Printable View
Well, good for Middle Ages doesn't mean good for XXI century. I would say that while Christianity was gradually moving to more tolerance and less influence upon the society, Islam took an opposite course. Why it happened is a question for the more learnt in Muslim-lore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Really good book on that question https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiha...olitical_Islam Bit dry though
edit, the wiki is completily incorrect, he takes it back much further, 1920, what the wiki says is a different book
Yes, I can explain it to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
What was comparatively "tolerant and enlightened" some 1400 (!!!!!!!!!!!) years ago has little to no resemblance to what is considered enlightened, or tolerant, today.
So "still" makes perfect sense. They are STILL where they were some 1400 years ago, whereas the rest of the world (most parts) have moved on.
As to the bolded part, reading comprehension please? I have never claimed it was more tolerant back then that it is now, from the outset I have argued that it is exactly the same **** as it was back then.
BACK THEN it might have been enlightened in comparison to its times... But again, that was 1400 years ago.
So no, I in no way contradict myself.
In short: Islam is the ramblings of a desert living tribal pedophile warmonger from more than a thousand years ago. I wrote it already.
I know you don't like it when I defend your position but 3 2 1
Kads is just right and you all know it
just did it, scuzi
Maybe it's not "Islam"!!!! Might it better be described as individuals making choices:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...icide-attacks/
The problem with Islam is that a whole lot of individuals are making poor and ill-informed choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
Let's put it this way...
We have a young man, with a lot of problems in his life. You know, kind of like everyone.
Now, he opens his eyes up for religion.
A) He gets influenced by Jainism, that stress the importance of life, and their utmost followers sweep the floor in front of them as they walk... As to not kill some being...
B) He gets influenced by Islam, who stress the importance of Jihad and a (SEXUAL!!!! 72 virgins) reward in heaven if he fight and kill for it. Whose utmost followers blow themselves up to kill others.
Which case is more likely to have innocents killed?
Please, like PLEASE, stop blaming the stupid young guys, the world is full of them, and will always be full of them.
/thread won.
I would summarize the article as follows:Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
1: some people are suicidal
2: Islam says that suicide is an unforgivable sin
3: Islam says that being martyred for your faith gets you into heaven no matter what.
4: Therefore Islam steers people away from ordinary suicide and toward suicide attacks.
5: The solution: Get out the word that Islam has got it wrong. They aren't noble martyrs. They're just people who think that their choice to kill themselves will be forgiven if they take others with them.
Sounds to me like the author hasn't exonerated Islam at all. Or did I misunderstand?
My take away from it is, people make choices. They will use anything to buttress those choices, including perverting Islam, Christianity or Animal Rights.
So, why do these people feel the need to find an "out"?
What is it about society or they're psychological state that leads them to seek an exit?
Is it a matter for health-care? Social mobility? Failed relationships?
The religious excuse seems to be a terminus, not genesis.
Well, I suppose that could be what the article means, but I admit I have a lot of trouble matching up your take with the actual words in the article.