So much for the dogma's ruling. Additionally the reality in islamic societies and Western colonies:

Hundreds of women get stoned to death every year.

Millions of women live in life-long captivity, never leaving the house.

Their life expectancy suffers substantially because of their lack of movement outside the household. Female muslim examiners and apostates report of high numbers od depressions and other related psychological syndrtome that do not get treated, but maybe even win sthem additonal abuse and penalty by their husbands.

Millions of girls get traded as brides without ever being asked.

Millions of women get beaten, whipped, and abused.

Thousands of girls and women get murdered by their family after gotten raped. Becasue they are guilty of having gotten raped.

Now find comapring ratios for legalsied crimes against women in the Wetsern socieites, Safe Keeper.

Western law protects women'S rights. Quranic law dstroys women's rights. the difference is developement here, aphatic stagnation there. The difference is that in the Islamic world the time stands still since almolst one and a half century. The claims made by some ancient bandit for self-justification during the medieval are still valid, and taken literally.

there is no point in nicetalking women'S miserable role in islam. It mocks the fight for equality and liberty of Muslim women rights activists, and renders their personal sacrifices and risks as useless. It prevents islam from ever needing to consider asking critical questions about itself. It prevents right that reformation of islam that Western useful idiots so hopefully wait for. As long as useful idiots refuse to confront Islam with critical questions aboiut it'S self-understanding, and allow it to just ,ove on unchnaged and all others are adapting to it, islam will not stop.

Because then it has no reason to stop.

Before anything else, Islam needs a sexual revolution, and a breakthrough in women's rights and equality and freedoms.


And for a final shot, I read Churchill being quoted from his writing in "The River War", 1899:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Islam is the greatest of all slave holders there ever have been.

Skybird,

I think you're just projecting your own hatred of women.

[Oberon]

This thread =



End.

[tater]

The "West" is effectively Christian. You can make make a false argument based on tiny subclasses of "fundamentalist" Christians living in compounds someplace, but in actual practice, the West that we know is Christian taken as a whole. Women are free, and equal.

Islam, on the other hand, is absolutely, without question misogynistic, and backwards. Women are not full people. Look at the way they treat homosexuals as well. Islamic society has nothing to recommend it.

Regarding war and subjugation to get the West where it is now, who cares? They are welcome to try, IMHO, and we should fight them the way we fight for real. Again, think WW2. They can attack, that's their prerogative, we should fight back in the style of Curtis LeMay.

I hold them to no special standard.

Keeping them illiterate? I said only that in terms of keeping Muslims less radical, illiteracy is desirable. That is because Islam itself is dangerous. As Christopher Hitchens pointed out in a debate I saw, as long as the Koran exists, anyone who can read it can resurrect "islamism" by doing no more than reading the qur'an and haddith. It's all there in black and white. Since this will not in fact happen, we can expect a larger and larger % of Muslims to hold what we would call "fundamentalist" beliefs. Note that Judaism and Christianity have large numbers of non-fundamentalist adherents. ALL sects of Islam are fundamentalist by the same standards (literalism).

Christians have certainly been violent, but unlike Islam, violence is actually a perversion of their faith (I'm an atheist, remember, don't think I have a dog in this fight). If Christians acted like their savior, they'd be pacifists. Is Muslims act like their prophet, they are violent, generals, spreading their faith at sword point.

Al Qaida is NOT a perversion of Islam, it is simply Islam.

Islam needs a reformation of some sort, but again, it will only be distanced from its inherit violence and misogyny by choosing not to read it.

You always find that there are no shortages of people willing to attack Christianity, yet defend Islam. Attacking BOTH is just fine, but I always see people giving Islam a pass. Christianity is better than Islam---I say this as an atheist---because in spite of Christianity, Christendom created secular, pluralistic, liberal societies. This is a fact---we are communicating as a direct result of this fact. Islam is regressive.

Skybird makes an excellent post, BTW.

IMHO, the "solution" to Islam is only to debauch them with our culture, and NEVER let them win the fight of "multiculturalism" or political correctness. When they come to the West, they need to assimilate, period. That means that they wear bathing suits to the beach or pool---men and women together--and they get no special mediation of marriages, etc (no sharia, thank you). We cannot stop them being backwards scumbags at home, but we can respond not with proportionate, but disproportionate force to attacks.

Ok let's get rid of multiculturalism. Let's start with razing the US to the ground.

[Skybird]

Some nice summary being done here:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch9.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Women/index.html

Yeah yeah, I know it is a Christian website posting these texts. But what I have read over there about Islam, matches what I know about it, so i would be stupid to skip it just becasue I do not like the messenger eventually (I haven't checked the latter - callme a pragmatic atheist then )

The book "Allahs Schleier" that I linked above probably is the best on the role of women and their meanign for the culture clash that I have ever read about women&Islam.

In the end, it all comes down to Muhammad's assessment of women:

"The Prophet said, 'Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that for a man?' The women said, 'Yes.' He said, 'This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind.' "