The "Islamic" Problem | Forum

Quote from luz It goes like this: start of Islam is about year 610, start of Christianity is about year 0. So Islam is about 610 years behind. Do the math, and 610 years back, Christianity was in year 1404. You could easily brainstorm of all the bloodshed in the name of Christian believes done around this time. Wasn't that around the time of witch-burning and shortly before (or at the start of when) the Christian explorers tried to forcefully convert nearly the whole world and destroyed copious amount of historic documents and/or cultural traditions? So if you look at current Islam to be the equivalent of 15th Century Christianity, then you get a striking similarity in terms of violence in the name of religion.

As it's been said, there are some big differences between Christianity and Islam.

Luz is quite right in stating that some of the things that Christians did way back then, when Christianity it was at its "height", (such as: Converting masses via fear of hell or brainwashing, the Inquisition, etc...) now centuries later Islam as basically doing the same. Maybe 6 centuries from now Islam will be what Christianity is now.

Then there are other factors to consider when it comes to the spread of Islam, one being that there's little stopping them. More and more people nowadays don't believe in gods or religions and simply cannot be bothered with other religions (in this case Islam). Whereas back then, there was a strong following of Christians, to the extent of having the Knight Templars who were defenders of the Christian pilgrims and of the Christian faith. This strong attachment to the Christian faith brought people to fight for it, defend it till the death.

Now, well, we mostly have people with "who cares about Islam" attitude or those that will just make the "they're not all like that" attitude. Which in turn as allowed it to spread rather rapidly (not to mention they breed like rabbits and brainwash their offspring to their level).

Another thing about Muslims is; like the Vikings who were very staunch in their beliefs, and who believed that the best way to die was in battle against the Pagans (or anyone else) so as to reach the gates of Valhalla. So are too the Muslims, they have absolutely no fear of dying in "battle" against the Infidels, they actually want it to happen because the "rewards" are greater....I mean geeez, 72 virgins to use sparingly for your eternal life, it's not going to be easy since once you use one, well she won't be a virgin anymore.

On top of that, as Czereda mentioned, Christianity's teachings are more peaceful, with concepts such as "Love your fellow man", "Turn the other cheek", etc... .

Islam on the other hand makes it quite clear, anyone who is NOT Muslim is an "Infidel" and therefore an enemy of the faith. There are multiple verses in the Qur'an that mention things like "take no Infidel as a friend", "Punish those that reject the faith", "Kill them (Infidels) wherever you might find them", etc... .

There "scholars" that argue that the verses are being mistranslated, but come on, how much can one mistranslate and why do so many of them think otherwise. Either the translators were fucking morons, couldn't spell or maybe, just maybe, they are trying to find excuses to show the world that they truly are  religion of "peace".

Either way, this cult (best term I find for it) is spreading and they have one thing in mind, a world under Islamic rule. People around the world don't seem to realize that if they gain the upper hand, EVERYONE that is not Muslim will be affected by it, not just Jews and Christians, but atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Satanists, you name it.

Only thing they understand is violence, eye for an eye, fight fire with fie and since the "Western nations" in nowadays are more inclined to being humanitarian, understanding and diplomatic, well, they view that as being weak and are taking full advantage of it.

To be clear, I believe extremists in all form should be dealt with, with no mercy. However, I don't believe all Muslims are extremists. I personally work with a handful, and they're some of the nicest people I've ever met.

Revealed religions are no longer important for our survival as a species. However, they once were. As much as they've hindered progress in the past few centuries (especially in the pursuits of science and reasonable understanding), I believe these religions were a necessary part of our survival as a species. Many great and beautiful things came from these religions (along with many atrocious and demented things), but I only argue that it is no longer reasonable to subscribe to superstition as a basis for navigating life, as an individual.

The current state of Islam has nothing to do with how long its been around. In fact, if you look at the environments in which these terrorist groups live, you will see it's not much different now than it was. Anyone living in this environment could be pissed off at the world. Certain individuals will begin constructing an agenda for world-consumption on a massive scale. This is tyranny in its earliest form. They solidify their personal agenda, and insert that agenda in to books the locals put their faith, or trust, in. It's manipulation on a grand scale, and it's detestable.

Expressing hatred towards Muslims only make the terrorist groups stronger. Hate, essentially, recreates the conditions where a reasonable person might be lead to superstition. Groups like ISIS know this, so they spread their own anti-Muslim propaganda to appeal to the natives to drive them out. It's a known part of their recruitment program.

Stated simply, I think superstition (and more specifically, abuse and reverence of superstition) are closer to the problem than, "It's just Islam."

I may not be 100% correct in everything I said. I'm only presenting a humble, informed, opinion on the matter. I'm open to any rational disagreements.

1) Immigrant Muslims.

2) Islam being a "young" religion, and is at the age equivalent to when the Crusades happened for Christianity.

3) The teachings of Islam itself.

4) The environment that these terrorists grew up in.

I think based on this, we need to recognize two groups of terrorists. The first are those born and raised Muslim in some shitty third world village. The second are home-grown terrorists.

The issue here is that Islamic terrorism is borderless. ISIS is known to recruit using the Internet, and that goes beyond who's from what nation. The Boston Marathon bombers are prime examples of this. Moreover, there are also known British and US citizens in the Middle East right now fighting alongside ISIS.

What is the solution that Western powers should adopt? If we go with Anna's idea of limiting immigration..., well, let's be frank. You'll piss them off even more, and on top of that, it does not stop the country's citizens from committing terrorist acts.

Do we ban Islam altogether then? How do you do such a thing as banning a certain religion in a nation where freedom of speech and expression supposedly exists?

Or do we opt for the extreme solution, and just nuke Mecca every year the Hajj takes place?

Then you're creating a new problem: You've now created the precedent to allow the powers-that-be to outlaw certain ideas. Today you may have the same enemy as the government. Tomorrow, the government's enemy may just be you.

The "terrorists" are doing what they're supposed to be doing. The "authorities" are doing what they're supposed to be doing. Thus is the nature of adversity in general, and the human spectacle specifically.

The Universe is as it should be: A vast, chaotic, flowing mess of causation.

Some good advice: Don't sweat the small stuff, and make damn sure you get yours. Get motivated and play for keeps.

See, I refuse to accept that stance. To accept that the terrorists are simply part of the universe's flow is to be complacent and accept defeat.

I come from an engineering background. Where there's a problem, there's a solution that doesn't involve just shrugging and saying "it is what it is".

The adversity of Man is not a problem to be solved. It is a necessary facet of Universal existence, just like hurricanes or asteroid 2004 BL86.

Man's heart is a hurricane of itself. But as Nietzsche said, "There must be chaos in the soul to give birth to a dancing star."

As an engineer, you must hold an uncompromising empiricism toward reality. This includes acceptance that there exists elements in the Universe that we do not even fully understand, let alone control.

Sometimes, despite all the methodology one can muster, rogue waves come crashing down. The adversity of the organism is what makes it so dutifully intrepid. It is what gives the organism the will-to-live.

The fight is what keeps us alive. The fight is necessary.

Further philosophical reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amor_fati

Indeed, there are elements in the Universe that we do not fully understand or control..., yet. As you say, it is a fight to stay alive, and the fight is necessary.

However, the acceptance of the continued existence of a problem is not part of the fight. That is the acceptance of defeat. Imagine if Isaac Newton had said, "Oh, we'll never figure out why planets orbit the Sun. Even the great Robert Hooke tried and failed". He'd never have invented calculus. Most of classical physics would have never been discovered or invented, let alone quantum physics, the foundation of the very Internet that you're using right now.

Thus, I reject your position that sees the terrorists as a part of the Universe that inherently must continue to exist. What we do not understand or control TODAY, is not the same as what we do not understand or control in the future. Remember smallpox? Gone. Completely wiped out from the face of planet Earth.

If we can wipe out an aggressive virus from the face of the planet, we can certainly wipe out terrorists. It's just a question of how and when.

If the West would like to be brutally pragmatic about "solving" (defeating, making militarily ineffective) Islamic militarism in the form of guerrilla tactics in Western cities, the complete genocide of Muslims might do the trick. However, this is not likely to happen due to cultural values (ie genocide is taboo) and cost. Half-measures and "gentlemens' warfare" render the West ineffective against an enemy that isn't playing by the same set of rules. What results is a protracted, unwinnable conflict -- just like the US/Vietnam War.

Let the superfluous crusaders fight their wars. The smart play is working an angle for your personal gain. Basil Zaharoff understood.

I hate (ok ok strongly dislike) Islam...I find it misogynistic and encouraging of non questioning followers.

Although I have a friend whose "muslim" but only because he was born into it.  He's basically just like an atheistic jew.  It's a cultural thing for him.

What pisses me off is that he gets so defensive about Islamaphobia after terrorist attacks but never says anything about the victims.  WTF?  What about the French?!  So F*** 'em.  I really think we need to seriously limit immigration of folks from Islamic countries.  

This does not mean I completely agree with Trump's plans or policies, but it is a pitch he threw that was blown out of proportion.