Jump to content

Islam Is A Failure

Recommended Posts

I can see by the posts that no one offers a defense of Islam that is coherent. Why then the media line that it is 'cultured' and 'peaceful'?

There are marked differences in organisation, spirit and purpose between Christianity and Islam. The former is not monolithic, has factions that inquiry debate and reform, is interested in the synthesis of ideals and the meaning and purpose of physical and spiritual life. It has given rise to a whole plethora of philosophies about man, the universe and even science. Great discoveries were made by the Church or abetted by clerics even during great repressions of thought. The on going conflict within the Christian sects and between them, is a great strength.

Very little of the above exists in Islam. There are sects, variances within the tent of Islam, but the ideal, goals, beliefs, values little differ. No curiousity, or beliefs in advancement innovation or debate exists. It is monolithic in that your life is your religion. Such mind numbing control and hierarchic ritual is stultifying. Victim complexes are easy to assume in such a state.

The Christian churches are diverse and amenable to reform.

Islam is not.

In the modern world the violent expression of Islam kills Jews, Muslims, Christians, Aetheists and Buddhists. There is no logic, no reason, no attempt by the Islamicists to understand their own hatred, their own anger and their own failure.

Easier to blame someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

All major religions come from the same source.

about every thousand years there comes the need to renew and abrogate material laws found within a religion.

The spiritual laws remain constant throughout the ages.

Progressive revelation to a growing and changing humanity.

Abraham develope the family the basic building block of society

moses to bring forth a poeple a community to be an example for the tiny world

Jeseus to show those neighbors in the community how to treat one another, charity for the poor. and the promise of eternal life through those deeds.

mohamed the first nation state that must contain all the previuos. To fight the resistance to that progress.

bring greater power to woman. this was subverted and sects were formed( trodden under foot as per daniel

the Bab ( the gate in persion) to renew the fallen Islam faith and prepare it for the pinnacle.

Baha'u'llah to bring forth a global community with a supreme tibunal as a way to settle the many disputes through consultation. To show fourth the devine plan in panorama. Some would call this the kingdom the return of Christ. This is just a quick synopsis of why we have what appears to be many religions.

Lets not forget Hindu , budhism, sihkism, shinto. Consider the origins of these religions and where they where founded. India, isolated by then impassable moutains, Japan an Island nation, Tibet agian at the time not accessible and all in need of independant guidance. They still however have the same spiritual laws as all others and if you look you see the timing of each is far apart but close to about a thousand Years, except those that came in the isolated regions.

Isam is a failure but because is was almost immediately subverted by its followers to accomodate their cultural needs and power to the mula and immans and their whims not to mention the dispute over succession.

The same could be said about christianity,judaism, sihkism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you go Craig!

Those damn lefty socialists at CBC aired an interview with

Irshad Manji today on Tapestry. She was talking about her new book:

'The Trouble with Islam: A Wake-Up Call for Honesty and Change'

I was really impressed with her and definitely plan on picking up her book (when exams are over). Can probably find some reviews on her thesis online or listen to the interview at http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/archives.html

when they get the show posted (probably in the next day or two)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long way to go I think.


Referring to a drawing of two girls sitting in a classroom; "To show this to male students is a problem. ... A boy could remove it at every opportunity he has, kiss it and return it to his desk's drawer."

Oh my goodness! Those filthy whores! Better stone them to death. Hang on, they are a drawing, well if they were not then they should be stoned to death. As for the boys kissing the drawings, well, boys will be boys, albeit unable to control their primitive nature but no sense in placing blame where it lies. Better to place a drop cloth on the girls ..... er ... drawings of girls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Lost, thanks for the info - did you see the show ? What did you think ? What was her thesis re change and reform in Islam ?

Is she a practicing muslim ? Most people that i have seen interviewed who are devout Islamacists do not apologise one whit for terror, the killing of innocent jews or other nationalities, nor the fascist regimes that control most of their nation states.

I have not heard one mullah recant and publicly state that 9-11 was an immoral and reprehensible act.

Islam is in such dire need of repair that reforms are impossible.

Transforming is the only option and let's hope Iraqi reconstruction stimulates this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

As the secular / Christian / rationalist world prepares to celebrate the Mass of Christ - we should be thankful for a number of things:

1. We live in an age of plenty and opportunity full of hope.

2. We have certain freedoms and liberties that most people outside of the West have no experience of.

We in the West do not live in a failed, corrupt, crumbling, theologically constrained Islamic world, and for that we should give thanks.

We can thank Charles Martel and the Gauls at Tours in 732 for turning back the Mulsim tide and saving Europe.

We can thank Jan Sobiewski his Poles and the German knights that saved Vienna and Germanic Europe from the Turks in 1683.

We can thank the US today for fighting a war on terror.

Think of the millions of people with no hope, no food, no rational thought living under Islamic dictatorship. Think of Christians imprisoned in Islamic society and mediocrity, and pray if you are so inclined for those Christians and other non-Muslims shackled to a life with little hope:


Egypt is the most populous of the Arab countries, and in many ways the most sophisticated. Its path will determine the fate of a region stagnating under archaic economic and political systems. And no group in Egypt would benefit more from democratization than the beleaguered Copts, particularly when democracy is defined not simply by voting rights but by pluralism and the respect for the rights of minorities. Indeed, for Egypt to democratize, it must end its discrimination against its Coptic population, arrest and prosecute the Islamic extremists who have repeatedly targeted the Christian community, and include the Coptic community in all aspects of civic and political life.

The War on terror will be won. Freedom to the oppressed will arrive. Islam has failed, it is time to regenerate a wide swathe of the world and bring it into modernity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the fundamental difference, and the problems, between Christianity in the modern age, and Islam, is their importance in everyday life.

As a Muslim, your life is built around your religion. Religion is a part of everything you do, every decision you make. Praying toward Mecca 5 times every day is a good demonstration of this importance.

Christianity, since the Reformation, has experienced an increasingly (?) diminished role in the everyday lives of its followers. There was a time when Christians based their lives on their religion, but those days have long passed. Now, religion, for most Christians, especially in the West (USA, Canada, much of Europe) is an afterthought. People only pray for ceremony, go to church on special occasions, and to many, religion is an inconvenience. The ten commandments are a foreign idea to many so-called Christians.

Which brings up another topic. It seems to me that the ten commandments are merely the basis on which good morals and honesty and other nice things are built. The ten commandments cannot possibly cover all situations (which is why we have a criminal code), but does that mean that the commandments themselves are open for interpretation?:

If you and your partner are not married, but love one another, and so on and so forth, is it still wrong to have sex? Obviously, if one is married, or otherwise involved with someone else, it's wrong, but does the verbatim of the ten commandments matter?

Is it just the thought that counts? Or are the commandments to be taken literally?

Anyway, that was food for thought. Back to the Christian/Muslim problem, religion (and Islam) is diminished by Western values not intentionally, by no plot, but merely by the role that religion is expected to take in Western societies. If Christians were all still hyper-religious (no offense intended at anyone), Islamic radicals wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading some interesting books on the Church - mostly about the fraudalent nature of the Gospels, the writings and even the life of Rabbit Jesus. Christ means annointed one and comes from an Egyptian word - it is close to the Hindi Krishna. Rabbi Jesus was never annointed but his brother Judas Chrestus was. Anyways the theory goes that the bible merge Rabbi Jesus and Judas into one man. [they were twins born to Herod and were highborn ie. sons of God]. Chrestus actually refers to the Essenic tradition of Messiah - embodied by John the Baptist, Judas and Simon who surrendered Jewish forces in 70 Ad to the Romans.

Apparently the ancient word Presbyter which is now Priest meant 'old dirty man'. The early Church fathers were vagrants, miscreants, rabble rousers and anything but the good clean wise 'Fathers' portrayed by Church dogma. Their sermons were full of super natural nonsense and they played to the street crowd by making up as many interesting fables as they could. Church history though fraudalent still has helped our society by:

1. Spiritual debate, diviseness, and sectional competition in trying to describe the value of Chrestianity or Christianity. This spills over into secular life as well. This is only true if people don't accept the Bible at face value but read the allegories of the Bible as descriptors not literal rules.

2. Providing an ethical roadmap even though the Church elders were the first ones to break their own rules [the early Christian church was notorious for incest, orgies and cannabalism to say nothing of the crimes of the later Church]. Again caveat from # 1 applies.

3. Social cohesion. A 'state' religion [Constantine the Great] means a common moral framework and societal cohesion and unity. It allows us to get on with other things - commerce, building, creating and so on - instead of 'reinventing' a new cult every generation.

4. Written word and education.

5. Abetting the idea of charity and help.

The Bible, Christ, the Church itself are largely fraudalent in some way, irrelevant or super-natural. But the underlying framework of the concepts are interesting, more fluid, more flexible and more informative than say the restrictive nature of Islam and other religions.

Christianity can change, Islam cannot. Therein lies the greatest difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading some interesting books on the Church - mostly about the fraudalent nature of the Gospels, the writings and even the life of Rabbit Jesus.
Providing an ethical roadmap even though the Church elders were the first ones to break their own rules [the early Christian church was notorious for incest, orgies and cannabalism to say nothing of the crimes of the later Church].

What ARE your sources???!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Various historians of the early Christian era stated that Christians ate bodies of the deceased, engaged in sacrifice and incest, and were well noted for their rousing orgies.

I could go on ad nauseum about the early Church and its hypocritical construction. Prof Davidson summarises a lot of them in 'The Canon of the Bible'. He destroys the 3 early presbyters that formed the gospel doctrine namely; Irenaeus, Clement and Tertullian.

"No analysis of their authenticity and genuineness was seriously attempted....The ends which they had in view, the polemic motives, their uncritical inconsistent assertions, their want of sure data, detract from their testimony.."

The early Church fathers were vagrants - dirty old men - ie. presbyters [Greek word], who traveled from market to market preaching to the illiterate, and the more fantastic their story the larger the crowd. They enthusiastically combined all sorts of mythology, fables, religious ideals and pagan concepts into their stories. Less than 1 % of the population could read or write, and it is safe to say, the learned folk would not rush to the market to listen to dirty old men who smelled and could use a hair cut, spout nonsense.

Sources: Celsus is the best early expert and writer on the Church calling the early frauds, ie. presbyters 'charlatans and vagrants, dangerous to the civil ideals of the Roman state.'

Origen a church cleric and defender even admitted, 'You have altered three, four times and oftener, the texts of your manuscripts in order to deny objections made to you.'

Origen also admitted that lying to further the Church's interest was good [see also St. Jerome an early Cardinal who wore red ladies underwear and gave us the red robes of the Cardinals].

St. Augustine himself - a saint no less - admitted that he 'lusted to thieve and did it.' [Confessions, 2:9] St. Aug. confessed later that the Church was ' a religion of threats and bribes unworthy of wise men.' [see JW Sergerus, 1685].

As for the peaceful fun loving early Christians - a good meal of human followed by an energetic incestuous orgy seemed part of the fun of celebrating god. St. Justin Martyr circa 160 AD wrote; 'they met in secret to eat human flesh and once the lamps had been upset, to participate in promiscuous incestuous intercourse.' [see Flavius Josephus, Jewish Historian of the 2 century AD].

Emperor Marcus Aurelius concurred calling the early Church 'new and wicked superstition.' Minucius Felix a Christian apologist even confirms that 'the names of brother and sister hallow fornification as incest. Their foolish superstition makes a boast of crime, a condemned criminal is the object of their veneration. Finally there is infant murder, cannibalism, and the banquet with incestuous intercourse.' [Luke 10:1 Sinai Bible]

This cannibalism and wild sex is called 'love feasts' in the New Testament [Jude 12]. The early Cannibalism and ribald sex was the worship of the Eucharist. Jermome [347-420] and Augustine [395] both condemned these acts. Ambrose of Milan [333-397] tried to forbade these practices but was unsuccessful [Acta of Pilate it was called].

The early Church was peopled not by enlightened wise men with long flowing white hair and purple robes, but by a fanatical mob of pagan worshippers intent on amongst other objectives, challenging the Roman state. To ignore their ignominious beginnings is to miss a fascinating period of history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly Craig, we've been over the Christianity issue over and over and over. Last I checked there was already a discussion on this one. Your comments probably won't change many minds though. For me personally, they don't bother me at all. I peronally think that all hell broke loose in the church after the deaths of the original apostles. They weren't there to guide the church. That's just me though. Thus, this is no real revelation for me. You might infuriate a Catholic or two, but that's all you'd do, infuriate him.

The debate over whether a religion is true is the most useless debate in the world, as neither side ever backs down no matter how cunning your arguements or how how valid your evidence. Can we just call a ceasefire on this one? God's role in government, abortion, gay marriage, now those are good places to discuss religion and politics. We might make a difference there.

I do agree with udawg on one point. Many Christians could learn a thing or two from Muslims about making their faith a part of their everyday lives. There's a reason they call us infidels. Many Christians seem to think that just because they are saved (by confession, baptism, faith,etc. in the end all Christians believed they are saved by Christ) they can do whatever they please. This attitude is damaging to faith. As Christians, we should set an example, thus wanting people to come to the fold because they see so many good people in it. Christians haven't been doing as good a job of that lately. It's good for anyone really, as Islam does promote a certain amount of integrity. Tourists in Egypt don't have to worry about thieves, and Islamic law has something to do with it. Whether Islam is a dead faith or a hoax or not, there are certainly things we could learn from it, whether from their strengths or their mistakes. A wise man learns from the mistakes and strengths of others, the average learns from his own mistakes, and a fool learns not at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity needs reform, but it has many strengths that allow it to mutate - though not enough to be honest. But at least it is not a petrified, ossified philosophy.

Islam is a morbid failure by any measurement - Oliver Roy's book is a great read on the failure of the Islamic system for those who actually like to read. Systems need to address real issues, real problems and deliver 'goods' to the people. Chanting, singing and praying that you get the 72 virgins is not a life - it is an illusion and a sick one at that. Religion that is divorced from reality, that uses superstition to justify itself is no more spiritual than a trickster that pulls a rabbit from a hat.

Islam needs to join the real world or face destruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Agreed. Islam - meaning according to Lewis 'submission to the divine will' - has been rather perverted by theocratic states. Chretien was wrong when he said poverty caused terror - Atta and his gang on 9-11 all learnt their terror arts while in Europe and all were middle and upper class. Palestine youth might be poor but incentivised by Arafat's thousands which they give to their families they willingly blow themselves and clueless victims, skyhigh.

The problem with the EU and UNO is that they don't recognise the obvious; Islam as a social experiment has failed. Property rights, representative government, trade, investment and freedom is what makes people, states and minds healthy.

Spirituality is a part of the mix, but when you combine church, state, and money into one group, you have nothing more than Fascism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be condemning an entire religion based on the actions of a few extremists.

It's impossible to divorce the effects of religious thought from the environment in which the adherent lives. I suggest that a Canadian Muslim, brought up in a Canadian environment would be much more similar to a Canadian Christian than a Saudi Muslim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys come on read the posts:

I said that Islam - defined as the doctrine of Mohammad given in the Koran exemplified by 'submission to divine will' is a social and political failure - not Muslim. There is no doubt this is correct. Muslim means someone who believes in Islam. I forget the exact etymology but it is an old Arabic word formed from another word. In any event Muslim is the person. I did not say that the person is a failure, how could anyone say that ?

The 3 pillars of the Koran have not produced the goods for the Muslims. In the real world when one structure fails, another should be tried. When state and theology are mixed this is not possible and leads only to further peversions. A muslim living in Canada is obviously given a wide array of choice freedom and responsibility denied to him in repressed Islamic countries. So the comparison is nonsensical. Just ask any Muslim who now lives in Canada.

Pell your post adds zero value or clarity. I have no idea what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judging by the results we see now, Islam is not an ideal government. Quite frankly, I, a very religious person, am quite ready to admit that religion does not have a good track record as a political power. I am in full favor of political figures being influenced by religion. I am not quite in favor of religion becoming the government. It has worked about as well with Christianity as it has with Islam. We Christians aren't spotless in the matter, we having our own bloody roots both among Catholics and Protestants. To say that Islam as a social experiment has failed is true to the extent that it hasn't done a lot of favors government wise. As a religion, I'm sure it could do just fine. I'm quite certain if Islam were a spiritual power and not a political power in the Middle East, we'd have a lot less problems in that area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KK, you are right about the left. They love CONTROL. Their view of the world is that we are all, as humans, stupid, unable to think, and need the caring hand of the almighty Hobbesian Leviathan to guide our actions. Besides our stupidity, we are craven, immoral, pleasure seeking idiots, that would slit the throat of our mothers for coin, and have orgies with our sisters to satiate our bodily desires.

To counter such paganism we need the strong hand, arm, and mouth of the state, to guide, cajole and if necessary beat us into submission.

Socialism and Fascism are just variants of tryanny.

Elder i agree with you

To say that Islam as a social experiment has failed is true to the extent that it hasn't done a lot of favors government wise. As a religion, I'm sure it could do just fine. I'm quite certain if Islam were a spiritual power and not a political power in the Middle East, we'd have a lot less problems in that area.

Islam as submission to the divine will and the expression of the Koran and Sharia duty is a failure and a rather grubby one at that. You are a religious man and that is great. I am not, i am not even spiritual, nor do i like trees or nature that much. I prefer concrete, money and civilisation. Having said that - some faith is important in life. Faith can come from religion or from philosophy. I choose the latter - and importantly that is the main difference between 'us' and 'them'. I can choose what 'faith' or framework fits me best.

Muslims living in fascist societies have no such freedoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Islam is like what Christianity was a millenium ago, with the Crusaders trying to capture the Holy Land in the name of God. Now the Muslims are trying to get it in the name of Allah. Now we look back on the crusades knowing that according to the Christian faith, God was probably not so happy about them. I predict the same will sometime happen with the muslims as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hohen, i would agree that Islam is trying to atone for its failure - its 700 year failure in fact to add anything positive, innovative or worthwhile to global society.

Islam produced algebra, advanced medicine, incredible arts, fiction and non fiction works that are sublime, Averroes, Avicenna and Khuldun - great minds that match the best that the West can offer.

The problem is all this occurred between 900-1400 AD. Since then, since the battle of Lepanto in 1572, since the defeat at Vienna by Sobieski his Poles and the German knights, the Islamic framework of modelling the world has been rendered an anachronism.

So called experts point out that Islam per se is not the problem. They will state that Muslims ie. individual implementation of the faith is the problem, or Islamism - the political expression of Islam is the problem.

This is semantical hair splitting and PC nonsense.

It has to do with the fact that Islamic law, the Sharia, makes no provision for non-Muslims to live as equals with Muslims in an Islamic society.  It has to do with the fact that Islamic law institutionalises the subjugation of women and a panoply of draconian punishments.  This isn't about food and music.  It is about human rights.

sce. Robert Spencer, NP, Jan 28th.

Amen. I would say it is not about human rights but about freedom. Twas not always so with Islam. Mohammed's older wife played an important role in shaping his finances as well as his ideas. Muslim women until about 1400 were allowed to own property and take political posts.

Islam atrophied, choked itself and like the Medieval Catholic Church, gave in to ritual, superstition and paranoia.

Unlike the Christian church there has been no Martin Luther, John Huys or Wycliffe to sound the trumpet for reform.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elder, well if it does not come from within it will come from without. Iraq / Afgh. are only the first steps. The Islamic world can continue to make excuses; colonialism, artificial borders, secularism and immorality that must be defeated etc., but the reality is that freedom, laws and rights are not ethicity bound. Once people have the darkness lifted from their minds watch the Islamic world grow and prosper. Being held captive to fascist theocratic thugs is a historical anomaly that has to be eradicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dea Rasputin,

Once people have the darkness lifted from their minds watch the Islamic world grow and prosper. Being held captive to fascist theocratic thugs is a historical anomaly that has to be eradicated.
It is obvious you have not read the Koran. Nor studied history. This is not meant to criticise you. The Koran has no democracy in it.

The Koran is revered (in original sanskrit) as the literal WORD OF GOD, as dictated to HIS last prophet, Mohammed. Even english translations are regarded as 'tainted', as GOD dictated it to Mohammed in Arabic. (Not sure whether it was Farsi or Urdu) The 'darkness lifted' you refer to is Islam itself. The 'Islamic world' will not grow and prosper in any western sense, for it can only battle against, or be replaced by, western value (and/or biblical or scriptural) interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...