3 ms·
> Again, your conclusion about Muslims being fundamentally blood-thirsty is unsupported. I've certainly never concluded that, you can verify all what I wrote.
by acqq 11y ago
> Again, your conclusion about Muslims being fundamentally blood-thirsty is unsupported.
I've certainly never concluded that, you can verify all what I wrote. What I wanted to point out is that there is real danger that once Muslims attempt to read the "primary sources" themselves discover inspiration for immense intolerance, really not comparable to such present in Old or New Testament (and I've met some very radical and unpleasant Christians too). Not to mention that most "converts" are sucked in over their acquaintances, independently of the will of their families.
> most Muslims don't want to kill you
One of my best friends from childhood from basically secular Muslim family later converted to more fundamental Islam and he specifically isn't fighting except intellectually, at least as far as I know about him now, so you don't need to explain me that. Still I personally saw the fundamentalism rising and was actually close enough to atrocities of different kinds and directions. A member of my family had the luck just by accident to avoid one Islamic bomb attack. A few generations ago more neighboring (Christian) villages of my relative were wiped out by Muslims, women and children included. The world isn't for everybody as nice as is maybe for you so that you can just turn the head away and pretend that dangerous and disgraceful things don't exist and in some periods don't ugly grow.
Ask Armenians (Christians killed by the Ottoman Turks): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
A Hindu from India also gave his voice in this discussion and somebody downvoted him, even though he wanted to point to something meaningful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus
"The Indian historian Professor K.S. Lal estimates that the Hindu population in India decreased by 80 million between 1000 AD and 1525 AD, an extermination unparalleled in World history" [3]" (at the time of Muslim invasions and rule)
The Christians in the areas controlled by the Islamic law had the periods of "relatively quiet times" (with always much worse treatment than Muslims) and another periods of extreme suffering performed by the Muslim ruling minority. Note: just the minority of the population in their area were Muslims, and that was enough for extreme suffering. The biggest proof: Hindus.
So what the "most" of Muslim population does isn't even important. Even small number of determined oppressors (claiming to do just what their religion gives them right to do) is enough to make huge damage. And this can't be downplayed.
- the_af 11y agoOk, so this is a personal issue for you. My apologies if I offended you. I won't push this any further. I disagree with your position, but we're running in circles now. PS: I know about the Armenian Genocide, and it's terrible. But as I'm sure you're aware, at other times Christians killed plenty of Muslims (and other Christians, while we're at it) and were decidedly intolerant of Jewish people. Ahem, I don't even want to go there. So I'm not sure what we can conclude from this about the current world-wide Muslim population.
- acqq 11y agoI don't conclude anything "about the current world-wide Muslim population." Do quote when I ever wrote anything about the "world-wide Muslim population." I wrote about Islam as religious doctrine (which has more elements of a fight manual than of a spiritual text) about Islam's primary holy texts and about the violence and intolerance that they provably contain and can nurse and inspire. If they inspire it in minority, but minority with a lot of means of producing enough fighters and fanatic believers, that's more than enough to produce huge problems to this world. The another minority necessary are the ideological leaders. Only these two minorities are enough. The fanatics know that already: their prophet and his army are their role model for that (together with always-available case studies in Hadith). Even the Muslim women who didn't have to cover their hair until recently in a lot of Muslim countries know what it means the rule of "more religious" Muslims (as the smallest thing that changed to them in the last decades -- we had more secular societies in different now already again more and more "dark-age" Muslim countries). Only the people from the parts of the world where Muslims weren't effectively present aren't aware of the danger. It's not some ancient history, it never stopped. There was just a more quiet period.
- the_af 11y agoI heard you. I contend that Islam is not the problem at heart. Every holy text can inspire hatred and violence. It's very likely the Quran was a fight manual like you said -- for understandable historical reasons -- but what matters is what it is now for most of the world's Muslims. And it's not a fight manual. The slide to religious fundamentalism is a threat in all religions; I wouldn't welcome any theocracy. Sorry, you can quote the Quran all you want, and I can quote it back with verses promoting peace (or verses from other holy texts promoting violence; or even violence from other religions which are not frequently linked to terrorism). There is no inherent danger from Islam. There is real danger in the world, but I think you're mistaken in placing the source. And Western countries are oblivious to their own historical contributions to violence in the Middle East. All too easy to blame it all on weird raving fundamentalists. In the end, you think I'm mistaken. I think you're mistaken. Let it rest.