Islam

[jaycanuck]

why don't you , the majority of the normal good muslims , don't do anything to condemn a death penalty to Salman Rushdi , who only wrote his opinion , it IS a democratic world , nothing more , or riots all over europe because of a funny drawing in a danish newpaper?

I shouldn't be furthering this..but I hate to say this is nitpicking on 1 example given on one religious text. Here's another major one that shows the flaw in all of this fairy land talk.

Christianity / Judiaism - The 6th commandment.. you shall not murder

Qur'an - And do not take any human being's life - that God willed to be sacred - other than in [the pursuit of] justice.

Well then in that case we're all going to whatever fictional no no land you want to believe in.. because lets face it...if these texts and events were even real, we've been paying lip service for some time now.....but they aren't real...so really we're just savages killing.

[SarahG]

Agreed, all religion is the poison of our society. It stifles human progression, holds back free thinking, and is a form of mind control. However, with that said. I've personally never seen such a religion used in such a manipulative way. Islam is truly a infective plague of society.

/2cents

My goodness Slip. I have to disagree. Check Catholicism. The Pope has most of the world believing you'll go to a firey pit of misery if you put a piece of rubber on your cock.

I agree, to say nothing of other forms of birth control. The church is so fast to condemn people for using birth control, but so slow to help them when they end up with more children then they can care for (children they wouldn't have had had they used birth control). What was that one Mother Teresa quote regarding poverty? Was something to the effect of, it doesn't matter if they're impoverished, starving and in pain- all that matters is whether or not they find this so-called religion?

Charity work seems disingenuous when helping people isn't the primary objective. To use a historic example, during the potato famine the protestant churches that setup soap kitchens in Ireland demanded the needy say protestant prayers before getting food, the hope was that it would be a tool for converting people away from Catholicism. But in practice it meant people were left with the choice between ether accepting the aid (and being outcast from their towns, losing all family, friend, and business ties), or starving (while maintaining family, friend and business ties). To use a modern example, all those evangelical missionaries in Africa and South America, they're not there to feed the needy- they're there to "distribute the message" (whatever the hell that means), if it helps people in a process its only by accident.

[rcatf]

All of the JCI (Judeo/Christian/Islam) religeons teach peace at their core .

That's simply not true. The god of the Old Testament, upon whose hate the Abrahamic cults are all based, does not preach peace, he preaches intolerance, revenge, retribution and punishment. Subsequent modifications may have sought to moderate that message to a more or less degree but the underlying dualistic principle of all these cults remains--"our religion (insert your own "our") is the only one that is right and if everyone else has to die to prove it, so be it." It is hard to see how a hate-based monotheism could result in anything else.

There should be no place for this in the world. Fine if you want to go and worship trees or fairies at the bottom of your garden or meditate on the Buddha, but the Abrahamic cults are a menace.

there also many so-called christians who say "kill all them arabs, jews and gays"

Which is kind of like QED, isn't it? As long as people subscribe to cults that define by difference--us and them-- this is inevitable, no one of these cults is better than the other.

Generally I agree w/ your points. My post was a gut repsonse to blaming a specific religeon at large for the worlds ills. The particular area of the J/C/I tradition I was raised in encouraged questioning of faith so I don't don't see monotheism as quite so inherantly problematic but can see the problems it's created. I think the beliefe in something greater than the indidvidual is not in and of itself bad or evil but it does always have the potential to be exploited when organised or forced on people...as does any rule of law (unfortunately anarchy hasn't proved a successful group survival model)...

I understand your points about organised religeon...but human nature is to seek answers (intellectually) and to survive (animalistically)...be it the force, karma or god's will...folks will find an excuse to fight over territory and resources to justify animal behavior.

[ALLOSHn70]

Guys COME ON ..

Religions always the best systematic way to guide

people to do what is best for their own good and the
society around. IF .... They stick with what the

religion letterly says.

And i personelly think that if muslims applied

classic islam in each aspect of thier lives they will,

they will make a perfect example of peaceful

happy simple life.

that's what my further reading about islam reflects.

[SarahG]

religion letterly says.

Do you mean literally?

I think there's enough evidence to show that's a bad, bad idea.

Just look at the christian fundamentalists, the islamic fundamentalists, and everyone else who tries to take their holy texts 100% literal.

I guess that means it was a mistake to outlaw human sacrifice, a mistake to end slavery, and a mistake to even consider evolution is possible...

[Jericho]

If you follow the bible/koran letter for letter the world will be a better place.
If you follow the bible/koran letter for letter the world will be a worse place.
If you pick and choose from the bible/koran you will make the world a better place
If you pick and choose from the bible/koran you will make the world a worse place
If you're poor, cold and alone, the bible/koran is a source of comfort
If you're poor, cold and alone, the bible/koran is a source of vengence

If think for yourself, the bible/koran is naught but superstition, and the world is what you make it.

[trish]

Every reading of a text is an interpretation, especially texts as vague as religious texts. I seriously doubt there can be anything close to universal agreement as to just what is the unique literal reading of the Koran, the Bible or the Torah. For starters, it’s rarely clear whom the texts are addressing; the book of Leviticus delineates the proscriptions the Lord as placed upon the Levites. A looser interpretation would allow that Leviticus maps out the covenant between God and the Israelites. It’s more than a bit presumptuous to take Leviticus as God’s plan for twent[y] first century Christendom. “You shall not lie with a male as one would with a woman,” is addressed only to males. Evidently there is no prohibition against lesbianism. Moreover, the author is too shy to say what he means literally. He speaks figuratively and forces us into a figurative interpretation. It would seem that literally Leviticus would have us use different positions lying with men then those we use when lying with women.

It seems to me one gets better moral instruction from reading the deliberate ambiguities in Plato’s Republic than from reading any of the pretentious writings in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition that inevitably presume (while denying it) to know every detail of God’s will.

[edits in square brackets]

[Jericho]

It seems to me one gets better moral instruction from reading the deliberate ambiguities in Plato’s Republic than from reading any of the pretentious writings in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition that inevitably presume (while denying it) to know every detail of God’s will.

And ye shall see it on the eighth day and tremble, Trish/Lilith hath horns!

[trish]

And the walls of Jericho came tumblin' down,
tumblin' down,
tumblin' dow-ow-ow-owwwn.
Or somethin' like that.

[Distance]

What amazes me the most is the propension of certain religious minorities, which, once settled, will use terror to force in their own beliefs on local population. That stands as much for Jewish settlers in Palestine or Islamic minorities in Europe, for example.



Or the US, supposedly a seculiar country...''with god on its side'' even during the president's intronization. As much as I support Obama, I really had to laugh at this. I remember when the US invaded Iraq...the name of that mission then was ''infinite justice". Luckily they changed it...too bad they didn't change the 'rest'.



If you are an agnostic (or simply fair minded), then you might as well not believe in the rather simplistic and manichean ''good'' and ''evil''. Black or white. Good christianity Vs Bad Islam. See below:


Al-Qaida founder blasts successor bin Laden for 'immoral terror'
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent

One of Al-Qaida's founders, Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, has waged a harsh verbal attack on the terrorist organization's leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Sharif's criticism of the Al-Qaida ideology and the failures of its leadership have unleashed a heated debate within the global Jihad movement and it has been publicized in several western media outlets.

Sharif, who is serving a life sentence in a Cairo prison, recently wrote, "Every drop of blood that was shed or is being shed in Afghanistan and Iraq is the responsibility of bin Laden and Zawahiri and their followers."

The Al-Qaida figurehead also said called the September 11 terror attacks immoral and counterproductive.

"Ramming America has become the shortest road to fame and leadership among the Arabs and Muslims," wrote Sharif, who also goes by the nom de guerre Dr. Fadl. "But what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy's buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours? That, in short, is my evaluation of 9/11."

Sharif also criticizes Muslims who move to the West only to perpetrate terror attacks in their adopted countries. "If they gave you permission to enter their homes and live with them, and if they gave you security for yourself and your money, and if they gave you the opportunity to work or study, or they granted you political asylum" wrote Sharif, then it is "not honorable" to "betray them, through killing and destruction."

According to Reuven Paz, an expert on Islamist movements, Sharif is considered one of the leading ideologues within the Egyptian group that cultivated Jihad starting in the 1970s.