The Growth of Islam is a Threat to Modern Society

[AtheistBuddah]

This video is a good example of how even moderate Muslims respond to any dissenting opinions. This talk show host is a prime example of the extreme views held by even a run of the mill Muslim. It is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of forceful expansion and barbarism.

 

[Rikurzhen]

This video is a good example of how even moderate Muslims respond to any dissenting opinions. This talk show host is a prime example of the extreme views held by even a run of the mill Muslim. It is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of forceful expansion and barbarism.

Islam never had a Protestant Reformation type of revolution nor did it have an Enlightenment revolution. It's stuck where Christianity was in the year 800 or so and even here Christianity didn't see the world as House of Peace and House of War.

That said, Islam is a clear alternative method of organizing society which has a different vision of what is good and how things SHOULD be than what is seen in the Post-Christian West. This really is a battle of ideas which is different than what happened with Christianity. Islam is the total package - a one-stop shop for organizing society, religion, law and government all rolled into one package.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

This video is a good example of how even moderate Muslims respond to any dissenting opinions. This talk show host is a prime example of the extreme views held by even a run of the mill Muslim. It is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of forceful expansion and barbarism.

Islam never had a Protestant Reformation type of revolution nor did it have an Enlightenment revolution. It's stuck where Christianity was in the year 800 or so and even here Christianity didn't see the world as House of Peace and House of War.

That said, Islam is a clear alternative method of organizing society which has a different vision of what is good and how things SHOULD be than what is seen in the Post-Christian West. This really is a battle of ideas which is different than what happened with Christianity. Islam is the total package - a one-stop shop for organizing society, religion, law and government all rolled into one package.

One horrific package that the Muslims will kill for turning down. They Muslim faith and the world that it dominates is still stuck in the bronze age only now the have increasing access to modern day weapons. A terrifying combination.

 

[Rikurzhen]

This video is a good example of how even moderate Muslims respond to any dissenting opinions. This talk show host is a prime example of the extreme views held by even a run of the mill Muslim. It is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of forceful expansion and barbarism.

Islam never had a Protestant Reformation type of revolution nor did it have an Enlightenment revolution. It's stuck where Christianity was in the year 800 or so and even here Christianity didn't see the world as House of Peace and House of War.

That said, Islam is a clear alternative method of organizing society which has a different vision of what is good and how things SHOULD be than what is seen in the Post-Christian West. This really is a battle of ideas which is different than what happened with Christianity. Islam is the total package - a one-stop shop for organizing society, religion, law and government all rolled into one package.

One horrific package that the Muslims will kill for turning down. They Muslim faith and the world that it dominates is still stuck in the bronze age only now the have increasing access to modern day weapons. A terrifying combination.

Look back into Christian history and you see heretics being put to death. That practice didn't derive from scripture and so it was a cultural attachment to how Christianity was practiced and it's been reformed away over time. Now compare to Islam where death to apostates is mandated by all five schools of Islamic Jurisprudence and there are no schools which dissent from this view and it's practiced to this day. A man who leaves Islam faces punishment of death. You can't be a Muslim and reject this, much like you can't be a Christian and reject the divinity of Christ. It's part and parcel of what defines the faith.

What a lot of Westerners don't get about Islam is that it's not a substitute of how we see religion as modeled on Christianity. The mental model they use is to simply substitute - Mosque for Church, private belief for private belief, etc. Christianity is built on the model of a faith which is professed. One guy professes he's a Baptist, another guy professes his faith as a Catholic and all is well with society. Faith is a private matter. That's not how Islam works. Islam is society. It's not just a matter of personal belief, the goal of Islam is to transform society so that is operates on an Islamic basis. This is the problem with America's 1st Amendment - it's built on a model where religion is a private matter. Islam doesn't fit that model.

Look at how much blood and treasure America wasted in Iraq trying to turn it in an America clone in the ME and with all of our influence, look at what is enshrined in the Iraqi Constitution:

• Islam is the state religion and a basic foundation for the country's laws,[3] and no law may contradict the established provisions of Islam.[4]

This is unavoidable, this is how Islam operates. Even America, which denazified Germany and Austria, can't create a secular Constitutional State where people are Muslims. Even with a vanquished state, Islam had to be enshrined in the Constitution.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

This video is a good example of how even moderate Muslims respond to any dissenting opinions. This talk show host is a prime example of the extreme views held by even a run of the mill Muslim. It is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of forceful expansion and barbarism.

Islam never had a Protestant Reformation type of revolution nor did it have an Enlightenment revolution. It's stuck where Christianity was in the year 800 or so and even here Christianity didn't see the world as House of Peace and House of War.

That said, Islam is a clear alternative method of organizing society which has a different vision of what is good and how things SHOULD be than what is seen in the Post-Christian West. This really is a battle of ideas which is different than what happened with Christianity. Islam is the total package - a one-stop shop for organizing society, religion, law and government all rolled into one package.

One horrific package that the Muslims will kill for turning down. They Muslim faith and the world that it dominates is still stuck in the bronze age only now the have increasing access to modern day weapons. A terrifying combination.

Look back into Christian history and you see heretics being put to death. That practice didn't derive from scripture and so it was a cultural attachment to how Christianity was practiced and it's been reformed away over time. Now compare to Islam where death to apostates is mandated by all five schools of Islamic Jurisprudence and there are no schools which dissent from this view and it's practiced to this day. A man who leaves Islam faces punishment of death. You can't be a Muslim and reject this, much like you can't be a Christian and reject the divinity of Christ. It's part and parcel of what defines the faith.

What a lot of Westerners don't get about Islam is that it's not a substitute of how we see religion as modeled on Christianity. The mental model they use is to simply substitute - Mosque for Church, private belief for private belief, etc. Christianity is built on the model of a faith which is professed. One guy professes he's a Baptist, another guy professes his faith as a Catholic and all is well with society. Faith is a private matter. That's not how Islam works. Islam is society. It's not just a matter of personal belief, the goal of Islam is to transform society so that is operates on an Islamic basis. This is the problem with America's 1st Amendment - it's built on a model where religion is a private matter. Islam doesn't fit that model.

Look at how much blood and treasure America wasted in Iraq trying to turn it in an America clone in the ME and with all of our influence, look at what is enshrined in the Iraqi Constitution:

• Islam is the state religion and a basic foundation for the country's laws,[3] and no law may contradict the established provisions of Islam.[4]

This is unavoidable, this is how Islam operates. Even America, which denazified Germany and Austria, can't create a secular Constitutional State where people are Muslims. Even with a vanquished state, Islam had to be enshrined in the Constitution.

I agree. At least with Christianity people can agree to disagree. There are some Christians that don't see it that way, but the actual precepts of the Bible only mandate that the faithful let others know about the "Good News" once they've done that and you have either accepted it or not, their obligation ends. So atheists and Christians can, in theory, agree to disagree and still live side by side in a democratic society even if Christians are the majority. There will obviously be squabbles but that is largely because people aren't perfect. Islam on the other hand is at its core, fundamentally incompatible with democracy and the punishments for rejecting it in a Muslim dominated society are quite clear.

 

[Rikurzhen]

This video is a good example of how even moderate Muslims respond to any dissenting opinions. This talk show host is a prime example of the extreme views held by even a run of the mill Muslim. It is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of forceful expansion and barbarism.

Islam never had a Protestant Reformation type of revolution nor did it have an Enlightenment revolution. It's stuck where Christianity was in the year 800 or so and even here Christianity didn't see the world as House of Peace and House of War.

That said, Islam is a clear alternative method of organizing society which has a different vision of what is good and how things SHOULD be than what is seen in the Post-Christian West. This really is a battle of ideas which is different than what happened with Christianity. Islam is the total package - a one-stop shop for organizing society, religion, law and government all rolled into one package.

One horrific package that the Muslims will kill for turning down. They Muslim faith and the world that it dominates is still stuck in the bronze age only now the have increasing access to modern day weapons. A terrifying combination.

Look back into Christian history and you see heretics being put to death. That practice didn't derive from scripture and so it was a cultural attachment to how Christianity was practiced and it's been reformed away over time. Now compare to Islam where death to apostates is mandated by all five schools of Islamic Jurisprudence and there are no schools which dissent from this view and it's practiced to this day. A man who leaves Islam faces punishment of death. You can't be a Muslim and reject this, much like you can't be a Christian and reject the divinity of Christ. It's part and parcel of what defines the faith.

What a lot of Westerners don't get about Islam is that it's not a substitute of how we see religion as modeled on Christianity. The mental model they use is to simply substitute - Mosque for Church, private belief for private belief, etc. Christianity is built on the model of a faith which is professed. One guy professes he's a Baptist, another guy professes his faith as a Catholic and all is well with society. Faith is a private matter. That's not how Islam works. Islam is society. It's not just a matter of personal belief, the goal of Islam is to transform society so that is operates on an Islamic basis. This is the problem with America's 1st Amendment - it's built on a model where religion is a private matter. Islam doesn't fit that model.

Look at how much blood and treasure America wasted in Iraq trying to turn it in an America clone in the ME and with all of our influence, look at what is enshrined in the Iraqi Constitution:

• Islam is the state religion and a basic foundation for the country's laws,[3] and no law may contradict the established provisions of Islam.[4]

This is unavoidable, this is how Islam operates. Even America, which denazified Germany and Austria, can't create a secular Constitutional State where people are Muslims. Even with a vanquished state, Islam had to be enshrined in the Constitution.

I agree. At least with Christianity people can agree to disagree. There are some Christians that don't see it that way, but the actual precepts of the Bible only mandate that the faithful let others know about the "Good News" once they've done that and you have either accepted it or not, their obligation ends. So atheists and Christians can, in theory, agree to disagree and still live side by side in a democratic society even if Christians are the majority. There will obviously be squabbles but that is largely because people aren't perfect. Islam on the other hand is at its core, fundamentally incompatible with democracy and the punishments for rejecting it in a Muslim dominated society are quite clear.

Stop for a moment and contemplate the following. What are the odds of walking into a restaurant and finding that EVERYONE loves Coke? What are the odds of arriving in a new city and finding that EVERYONE loves the local NFL team? No matter where you go you will never find anything close to total unanimity on most any subject. Now look at what you find when you look at Islamic societies:

Afghanistan = 99.8 % Muslim
Iran = 99.7
Iraq = 98.9
Even in European Albania 82.1% of the population is Muslim. How is it that high?

Do you imagine that people are dissuaded from leaving or professing another faith by the fear of death?

 

[Pogo]

Number one, you're about 1400 years late.

Number two, you're proposing to pass judgement on a 1400 year old religion with well over a billion followers on the basis of............ a YouTube video. And a bullshit blanket statement.

Captain Obvious scuttles another garbage scow. Down she goes, to the deep with her entire cargo of fatal fallacies.

Arrrr.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I agree. At least with Christianity people can agree to disagree. There are some Christians that don't see it that way, but the actual precepts of the Bible only mandate that the faithful let others know about the "Good News" once they've done that and you have either accepted it or not, their obligation ends. So atheists and Christians can, in theory, agree to disagree and still live side by side in a democratic society even if Christians are the majority. There will obviously be squabbles but that is largely because people aren't perfect. Islam on the other hand is at its core, fundamentally incompatible with democracy and the punishments for rejecting it in a Muslim dominated society are quite clear.

I was making the following point in another thread. The West, the Post-Christian West, is built on the foundation of Christianity. Many of the ways of life that you and I, two Atheists, enjoy come from the Christian tradition. Christianity laid down the foundations and templates of our society. We're a better society for having had that fortune. Look to other societies which haven't intersected with Christianity or Enlightenment values and try to imagine how you could get to the place we are at today but from a different starting point. If Islamic explorers had reached the New World and settled it instead of Spanish, Portuguese, French and English settlers, what would America look like today?Remember that there has been no Enlightenment YET in the Islamic world, so if Christianity had been vanquished at some earlier point in history what course would have been followed instead?

I have a lot of trouble imagining how an Islamic influenced Enlightenment would take form and what its end-state would look like.

 

[September]

This video is a good example of how even moderate Muslims respond to any dissenting opinions. This talk show host is a prime example of the extreme views held by even a run of the mill Muslim. It is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of forceful expansion and barbarism.

Why should a religion have to be about "peace"? Genocide strengthens a religion, as massive quantities of Mana are generated in the process.
​

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Number one, you're about 1400 years late.

Number two, you're proposing to pass judgement on a 1400 year old religion with well over a billion followers on the basis of............ a YouTube video. And a bullshit blanket statement.

Captain Obvious scuttles another garbage scow. Down she goes, to the deep with her entire cargo of fatal fallacies.

Arrrr.

Why is it that so many of the faithful, regardless of religious affiliation give the number of their religion's followers as if that were some sort of indicator of that religion being true. The majority can and has been wrong before. So there is no reason to believe that it is not wrong now as well. And my views are not made on the basis of a single video but on the understanding of the Muslim world and how they treat non-Muslims when they are in the majority.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

This video is a good example of how even moderate Muslims respond to any dissenting opinions. This talk show host is a prime example of the extreme views held by even a run of the mill Muslim. It is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of forceful expansion and barbarism.

Why should a religion have to be about "peace"? Genocide strengthens a religion, as massive quantities of Mana are generated in the process.
​

Genocide strengthens nothing. Death strengthens nothing and your absurd belief in "mana" does not change this fact.

 

[Rikurzhen]

This video is a good example of how even moderate Muslims respond to any dissenting opinions. This talk show host is a prime example of the extreme views held by even a run of the mill Muslim. It is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of forceful expansion and barbarism.

Why should a religion have to be about "peace"? Genocide strengthens a religion, as massive quantities of Mana are generated in the process.
​

Genocide strengthens nothing. Death strengthens nothing and your absurd belief in "mana" does not change this fact.

You might want to rethink that. Genocide does strengthen the victor for they no longer have to contend with the disruption of the other people and can instead focus on something that benefits them. Benefit and morality are two different concepts.

When the Communists set out to kill all the Kulaks, they benefited from removing a huge thorn in their side and could then turn their attention to perfecting the Worker's Paradise. Morality has no part in this formulation.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

I agree. At least with Christianity people can agree to disagree. There are some Christians that don't see it that way, but the actual precepts of the Bible only mandate that the faithful let others know about the "Good News" once they've done that and you have either accepted it or not, their obligation ends. So atheists and Christians can, in theory, agree to disagree and still live side by side in a democratic society even if Christians are the majority. There will obviously be squabbles but that is largely because people aren't perfect. Islam on the other hand is at its core, fundamentally incompatible with democracy and the punishments for rejecting it in a Muslim dominated society are quite clear.

I was making the following point in another thread. The West, the Post-Christian West, is built on the foundation of Christianity. Many of the ways of life that you and I, two Atheists, enjoy come from the Christian tradition. Christianity laid down the foundations and templates of our society. We're a better society for having had that fortune. Look to other societies which haven't intersected with Christianity or Enlightenment values and try to imagine how you could get to the place we are at today but from a different starting point. If Islamic explorers had reached the New World and settled it instead of Spanish, Portuguese, French and English settlers, what would America look like today?Remember that there has been no Enlightenment YET in the Islamic world, so if Christianity had been vanquished at some earlier point in history what course would have been followed instead?

I have a lot of trouble imagining how an Islamic influenced Enlightenment would take form and what its end-state would look like.

I agree with you here on almost all points. I agree that Western society has its roots and foundation in Christianity, that is just a simple fact. But I am of the opinion that our democratic society and our Enlightenment came about in spite of it and not as a result of it. I consent that more moderate elements within Christianity aided it but without dissenting opinions and without people who questioned authority and questioned faith it may never have happened.

 

[Pogo]

Number one, you're about 1400 years late.

Number two, you're proposing to pass judgement on a 1400 year old religion with well over a billion followers on the basis of............ a YouTube video. And a bullshit blanket statement.

Captain Obvious scuttles another garbage scow. Down she goes, to the deep with her entire cargo of fatal fallacies.

Arrrr.

Why is it that so many of the faithful, regardless of religious affiliation give the number of their religion's followers as if that were some sort of indicator of that religion being true. The majority can and has been wrong before. So there is no reason to believe that it is not wrong now as well. And my views are not made on the basis of a single video but on the understanding of the Muslim world and how they treat non-Muslims when they are in the majority.

I said nothing of "true" nor do I believe such a concept even exists as regards organised religions. Assume much?

Oh wait, I saw the OP, so... there's my answer.

Actually I made no point about Islam. All I did was point out some (not all) of your logical fallacies.
This is all completely over your head, right?

 

[AtheistBuddah]

This video is a good example of how even moderate Muslims respond to any dissenting opinions. This talk show host is a prime example of the extreme views held by even a run of the mill Muslim. It is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of forceful expansion and barbarism.

Why should a religion have to be about "peace"? Genocide strengthens a religion, as massive quantities of Mana are generated in the process.
​

Genocide strengthens nothing. Death strengthens nothing and your absurd belief in "mana" does not change this fact.

You might want to rethink that. Genocide does strengthen the victor for they no longer have to contend with the disruption of the other people and can instead focus on something that benefits them. Benefit and morality are two different concepts.

When the Communists set out to kill all the Kulaks, they benefited from removing a huge thorn in their side and could then turn their attention to perfecting the Worker's Paradise. Morality has no part in this formulation.

That part is true. Though society at large is never benefits from such action and those who commit such heinous crimes usually and justly meet terrible ends.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Number one, you're about 1400 years late.

Number two, you're proposing to pass judgement on a 1400 year old religion with well over a billion followers on the basis of............ a YouTube video. And a bullshit blanket statement.

Captain Obvious scuttles another garbage scow. Down she goes, to the deep with her entire cargo of fatal fallacies.

Arrrr.

Why is it that so many of the faithful, regardless of religious affiliation give the number of their religion's followers as if that were some sort of indicator of that religion being true. The majority can and has been wrong before. So there is no reason to believe that it is not wrong now as well. And my views are not made on the basis of a single video but on the understanding of the Muslim world and how they treat non-Muslims when they are in the majority.

I said nothing of "true" nor do I believe such a concept even exists. Assume much?

Oh wait, I saw the OP, so... there's my answer.

Regardless of whether or not you hold Muslim belief your defense of the Muslim faith is simply wrong.

 

[Pogo]

Number one, you're about 1400 years late.

Number two, you're proposing to pass judgement on a 1400 year old religion with well over a billion followers on the basis of............ a YouTube video. And a bullshit blanket statement.

Captain Obvious scuttles another garbage scow. Down she goes, to the deep with her entire cargo of fatal fallacies.

Arrrr.

Why is it that so many of the faithful, regardless of religious affiliation give the number of their religion's followers as if that were some sort of indicator of that religion being true. The majority can and has been wrong before. So there is no reason to believe that it is not wrong now as well. And my views are not made on the basis of a single video but on the understanding of the Muslim world and how they treat non-Muslims when they are in the majority.

I said nothing of "true" nor do I believe such a concept even exists. Assume much?

Oh wait, I saw the OP, so... there's my answer.

Regardless of whether or not you hold Muslim belief your defense of the Muslim faith is simply wrong.

I didn't even address "the Muslim faith". I didn't need to. I addressed YOU.

Completely over your head.... I tellya what, let me use small words...
subsitute "Jews" for Muslim in your OP. Or substitute "Spanish speakers". Or "lefthanded people". Doesn't matter. The point's the same.

Dumbass.

 

[boedicca]

[

Islam never had a Protestant Reformation type of revolution nor did it have an Enlightenment revolution. It's stuck where Christianity was in the year 800 or so and even here Christianity didn't see the world as House of Peace and House of War.

Most of the world never went through an Enlightenment. That's why Strong Man politics and Totalitarianism are the norm in places such as Russia and China. They never had an ideology which valued the individual.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I agree. At least with Christianity people can agree to disagree. There are some Christians that don't see it that way, but the actual precepts of the Bible only mandate that the faithful let others know about the "Good News" once they've done that and you have either accepted it or not, their obligation ends. So atheists and Christians can, in theory, agree to disagree and still live side by side in a democratic society even if Christians are the majority. There will obviously be squabbles but that is largely because people aren't perfect. Islam on the other hand is at its core, fundamentally incompatible with democracy and the punishments for rejecting it in a Muslim dominated society are quite clear.

I was making the following point in another thread. The West, the Post-Christian West, is built on the foundation of Christianity. Many of the ways of life that you and I, two Atheists, enjoy come from the Christian tradition. Christianity laid down the foundations and templates of our society. We're a better society for having had that fortune. Look to other societies which haven't intersected with Christianity or Enlightenment values and try to imagine how you could get to the place we are at today but from a different starting point. If Islamic explorers had reached the New World and settled it instead of Spanish, Portuguese, French and English settlers, what would America look like today?Remember that there has been no Enlightenment YET in the Islamic world, so if Christianity had been vanquished at some earlier point in history what course would have been followed instead?

I have a lot of trouble imagining how an Islamic influenced Enlightenment would take form and what its end-state would look like.

I agree with you here on almost all points. I agree that Western society has its roots and foundation in Christianity, that is just a simple fact. But I am of the opinion that our democratic society and our Enlightenment came about in spite of it and not as a result of it. I consent that more moderate elements within Christianity aided it but without dissenting opinions and without people who questioned authority and questioned faith it may never have happened.

If these new philosophies and ways of thinking originate in a vacuum then why no Enlightenment thinkers in the lands of Islam? All the action was taking place in Europe? That shouldn't be the case if there is no connection between Christianity and Enlightenment thinking. Heck, why none in India or China? For the Enlightenment to rise, it had to stand on the shoulders of Christendom. This doesn't mean that there were no rejections of Christian thought, it means that in order to reject Christian doctrine one must first be familiar with it and it's weaknesses. Much is thrown away but much of Christian society is kept.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Number one, you're about 1400 years late.

Number two, you're proposing to pass judgement on a 1400 year old religion with well over a billion followers on the basis of............ a YouTube video. And a bullshit blanket statement.

Captain Obvious scuttles another garbage scow. Down she goes, to the deep with her entire cargo of fatal fallacies.

Arrrr.

Why is it that so many of the faithful, regardless of religious affiliation give the number of their religion's followers as if that were some sort of indicator of that religion being true. The majority can and has been wrong before. So there is no reason to believe that it is not wrong now as well. And my views are not made on the basis of a single video but on the understanding of the Muslim world and how they treat non-Muslims when they are in the majority.

I said nothing of "true" nor do I believe such a concept even exists. Assume much?

Oh wait, I saw the OP, so... there's my answer.

Regardless of whether or not you hold Muslim belief your defense of the Muslim faith is simply wrong.

I didn't even address "the Muslim faith". I didn't need to. I addressed YOU.

Completely over your head.... I tellya what, let me use small words...
subsitute "Jews" for Muslim in your OP. Or substitute "Spanish speakers". Or "lefthanded people". Doesn't matter. The point's the same.

Dumbass.

That's a strawman if I ever saw one. The difference between those groups and Muslims is that those groups don't inherently pose a threat to the civil rights and safety of others. It is not the dogma of the lefthanded to kill the righthanded or to force them to write lefthanded. Nor is it the dogma of the spanish speaker to kill those who do not speak Spanish. The Jews in Israel are caught up in a political struggle and they are just as wrong as their Muslim opponents but the Jewish faith in general is not a threat to the non Jewish.