A day of official mourning has been declared in the Pakistani city of Quetta after 25 people were killed by gunmen in twin attacks on Saturday.
After a bomb on a bus killed 14 female students and injured 22, militants attacked a hospital treating survivors, where they killed another 11 people.
Four attackers were also killed and one arrested, officials say.
No clear motive for the attack has yet been established but a Sunni Muslim militant group is being blamed.
A man purporting to be a spokesman for Lashkar-e-Jhangvi told the BBC the attacks were revenge for an earlier raid by security forces against the group, in which a woman and children were killed.
Quetta, a city of 900,000 people in the south-west of the country, has long been troubled by violence mainly targeting the Shia Muslim minority.
The city is reeling from a deep sense of shock, trying to make sense of Saturday's events, the BBC's Shahzeb Jillani reports.
'Unjustifiable'
Funerals are being planned for the victims of the attack while an official day of mourning is being observed across the province of Balochistan, of which Quetta is capital.
Saturday's bloodshed began when a bomb exploded on a bus carrying students at Sardar Bahadur Khan Women's University.
When survivors were brought to a medical centre, suspected suicide bombers stormed the building and started shooting indiscriminately.
A five-hour stand-off between the militants and security forces left nurses, security personnel and a senior city official dead.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned the attacks in a statement, saying no cause could justify such violence.
"The secretary general notes with dismay that violence against women and educators has increased in recent years, the aim being to keep girls from attaining the basic right to education," his spokesperson said.
Groups like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi have carried out major bombings against Shia religious minorities, our correspondent says.
The group is known for close ties with the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
It just blows my mind, to then go to the hospital and inflict further wickedness... They are not animals, animals would not do such a thing, they are devils, monsters, and should be wiped from the earth. So utterly vile and inhuman, all in the name of 'faith'.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: For the temerity of seeking an education. Yes, the 'Religion of Peace' strikes again...
It seems more accurate to say 'the gakky Pakistani culture strikes again'.
As opposed to the Saudi culture or the Libyan culture or the Iranian culture or the Afghani culture or...
The Islamic culture, Ahtman... The cultures that are unified under that medieval religion and it's suppression of women, it's continued treatment of half it's population as slaves, property, for being born female.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: For the temerity of seeking an education. Yes, the 'Religion of Peace' strikes again...
It seems more accurate to say 'the gakky Pakistani culture strikes again'.
As opposed to the Saudi culture or the Libyan culture or the Iranian culture or the Afghani culture or...
The Islamic culture, Ahtman... The cultures that are unified under that medieval religion and it's suppression of women, it's continued treatment of half it's population as slaves, property, for being born female.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: For the temerity of seeking an education. Yes, the 'Religion of Peace' strikes again...
It seems more accurate to say 'the gakky Pakistani culture strikes again'.
As opposed to the Saudi culture or the Libyan culture or the Iranian culture or the Afghani culture or...
The Islamic culture, Ahtman... The cultures that are unified under that medieval religion and it's suppression of women, it's continued treatment of half it's population as slaves, property, for being born female.
This is still, at best a geographic cultural problem, not the religion itself. I know several Muslim women who have advanced degrees and were encouraged by their parents to seek them.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: For the temerity of seeking an education. Yes, the 'Religion of Peace' strikes again...
It seems more accurate to say 'the gakky Pakistani culture strikes again'.
As opposed to the Saudi culture or the Libyan culture or the Iranian culture or the Afghani culture or...
The Islamic culture, Ahtman... The cultures that are unified under that medieval religion and it's suppression of women, it's continued treatment of half it's population as slaves, property, for being born female.
I've been in a fair number of Islamic nations (nations with majority Islamic populations) throughout my career in the military. The only ones that I've seen that have had women treated as equals are the ones that are secular.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: For the temerity of seeking an education. Yes, the 'Religion of Peace' strikes again...
It seems more accurate to say 'the gakky Pakistani culture strikes again'.
As opposed to the Saudi culture or the Libyan culture or the Iranian culture or the Afghani culture or...
The Islamic culture, Ahtman... The cultures that are unified under that medieval religion and it's suppression of women, it's continued treatment of half it's population as slaves, property, for being born female.
This is still, at best a geographic cultural problem, not the religion itself. I know several Muslim women who have advanced degrees and were encouraged by their parents to seek them.
So, less islamic women and less islamic parents then?
I'm mates with a guy from Pakistan who can outdrink me by a country mile, dates a lovely English lass, and has lived with her for years, eats pork all the time and hasn't set foot in a mosque in years. He tries to tell me he's muslim, he isn't. If he pulled that stuff in an islamic nation, he'd be imprisoned or worse.
In before this is conflated with Christianity somehow.
It's really not debatable, in my opinion, that women in predominantly Islamic countries aren't exactly treated well (#deliberate understatement). This goes above and beyond even that fact, though. Absolutely sickening.
So Muslims that don't live in the greater Middle East aren't really Muslims now? Non-Muslims get to tell Muslims what they do and don't really believe?
I think it's possible to make observations based on the tenets of a faith and the behavior of its adherents in order to determine the devoutness of the observed.
Someone claiming to be Catholic, for example, who is chowing down on a steak on Friday probably isn't the strictest follower of their respective dogma.
Monster Rain wrote: I think it's possible to make observations based on the tenets of a faith and the behavior of its adherents in order to determine the devoutness of the observed.
Someone claiming to be Catholic, for example, who is chowing down on a steak on Friday probably isn't the strictest follower of their respective dogma.
I think a better comparison would be a Catholic who supports abortions isn't really a Catholic. But there you go dragging Christianity into it.
Being a Muslim and following the teachings of Islam is not the same thing as living in an Islamic country. Islamism is just as tied to politics as it is religion, and being an Islamist and being a Muslim aren't always the same thing. Islamism
A lot of these issues are cultural. There are Islamic countries that are far less oppressive to women compared to the countries that MGS mentioned. But claiming that "Islamic culture" is some unified thing across every Islamic country or country with a Muslim majority is simply incorrect.
Monster Rain wrote: I think it's possible to make observations based on the tenets of a faith and the behavior of its adherents in order to determine the devoutness of the observed.
Someone claiming to be Catholic, for example, who is chowing down on a steak on Friday probably isn't the strictest follower of their respective dogma.
Not being the strictest adherent to dogma isn't the same thing as completely denying something. People are fallible, after all.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: He tries to tell me he's muslim, he isn't. If he pulled that stuff in an islamic nation, he'd be imprisoned or worse.
There's a difference between being a Muslim and being an Islamist. I know Muslims who live in Islamic nations who drink alcohol while living in an Islamic nation.
You are correct in that there are some Islamic countries in which your friend could be imprisoned or worse for drinking. You are absolutely incorrect if you think that that is true of every Islamic nation or nation with a Muslim-majority.
Damn....they blow a bus full of them up in a bomb attack then murder their way through a hospital just to finish the job. I don't think even the word 'overkill' is enough to describe the severity of this attack. Saddest part is this won't be the last time something like this happens given the way things are in the middle east.
This is awful. It's true than "animal" is far too good and noble a word to describe the kind of scum who would do such a thing. Wastes of skin in a world of burn victims.
Monster Rain wrote: I think it's possible to make observations based on the tenets of a faith and the behavior of its adherents in order to determine the devoutness of the observed.
Someone claiming to be Catholic, for example, who is chowing down on a steak on Friday probably isn't the strictest follower of their respective dogma.
Not being the strictest adherent to dogma isn't the same thing as completely denying something. People are fallible, after all.
That's a fair distinction, I suppose.
I think that there's a tipping point, though, where if you are simply saying that you are something (anything) without any outward indication that you are that thing, your claim can be rejected by observers.
I'm an astronaut! I'm just out of shape and never go to space and whatnot.
Monster Rain wrote: I think it's possible to make observations based on the tenets of a faith and the behavior of its adherents in order to determine the devoutness of the observed.
Someone claiming to be Catholic, for example, who is chowing down on a steak on Friday probably isn't the strictest follower of their respective dogma.
I think a better comparison would be a Catholic who supports abortions isn't really a Catholic. But there you go dragging Christianity into it.
But the bible actually condemns the eating of meat on Fridays, but says nothing about abortion. . . .
Monster Rain wrote: I think that there's a tipping point, though, where if you are simply saying that you are something (anything) without any outward indication that you are that thing, your claim can be rejected by observers.
I'm an astronaut! I'm just out of shape and never go to space and whatnot.
I agree there can be a point, but I don't think it is anywhere nearly as clean and delineated as having a job or not having a job. It also doesn't help when observers often don't understand something as well as they think they do and are coming from an outside position. Atheists often tell Christians what they should and shouldn't believe or follow, and act as if they set the slide rule for what a Christian should be, and it just seems a bit disingenuous. That isn't to say all criticisms are without merit, either.
azazel the cat wrote: And I agree with MGS' initial sentiments. Can't say it better than that.
I generally agree as well, it is monstrous and terrible, but I don't think the answer is to chastise all Muslims the world over, and intimate the ones that are liberal, or are not misogynists to an extreme degree, aren't really Muslim.
Well it's all our fault clearly, we implanted these Western ideals like "actually having value" and poisonous thoughts like "being able to read" into these women's mind. These men are doing the only natural thing to bring order to their society.
For that one special individual: The above post is sarcasm. All of it. Thanks.
azazel the cat wrote: And I agree with MGS' initial sentiments. Can't say it better than that.
I generally agree as well, it is monstrous and terrible, but I don't think the answer is to chastise all Muslims the world over, and intimate the ones that are liberal, or are not misogynists to an extreme degree, aren't really Muslim.
I don't think the OP expressed such sentiments, either.
azazel the cat wrote: And I agree with MGS' initial sentiments. Can't say it better than that.
I generally agree as well, it is monstrous and terrible, but I don't think the answer is to chastise all Muslims the world over, and intimate the ones that are liberal, or are not misogynists to an extreme degree, aren't really Muslim.
I don't think the OP expressed such sentiments, either.
Referring sarcastically to Islam as 'the religion of peace' is an indictment of the entire religion with no distinction drawn to geographic and/or cultural differences between the billion Muslims across the globe.
azazel the cat wrote: And I agree with MGS' initial sentiments. Can't say it better than that.
I generally agree as well, it is monstrous and terrible, but I don't think the answer is to chastise all Muslims the world over, and intimate the ones that are liberal, or are not misogynists to an extreme degree, aren't really Muslim.
I don't think the OP expressed such sentiments, either.
Referring sarcastically to Islam as 'the religion of peace' is an indictment of the entire religion with no distinction drawn to geographic and/or cultural differences between the billion Muslims across the globe.
People are chastising Christianity in another thread in here over the actions of a single group, yet a religion that calls itself a "peaceful" religion, has provoked a world wide war that has been going on for over a decade now. It's adherents are daily conducting acts of atrocity world wide on women, homosexuals, christians, jews, and anyone else they feel are pissing them off today, all in the name of said religion. Thousands of my brothers and sisters in arms have been killed in the name of the religion of peace. Thousands of civilians worldwide have also met that fate. And you have a stink about mocking the claim that it's a religion of peace?
Ahtman wrote:Referring sarcastically to Islam as 'the religion of peace' is an indictment of the entire religion with no distinction drawn to geographic and/or cultural differences between the billion Muslims across the globe.
For what it's worth, I actually meant MGS' comments following the article; I didn't even notice the one prior to it.
That being said, however, it's fair game to indict a religion without indicting its followers.
Three decades actually. Depending on how you count. Personally I define the opening shot of the war on terror as the bombing of the Marine and French Para Barracks in Beirut Lebanon.
azazel the cat wrote: And I agree with MGS' initial sentiments. Can't say it better than that.
I generally agree as well, it is monstrous and terrible, but I don't think the answer is to chastise all Muslims the world over, and intimate the ones that are liberal, or are not misogynists to an extreme degree, aren't really Muslim.
I don't think the OP expressed such sentiments, either.
Referring sarcastically to Islam as 'the religion of peace' is an indictment of the entire religion with no distinction drawn to geographic and/or cultural differences between the billion Muslims across the globe.
People are chastising Christianity in another thread in here over the actions of a single group, yet a religion that calls itself a "peaceful" religion, has provoked a world wide war that has been going on for over a decade now. It's adherents are daily conducting acts of atrocity world wide on women, homosexuals, christians, jews, and anyone else they feel are pissing them off today, all in the name of said religion. Thousands of my brothers and sisters in arms have been killed in the name of the religion of peace. Thousands of civilians worldwide have also met that fate. And you have a stink about mocking the claim that it's a religion of peace?
Please...
You realize they are, by the tenets of the religion they claim to subscribe to, ridiculously heretical, right? And beyond that, their actions are pretty much par for the course so far as third world countries go, Islamic, Christian, or other (including Atheistic)?
If the US was as bad off as third world countries, the remnants of the Revivalist movement would be doing the same, even more than they currently do.
While the Taliban and other extremist attack women for trying to get an education, this appears to be Sunni on Shia hate on hate and the women were a target of coveinence/opportunity.
I blame the existence of Pakistan on the British, they created that mess decades ago, the place used to be predominantly Hindu.
djones520 wrote: People are chastising Christianity in another thread
And that would make them wrong just as much, not suddenly make both of them right somehow. If you can recognize why it is silly to pretend all Christians are the Westboro Baptist Church surely you can also see why pretending all Muslims across the world are the same is just as ridiculous.
Violent jihadists don't tend to be the ones who refer to Islam as a religion of peace. The Muslims who do call it that are usually the ones who are actually peaceful, and in most cases I don't see a particularly good reason to include them in criticism of the violent extremists.
Good to know the Pakistani Imam who stood up to a mob to protect a young girl from being stoned to death a couple years ago on the grounds that his faith did not give them the right to kill her isn't really a Muslim. I'm sure he'll be glad to- Wait no he won't.
LordofHats wrote: Good to know the Pakistani Imam who stood up to a mob to protect a young girl from being stoned to death a couple years ago on the grounds that his faith did not give them the right to kill her isn't really a Muslim. I'm sure he'll be glad to- Wait no he won't.
Don't have to be religious to find No True Muslim statements super generalizing an extremely large population to be idiotic. Especially when the country in question provides a few scant examples of the internal divisions within the religion. Just because we only hear about some parts of the world when terrible things happen doesn't mean terrible things are all that happens over there.
LordofHats wrote: Don't have to be religious to find No True Muslim statements super generalizing an extremely large population to be idiotic. Especially when the country in question provides a few scant examples of the internal divisions within the religion. Just because we only hear about some parts of the world when terrible things happen doesn't mean terrible things are all that happens over there.
Ah, I understand. So I wouldn't be able to find plenty of posts lumping all Christians together for the purposes of condemnation in your posting history.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: It just blows my mind, to then go to the hospital and inflict further wickedness... They are not animals, animals would not do such a thing, they are devils, monsters, and should be wiped from the earth. So utterly vile and inhuman, all in the name of 'faith'.
I don't think demonising them helps anything. They're just people. Maybe in another life you would be one of them.
It might be more helpful to ask who they are and how they became that way. "Islam" on its own isn't an answer, because many people are exposed to Islam and don't do what they did.
If you understand why they acted that way, maybe you can take steps that will inspire fewer to choose that path in future.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: It just blows my mind, to then go to the hospital and inflict further wickedness... They are not animals, animals would not do such a thing, they are devils, monsters, and should be wiped from the earth. So utterly vile and inhuman, all in the name of 'faith'.
I don't think demonising them helps anything. They're just people. Maybe in another life you would be one of them.
It might be more helpful to ask who they are and how they became that way. "Islam" on its own isn't an answer, because many people are exposed to Islam and don't do what they did.
If you understand why they acted that way, maybe you can take steps that will inspire fewer to choose that path in future.
I don't think the "why" is all that hard to see. They're humans existing in conditions that, although superior to our natural environment, place an extraordinary amount of stress upon their psyches, as human instinct doesn't properly line up with the environment, and they lack the additional conditioning we in first world countries often receive, which allows the mitigation of the unnatural stresses and provides the additional frameworks necessary to operate in the more complex environment.
Simply put, they're running on instinct in an environment that instinct is ill-suited to, and this results in the sort of tribalistic throwbacks and extreme brutality we see. Particularly because they're in what is basically a warzone, which provides ample triggers, motivations, and materiel for such brutal lashing out.
You see the makings of such behavior anywhere the requisite conditioning isn't applied to humans existing in such environments.
So, these peaceful muslims, the majority, do they treat women as equals, or is the horror of this attack the extreme end of an universal subjugation and degradation of women and their rights as equals to men?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: So, these peaceful muslims, the majority, do they treat women as equals, or is the horror of this attack the extreme end of an universal subjugation and degradation of women and their rights as equals to men?
Ardaric_Vaanes wrote: Damn....they blow a bus full of them up in a bomb attack then murder their way through a hospital just to finish the job. I don't think even the word 'overkill' is enough to describe the severity of this attack. Saddest part is this won't be the last time something like this happens given the way things are in the middle east.
Its about negotiation. By doing this they will be feared and not attacked in the near future by security forces. If you attack us there will be no limit to how far we will go type of thing. Further, others of their ilk, who respect strength, may move to their banner.
When facing these threats, countries can either go berserk (Russia occasionally) or bend and become subservient and give them autonomy. Neither method is 100% successful. Even Saudi Arabia, which practices a very harsh brand, has its own groups attempting to destabilize it.
I mean think about this. You're the President of Pakistan. What do you do?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: So, these peaceful muslims, the majority, do they treat women as equals, or is the horror of this attack the extreme end of an universal subjugation and degradation of women and their rights as equals to men?
Nice, paint me a racist and ignore the suffering of women across the muslim world, sanctioned by religious leaders and religious courts, how terribly PC of you.
I will give sufficient consideration to your opinion of me and weight it against the noses cut from women's faces, the corpses of women stoned to death and these women gunned down in hospital beds and consider it a fair trade to be found objectionable because I despise this.
I didn't get that from the video so much as trying to show you that your emotions are getting the better of you, and you are going on an ignorant rant because of you anger. In your head it sounds perfectly reasonable, but your anger blinds you to how it makes you seem to others, same as the fellow in the video. That is what anger does.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: and ignore the suffering of women across the muslim world, sanctioned by religious leaders and religious courts
Oh please, now your just making a False Choice: either you hate muslims or you hate women!
I didn't get that from the video so much as trying to show you that your emotions are getting the better of you, and you are going on an ignorant rant because of you anger. In your head it sounds perfectly reasonable, but your anger blinds you to how it makes you seem to others, same as the fellow in the video. That is what anger does.
I become angry at injustice, persecution and bigotry, I get angry about the little girl I saw who was raped by the taliban when they took over the next door house as a base and I become entirely vengeful to the urge to throttle when I see her forced to live in a dog house in the yard because her parents, both her parents, despise her as she is now unclean and has no value as a marriage property. All I see of the muslim world is it's grotesque effects on it's womenfolk, it's repulsive misogeny and dehumanising, it's insistance on utter control, it's destruction of learning, art and culture that does not fit its singular borg like destruction of individuality and personal growth. I see those little lads in Pakistan, nodding back and forth, spouting text they don't even understand, it being the only education they are allowed, the programming of tomorrow's martyrs and it makes me so totally depressed, like watching little lights going out.
Show me what I'm missing out? What is it I fail to see, that could not be better if the entire theology was not utterly stamped out, wiped from the earth and forgotten.
I mostly enjoyed V for Vendetta as a movie, but the part where Stephen Fry shows Portman his hidden Quran made me sigh, it's a book that's been used to justify the murder of homosexuals across the earth, it should be put away, turned to compost and fed to trees so girls can pick apples on their way to school.
Angry mate? I'm furious, I'm alive with rage and seething with it, as this theology holds humankind back and makes monsters of men, or frees the monsters to be monsters. Instead of damning them, it damns their victims.
And then there is the quiet acceptance. In the West, when the terrorists and religious thugs lash out, there is the official 'we're not cool with it', but for a muslim, even living in the West, it is better to side with a fanatic than turn that fanatic over to a non-believer.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: and ignore the suffering of women across the muslim world, sanctioned by religious leaders and religious courts
Oh please, now your just making a False Choice: either you hate muslims or you hate women!
Why is that choice false? Islam is a hostile religion to women, it treats them poorly in every nation it has a foot hold and treats them worse in nations it is dominant in. If you afford it special privilege, say the request for Sharia in the UK, you are making the choice to see women treated less well.
See you have to be like Frazzled. He's not racist/sexist/'ist. he hates everybody. Or he would if he could get up the stregnth, but thats so much effort...
The thing to remember is that we're not talking about a "kook fringe" thing like the Westboro guys.
Militant Islamists are in nearly every Muslim dominated nation. They wage war on anyone they see as an enemy and conduct campaigns of terror on their own people who don't abide by the Islamists' interpretation of Islamic dogma. There are way too many Islamists far too many places around the world for this to be treated as some sort of aberrant interpretation of Islam.
It isn't just Al Qaeda. It's the Taliban. It's the Muslim Brotherhood. It's all sorts of splinter groups. It's the mothers who dance with joy in the streets when their child "martyrs" himself. And, ultimately, it's the rest of the civilized world who won't take any of this seriously because they consider Islamists to be a bunch of primitives.
Breotan wrote: The thing to remember is that we're not talking about a "kook fringe" thing like the Westboro guys.
Militant Islamists are in nearly every Muslim dominated nation. They wage war on anyone they see as an enemy and conduct campaigns of terror on their own people who don't abide by the Islamists' interpretation of Islamic dogma. There are way too many Islamists far too many places around the world for this to be treated as some sort of aberrant interpretation of Islam.
It isn't just Al Qaeda. It's the Taliban. It's the Muslim Brotherhood. It's all sorts of splinter groups. It's the mothers who dance with joy in the streets when their child "martyrs" himself. And, ultimately, it's the rest of the civilized world who won't take any of this seriously because they consider Islamists to be a bunch of primitives.
And yet they still don't make up anything near the majority of Muslims. No one has come close to saying extremists don't exist, just that pretending that all Muslims are extremist is ignorant in the extreme. We should be angry about this, and should be outraged, but that doesn't excuse us becoming monsters ourselves and lashing out in such a reckless manner so that we start also targeting people that aren't involved in such evil.
The Society of the Muslim Brothers (Arabic: جماعة الإخوان المسلمين, often simply: الإخوان المسلمون, the Muslim Brotherhood, transliterated: al-ʾIkḫwān al-Muslimūn) is the Arab world's most influential and one of the largest Islamic movements, and is the largest political opposition organization in many Arab states.[1][2] Founded in Egypt in 1928[3] as a Pan-Islamic, religious, political, and social movement by the Islamic scholar and schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna,[4][5][6][7] by the end of World War II the Muslim Brotherhood had an estimated two million members.[8] Its ideas had gained supporters throughout the Arab world and influenced other Islamist groups with its "model of political activism combined with Islamic charity work".[9]
The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Qur'an and Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ...ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state." The organization seeks to make Muslim countries become Islamic caliphates and to isolate women and non-Muslims from public life.[10] The movement is also known for engaging in political violence. They were responsible for creating Hamas, a U.S. designated terrorist organization, who grew to infamy for its suicide bombings of Israelis during the first and second intifada.[10] Muslim brotherhood members are suspected to have assasinated political opponents like Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmoud an-Nukrashi Pasha.[9][10][11]
The Muslim Brotherhood started as a religious social organization; preaching Islam, teaching the illiterate, setting up hospitals and even launching commercial enterprises. As it continued to rise in influence, starting in 1936, it began to oppose British rule in Egypt.[12] Many Egyptian nationalists accuse the Muslim Brotherhood of violent killings during this period.[13] After the Arab defeat in the First Arab-Israeli war, the Egyptian government dissolved the organisation and arrested its members.[12] It supported the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, but after an attempted assassination of Egypt's president it was once again banned and repressed.[14] The Muslim Brotherhood has been suppressed in other countries as well, most notably in Syria in 1982 during the Hama massacre.[15]
The Muslim Brotherhood is financed by contributions from its members, who are required to allocate a portion of their income to the movement. Some of these contributions are from members who work in Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich countries.[
It was voted into power after Mubarak was deposed in Egypt
Is the joint largest party in Bahrain
It is alleged to be a dominant force in the Syrian conflict
It's leader in Iraq is the Vice-President
Voted into power in Gaza as Hamas in 2007, there have been no subsequent elections held
Is part of the ruling coalition of Algeria
Has had significant power in Sudan since 1989
It is also present in Kuwait, Jordan, Yemen, Oman, Somalia, Tunisia and Libya
@all: DakkaDakka is not a soap box for generalized condemnations of cultures and religions. It's a big internet; there are other places to discuss those kind of opinions. Thanks.
And that anger has made you into what you hate, it seems.
Less of the one liners and actually make up your counter claim, show me that there are nations under islamic rule that treat women equally, or at least as near to equally as the West does?
I said islamic nations don't treat women well, as a result of being islamic, and I resent that and because of that I resent islam, you're countered with 'then you're bigoted against muslims as that's not the case'... So show me the countries I'm wrong about?
As a liberal, as a believer in equality for people despite color, gender, disability, sexuality, I find islam's condemnation of homosexuality repellent, I find it's segregation and second class relegation of women repellent. I would find it as repellent in a political party and I doubt I would still attract your label of bigotry for it? Would I?
And that anger has made you into what you hate, it seems.
Less of the one liners and actually make up your counter claim, show me that there are nations under islamic rule that treat women equally, or at least as near to equally as the West does?
I said islamic nations don't treat women well, as a result of being islamic, and I resent that and because of that I resent islam, you're countered with 'then you're bigoted against muslims as that's not the case'... So show me the countries I'm wrong about?
As a liberal, as a believer in equality for people despite color, gender, disability, sexuality, I find islam's condemnation of homosexuality repellent, I find it's segregation and second class relegation of women repellent. I would find it as repellent in a political party and I doubt I would still attract your label of bigotry for it? Would I?
Just to clarify, are you counting secular islamic nations, or islamic nations where Sharia does have play?
And that anger has made you into what you hate, it seems.
Less of the one liners and actually make up your counter claim, show me that there are nations under islamic rule that treat women equally, or at least as near to equally as the West does?
I said islamic nations don't treat women well, as a result of being islamic, and I resent that and because of that I resent islam, you're countered with 'then you're bigoted against muslims as that's not the case'... So show me the countries I'm wrong about?
As a liberal, as a believer in equality for people despite color, gender, disability, sexuality, I find islam's condemnation of homosexuality repellent, I find it's segregation and second class relegation of women repellent. I would find it as repellent in a political party and I doubt I would still attract your label of bigotry for it? Would I?
Just to clarify, are you counting secular islamic nations, or islamic nations where Sharia does have play?
Hmmm, I'd be willing to bet the treatment of women directly correlates to the control the religion has over the nation's affairs, from Secular all the way through to Theocracy.
It just blows my mind, to then go to the hospital and inflict further wickedness... They are not animals, animals would not do such a thing, they are devils, monsters, and should be wiped from the earth. So utterly vile and inhuman, all in the name of 'faith'.
Muslims are "devils" and "monsters" that "...should be wiped from the Earth?"
I said islamic nations don't treat women well, as a result of being islamic, and I resent that and because of that I resent islam, you're countered with 'then you're bigoted against muslims as that's not the case'... So show me the countries I'm wrong about?
You do know that there is a difference between nations and individuals, right?
The word "Islam" in the context of the religion does not mean peace. It means submission or surrender, as in submitting to the will of God as written by their prophet.
The big problem is that Islam has never gone through a Reformation. In fact they kind of went through a "reverse reformation" in the 13 century. Prior to the 13th century you could find a lot of Islamic theologians that were interpreting the Koran in more metaphorical terms. This group lost out big time and they have been stuck in literalist mode for 8 centuries.
Here is a paragraph from an unpublished essay I wrote that gives a snapshot of an Islamic theologian that was very influential in hardening Islam into a pure fundamentalist religion.
___
The Herald of the Dark Age of Islamic Science and Philosophy was Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali. Al-Ghazali was a brilliant and articulate theologian. While the ruination of Muslim philosophy and science cannot be completely rested upon his shoulders, his influence on the development of Muslim theology is of paramount importance. Ghazali rejected reason for faith and the path he followed to reach this conclusion was detailed in his important work The Deliverer from Error. His most influential work may have been Revivification of the Sciences of Religion, which stressed the supreme importance of obeying the will of God as expressed in the Qur’an and hadith. Ghazali’s Incoherence of the Philosophers is an argument against theism and deism and closes the door to any allegorical interpretation of the Qur’an. Regardless of any disagreement on how Ghazali’s ideas spread throughout the Muslim world, or how long the process required, it is indisputable that modern orthodox Muslims fully embrace a literal translation of Qur’an and the sunna of the Prophet. While these latter beliefs remain at the core of Islam, the Islamic veil of science and reason cannot be lifted.
------
The poor treatment of women in these now Islamic societies predates Islam and is largely the result of the social organization of patriarchial, tribal and nomadic groups. The Quran is a permanent enabler of these practices.
It just blows my mind, to then go to the hospital and inflict further wickedness... They are not animals, animals would not do such a thing, they are devils, monsters, and should be wiped from the earth. So utterly vile and inhuman, all in the name of 'faith'.
Muslims are "devils" and "monsters" that "...should be wiped from the Earth?"
The ones that shoot a bunch of women for the outrage of them seeking education and then double up by following any survivors to the hospital so they can shoot them, their nurses and doctors and a mediator, in the name of Islam and Allah, yes, those muslims are devils and monsters and I wish them terrible fates. Do you hold them otherwise?
Because that is what I wrote, regardless of your snipped quote.
I said islamic nations don't treat women well, as a result of being islamic, and I resent that and because of that I resent islam, you're countered with 'then you're bigoted against muslims as that's not the case'... So show me the countries I'm wrong about?
You do know that there is a difference between nations and individuals, right?
I do, and can I assume that you not showing me the countries I'm wrong about means I'm not wrong about any Islamic countries?
djones520 wrote: Kyrgyzstan. 95ish % Muslim population. They had a woman President before we did.
BUT, they are hardly hard line Muslims there. They have a national alcohal, as an example.
Pretty secular nation as well. Relatively "westernized" as well, being a former Soviet satellite.
There's really no need to exagerate. The number is closer to 80% muslim population.
I kind of like them though. They're an interesting mix of influences, with a nice history of violence and high hopes going forward.
Wasn't an exageration, working off of memory, which does seem to have been wrong. More recent studied do indicate a cloer to 90% total. Last time I was there I did get the vibe that Islamists were trying to gain ground in the country, though almost everyone I spoke to about their religion treated it as something they were simply born into, and weren't really all that observant of.
djones520 wrote: Kyrgyzstan. 95ish % Muslim population. They had a woman President before we did.
BUT, they are hardly hard line Muslims there. They have a national alcohal, as an example.
Pretty secular nation as well. Relatively "westernized" as well, being a former Soviet satellite.
There's really no need to exagerate. The number is closer to 80% muslim population.
I kind of like them though. They're an interesting mix of influences, with a nice history of violence and high hopes going forward.
Wasn't an exageration, working off of memory, which does seem to have been wrong. More recent studied do indicate a cloer to 90% total. Last time I was there I did get the vibe that Islamists were trying to gain ground in the country, though almost everyone I spoke to about their religion treated it as something they were simply born into, and weren't really all that observant of.
That's the vibe I got. You travelled there? Exciting. How was it?
One question I would want to ask you OT folk is, do you think a religion is capable of being damagingly flawed?
If so, how would you tell that a religion is like that?
The ones that shoot a bunch of women for the outrage of them seeking education and then double up by following any survivors to the hospital so they can shoot them, their nurses and doctors and a mediator, in the name of Islam and Allah, yes, those muslims are devils and monsters and I wish them terrible fates. Do you hold them otherwise?
Yes. I consider them to be humans.
At any rate, that is the closest to clarity you have come in this thread. Previously it seemed as though you were specifically targeting Muslims, as opposed to people who do terrible things.
Because that is what I wrote, regardless of your snipped quote.
I know what you wrote, in fact I directly quoted you; without any form of editing. The snipped portion was my interpretation of that quote given your history, and comments within this thread.
The ones that shoot a bunch of women for the outrage of them seeking education and then double up by following any survivors to the hospital so they can shoot them, their nurses and doctors and a mediator, in the name of Islam and Allah, yes, those muslims are devils and monsters and I wish them terrible fates. Do you hold them otherwise?
Yes. I consider them to be humans.
Biologically, that would be correct. I was stating that their actions have separated them from humanity or notions of the humane, they are not human beings, they have become something less, something worse, something that requires removal.
At any rate, that is the closest to clarity you have come in this thread. Previously it seemed as though you were specifically targeting Muslims, as opposed to people who do terrible things.
I do not believe Islam brings good things to the planet. I would absolutely state that individual muslims can be great, wonderful people, but I believe overall, the religion and many who act in extremis in it's name and according to it's dictates, bring misery to the world. I also believe the 'good majority' view extremists as higher on the list of their priorities than a non-believer.
I'm not targeting muslims, I am certainly targeting Islam.
Because that is what I wrote, regardless of your snipped quote.
I know what you wrote, in fact I directly quoted you; without any form of editing. The snipped portion was my interpretation of that quote given your history, and comments within this thread.
Your interpretation was a long leap to a highly flawed outcome. I was referring to the extremists, I then went on later to broaden my discussion to the impact of Islam where ever it is dominant in a nation. I do not see modern Islam as a positive influence on humanity, because the nations where it is in ascension seem to be very unpleasant places, in several parts of the world, with separate cultures and histories, unified most readily by their religion, so when we ask why all these places across the world are shitholes where women are treated in totally repulsive ways, we could easily conclude that they are so treated because of Islam, especially when such practices are condoned or even invoked by religious courts and religious police. There are other places in the world where women are not treated well, but in Islamic nations, it is justified and sanctioned by the local religious leadership, national religious leadership and international religious leadership, so, I conclude it is not favorable to women.
I can read the Quran, witness the nations where it's teaching as dominant and say that women in islamic nations are not treated well, further that the Quran condones and encourages it.
Ill treatment + Instructions from the holy book on ill treatment + multiple peoples, cultures and customs all treating women as second class through to property = A misogynistic religion.
I do, and can I assume that you not showing me the countries I'm wrong about means I'm not wrong about any Islamic countries?
No, you cannot make that assumption.
Of course you will almost certainly do so anyway; as you have repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot discern between a Muslim and a Muslim nation.
I can most certainly tell the difference, I asked you for a nation, one, that treated women equally... Or is it that you cannot find one, not a single nation and instead must rely on westernized individuals or families? Those educated beyond the braying fanaticism of the education to one single book?
But continue to rail against the question, weave as you might...
It just blows my mind, to then go to the hospital and inflict further wickedness... They are not animals, animals would not do such a thing, they are devils, monsters, and should be wiped from the earth. So utterly vile and inhuman, all in the name of 'faith'.
Muslims are "devils" and "monsters" that "...should be wiped from the Earth?"
I think MSG was using "devils" and "monsters" in specific reference to people who shot up a hospital already filled with their handiwork, irrespective of their religious affiliation. That they happen to be Muslim in this instance likely has little bearing on the judgement of said devils and monsters, but rather is based upon the aforementioned heinous actions. At least, that was my interpretation of the statement when I agreed with him.
The key cause of Islamic violence is this: modernization. While modernization is a good thing and utterly inevitable, much of the Middle East is stuck in the past, thanks to a long series of ethnic warfare and foreign meddling. As a result, Islam as a religion is stuck in a juvenile stage of development, one that all religions must go through in order to survive. This stage is always marked by extremist activity - look at Christianity and the Crusades. Add in the complications caused by centuries of Western meddling and you have an explosive crucible of a region caught in a hellish state of constant violence caused by factors so complex and multifarious (and often ancient) that to completely understand them would require multiple lifetimes worth of study to begin to grasp.
Frankly, if Islam cannot change soon, if it doesn't mature and reform itself to fit in with modern mores, then it will eventually die, if only because its radical adherents drive everyone else away and manage to kills themselves all off before they can create more children.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote: The key cause of Islamic violence is this: modernization. While modernization is a good thing and utterly inevitable, much of the Middle East is stuck in the past, thanks to a long series of ethnic warfare and foreign meddling. As a result, Islam as a religion is stuck in a juvenile stage of development, one that all religions must go through in order to survive. This stage is always marked by extremist activity - look at Christianity and the Crusades. Add in the complications caused by centuries of Western meddling and you have an explosive crucible of a region caught in a hellish state of constant violence caused by factors so complex and multifarious (and often ancient) that to completely understand them would require multiple lifetimes worth of study to begin to grasp.
Frankly, if Islam cannot change soon, if it doesn't mature and reform itself to fit in with modern mores, then it will eventually die, if only because its radical adherents drive everyone else away and manage to kills themselves all off before they can create more children.
It's an insane situation on all accounts.
~Tim?
Do try to remember that most of the "solidly stuck in the past" stuff owes a great deal to the House of Saud and its adoption of Salafist ideology. That caused massive regression, just like the Revivalist movement did in the US a few decades earlier. The defining difference is that the US is wealthy and has prospered, which secularizes the population and weakens the propaganda abilities of radicals; even so we've seen some horrible things from the Revivalists and the sects that descended from them, up to and including terrorism.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote: The key cause of Islamic violence is this: modernization. While modernization is a good thing and utterly inevitable, much of the Middle East is stuck in the past, thanks to a long series of ethnic warfare and foreign meddling. As a result, Islam as a religion is stuck in a juvenile stage of development, one that all religions must go through in order to survive. This stage is always marked by extremist activity - look at Christianity and the Crusades. Add in the complications caused by centuries of Western meddling and you have an explosive crucible of a region caught in a hellish state of constant violence caused by factors so complex and multifarious (and often ancient) that to completely understand them would require multiple lifetimes worth of study to begin to grasp.
Frankly, if Islam cannot change soon, if it doesn't mature and reform itself to fit in with modern mores, then it will eventually die, if only because its radical adherents drive everyone else away and manage to kills themselves all off before they can create more children.
It's an insane situation on all accounts.
~Tim?
If 40K has taught us anything, its that modernization is definitely not inevitable...
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote: The key cause of Islamic violence is this: modernization. While modernization is a good thing and utterly inevitable, much of the Middle East is stuck in the past, thanks to a long series of ethnic warfare and foreign meddling. As a result, Islam as a religion is stuck in a juvenile stage of development, one that all religions must go through in order to survive. This stage is always marked by extremist activity - look at Christianity and the Crusades. Add in the complications caused by centuries of Western meddling and you have an explosive crucible of a region caught in a hellish state of constant violence caused by factors so complex and multifarious (and often ancient) that to completely understand them would require multiple lifetimes worth of study to begin to grasp.
Frankly, if Islam cannot change soon, if it doesn't mature and reform itself to fit in with modern mores, then it will eventually die, if only because its radical adherents drive everyone else away and manage to kills themselves all off before they can create more children.
It's an insane situation on all accounts.
~Tim?
Do try to remember that most of the "solidly stuck in the past" stuff owes a great deal to the House of Saud and its adoption of Salafist ideology. That caused massive regression, just like the Revivalist movement did in the US a few decades earlier. The defining difference is that the US is wealthy and has prospered, which secularizes the population and weakens the propaganda abilities of radicals; even so we've seen some horrible things from the Revivalists and the sects that descended from them, up to and including terrorism.
I do not see modern Islam as a positive influence on humanity...
Then what do you see it as?
A hugely oppressive force on women, gays and minorities, an enabler of the basest violence, the destruction of art, education, progressive thinking, personal freedom. It certainly wasn't always this way, Saladin's Islam, the simplest example would be the tolerant rule of Jerusalem, was something that seemed totally enlightening for it's time, but it seem to have devolved into something relentless, aggressive and utterly intolerant.
I consider the religion a negative force, the sooner it is gone from the world, or grown up past this grotesque form, as most of Christianity seems to have managed, then I'll be a lot less opposed to it, basically when it stops hating me and those I love, then I'll stop hating it.
I can most certainly tell the difference, I asked you for a nation, one, that treated women equally...
You never asked me that question. My name is not "Ahtman".
Ah, apologies, you just attached yourself to the point with such vigor, let me rephrase, 'I can most certainly tell the difference, I asked for a nation, one, that treated women equally...'
But since you have attached yourself to that raised point so keenly, how about you do provide me with the name of a country under islam that does treat women as equals? Because the point I was driving at, was I can't find one.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote: The key cause of Islamic violence is this: modernization. While modernization is a good thing and utterly inevitable, much of the Middle East is stuck in the past, thanks to a long series of ethnic warfare and foreign meddling. As a result, Islam as a religion is stuck in a juvenile stage of development, one that all religions must go through in order to survive. This stage is always marked by extremist activity - look at Christianity and the Crusades. Add in the complications caused by centuries of Western meddling and you have an explosive crucible of a region caught in a hellish state of constant violence caused by factors so complex and multifarious (and often ancient) that to completely understand them would require multiple lifetimes worth of study to begin to grasp.
Frankly, if Islam cannot change soon, if it doesn't mature and reform itself to fit in with modern mores, then it will eventually die, if only because its radical adherents drive everyone else away and manage to kills themselves all off before they can create more children.
It's an insane situation on all accounts.
~Tim?
Do try to remember that most of the "solidly stuck in the past" stuff owes a great deal to the House of Saud and its adoption of Salafist ideology. That caused massive regression, just like the Revivalist movement did in the US a few decades earlier. The defining difference is that the US is wealthy and has prospered, which secularizes the population and weakens the propaganda abilities of radicals; even so we've seen some horrible things from the Revivalists and the sects that descended from them, up to and including terrorism.
Wait you're arguing Saudi Arabia is not wealthy?
Yeah, I had the same reaction to that post. Would you mind clarifying, Ser Pseudonymous?
~Tim?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Saladin was a hell of a guy. I did a paper on him. It's not a good sign for your faith or culture if it has REGRESSED since the Crusades....
Yep, Saladin is someone I bring up whenever people try to convince me that Islam can only be a force for evil. Its past isn't concurrent with its present. It was for a time a religion that fostered fairly modern and secular ideas. I feel that it could get back to that point; it would just need a strong single worldwide religious leader, like an Islamic Pope. It's that or self-destruction.
Heh no. The Ottoman Empire was close, but Islam has been fighting over the proper succession of the Caliphate since The Prophet died. That's the real division between Sunni and Shiite Islam. If a globally accepted Caliph emerges I'm immediately flying out to kiss the ring or whatever you do, because that man has literally worked a miracle to get all major factions to accept him.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote: The key cause of Islamic violence is this: modernization. While modernization is a good thing and utterly inevitable, much of the Middle East is stuck in the past, thanks to a long series of ethnic warfare and foreign meddling. As a result, Islam as a religion is stuck in a juvenile stage of development, one that all religions must go through in order to survive. This stage is always marked by extremist activity - look at Christianity and the Crusades. Add in the complications caused by centuries of Western meddling and you have an explosive crucible of a region caught in a hellish state of constant violence caused by factors so complex and multifarious (and often ancient) that to completely understand them would require multiple lifetimes worth of study to begin to grasp.
Frankly, if Islam cannot change soon, if it doesn't mature and reform itself to fit in with modern mores, then it will eventually die, if only because its radical adherents drive everyone else away and manage to kills themselves all off before they can create more children.
It's an insane situation on all accounts.
~Tim?
Do try to remember that most of the "solidly stuck in the past" stuff owes a great deal to the House of Saud and its adoption of Salafist ideology. That caused massive regression, just like the Revivalist movement did in the US a few decades earlier. The defining difference is that the US is wealthy and has prospered, which secularizes the population and weakens the propaganda abilities of radicals; even so we've seen some horrible things from the Revivalists and the sects that descended from them, up to and including terrorism.
Wait you're arguing Saudi Arabia is not wealthy?
Yeah, I had the same reaction to that post. Would you mind clarifying, Ser Pseudonymous?
~Tim?
Sorry, my whole post was poorly worded.
I was talking more about the Middle East in general with that remark; Saudi Arabia is a special case. I also shouldn't try to pass off everything good that happened in the first world as a matter of wealth, as doing so does a grave disservice to everyone who fought tooth and nail to build it for us.
The US has prospered in a way that even Saudi Arabia hasn't, with safeguards in place to stop the unilateral imposition of religious beliefs on law, with a large number of dedicated champions of right fighting tooth and nail to fix what the Revivalists broke. With the Saudi royalty backing the radical, heretical movement and setting the standard, in a way, it's unsurprising; when the strongest player in the region supports everything that's ideologically wrong with the region, what do you expect to happen?
Of course, it's kind of silly that I, a staunch Transhumanist, am defending Islam, since I would love to see its downfall, just as I would love to see the downfall of every other religion aside from Transhumanism (when such is interpreted in a religious way), but I hate to see it (or anything) attacked on faulty grounds, as MGS is doing. This isn't really a response to you, I just felt like making my position clear.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Heh no. The Ottoman Empire was close, but Islam has been fighting over the proper succession of the Caliphate since The Prophet died. That's the real division between Sunni and Shiite Islam. If a globally accepted Caliph emerges I'm immediately flying out to kiss the ring or whatever you do, because that man has literally worked a miracle to get all major factions to accept him.
I don't know if [redacted by moderator. Such comments are not helpful.]
djones520 wrote: Kyrgyzstan. 95ish % Muslim population. They had a woman President before we did.
BUT, they are hardly hard line Muslims there. They have a national alcohal, as an example.
Pretty secular nation as well. Relatively "westernized" as well, being a former Soviet satellite.
There's really no need to exagerate. The number is closer to 80% muslim population.
I kind of like them though. They're an interesting mix of influences, with a nice history of violence and high hopes going forward.
Wasn't an exageration, working off of memory, which does seem to have been wrong. More recent studied do indicate a cloer to 90% total. Last time I was there I did get the vibe that Islamists were trying to gain ground in the country, though almost everyone I spoke to about their religion treated it as something they were simply born into, and weren't really all that observant of.
That's the vibe I got. You travelled there? Exciting. How was it?
One question I would want to ask you OT folk is, do you think a religion is capable of being damagingly flawed?
If so, how would you tell that a religion is like that?
If not, why not?
You need to be a bit more precise by what you mean by damagingly flawed. I would say that every religion is flawed in the sense that it hinges on the belief in a supernatural entity that does not exist.
Also, there is a huge difference in what a "religion" may be, and how people practice it. Overall the practice of Christianity is not as destructive to human civilization now as it was say 500 years ago. The practice of Islam is not as destructive in countries where Sharia law is neutralized by criminal and civil laws.
Buddhism, which was not envisioned as a religion by its founder is certainly less destructive than other religions but one could argue it is flawed because it is founded on a belief in reincarnation.
Hinduism may be one of the most damagingly flawed and destructive religions of all because its particular slant on reincarnation has enabled the milenia long tradition of castes to persist. The Hindu caste system is one of the most hateful institutions ever invented and ironically permeates a country that claims to be the world's most populated democracy.
Because every religion promotes the idea of supernatural phenomena that do not exist, inculcating children with these lame ass ideas and damaging their ability to understand the world means that every religion is damagingly flawed. They are all flawed and to one degree or another cause damage, the only difference is how much damage they cause, some cause little damage, some cause enormous damage.
djones520 wrote: Kyrgyzstan. 95ish % Muslim population. They had a woman President before we did.
BUT, they are hardly hard line Muslims there. They have a national alcohal, as an example.
Pretty secular nation as well. Relatively "westernized" as well, being a former Soviet satellite.
There's really no need to exagerate. The number is closer to 80% muslim population.
I kind of like them though. They're an interesting mix of influences, with a nice history of violence and high hopes going forward.
Wasn't an exageration, working off of memory, which does seem to have been wrong. More recent studied do indicate a cloer to 90% total. Last time I was there I did get the vibe that Islamists were trying to gain ground in the country, though almost everyone I spoke to about their religion treated it as something they were simply born into, and weren't really all that observant of.
That's the vibe I got. You travelled there? Exciting. How was it?
One question I would want to ask you OT folk is, do you think a religion is capable of being damagingly flawed?
If so, how would you tell that a religion is like that?
If not, why not?
You need to be a bit more precise by what you mean by damagingly flawed. I would say that every religion is flawed in the sense that it hinges on the belief in a supernatural entity that does not exist.
Also, there is a huge difference in what a "religion" may be, and how people practice it. Overall the practice of Christianity is not as destructive to human civilization now as it was say 500 years ago. The practice of Islam is not as destructive in countries where Sharia law is neutralized by criminal and civil laws.
Buddhism, which was not envisioned as a religion by its founder is certainly less destructive than other religions but one could argue it is flawed because it is founded on a belief in reincarnation.
Hinduism may be one of the most damagingly flawed and destructive religions of all because its particular slant on reincarnation has enabled the milenia long tradition of castes to persist. The Hindu caste system is one of the most hateful institutions ever invented and ironically permeates a country that claims to be the world's most populated democracy.
Because every religion promotes the idea of supernatural phenomena that do not exist, inculcating children with these lame ass ideas and damaging their ability to understand the world means that every religion is damagingly flawed. They are all flawed and to one degree or another cause damage, the only difference is how much damage they cause, some cause little damage, some cause enormous damage.
People are flawed. People follow religions, so obviously all religions will be flawed to one degree or another. Often those flaws are caused by people and not a part of the religion.
But since you have attached yourself to that raised point so keenly, how about you do provide me with the name of a country under islam that does treat women as equals? Because the point I was driving at, was I can't find one.
By "under Islam" do you mean "under a theocratic government informed by Islam" or "a nation in which most people are Muslims"?
I had a lot of things to say, none of them were nice, and they have all to do with the insistence of ripping apart another religion all the while ignoring the tenets and teachings of one's own religion. And that's all I'll say.
I had a lot of things to say, none of them were nice, and they have all to do with the insistence of ripping apart another religion all the while ignoring the tenets and teachings of one's own religion. And that's all I'll say.
I like that Poda.
When something like the term "God wills it" or "Its God's will"...wait.....another..."Its His plan"....lets not forget labels...infidel, heretic, non believer, and a few others. Then its excusable to commit violence in "His" name. For those of us that do not fall under either religion we're still "excused" in enacting violence against the other religion if "working" for the other religion.
But who is his Master? Always two there are, a Master and an Apprentice
