Islam Is A Failure

[Moderate Centrist]

Hi Neal,

Well I guess the point I'm making or trying to make is that Christianity has many of the same attributes or "problems" if you will that Islam has.

I'm not condemning Christianity (or praising Islam) rather I think it has to be understood that all monotheistic religions appeal to dogma.

I think Islam and Christianity both have made contributions to history and Humanity and both have also been involved in great harm.

I think Craig's comments are legitimate when directed at Monotheistic or organized religion as a whole rather than one specific religion.

[Neal.F.]

Religions themselves do not carry out atrocities ....Individuals acting on their own, in the NAME of a religion do.

[Moderate Centrist]

Exactly and both Christianity and Islam have tons of examples of people doing just that.

[Neal.F.]

As do all religions. Not just monotheistic ones.

[Craig Read]

Islam fails due to a number of reasons:

-No separation of powers

-No respect for individualism

-Imprisoning of the female population

-Little respect for innovation

-Little respect for the profit motive

-No inclination at mass involvement in politics

-No debate on the supernaturality of its religion

-No regard for outside influences

-Little interest in other opinions and concepts

-Willful blindness to change

The entire structure of Islam is totally different than Christianity. There is little comparison post Reformation between the 2 groups.

Christianity is and was a necessary counterweight to despotic King centred rule. Islam has never had such a counterweight.

Islam is not nearly as riven by sects, interpretations and debates as is or was Christianity. It is simply untrue to state that Islam is a diverse religion.

As for the statement that Islam has 1 billion adherents and is therefore good - that is akin to stating that 95 % of Germans voted Nazi, that 180 million Russians supported Communism, or that 800 million Chinese profess to belong to the Communist Party.

Ridiculous and indefensible logic.

[Pellaken]

hitler started by making similar observations of the jews.

[Moderate Centrist]

"No separation of powers"

Craig

•Divine Right of Kings

-

"No respect for individualism"

Craig

•Adherence to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church; ever hear of trials for heresy?

"Imprisoning of the female population"

Craig

•Ever hear of witch hunts or the treatment of unwed mothers?

"Little respect for innovation"

Craig

•How about the imprisonment of Galileo or the disputes over evolution

"Little respect for the profit motive"

Craig

•The meek shall inherit the earth, the want of money is the root of all evil

"No inclination at mass involvement in politics"

Craig

You got me here. I can't think of a specific example.

"No debate on the supernaturality of its religion"

Craig

•This is also true of the Catholic Church– any debate of this sort was handled at the highest level and fed to the public top down.

"No regard for outside influences"

•Again, this is true of the Catholic Church

"Little interest in other opinions and concepts"

Craig

•Christianity – the one true faith

"Willful blindness to change"

Craig

•The church certainly hasn’t been progressive in that regard either- again Galileo was only rehabilitated years after his condemnation. And there are many Christian Churches who adamantly oppose the teaching of Evolution.

“Christianity is and was a necessary counterweight to despotic King centred rule”

Craig

I think you meant to say Christianity was a supporter of despotic King centred rule – again divine right of kings.

I am not trying to knock the Catholic Church or Christianity because I believe when practiced it's got lots of great principles and has made great contributions to history.

However I think we must clarify that the problem is Islam and politics mixed togeather. Islam should be open to critique. But we must not paint all it's practioners with the same brush.

Christianity is separate from politics - this is one reason why the west is more politically advanced. If we lived under a theocracy we'd be in the same boat as the Arab world today.

[Hugo]

According to the Moroccan sociologist Fatima Mernissi, Islam has always had two trends: an intellectual modus that tended towards philosophy and reason in a western intellectual/secular fashion, and a second that always resorted to violence as a way to "solve" any political problem.

Which one is prevalent at this time?

As I mentioned before, the Islamic reformation has already happened and Moslem counterparts to Martin Luther have already emerged - I named three - but the movements have not gained sufficient weight. The problem is religious leaders who like to whip up the people to further their own ends. It's interesting to note that Islam actually forbids priesthood of any kind (the imam is merely supposed to be an administrator, not a religious leader or teacher) because no man can intercede between another man and God. This is a prime example of how the Muhammadan message is being twisted - people exerting religious power from positions that the religion itself forbids them to have.

Martyring the mullahs may not be the right way of going about it, but these fanatics have to go. There have already been Islamic movements to liberalise and "westernise" the religion, relaxing the intolerance towards nonbelievers, the oppression of women and so forth and trying to encourage intellectual and productive Islam, and these veins of the religion are the ones that need to be developed in order for the foundations of democracy and freedom to be laid amongst Muslims.

[Ronda]

Sidenote:

And there are many Christian Churches who adamantly oppose the teaching of Evolution.

And why not? It's a theory. I am not particularly religious, I certainly do not follow dogma and I see many holes in the theory. Why is it taught as fact? Complete with made up "illustrations" etc? I think more people should oppose that teaching, not less.

[Craig Read]

I would agree that Islam is nuanced but the political reality is that the Mullahs have fastened fascism onto a religion. Bernard Lewis who is the expert on Mid East affairs calls Baathism and fundamentalist Islam a European import - ie. the fusing of Nazi ideology around a religious identity. This fusion of national socialism [which is abundant in Canada] with religion is a particularly obnoxious admixture. It ensures conflict. Not only is religion perverted to support the state and its leaders, but society is rigidified with all the economic and intellectual atrophy such a process suggests.

To say Islam is a failure, and it is, is not to state that the people themselves are failures. When you are brought up in a climate of Islamo-Fascism, hate, poverty, obedience etc. is your culture.

What I detest about Canada and left wing EU states is that they don't recognise 2 fundamental facts:

1. Islam because it is a failure needs to be reformed and the populations freed;

2. Islam if not freed and reformed and saved from itself will constitute an ever growing and serious security threat.

In essence Islam in many countries has mutated to Fascism.

Reading just a wee bit of history gives us some clue how to handle such regimes.

[Pellaken]

Reading just a wee bit of history gives us some clue how to handle such regimes.

what, more crusades? dident work that first, what, 5 times? what makes you think it's gonna work again.

ok. so perhaps islam IS a failure. well, I hate to say it, but Christianity is a joke. some dude says "I'm god (or the son thereof)" and 2 billion people say "yea, you are!" in any other context, that'd be funny!

let me prove my point:

I'm the Prime Minister

there. dont beleive me, do you? why should you? if I knew some majic tricks, I'd attempt to prove I was the PM. perhaps I'd hack into his e-mail, and send you one. I could claim that I'm Paul Martin (easier to spell then Jean Chotchin) and use some slight of hand to make you think that I am, but any reasonable person would conclude that I am NOT Paul Martin... and rightfully so at that!

if Christianity is a joke, and Islam a falure, then atheisim is very efficient. think about it, it IS. no time wasted on things what you cannot see. I can continue, but I hope I've made my point.

weather a religion is... ANYTHING, its followers will not change thier views. I hope that this post wont make any of you think that Jesus was not the son of god. You think he is, and there aint much I can (or would want to) do that can change your mind. if you think its right, then to YOU, it is right. to 1 billion people from Algeria to Zanzibar, from Sarajevo to Sudan truly think that Islam is the right religion. Weather I think its wrong (and I do) is not the issue. the issue is that we cannot go around the world, and force ANYHTING on ANYONE, no matter how right it is.

[Moderate Centrist]

Hi Rhonda

Re: Evolution

What “made up” illustrations are you speaking about? There is plenty of evidence to support evolution.

An example is the Peppered Moth.

You can read about it at:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Mot...oths/moths.html

The Theory of Evolution is almost universally recognized as the best theory to date on human/biological development and is also widely recognized by the scientific community. It sure beats the idea that the world was created in six days.

As far as I know the Catholic Church has even come to terms with Evolution.

I guess it comes down to what kind of education you want children to have – one based on science or one based on fantasy. I have no problem with the teaching of creationism in the context of religious studies but it has no place in the context of science.

[Hugo]

if Christianity is a joke, and Islam a falure, then atheisim is very efficient.

The failed great Marxist experiment, a bad hangover from the so-called Enlightenment, should illustrate the irony of that statement for you quite nicely.

the issue is that we cannot go around the world, and force ANYHTING on ANYONE, no matter how right it is.

Really? You don't agree with the concept of law, then? Explain how we can have a stable society without any law, please.

[Hugo]

In essence Islam in many countries has mutated to Fascism.

As a faith it is vulnerable to such a perversion. It is much more difficult to marry democracy to Islam than to Christianity, for instance, because the supremacy of God's law in Islam is far more absolute (hence the greatly diminished role of the devil), and therefore if God's power is supreme, man's cannot be. Therefore, it's all too easy for one who claims to speak for God to make a play for absolute earthly power.

Christianity also has a built-in separation of Church and State - "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", and the division of the universe into the heavenly kingdom of God and the earthly kingdoms of man - which Islam does not, since God's rule is as absolute on earth as in heaven.

This is not, however, to say that Islam is without hope. One could propose - as some Islamic theologians have done - that democracy is no challenge to the rule of God, as long as constitutions and leaders remain respectful of the supremacy of God. Indeed, answering to a higher power (and one that is highly revered by your electorate) may prove to be a useful check on corrupt government, as after all, the Quran binds Muslims in brotherhood and to mutual assistance. Furthermore, the long-lasting reforms of Ataturk in Turkey have proven that a secular state in a Muslim country is viable.

What's important in the West is forging the right alliances. Western countries, especially America, must not appear as modern-day crusaders. It would be better to try and spread, with the help of more enlightened Muslim theologians, the more peaceable and less extremist Islamic movements. I believe this strategy has already been begun on some scale.

Prime examples are the Iranian dissidents, especially in exile abroad, who are usually very learned, eloquent and intelligent people but still Muslim, and often more theologically knowledgeable than the mullahs who remain in Iran. Any liberation of the Iranian people should be closely followed by these people, who can hopefully bring peace, freedom and prosperity to Iran but yet do it in the name of Allah.

[Craig Read]

Mod, Pell, I love arguing with you guys, really. Islam is a failure - 2 simple questions illustrate this:

1. How many Westerners emigrate to Islamic countries each year out of choice ie subtract oil and finance workers in the Gulf vs. how many emmigrate to the West from Islamic countries ?

2. Why is the Islamic world last in internet usage, educational peformance, social infrastructure, illiteracy amongst adults and why is the total GDP of the Islamic world less than Spain's ?

It has failed. Judeo-Christian/Western Liberal traditions have not.

There is no comparison.

[Neal.F.]

Have not western LIBERAL traditions created the mess we're in? In days gone by liberal was an honourable word, butv in the current vernacular, it is a worse failure than Islamo-fascism, since it has totally gutted the moral fabric of western civilization.

[Pellaken]

you keep pointing out how poor the muslim world is, and cite that as THE reason islam has failed.

in that case, with south america in mind, tell me how the catholic religion has not failed, or, hindu's in india?

[Moderate Centrist]

Craig,

I don't dispute the middle eastern/islamic countries are widely open to critique. I merely maintain that perhapd religion itself is the problem rather than the Islamic faith.

[Hugo]

Secularism and humanism have given us the Reign of Terror, the Third Reich, the Cultural Revolution, Fascism, Stalinism, Communism/Marxism, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il and so forth. The Crusades and the Inquisition were mere pinpricks compared to the brutal bloodbaths unleashed by these historical forces, nor were they in keeping with the faith that spawned them. It just doesn't make sense to blame religion for the problems of the world with the evidence available. When one examines the basic tenets of the major religions it seems obvious that they should act as a brake on the worse aspects of human nature and as a promoter of good, and therefore, they are laudable.

[Craig Read]

I would agree that 'Religion' cannot be blamed for war. This is just not true. Yes Religious wars occured, but mostly for issues of profit, booty, land and territorial expansion or resource/trade protection. Some wars such as the 30 years War and the Crusades were a mix of motives. While I would never defend the Church being an atheist I would make some observations:

1. Religion - Christianity in particular - provides a necessary bulward against State power.

2. Christ. makes the individual accountable for his/her actions. This is a large step forward in ethics and self determination.

3. Christ. is concerned with the salvation of all souls regardless of caste, income or success. By extension it teaches patience and peace as opposed to war and gaining of spoil.

4. Christ. teaches about freedom to choose, to live and to express inner spirituality without being victimised. This is another large step forward in building harmonious relationships in society.

For these reasons and some others it is important to remember that Western society is a Judeao-Christian framework. Such a framework is diametrically opposed by Islam which is a thought system to unify society - both state and church.

Christ taught that Caesar and God are separate.

Religion then per se is not the problem. The rulers, the Church 'fathers' and tyrants posing as spiritual leaders are the problem.

Religion merely gives these odious personalities a convenient philosophy to unify nations, tribes or peoples as a cover for their dictatorships.

[Craig Read]

Fanatical Islam is still using the jewish state as a pretext for world wide atrocities committed against Western interests and Israel.

The Road Map was always doomed I believe as long as Arafat and Hamas were still around and still being funded by other countries.

What do others think ? Will there EVER be peace between Israel and the Palestinian fanatics ??

[Hugo]

No, how could there be? The sworn purpose of the fanatics is the destruction of Israel. Because of that, lasting peace between the two is about as likely as lasting peace between Hitler and Stalin.

[Craig Read]

Well i would never equate Israel with either party mentioned above. I have great respect for the Jewish tribe which has endured unending persecution. Israel will not only survive, it will thrive.

Islam has failed utterably in its pan - Arab purpose - the consolidation of various Arab/Muslim states into a confederacy strong enough to destroy Israel.

I believe the road map was doomed. The Palestinians don't want peace. Period. Israeli's by and large do. Therein lies the difference. Therein lies the reason why the West should never fetter Israel. Peace will be achieved only by military victory.

In effect Israel is the front line of this century's most important conflict.

[Black Dog]

The Palestinians don't want peace. Period. Israeli's by and large do. Therein lies the difference. Therein lies the reason why the West should never fetter Israel. Peace will be achieved only by military victory.

Bullshit. the Palestinian people want peace. While there's no denying the presence of certain factions among palestinian society who would like nothing more than teh utter destruction of the Jewish state, your average Palestinian would like nothing more than to live in peace, free from repression and the demonization that folks like you use to continue this horrible conflict. In fact, i'm willing to bet your average Palestinian is no different from the average Israeli: both parties are held hostage by corrupt regimes interested soley in continuingh the mindless bloodshed for their own ideological or personal gratification.

As for religion, this conflict has sweet fuck all to do with religion and everything to do with power. Like pretty much every othe r"religious" conflict in human history.

[Nuclear]

At www.religioustolerance.com It is reported that Islam believesJesus Christ was nothing but another prophet or messanger from God. They do NOT believe that he was crucified OR that he was resurrected. Although his Resurrection is a matter of faith, if I am correct, his cruicfiction is a historical(secular) fact. Point me out if I'm mistaken on that.

Doesn't this create an error?