No matter how much wrong you can find in the origins of Islam. Similar wrong can be found in all kinds of cultures and religions.
It would be so convenient if evil was to be so easily pointed out. But it is not.
I do have great problems with fundamentalism, of any kind.
Pinpointing the bad of killing Theo van Gogh on Islam, made that muslim people were not feeling safe anymore. That schools were burned. Where's the good in that?
That's not Islam, that's clueless morons blaming their murderous habits on religion.
Like the Iranian Government does? al Shabab is fighting for control of Somalia and would likely run it much the same way the Taliban ran Afghanistan. At what point, in your opinion, does a person claiming to be Muslim get to define their own beliefs as Islam odeon? I am not going to presume to tell people what their religious beliefs are and don't know you to when you are not defending Islam from the activities of its most zealous followers. The murders in Mumbai India, the attacks on the London Underground and Spanish Railroad stations, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the call for Salman Rushdie's murder, the shit happening in the Sudan and this latest attack on people watching a sports event together are all crimes committed by Muslims with the stated agenda of acting on behalf of Islam. At what point do people get to define their own beliefs? Cat Stevens publicly stated support for the Fatwa on Rushdie. Did he cease to be a Muslim at that point? Would you have the audacity to tell Yusuf Islam what his beliefs can and can't be?
That's not Islam sounds like a "No true Muslim" fallacy to me.
No, I disagree with you here.
A fundy Muslim would agree with you.
A few years ago a fundamentalist christian organisation was in the news a lot. Because their way of biblically raising their kids lead to infants dying. They will have thought that all other forms of christianity were no true christianity.
None of which made them not real Christians or takes away the religious motivation for what they were doing.
The point is that the direct and absolute connection to a religion or a philosophy can not be made.
Fundamentalism happens in every religion and philosophy. There are fundamentalistic atheists too. The moment someone claims he, or his group, have got hold of the absolute truth, and all others are following a fallacy, that moment fundamentalism is active. And because of this being sure to have the absolute truth, some think they can treat the people who are not in the truth as dirt. Exploit them, kill them, all for the good of their own truth and self-righteousness. Yes, it does happen amongst some Muslims, but that's no reason to blame all of that. It happens amongst some Christians, but not on all. It happens with some evolutionists, but not in all.
And a gross preponderance of political-religious terrorist attack mass murders that are happening right now come straight out of Islamic fundamentalism.
True, and a lot of mass murderings in WWII were based on a non-religious philosophy. People were killed, based on religion, offspring, sexual orientation and mental health because of a philosopy of the leader. And most of us still use some good inventions of that very same leader.
That some governments have combined nationalism with religious fundamentalism, does not make the religion bad in it self.
The fact that followers of this particular religion (Islam) are engaged in ongoing murderous terrorist attacks on civilian populations (part of a long history of such conduct), and that the founder of this particular religion married a 6 year old girl and fessed up to fucking her at age 9 leads me to believe that this religion is bad in and of itself. Hell in Yemen and Saudi Arabia marrying and fucking little girls is legal and cool because Muhammad did with 'Aisha. How the hell is that not wrong? The bolded part is a question, not an attack on you Hyke.
It is a horrid thought that a girl had to have sex with an older man so soon. I do strongly agree with you on that.
But, there are historians telling that in the western European Middle-ages, girls could be wed out at the same age. That the Romans had an average age of consent of 12-14, but had put the minimum age at 7. Anything to keep the amount of baby boys high enough to be able to maintain a solid army.
And still, no matter what kind of society, a lot of rape cases will not get acknowledged. Even, or maybe especially, incest, family rape towards young kids, will be ignored a lot. Too horrid to take serious. Better not talk about it, and then it may not exist. And the perpetrators always find a way to make their actions right. Basing it on the purely power of hormones, or the thought that with Eve all woman, from childhood on, are that seductive that it is their own doing, even when they are 6.
We'll have to disagree on this one, PPK. I will tell you this, though: I don't presume to tell anyone what their beliefs can or cannot be, or how they define their religion(s). However, it is my opinion that those killing in the name of religion, whatever that religion is, usually need to blame their actions on something and it is far easier to justify murder if you think God is on your side.
Stating it in this manner makes more sense to me than what you initially posted odeon.
Doesn't make it more right in my eyes, though. I'll put a stop to it once these people start listening to me.
I know that. In spite of what my initial response to you may have come off as I don't actually believe that you approve of terrorism.
