Islam conquered much of the old world and completely demolished their culture. To this day, Muslims are taught the history of their cultures starting with Islam (I know you can find exceptions, I am just generalizing). As if nothing existed before! To this day Muslims celebrate "Al-Fotuhat Al-Islameyah" (the Holy Wars) and the destruction of native cultures (3abadat-Al Asnam and Al-Majoos) and call pre-Islamic cultures Al-Jahileyah (the ignorance). They allowed Christians and Jews to live in the land they took from them, as long as they didn't build any new places of worship. BIG ****ING DEAL! You're going to pick a word out of a long post and show an exception to the rule as if you proved anything?
And I say it again. I could not care any less about YOUR interpretation of Islam, or anyone else's. I don't think there's anything to interpret, and I won't waste time debating what a bronze age tribal warlord REALLY meant when he said the things he said. I am simply interested in how Islam is conducted today. If Islam changes and becomes progressive again, then we would be having a different conversation. But this is about what Islam IS TODAY. It is about the negative effect TODAY'S Islam has.
I'm not sure what you're even trying to say. Are you saying all the oppression and terrorism in the name of Islam is irrelevant. Why? Because YOU want to believe in a different interpretation. The arrogance!
OF COURSE most Muslims are decent and non-violent people. I mean no ****! They're just people like all others. But the influence of Islam on Muslim cultures is TERRIBLE across the board. I'm not saying there isn't a town that once helped someone in the name of Islam in 1834 or whatever. I am saying, in general, the effect Islam has on people's thought is VERY negative. The consequences of the spread of Islam, if it maintains its current form, are worrisome.
Look. I joined this argument because you said this: "Islam creates a violent and destabilizing
atmosphere wherever it takes hold. Muslims don't play nice with others. There is no freedom of religion in Islam, and no acknowledgment of cultural differences. Just black and white absolutes. Whether it is in India, or the Philippines, Russia and Eastern Europe, or anywhere else, Islam becomes aggressively divisive and inevitably leads to conflict."
I heartily disagreed. This had nothing to do with "my liberal Islamic view", I just thought that the notion of Islam destabilizing regions WHEREVER IT TAKES hold was an utter exaggeration, and I proved it wrong, as did the Turkish poster above me. Now, you will say that since it isn't recent, or since it occurred in a small country (you then said small village, trying to dumb down my point even more) it isn't a credible point. I again will disagree, especially seeing as your initial point made this issue very black and white, ironically like your description of the Islamic approach to tolerance. Now you're talking about Islam today, which was never really where I was headed, as far as this conversation goes. Look, I realize that it isn't in the greatest of moments for the time being. I am utterly embarrassed when I hear stories about the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, or Al-Qaeda brought up. I am even more embarrassed when I go to a mosque, and hear two kids snickering about how Saddam Hussein was a "pimp". But to me, I am of the belief that the faith itself is not to blame. You seem to hold the opposite opinion, and I don't care enough anymore to try and shed more insight as to why I carry this opinion. Regardless, you have said that you don't care about how Islam was conducted in the past, you only care for the present time. To me, that is a foolish approach to a faith, but oh well. As of now, the media's best representations of Islam are the Saudi government, and terrorist factions sparsely populated throughout the world. It does suck; however, if only 40 of a faith's 1300 years of existence are tied to notions like "the effect Islam has on people's thought is VERY negative. The consequences of the spread of Islam, if it maintains its current form, are worrisome." then I am not worried, since I have faith that my faith, as well as these "theocracies" that apparently try to represent these faiths, will come around. You seem to make statements like: "the influence of Islam on Muslim cultures is TERRIBLE across the board" despite me bringing up several instances where this isn't the case. I am fully aware that I could bring up many, many more exceptions to these hilariously generic claims that you're making about my faith, but I am quickly noticing that you seem to just bat away any exception that I make, and just repeat your points regardless. The fact of the matter is this: Islam has a history of being much more tolerant than any other Abrahamic religion of its times; it wasn't until that Western nations began to abandon religion when conducting political affairs, and running their respective governments, did the Western nations finally pull ahead of the Islamic world in terms of tolerance. Of course, there are exceptions to this, as no person (or especially government) is perfect, but what I do know is that people who followed my faith, and looked at the commands of insisting that governments allowed people of other faiths to peacefully co-exist, did a much better job of allowing this proximal communities to thrive over millennia, than their European counterparts. End of story. Is this necessarily a source of pride for my faith? In some regards yes, but I definitely make sure to look at things in context. The Islamic religion is now at the opposite end of the social progress-spectrum in comparison to western nations, ironically enough, and it has been for the last few decades. So obviously, it goes to show that the actions that are taken in the name of religion can greatly vary. Still, your insistence that Islam has had nothing but a TERRIBLE influence "across the board" is laughably naive. But oh well, suit yourself.
I was referring to the golden age of Islam under the Umayyads and Abbasids. Some Muslim countries allow Christians to build churches even today. But that's not my point. My point is that Dalamon keeps trying to convince that since he has a more liberal interpretation of Islam, the typical backward view held by hundreds of millions is somehow irrelevant!
Where you now? This wasn't clear when you were making your points. Your generic statements of Islam always having a destructive impact on every single culture that it has ever met, never indicated that you were only talking about a 400 year window. Backpedal #2.
And for the record, that is not at all what I am trying to get at. Read the first few sentences of this post to understand why I even began this discussion.
