Can you name something "Good" about Islam?

There is nothing wrong with Islam... like any religion its the fringe that generates most of the negative publicity. Just like the Christians, the noise from the fringe casts a shadow upon the entire religion.

 

Except it isn't a fringe, 85% of Egyptian Muslims, for instance, think 'apostates' should be killed. Do you even know what Sharia Law entails?

 

Please cite your source.

Best info on short notice I found was:

"A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found relatively widespread popular support for death penalty as a punishment for apostasy in Egypt (84% of respondents in favor of death penalty), Jordan (86% in favor), Indonesia (30% in favor), Pakistan (76% favor) and Nigeria (51% in favor)" wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

"When asked about the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion, at least three-quarters of Muslims in Jordan (86%), Egypt (84%) and Pakistan (76%) say they would favor making it the law; in Nigeria, 51% of Muslims favor and 46% oppose it. In contrast, Muslims in Lebanon, Turkey and Indonesia largely reject the notion that harsh punishments should be the law in their countries. About three-quarters of Turkish and Lebanese Muslims oppose the stoning of people who commit adultery (77% and 76%, respectively), as does a narrower majority (55%) of Muslims in Indonesia."

The wikipedia source was http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

The numbers are all over the place and your stated 85% does not accurately reflect the majority world wide.

 

Here you go: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Its actually 86% of Egyptians who want 'apostates' killed. Is that what you call a fringe?

Another interesting fact:

"In 13 countries around the world, all of them Muslim, people who openly espouse atheism or reject the official state religion of Islam face execution under the law, according to a detailed study issued on Tuesday.
. . .
The study, The Freethought Report 2013, was issued by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a global body uniting atheists, agnostics and other religious skeptics, to mark United Nations' Human Rights Day on Tuesday.
. . .
A first survey of 60 countries last year showed just seven where death, often by public beheading, is the punishment for either blasphemy or apostasy - renouncing belief or switching to another religion which is also protected under U.N. accords.
But this year's more comprehensive study showed six more, bringing the full list to Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.[7]"

 

Yes as it is not representative of Islam as a whole. And actually its 84%

"When asked about the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion, at least three-quarters of Muslims in Jordan (86%), Egypt (84%) and Pakistan (76%) say they would favor making it the law; in Nigeria, 51% of Muslims favor and 46% oppose it." -pewglobal.org

"In contrast, Muslims in Lebanon, Turkey and Indonesia largely reject the notion that harsh punishments should be the law in their countries." -pewglobal.org

http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

"A majority of Malaysian Muslims (62%) who want to see sharia as their country’s official law also support taking the lives of those who convert to other faiths. But fewer take this position in neighboring Thailand (27%) and Indonesia (18%).

In Central Asia as well as Southern and Eastern Europe, only in Tajikistan (22%) do more than a fifth of Muslims who want sharia as the official law of the land also condone the execution of apostates. Support for killing converts to other faiths falls below one-in-ten in Albania (8%) and Kazakhstan (4%)." -pewglobal.org

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

You pick out the worst to represent all which in my book is bias. You have any data on the actual numbers of people killed recently for being an apostate? I bet the number is low and hardly a chicken little moment.

 

Ya, isn't it a shame when a group is targeted with hate....

 

Jesus said that he had only been sent to the Jews. He was always calling Gentiles dogs and swine. He never preached to the Gentiles and barely spoke to Pilate when he was being tried. He spoke in parables so that outsiders wouldn't understand what he was saying. And it was against Jewish law to associate with Gentiles.

 

More Muslims than Christians are being attacked by Muslims so your example is moot.

Where is your religion being attacked by Muslims? Can the same be said about your posts regarding Islam

 

Wow, are you uninformed, I could post articles like this all day: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/...an-Persecution-is-Rampant-in-Muslim-Countries

Nonsense, I haven't beaten up anyone, as Christians routinely are by Muslim thugs. That's as stupid as saying you're attacking Christians here by giving your opinion.

 

This thread is about religion NOT people!

 

Do tell.

 

Which is why I find the general Tea Party Republican "anti non-WASP-male" (i.e. anti-women, anti-gays, anti-Muslim, anti-black, anti-Hispanic, anti-poor, anti-small enterprise, anti-Constitution) agenda rather shameful today.

 

There was just an attempt by a Ukrainian to hijack a plane and divert it to Sochi. He wasn't a Muslim and had political aims. In other words, he was motivated by the exact same thing that all other "terrorists" are motivated by. Politics. Chechens are motivated by separatism and NOT religion. They are not Al Qaeda, trying to restore the caliphate, they are simply political terrorists. They would commit acts of terrorism for the same reasons zionists did against the British in the 30s, Palestinians have against Israelis, the same reason the Tamil Tigers attacked in Sri Lanka, etc, etc, etc.

Islam is not the source of terrorism. Nor is it even remotely true that "all the organized violence and death in the entire world can be laid on the Muslim doorstep." In fact that idea is completely and totally idiotic!! There are large amounts of violent conflicts, which Islam has nothing to do with. A far more accurate assessment would be that the legacies of colonialism are the source of almost all of the violence in the world. That would be an oversimplification of course, but a far more accurate oversimplification. Also, American interventionist foreign policy has also killed a huge number of people. The fact that they were mostly Muslims is the reason muslims even consider terrorists acts against the US.

 

It is interesting that you removed the word "virtually" when quoting me, as it is a very important aspect of my OP...why would you do such a thing?

I understand the political motivation behind violence in the Caucuses...but also note the primary religious bent involved in the region, as well as where "VIRTUALLY" all of the violent actions are initiated. I would also note the word "Worldwide" in the OP, which points to a more inclusive and widespread phenomenon which is easily seen in Muslim nations predominantly.
My point with this should have been clear, but I will try to simplify it:

We both noted that Islam creates great violence and found nothing virtuous within it.

Thus the request for something others might see that we did not.

 

The fundamental problem is that all religions were/are created by people with an agenda and the "writings" of the religion are used to rationalize atrocities by some people with an agenda. I can't think of any exceptions to this general rule. Christian teachings, Buddhist teachings, Hindu teachings, Hebrew teachings, Shinto teachings, Islamic teachings, etc. have all been used to rationalize atrocities by those with nefarious intent to subject people to "political" control based upon the religion.

 

Thank you....excellent points.

 

It is a lie that it creates violence. You and your wife should educate yourself about the realities of Middle Eastern politics. There was a great deal of violence in the Middle East prior to the 1970s, but prior to that point, anything that could be seen as violent Islamic political movements were rare. Scholars have sought to find an explanation for why Islamism has seen such a rise since the 1970s.

The best explanations are the following.

The fact that neoliberalism has seen the reduction of state provided benefits and services, which Islamic charities have sought to fill that gap. This has won them many followers among poor people who have benefited.

That the Western puppet dictators who control most Middle Eastern countries suppress all forms of dissent and political activism. So leftists, nationalists, feminists, etc, etc are suppressed, often violently. The leftist and nationalists opposition, which made up the majority of dissatisfied people in the Middle East, were suppressed. The only avenue of political activity that wasn't suppressed was Islam. No matter their power, the tyrants of the region couldn't crush dissent in the mosque completely without riling too many people. So the mosque became the last sanctuary for free political discussion. On top of that, the state often didn't even mind Islamic opposition (like in Saudi Arabia) because Islamists are far more easily satisfied than leftists and nationalists. They can be satisfied with changes to social policy, while the elite are free to do what they want economically and on foreign policy (that doesn't satisfy all Islamists, but those are the only ones who get rounded up and imprisoned).

Lastly, oil is to blame. Most Muslim countries have historically followed strands of Islam that were moderate and open in comparison to Saudi Arabia. Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia promoted one of the the most backwards looking and repressive strands of Islam in the world. When oil was found, huge amounts of money went to the Wahhabi Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They then spent a lot of money promoting Wahhabism and they drew in a lot of workers from around the Arab world, who were converted to their strand of Islam while there. So that Tunisia, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, etc now have large Wahhabist movements. Something that didn't exist 50 years ago. So the richest nations spread a repressive strand of Islam throughout the region. It would have been like Calvinists finding huge gold mines in the 16th century and spreading their religion across the continent. It wouldn't have been good.

The point of all this is, that there is nothing about Islam that creates violence. There are strands of Islam that have increased hugely in popularity, which can lead people to believe violence is a justifiable political action. However, it is NOT Islam which creates that. It is the social, political, and economic realities people in that region face that creates that. Islam is simply one outlet people have found through which they can express their dissatisfaction with those realities. That is all.

 

I would say the fervor of their beliefs and spirituality.

 

Sure, there are good things, you just have to flip through it. Somewhere, somehow, you will find something positive.

Of course, you can do the same with Mein Kumpf.

 

I can name a few things. But then again, I'm probably biased...

 

Or the Bible for that matter.

 

Any text really, I just decided to cite a text that everyone hates. lol

 

Why people will attack innocent people has always been a question without a rational answer. Why did Timothy McViegh blow up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City? Why did Eric Rodolph set a bomb off in the Olympic Park? Why did the KKK blow up a black church murdering four black children in the 1960's? Why did Zionist Jews blow up the King David Hotel?

Some people always manage to rationalize atrocities and they will always find a way to do so. It can be politics, religion, or whatever but they will rationalize the atrocity one way or the other.

Even when we address extremist Islamic terrorists they rationalize atrocities based upon their religion that opposes social injustice and tyranny. They rationalize the atrocity based upon a religious belief but the fundamental problem is that they are correct in addressing social injustice and tyranny but are wrong in committing atrocities in addressing those problems,

Always remember that Osama bin Ladin's "al Qaeda" originated as a movement to oppose the tyranny of the government in Saudi Arabia and there is no question that the government in Saudi Arabia is a tyrannical government. It was tyrannical then and remains so today but little is being done about the problem of the tyranny of the government in Saudi Arabia.

 

The problem is Islam cannot coexist with other belief systems, and often murders others solely because they aren't Muslims.

 

What I load of bunk, you do know there are lots of those people in the Tea Party, don't you? FYI, I am Puerto Rican and strongly support the TP, and reject identity politics.

Are you seriously saying if I call attention to my fellow Christians being brutalized by Islamic radicals worldwide, that is somehow 'anti-Muslim'? By that standard you are anti-Christian.