I can't understand muslims

[Mudhammam]

The consequence of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI as a contributing factor is overstated. The Ottoman Empire peaked in the 16th/17th century and quickly lost its ability centrally control its inhabitants. Essentially, the Ottoman Empire would influence foreign affairs, but local tribes were in complete control of regional governance.

Even if this singular point is granted, it only demonstrates that instability in the region was profoundly compounded and exasperated by the other factors I included, the sum of which I maintain cannot be overstated and are oftentimes ignored. That's not to say religion hasn't played a role in the brutality displayed but that role is only presumed by "Islam" to the extent that conservative sects and traditional cultures find common cause with violent extremists who are more politically motivated. You provide an example and a pretext that isn't strictly religious:

Wahhabism developed in the 18th century. Its intolerance for other Muslims and use of violence for propagation was established long before WWI. The Ottoman Empire was able to limit its spread in the 19th century; however, the Wahhabist Sauds had reestablished themselves on the Arabian peninsula prior to WWI. The key thing to understand here is that the Wahhabis were enemies of the Ottoman Empire so the idea that their continued violence is somehow caused by the humiliation of a once proud empire is misplaced. If anything, post WWI partitioning of the Ottoman Empire served to solidify the regional claims of the Wahhabis.

You are right to point out our continued failures relative to human/civil rights, particularly if the point is to raise awareness, determine its causes, and propose solutions. I agree with your assessment; however, pouring them into this conversation comes across as a tu quoque argument.

Rather, my purpose is to demonstrate the error of linking the violence and sectarian disputes to an umbrella religion as though they were inseparable features. The issues are no more Islamic per se than they are regional, political, and socio-economical. One may rightly argue that Islam promotes credulity and that can easily be converted into ideological zeal, but that problem is not uniquely Islamic or limited to the Middle East.

The equivocation that attends the comparisons is also quite hideous. It won't be long before the LBGT community faces no marriage prohibitions anywhere in the U.S. Care to discuss the penalty for being homosexual in KSA? Another distressing aspect of the comparison is that the angst in the U.S. on the issue of LBGT rights is mostly driven by Christian religious sensibilities yet some seem hell bent on giving religion a pass when it comes to assessing motivation for intolerance and discrimination.

I have nothing to add except that transitions such as those we are presently observing in the West, with regards to human rights, take a long time, and where one specific issue witnesses progress, others can be seen to have regressed or remained stagnant. Christianity does not get a pass. Neither do secular religions that place their faith in the power and wisdom of the State.

[mralstoner]

If anyone wants to support it after reading that, they are mental.

True, but unfortunately there's no shortage of mental folks who seem impervious to these facts.

[robvalue]

True. It's not entirely their fault, peer pressure and the human's natural instinct to conform plays a huge part I think. Even when there isn't a guy with a sword to your throat.

[ManMachine]

[Iloveporc]

[Iloveporc]

I did some personal researches on muhammed's life and i have to say i'm completely confused. Guys like bill warner claim muhammed became evil in Medina. But muhammed lived peacefully in mecca and he only tried to spread 'the word of god' to the meccans. And the only few followers he had, have been persecuted and even tortured and muhammed had to escape from mecca. he even created a community where jews, christians and muslims could leave peacefully togheter. And in medina he didn't start war for nothing, there was a reason..it was to protect himself from attacking people. But even then he asked for peace with his ennemies afterwards

[Mystic]

I did some personal researches on muhammed's life and i have to say i'm completely confused. Guys like bill warner claim muhammed became evil in Medina. But muhammed lived peacefully in mecca and he only tried to spread 'the word of god' to the meccans. And the only few followers he had, have been persecuted and even tortured and muhammed had to escape from mecca. he even created a community where jews, christians and muslims could leave peacefully togheter. And in medina he didn't start war for nothing, there was a reason..it was to protect himself from attacking people. But even then he asked for peace with his ennemies afterwards

It's good you are doing your own research, there verses in Quran that specifically says fighting has been allowed now because they are oppressed and only to fight those who fight you, and to incline to peace if the other side inclines to peace.

Also, the opinion of a lot of scholars, even ones in the past, is that disbelievers refers to those who disbelieve guidance that has become clear to them, while doesn't refer to those who don't know it's true.

Thus a believer is also one who follows guidance of God that has come to them, and that as different individually, and can include Atheists.

I go on and off faith in Islam. Today I believe more in Islam then not, so I say this sincerely...I don't think Islam teaches to disrespect people or to hate people or to fight people of other faiths.

If it taught that, I would no longer think about the religion and wouldn't be going faith one day and then disbelief for a week, then faith one day then disbelief for a week thing I been going through.

[Iloveporc]

I did some personal researches on muhammed's life and i have to say i'm completely confused. Guys like bill warner claim muhammed became evil in Medina. But muhammed lived peacefully in mecca and he only tried to spread 'the word of god' to the meccans. And the only few followers he had, have been persecuted and even tortured and muhammed had to escape from mecca. he even created a community where jews, christians and muslims could leave peacefully togheter. And in medina he didn't start war for nothing, there was a reason..it was to protect himself from attacking people. But even then he asked for peace with his ennemies afterwards

It's good you are doing your own research, there verses in Quran that specifically says fighting has been allowed now because they are oppressed and only to fight those who fight you, and to incline to peace if the other side inclines to peace.

Also, the opinion of a lot of scholars, even ones in the past, is that disbelievers refers to those who disbelieve guidance that has become clear to them, while doesn't refer to those who don't know it's true.

Thus a believer is also one who follows guidance of God that has come to them, and that as different individually, and can include Atheists.

I go on and off faith in Islam. Today I believe more in Islam then not, so I say this sincerely...I don't think Islam teaches to disrespect people or to hate people or to fight people of other faiths.

If it taught that, I would no longer think about the religion and wouldn't be going faith one day and then disbelief for a week, then faith one day then disbelief for a week thing I been going through.

But i will never agree with the sharia of god. using death penalties for quitting the religion or stoning people to death for adultery, you can say whatever you want and say there are conditions like there must be 4 witnesses according to the 'crime' or the accused one can make his choice to be stoned or not and if he does he will not have to repend and be in troubles on the day off judgement. But those are barbarric teachings and it proves islam is all about a fear-based doctrine. You can find those punishments back in the hadiths of bukkhari which are authentic. And muslims will always answer that our system in the west is not better because we're allowed to buy alcohol and and the youth goes clubbing and there is alot fornication..yeah so what? Alot of teenagers and young people go through this and it doesn't make them necesserely bad people in their later lifes. Sometimes the only person they harm is theirselves if there are teen pregnancies..(that still can be controlled) or accidents..but every society has its negative aspects. Like a converted muslim told me : " in some ways belgium were we live is a more islamic country than arabic countries..because for example our medical system, when someone has an accident or passes out in the streets, you will immediately be taken in charge".

[pocaracas]

[...]the hadiths of bukkhari which are authentic.

Define "authentic".

" in some ways belgium were we live is a more islamic country than arabic countries..because for example our medical system, when someone has an accident or passes out in the streets, you will immediately be taken in charge".

Let me get this straight... Belgium is more islamic because, if you have a health problem, you're taken to a hospital? Whereas, in an arabic country you'll be left for dead, huh?
And that is being islamic?
I thought that was being socialist.

[Iloveporc]

[...]the hadiths of bukkhari which are authentic.

Define "authentic".

" in some ways belgium were we live is a more islamic country than arabic countries..because for example our medical system, when someone has an accident or passes out in the streets, you will immediately be taken in charge".

Let me get this straight... Belgium is more islamic because, if you have a health problem, you're taken to a hospital? Whereas, in an arabic country you'll be left for dead, huh?
And that is being islamic?
I thought that was being socialist.

According to the muslims they are more authentic in the way that those hadiths are the most trustable ones..and the others are weaker or even possibly have been made up.

And yeah i have to admit the medical system example was quiete dumb. But i did understand the message he was trying to give..the positive sides of religion are more applied in our country than the muslim countries. Islam has failed to spread and apply his message correctly..thats what i was trying to say