<p>India-Pakistan</a> relations strained as Mumbai attacks probed - CNN.com</p>
<p>doesn't sound very "peaceful" to me...</p>
<p>Is it your goal to insult and divide everyone here?</p>
<p>I can’t believe that you just embarked on a personal crusade against an entire religion.</p>
<p>He’s right though. Islam was founded through conquest, and Mohammad was a “warrior prophet” who conquered Medina, Mecca, and Arabia. The followers of his teachings took a large chunk of the Mediterranean in the next few centuries. Lately there have been more moderate Muslims who don’t adhere to the more warlike teachings of the Koran, but there hasn’t been a Muslim reformation yet.</p>
<p>My perspective comes with four years of secondary schooling at an Islamic institution, but first, you will need to know why I nearly shudder at the name “Darul Uloom”. See [url=<a href="http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1862650,00.html]India’s">http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1862650,00.html]India’s</a> Muslims in Crisis - TIME<a href=“the%20whole%20thing,%20please”>/url</a> . I am using the political climate of Trinidad and Tobago to demonstrate what such an ideology could do even when the society under consideration is cut off from peer ideas (the events discussed below all precede the Internet, and there was almost no concurrent trade between the Caribbean and the Middle East).</p>
<p>Religions, of course, are facelifted over time and distributed in different editions in different places. The Islams with which I am familiar in person - by participating in Eid-Ul-Fitr and patronizing ‘Night of Power’ presentations etc - are very different, but they share a material culture (Note that there are indeed such things as Islamic cultures).
Not everyone cares for Sunnite and Shi’ite distinctions; the house of secularist Islamic culture - a sometimes resurrected idea that echoes the quasi-glasnost of pld Persia - is not so powerful as to fight off extremism. In the midst of preparation for the (all but mandatory) ‘Islamiyat’ exam (by Cambridge International Examinations<em>, no less) I was rather taken aback by the embrace of material bearing the signatures of Darul Uloom ‘scholars’. (Darul Uloom is in Pakistan and India, but I’m 12 hours away</em>*). In addition to the droning dozens upon dozens of legalsize sheets of ‘history’ and ‘philosophy’ to memorize, the vitriol was thinly disguised. “Homosexuality is at best a sickness and at worst an abomination.” No intellectual humility is allowed, and no intellectual discernment is required. This is the stuff that drives people into action. Here, in a state with no majority race or religion, one of the two major Islamic organizations builds schools and charities, and the other controls mosques and assassinates people and tried to take over the country. They butt heads in public.</p>
<p>The problem isn’t that these cleaved ideologies are at opposite ends. One is mistakenly helping the other, and that other is popularized as together with the one. As shown by [<em>], the extremists’ interpretations have fought their way into the Western hemisphere. [</em>*] comes as a surprise when one considers local contexts; there is nearly no international relationship with roots in the local context that could have pushed it. Sure, the extremist “scholars” don’t all endorse the subjugation of infidels, but the response in that Time article, effectively saying that the particular terrorists had to take action because of the politics in their particular countries, reflects a common sentiment that says that the law is God’s jurisdiction through the mouths of Imams and literal coercion by the faithful. It reminds me of Proposition 8, but I don’t want to digress too much.</p>
<p>So why do some Islams come to nonsense under independent circumstances? The texts have not been screened as much as they should be; consider what would have happened to Christianity (in nations of ubiquitous poverty) if no-one were even allowed to discuss heresy (and you have some very good precendents to consider, some coincidentally concurrent with the height of Byzantium). The crap of Leviticus is much easier to ignore today than that in the Kor’an or the Surahs. Where Muslims have a somewhat rich and business-oriented stereotype tailing them (we’re back to me now; think NYJ 40 years ago), there is a gravitation to acceptance; the burden of liberalism for the poor can be an anomie they cannot afford. In Saudi Arabia it doesn’t happen because everyone’s Muslim - and it remains as a relic of an establishment reflecting the a historical notion pointed out in post #3 (which is rather wrong about “lately”, because moderate Islam is not young, but it does get a crude point across). Ah… I should say more, but I’d better structure this as an essay as opposed to a rant. I’ll be back.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Singh needs to grow a nutsack and just eliminate the problem. Pakistan has been up to this **** since the begining of its petulant existence. Okay, this had links to AQ, but AQ has links to pakistan… the hub of terrorism. It needs to go. Gandhi’s tactics dont work with these islam lunatics. It is akin to forcibly invading Germany to liberate concentration camps. Sure we killed non fanatic people in the process, but as my grandfather says, there was no option, men had to die for the atrocity to be destroyed. And now these pakistani terrorists, a blot on south asia, need to be fought with force.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>logic, you shouldn’t possess that screen name, because you’re not logical in the scheme of things. What about Christianity? do you know how much blood has been shed in the name of Christ? To this day, Christianity still remains the most violent religion. Don’t pigeonhole one religion. Jesus was awesome, but Christianity isn’t. Having said that, all religions suck, so don’t pinpoint one.</p>
<p>Ok, so if some Muslim does a terrorist attack, it makes all Muslims terrorists?
If some atheist does a terrorist attack on Church, it makes all atheists terrorists?
Kinda nonsense</p>
<p>I don’t see how an atheist can commit a terrorist attack, that’s extremely unlikely, possible but definitely not probable.</p>
<p>^ Where does the idea of responsibility in ‘organized religion’ come from?
There are certain people, who may take Koran literally/pervert it, and perform some actions according to it. This has nothing to do with other followers, most of whom disagree with these actions. It’s like the way some Christians used the Bible to protect slavery, why does it impact the whole religion?</p>
<p>baller, there’s a huge difference and you know it. Jesus was peaceful, although people have killed in his name. Muhammad killed people as well as telling his followers to kill people.</p>
<p>^ according to Bible and Koran, respectively.
I am pretty sure you weren’t there to see this.
Islam by itself in general doesn’t endorse violence, jihad is in first place inner struggle against yourself. But people who need to pervert it, do pervert it.</p>
<p>i feel sorry for those who lost their lives and highly condemn the terrorists. the bombay attacks is a grim reminder that we must continue fighting the war on terror. this is a wake up call to keep fighting and eliminate extremely radical islam.</p>
<p>Logic, lol. Although people killed in his name? That’s all you’re saying? Did you not read what I said? Christianity to this day remains the most VIOLENT religion. The reason why Islam isn’t #1 is because its newer, but go back to the ancient Christian times, Holy Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. and Christianity is still the most violent. Go read any book and it will tell you, that’s where I know my info from.</p>
<p>^ baller, again, that doesn’t make religion violent.
Some of the followers are.
Just refrain from proclaiming religion violent, please, this causes generalization of all the followers.</p>
<p>The Holy Crusades were in response to Islamic violence.</p>
<p>I’m not saying Muslims have killed more people than Christians. I’m saying that the New Testament preaches peace, and the Koran preaches violence. This is a fact. It is also a fact that Jesus was a hippie carpenter and Muhammad was a violent conqueror.</p>
<p>^ Bible was used to protect slavery. I would say that’s violence.</p>
<p>I’m from Mumbai. I cannot begin to tell you the state of things here. I hate the Indian Government. I feel helpless, and in excruciatingly distraught. I can’t detach from this – I have seen too much spilt blood, too many heart rending images.</p>
<p>I wish I could tell you what’s happening inside me right now.</p>
<p>All religions have violence, but Christianity is king logic warrior. Stop denying this undeniable fact and sugar coating it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yup. Except when Christians perpetrate terrorism, say, by bombing abortion clinics. Then it’s not terrorism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then Christianity is the most hypocritical religion of all time. I don’t know if this is something to be proud of.</p>
<p>a milli is provoker, I mean it’s second thread he created that causes heated debate.
But debaters forget the main point. How do you define religion?
If it’s blind following of what ‘the book says’ - then lots of religions are violent. Christianity for intolerance to anyone but Christians, Islam for jihad (although it’s ORIGINAL idea is perverted), etc.
Now what really defines religion in my opinion, is the majority of followers.
They are not terrorists or violence seekers. Actually, conservative Muslims at least tolerate people of the book; this can’t be said about conservative Christians.
I was an exchange student to the U.S., one very conservative place. People there KNOW that their Christianity is right, and anything else is wrong. Not because it’s logically correct or something, simply because they were born and raised in this sphere, and it seems great explanation for them. They were kindly trying to save my soul, hunting me in the hall at school etc.
Yeah, I wasn’t bombed or anything, but I was never left alone the whole year.</p>