Islam vs. Christian religion

[Tolya]

Both of them are hypocrite pieces of ass wipe which had cost humanity hundreds of years of doom, gloom, death and wars.

But explain to me one thing: Europe and America are "statistically and culturally" christian territory. We have our own "kill-all" fundies, but we are also living in a more-less civilized countries. We have some rights and freedoms (like freedom of speech) and we dont see women being stoned to death on streets. We have cars, electricity, porn and all those things which make our life a pleasant one.

Now take a look inside Islam territory and compare. Women have no rights and get stoned. Fundies blow themselves up with the objective to take as many innocent with them as they can. Poor live in such poverty that some of my cities homeless look like beverly hills kings. And so on.

I've read some of Oriana Fallacci's books about the phenomennon of Islam and her observations are startling. I've never been to Islamic country myself, but some of my friends and family have been and stories they told me were fucking scary.

Or is it just my own ignorance and Islam is in fact a nice religion, with all the arab countries being nice, safe and good and we are living in the rotten Satan West?

I read the Bible and Im looking for a good version of Q'ran to read, but untill then I don't know too much about the details of Islam.

[Lusankya]

In medieval Europe, the Islamic countries actually operated with a degree of religious freedom not seen elsewhere in the west.

The religion is by no means the only factor involved in making a place nice to live or crappy to live in.

Actually, if you look at Indonesia, which is the world's most populous Islamic nation, they're actually, while not on par with the West, certainly making greater inroads towards democracy than most other Asian nations, and the position they're in now has much more to do with historical and political issues than with religious ones.

[Shroom Man 777]

Jews went to Muslim land during the Dark Ages because they were afraid of the Inquisition, whereas the Muslims were fairly tolerant (and back then, the West was the shithole). It's all relative.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Both of them are hypocrite pieces of ass wipe which had cost humanity hundreds of years of doom, gloom, death and wars.

But explain to me one thing: Europe and America are "statistically and culturally" christian territory. We have our own "kill-all" fundies, but we are also living in a more-less civilized countries. We have some rights and freedoms (like freedom of speech) and we dont see women being stoned to death on streets. We have cars, electricity, porn and all those things which make our life a pleasant one.

Now take a look inside Islam territory and compare. Women have no rights and get stoned. Fundies blow themselves up with the objective to take as many innocent with them as they can. Poor live in such poverty that some of my cities homeless look like beverly hills kings. And so on.

I've read some of Oriana Fallacci's books about the phenomennon of Islam and her observations are startling. I've never been to Islamic country myself, but some of my friends and family have been and stories they told me were fucking scary.

Or is it just my own ignorance and Islam is in fact a nice religion, with all the arab countries being nice, safe and good and we are living in the rotten Satan West?

I read the Bible and Im looking for a good version of Q'ran to read, but untill then I don't know too much about the details of Islam.

Roughly 1000 years ago, the situation was effectively reversed. The nations in the Christian west were still effectively collections of feudal principalities ruled by the strongest, or best-liked feudal lord, who got to be called king. The real center of power, though, was in the Church, which encouraged these things called "Crusades" where homicidal fundies and adventurers with visions of gold and wealth in their heads went off to get killed by the Muslims. The Church, incidentally, also encouraged the conquistadores who went to the New World and did their best to forcibly convert the natives en-masse.

In that time period, the Muslims were actually among the most civilized of the Western and Near-Eastern peoples. They preserved much of the Greek and Roman sciences that didn't survive the Roman Empire's descent into feudalism (in fact, a fair amount of our knowledge of Greek philosophy and science comes from texts translated from Arabic.) They were also relatively tolerant of Jews and Christians living in their lands, dictating that they mark themselves as Jews or Christians, and then get hosed for taxes. (While this treatment would be viewed as very discriminatory today, it was much better treatment than one could expect from the Crusaders.)

However, the Muslim progress was inevitably strangled by the deep ties that religion had with the state. They made considerable advances, but it all had to fit in the Quaranic framework. Furthermore, power tended to be concentrated in narrow strips, in large cities in the Near East. Most of the land was still dominated by tribal influences.

However, in the West, an interesting thing was happening. Power began to shift away from the Church, and more into the hands of secular authority, and eventually out of the hands of hereditary nobility. The result being that the West became much more free and secular, and free to pursue industrialization and scientific innovation. For the Muslims, who were still crawling along at a much slower pace, the end result was, inevitably, disaster. The Europeans moved in and carved up the Middle East among themselves to suit their imperial drives, effectively ending all progress for the next half-century to a century, and creating a breeding ground for substantial anti-West sentiment in the process.

[Zor]

If you ask me, there both more or less equal. It's just the Muslim's turn to suffer and go through there Fundie stage. Which areas are better off is more a matter of Politics, Economics and History than of there religious faith.

Zor

[Darth Wong]

Christian governments are just as fucked up as Muslim governments. That's why the so-called "Christian nations" succeeded; they moved toward secular governments.

[Tolya]

What I thought about, was that Islam is a much younger religion and hasnt yet evolved into the nicier "more liberal" religion. When christianity was young, the europe was a fundie shithole, hanging and burning people for heresy for even the slightest undermining of the system. Then things got more civilized, as we don't burn people and their theories (well, not physically at least).

On a side note, my high school Polish language teacher was a nun (I went to a catholic school, a very important step in my learning how shitfaced religions are) - one of the best teachers and most respectable women I met, but she had this theory nuked into her mind on which I couldn't agree with. She said that medieval times were one of the best epochs of humanity, to which I would always reply "explain that to the poor whipped and burned peasants". I even once wrote quite a good essay criticizing the influence of catholic church on the european culture. Got an F.

What would you say to the influence of Cold War on, for example, african countries? They had money pumped into them by global powers, then everything ended and fledgling republics slid into chaos.

How do you think it will end? Islam is becoming more and more popular in Europe - massess of immigrants and even some converts (there is even a girl at my university who chose islam by herself and now wears a black vaderish outfit covering her face - talk about normal educated people...) are becoming the sleeping problem. France and her riots for example.

Khomeini said to Fallacci (sorry for the continous references, but that really caught my attention) something along the lines of "objective of Islam is to invade west and convert everybody, its just a matter of time".

[General Zod]

What I thought about, was that Islam is a much younger religion and hasnt yet evolved into the nicier "more liberal" religion. When christianity was young, the europe was a fundie shithole, hanging and burning people for heresy for even the slightest undermining of the system. Then things got more civilized, as we don't burn people and their theories (well, not physically at least).

Islam is only a few centuries younger than mainstream Christianity. When you consider some of the things mentioned above (Islam was much more tolerant of other religions in the past, for example), your theory doesn't pan out. Especially given that even older religions (such as Buddhism) have been relatively tolerant since their inceptions.

[EmperorSolo51]

If you ask me, there both more or less equal. It's just the Muslim's turn to suffer and go through there Fundie stage. Which areas are better off is more a matter of Politics, Economics and History than of there religious faith.

Zor

One could argue that the lack of an Islamic Reformation and a clear look into thier holy book and doctrines, the way Catholics and Protestants did during the Reformation and Counter-reformation is the major stumbling block for any kind of real reform in the islamic society at large.

[Jew]

Actually, if you look at Indonesia, which is the world's most populous Islamic nation, they're actually, while not on par with the West, certainly making greater inroads towards democracy than most other Asian nations, and the position they're in now has much more to do with historical and political issues than with religious ones.

Just FYI: Unlike many of the Arab nations, Indonesia has a secular government. They claim that well over 80% of the country is Muslim, but in fact many of the "Muslims" are just animists who practice the traditional Javanese religions.

Since the fall of President-and-de-facto-dictator Suharto, Indonesia has become much more open and free. Along with that freedom has come the rise of militant Islam. Ten years ago there was no trouble in Indonesia, because Suharto's government wouldn't allow trouble. Now that there is more freedom, the lousy militants have come out of the woodwork, stirred up trouble in multiple provinces, and hundreds of people are dead.

Hopefully Indonesia can make it through this period of violence and emerge stronger and freer (and dare I say, more secular.) It's difficult, though, because Indonesia doesn't want to admit that they have trouble with violent Islam. For example, the government doesn't even officially acknowledge the existence of Jemaah Islamiyah, the premier Islamic terrorist group in Indonesia.

In summary:

• Indonesia has a secular government
• The majority of citizens are ostensibly Muslim but actually animist or non-religious
• There is a small group of radical Muslims who are using terrorism to try to establish an Islamic government
• The Indonesian government is still in denial about its problem with violent Islam

[Lusankya]

Which only goes to show that Islam is quite capable of existing in a moderate form alongside a secular government. If Islam itself was inimical to a secular government, then we wouldn't have the secular example of Indonesia to look at.

The problems with Islamic nations are related to the religion interfering with the state, and radical fundamentalism, which are problems that historically aren't unique to Islam and would be just as damaging if they were found in any other religion.

[tharkûn]

Islam is only a few centuries younger than mainstream Christianity. When you consider some of the things mentioned above (Islam was much more tolerant of other religions in the past, for example), your theory doesn't pan out. Especially given that even older religions (such as Buddhism) have been relatively tolerant since their inceptions.

Islamic tolerance really only existed for two special groups of people: Jews and Christians. The records of the Muslim conquests of India, southeast Asia, and eastern Africa show massive amounts of intolerance, as well as mass slaughter equal to or surpassing the worst of the Crusades. Jainism, the Brahamic religion that became Hinduism, and even early Shintoism all had better records of toleration than Islam (though they too had their faults),

[EmperorSolo51]

Islamic tolerance really only existed for two special groups of people: Jews and Christians.

Eh not by Much. Muslims accuse us for supposedly destroying our original bibles which portayed Jesus in the light of a Monphysite/Nestorian bibles and replace it with Bibles that have a fully Man and fully divine Christ. Becuase of this, Some islamic leaders Argue that Jihad applies to non-nestorian Christians regardless. That and the Muslims have a habit of desecrating our beautiful Churches and turning them into Mosques much like they did to the Church of the Blessed Virgin's assumption , in which they turned that into the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Hagia Sophia Bassillica into a mosque.

[Sarevok]

Tolya is exaggerating in the OP. Islamic countries are not the hellish places he makes them out to be. The middle eastern countries are rich. Some of the individuals living there are so rich it can put many westerners to shame. The problem is besides being oppresive they do not share their wealth with the less fortunate muslim nations and people there can have a bad attitude towards non Arabs.

There are less richer muslim countries that are much better in other ways. Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh are democracies. Pakistan too was a democracy until recently and hopefully will return to democracy after the Musaraf steps down. Together these countries make up 639 million people who do not live in oppressive regimes like the ones in the middle east, this number is more than the population of the middle east infect. The argument muslim = “rag head democracy hating poor arab” is wrong.

[Eleas]

As fas as I've understood things, our countries and moslem countries are alike in that you don't see the most egregious examples of persecution in the cities. It's in the small-town, rural communities where intolerance and persecution breeds, and where the local priests and whatnot interpret the Koran or the Bible in ways that make city men shake their heads.

I actually tend to prefer what I've read of the Koran; the commandments, while brutal and horrific, are at least straightforward. "If these people are on the land you want, then kill them," or something to that effect. Sociopathically simple, and above all easily debated -- none of this "chosen land and people of the Lord" bullshit.

[Spoonist]

You have a simple misconception there.
Its not the religions themselves but fundamentalism that is the problem.
The more fundamentalistic a society it is the more rigid and intolerant it will be.
And it is not due to the religious movements that made the west so called "civilized". It was the non religious movements like secularism, liberalism, humanism and socialism that has made our society more tolerant.

But its all cyclic. Now "the west" is becoming more fundamentalist and asia is looking more and more tolerant.

[Plekhanov]

Both of them are hypocrite pieces of ass wipe which had cost humanity hundreds of years of doom, gloom, death and wars.

But explain to me one thing: Europe and America are "statistically and culturally" christian territory. We have our own "kill-all" fundies, but we are also living in a more-less civilized countries. We have some rights and freedoms (like freedom of speech) and we dont see women being stoned to death on streets. We have cars, electricity, porn and all those things which make our life a pleasant one.

Now take a look inside Islam territory and compare. Women have no rights

That's just wrong the extent to which women have rights varies significantly across the Muslim world, with a definite low end being somewhere like Taliban run Afghanistan which contrasts starkly with many other Islamic countries where women variously go to university, are in the professions, vote, serve in parliament & in the executive and as judges. Sure that’s not as good as in the west but I would remind you that seeing as women in the west only got many of these rights within the last century.

and get stoned.

This is by no means standard practice in Islamic countries and tends to happen in very traditional backwards villages, rather than in cities

Fundies blow themselves up with the objective to take as many innocent with them as they can.

Terrorism is by no means limited to Muslims nor is the use of suicide attacks as a tactic.

Poor live in such poverty that some of my cities homeless look like beverly hills kings. And so on.

Care to show that this is a function of Islam rather than a general lack of development? After all you will see the same thing in the Christian dominated parts of Africa, or Tibet when it was a Buddhist theocracy.

I've read some of Oriana Fallacci's books about the phenomennon of Islam and her observations are startling. I've never been to Islamic country myself, but some of my friends and family have been and stories they told me were fucking scary.

Then I suggest you look a little wider for your information sources on Islam as restricting yourself to alarmist polemic writers & anecdotes from your friends & family is giving a rather skewed view of things.

Or is it just my own ignorance and Islam is in fact a nice religion, with all the arab countries

There are some 300 million arabs in the world & over a billion Muslims, most of whom don’t live in Arab countries, you can’t really use the two terms as if they’re synonymous.

being nice, safe and good and we are living in the rotten Satan West?

I suggest you google the term “black/white fallacy”

I read the Bible and Im looking for a good version of Q'ran to read, but untill then I don't know too much about the details of Islam.

As I expect you noticed reading the bible didn’t make all aspects of western civilization understandable I suggest you also try to pick up an introductory guide to Islam/the Islamic world as reading the Koran will only get you so far. As unsurprisingly there have been many influences upon Islamic countries the world other than the Koran (indigenous cultures, politics, trends in interpreting the Koran….).

Islam is only a few centuries younger than mainstream Christianity. When you consider some of the things mentioned above (Islam was much more tolerant of other religions in the past, for example), your theory doesn't pan out. Especially given that even older religions (such as Buddhism) have been relatively tolerant since their inceptions.

Buddhism gets a very easy ride in the west I suspect as we mainly see it as a touchy feely religion taken up by weakminded Hollywood types. I doubt easy ride given buddhism is entirely justified though just take for example the history of the Buddhist theocracy in Tibet which is every bit as disreputable as anything Islam or Christianity managed (only posted an exert of article for length click the link if you want more Lama bashing with added defence for Chinese imperialism):

Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth
July 2004 (updated)

The histories of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam are heavily laced with violence. Throughout the ages, religionists have claimed a divine mandate to massacre infidels, heretics, and even other devotees within their own ranks. Some people maintain that Buddhism is different, that it stands in marked contrast to the chronic violence of other religions. To be sure, for some practitioners in the West, Buddhism is more a spiritual and psychological discipline than a theology in the usual sense. It offers meditative techniques that are said to promote enlightenment and harmony within oneself. But like any other belief system, Buddhism must be judged not only by its teachings but by the secular behavior of its proponents.

Buddhist Exceptionalism?

A glance at history reveals that Buddhist organizations have not been free of the violent pursuits so characteristic of religious groups. In Tibet, from the early seventeenth century well into the eighteenth, competing Buddhist sects engaged in armed hostilities and summary executions.1 In the twentieth century, in Thailand, Burma, Korea, Japan, and elsewhere, Buddhists clashed with each other and with nonBuddhists. In Sri Lanka, armed battles in the name of Buddhism are part of Sinhalese history.2

Just a few years ago in South Korea, thousands of monks of the Chogye Buddhist order fought each other with fists, rocks, fire-bombs, and clubs, in pitched battles that went on for weeks. They were vying for control of the order, the largest in South Korea, with its annual budget of $9.2 million, its additional millions of dollars in property, and the privilege of appointing 1,700 monks to various duties. The brawls partly destroyed the main Buddhist sanctuaries and left dozens of monks injured, some seriously. The Korean public appeared to disdain both factions, feeling that no matter what side took control, "it would use worshippers' donations for luxurious houses and expensive cars."3

But what of the Dalai Lama and the Tibet he presided over before the Chinese crackdown in 1959? It is widely held by many devout Buddhists that Old Tibet was a spiritually oriented kingdom free from the egotistical lifestyles, empty materialism, and corrupting vices that beset modern industrialized society. Western news media, travel books, novels, and Hollywood films have portrayed the Tibetan theocracy as a veritable Shangri-La.

The Dalai Lama himself stated that "the pervasive influence of Buddhism" in Tibet, "amid the wide open spaces of an unspoiled environment resulted in a society dedicated to peace and harmony. We enjoyed freedom and contentment."4 A reading of Tibet's history suggests a different picture. In the thirteenth century, Emperor Kublai Khan created the first Grand Lama, who was to preside over all the other lamas as might a pope over his bishops. Several centuries later, the Emperor of China sent an army into Tibet to support the Grand Lama, an ambitious 25-year-old man, who then gave himself the title of Dalai (Ocean) Lama, ruler of all Tibet. Here is quite a historical irony: the first Dalai Lama was installed by a Chinese army.

To elevate his authority beyond worldly challenge, the first Dalai Lama seized monasteries that did not belong to his sect, and is believed to have destroyed Buddhist writings that conflicted with his claim to divinity. The Dalai Lama who succeeded him pursued a sybaritic life, enjoying many mistresses, partying with friends, and acting in other ways deemed unfitting for an incarnate deity. For this he was done in by his priests. Within 170 years, despite their recognized status as gods, five Dalai Lamas were murdered by their high priests or other courtiers.5

Shangri-La (for Lords and Lamas)

Religions have had a close relationship not only with violence but with economic exploitation. Indeed, it is often the economic exploitation that necessitates the violence. Such was the case with the Tibetan theocracy. Until 1959, when the Dalai Lama last presided over Tibet, most of the arable land was still organized into manorial estates worked by serfs. Even a writer sympathetic to the old order allows that "a great deal of real estate belonged to the monasteries, and most of them amassed great riches. . . . In addition, individual monks and lamas were able to accumulate great wealth through active participation in trade, commerce, and money lending."6 Drepung monastery was one of the biggest landowners in the world, with its 185 manors, 25,000 serfs, 300 great pastures, and 16,000 herdsmen. The wealth of the monasteries went mostly to the higher-ranking lamas, many of them scions of aristocratic families.

Secular leaders also did well. A notable example was the commander-in-chief of the Tibetan army, who owned 4,000 square kilometers of land and 3,500 serfs. He also was a member of the Dalai Lama's lay Cabinet.7 Old Tibet has been misrepresented by some of its Western admirers as "a nation that required no police force because its people voluntarily observed the laws of karma."8 In fact. it had a professional army, albeit a small one, that served as a gendarmerie for the landlords to keep order and hunt down runaway serfs.

Young Tibetan boys were regularly taken from their families and brought into the monasteries to be trained as monks. Once there, they became bonded for life. Tashì-Tsering, a monk, reports that it was common for peasant children to be sexually mistreated in the monasteries. He himself was a victim of repeated rape, beginning at age nine.9 The monastic estates also conscripted impoverished peasant children for lifelong servitude as domestics, dance performers, and soldiers.

In Old Tibet there were small numbers of farmers who subsisted as a kind of free peasantry, and perhaps an additional 10,000 people who composed the "middle-class" families of merchants, shopkeepers, and small traders. Thousands of others were beggars. A small minority were slaves, usually domestic servants, who owned nothing. Their offspring were born into slavery.10 The greater part of the rural population---some 700,000 of an estimated total of 1,250,000---were serfs. Serfs and other peasants generally were little better than slaves. They went without schooling or medical care. They spent most of their time laboring for high-ranking lamas or for the secular landed aristocracy. Their masters told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama. And they might easily be separated from their families should their owners send them to work in a distant location.11

One 22-year old woman, herself a runaway serf, reports: "Pretty serf girls were usually taken by the owner as house servants and used as he wished." They "were just slaves without rights."12 Serfs needed permission to go anywhere. Landowners had legal authority to capture those who tried to flee. One 24-year old runaway welcomed the Chinese intervention as a "liberation." He claimed that under serfdom he was subjected to incessant toil, hunger, and cold. After his third failed escape, he was merciless beaten by the landlord's men until blood poured from his nose and mouth. They then poured alcohol and caustic soda on his wounds to increase the pain.13

The serfs were under a lifetime bond to work the lord's land---or the monastery's land---without pay, to repair the lord's houses, transport his crops, and collect his firewood. They were also expected to provide carrying animals and transportation on demand.14 They were taxed upon getting married, taxed for the birth of each child, and for every death in the family. They were taxed for planting a tree in their yard and for keeping animals. There were taxes for religious festivals, for singing, dancing, drumming, and bell ringing. People were taxed for being sent to prison and upon being released. Those who could not find work were taxed for being unemployed, and if they traveled to another village in search of work, they paid a passage tax. When people could not pay, the monasteries lent them money at 20 to 50 percent interest. Some debts were handed down from father to son to grandson. Debtors who could not meet their obligations risked being placed into slavery sometimes for the rest of their lives.15

The theocracy's religious teachings buttressed its class order. The poor and afflicted were taught that they had brought their troubles upon themselves because of their wicked ways in previous lives. Hence they had to accept the misery of their present existence as a karmic atonement and in anticipation that their lot would improve upon being reborn. The rich and powerful of course treated their good fortune as a reward for, and tangible evidence of, virtue in past and present lives.

Torture and Mutilation

In the Dalai Lama's Tibet, torture and mutilation---including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation--were favored punishments inflicted upon runaway serfs and thieves. Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use. He explains that he no longer is a Buddhist: "When a holy lama told them to blind me I thought there was no good in religion."16 Since it was against Buddhist teachings to take human life, some offenders were severely lashed and then "left to God" in the freezing night to die. "The parallels between Tibet and medieval Europe are striking," concludes Tom Grunfeld in his book on Tibet.17

In 1959, Anna Louise Strong visited an exhibition of torture equipment that had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, gouging out eyes, and breaking off hands. There were instruments for slicing off kneecaps and heels, or hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling.18

The exhibition presented photographs and testimonies of victims who had been blinded or crippled or suffered amputations for thievery. There was the shepherd whose master owed him a reimbursement in yuan and wheat but refused to pay. So he took one of the master's cows; for this he had his hands severed. Another herdsman, who opposed having his wife taken from him by his lord, had his hands broken off. There were pictures of Communist activists with noses and upper lips cut off, and a woman who was raped and then had her nose sliced away.19

Early visitors to Tibet comment about the theocratic despotism. In 1895, an Englishman, Dr. A. L. Waddell, wrote that the populace was under the "intolerable tyranny of monks" and the devil superstitions they had fashioned to terrorize the people. In 1904 Perceval Landon described the Dalai Lama's rule as "an engine of oppression." At about that time, another English traveler, Captain W.F.T. O'Connor, observed that "the great landowners and the priests . . . exercise each in their own dominion a despotic power from which there is no appeal," while the people are "oppressed by the most monstrous growth of monasticism and priest-craft." Tibetan rulers "invented degrading legends and stimulated a spirit of superstition" among the common people. In 1937, another visitor, Spencer Chapman, wrote, "The Lamaist monk does not spend his time in ministering to the people or educating them. . . . The beggar beside the road is nothing to the monk. Knowledge is the jealously guarded prerogative of the monasteries and is used to increase their influence and wealth."20

[Tolya]

Of course its the fundamentalists that are the problem. But you have to think: what made those fundies? How much can you assign to the overinterpretation or simply misconception of the scriptures? Fundies are there because, just like in the bible, some quran fragments are fucking and allow (even encourage) things like suicide bombings and oppression.

Also, for some reason, western culture (dominated with catholicism) allowed the shift of power towards secularism and other social movements, whereas Islam did not. Why is that so?

Maybe I named the thread wrong, as I dislike both Islam and Christianity and I dont want in any way promote one over another. Its just that I live in a catholic country, but know Islam world only from the media and some loose quotes from Q'ran.

[PainRack]

Or is it just my own ignorance and Islam is in fact a nice religion, with all the arab countries being nice, safe and good and we are living in the rotten Satan West?

I read the Bible and Im looking for a good version of Q'ran to read, but untill then I don't know too much about the details of Islam.

It really depends on the country you live in, doesn't it? One should note that in countries where the people(note, people, not country) are relatively prosperous, aka, Malaysia, Brunei, UAE, while they may adhere strictly to sharia law, it certainly isn't as violent and bad as places like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

I can't recall who said this, but a political terrorism expert once remarked that all societies and religions have their own fundamentalists nutwits who are willing to use violence to bring about their goals, but it is only in repressed, non-prosperous societies, without an independent judiacary where such extremists are supported by the general populace.

[Spoonist]

Of course its the fundamentalists that are the problem. But you have to think: what made those fundies? How much can you assign to the overinterpretation or simply misconception of the scriptures? Fundies are there because, just like in the bible, some quran fragments are fucking and allow (even encourage) things like suicide bombings and oppression.

Also, for some reason, western culture (dominated with catholicism) allowed the shift of power towards secularism and other social movements, whereas Islam did not. Why is that so?

What makes those fundies is a culture which thinks in black/white fallacies all the time.
As have been pointed out elsewhere in the thread Islam was for a couple of centuries the tolerant of the monotheistic religions.

One thing which seems to historically increase fundamentalism in a culture is if it either loses power or percieves a loss of power or percieves itself to be less powerful than an outside threat.
This since it is easier to be tolerant when you are in a position of power and it is easier to be intolerant of what you fear.


Also I usually consider fundamentalism not to be limited to religions but I also extend the concept to be extreme of any ideology.
Like politics or nationalism for example.

[Jew]

Its just that I live in a catholic country, but know Islam world only from the media and some loose quotes from Q'ran.

Your profile says you're in Poland. The literature I'm reading says that Poland is 90% Catholic. How does that translate into daily life? Does the Catholic Church take an active role in politics? Is religion a big part of advertising and of entertainment? How does religion effect things like holidays and business hours? I'm just asking because I'm curious.

[Tolya]

I would guess that Church takes no more of an active role in Poland than in USA. They of course have some influence on the most right-winged politicians, but its not really visible in the daily life.

Of course, you have to be aware that like everywhere, Church in Poland isnt one monumental entity. There are some stray groups of religious nuts which make most of the fuss. The biggest and most influential is a "sect" gathered around one of the right-wing catholic nutcase radio, called "Radio Mary" (Radio Maryja in Polish), which consists mainly of old unemployed and lone ladies who seek to whore as much attention to themselves as they can. They are led by a cynical asshole (Father Rydzyk) who seeks to get as much power out of his organisation as he can.

They have ties in the right wing parties. For the last 4 years the ruling party was left wing, with the president also being left-winged. After the last elections, we have a conservatist right winged party and a conservatist right winged president (ironically, the president is the ruling party's leader brother - Im talking about the Kaczynski brothers).

As for daily life, no. Commerce and business are concerned with making money and piss on any restrictions that Church would like to impose. We have Playboy adverts on streets and no one seems to care.

What will happen in the coming years - I don't know. Polish politicians who are now in power are among one of the least intelligent beings here and the Law&Justice (party who has won the parliamentary elections) is struggling in an uneasy coalition with the League of Polish Families (a group of rightwinged nutjobs with strong ties with Radio Mary) and the so-called Self Defence (a left-winged socialist party, led by a farmer moron. Look up the latest rape scandal in Brussels - the guy is a member of the Self Defence).

As for the 90% of catholics, that is a very faulty statistic. People declare themselves "catholics" because they were brought up that way. If I'd make a realistic estimate, I'd say that its about 20% of people who regularly go to Church. Statistically Im listed as a catholic, but my last visit in the church was about 8 years ago and it was accidental. I don't simply care, as do most of the people.

[Tolya]

And regardless of jokes about Poland, we drive cars, enjoy electricity, running hot water and hot porn just like the rest of the western world And we don't have polar bears running on our streets

[General Zod]

Islam is only a few centuries younger than mainstream Christianity. When you consider some of the things mentioned above (Islam was much more tolerant of other religions in the past, for example), your theory doesn't pan out. Especially given that even older religions (such as Buddhism) have been relatively tolerant since their inceptions.

Buddhism gets a very easy ride in the west I suspect as we mainly see it as a touchy feely religion taken up by weakminded Hollywood types. I doubt easy ride given buddhism is entirely justified though just take for example the history of the Buddhist theocracy in Tibet which is every bit as disreputable as anything Islam or Christianity managed (only posted an exert of article for length click the link if you want more Lama bashing with added defence for Chinese imperialism): >snip lengthy article<

That's nice, but do you mind pointing out where I said anywhere that Buddhism was perfect or completely non violent? Or did you just completely ignore what I said just so you could strawman my post?

[Jew]

Thanks Tolya, that was quite interesting.