Spectrum wrote:You don't seem to be aware of Islam and Muslims as a whole package and your knowledge in this case is narrow. There are Islamic Nations that adopted Sharia [fundamentalist] Law and are within the top 20 in terms of GDP, e.g. Qatar-ranked 1, Brunei-11, UAE-13, Kuwait-16.
ScottieX wrote:Are you seriously scared of Quatar and Brunei, Kuwait and the UAE? You seem to have taken 4 examples of muslims behaving in a generally reasonable manner in order to prove that they don't act reasonably and are dangerous. Regardless, yes they sit on some oil and gas reserves, but they will run out and we will see how they go after that. Or do you think those four countries will get together and conquer the USA, EU, China and India?
I presented the 4 from the Top 20 specifically as exception to your following point.
ScottieX wrote: And the countries that apply fundamentalist law are economic disaster zones.
I am not speculating that those four countries will get together and conquer the USA, EU, China and India. What I am implying in general is humanity should not give in too much to Islam wherever it is. One example is accommodating Islam Laws [applicable to Muslims] as parallel to existing constitutional laws as it is happening in some countries.
What humanity need to do is to defang Islam from politics in all countries like what Christianity is practiced at present.
In the future humanity should strive to wean off organized religions and replace them with net-positive spiritual approaches to deal with the inevitable existential dilemma. This will strip off the collective moral support they get from Muslims from all over the world. Note how some cartoons are drawn in Denmark and Muslims rioted all over the world ending with casualties. ISIS are getting volunteers from all over world waiting to sacrifice their life for martyrdom. These days one [especially so if one is American] has to be very watchful and wary as a tourist visiting Museums, café, supermarket, taking trains and anywhere.
No my point was regarding western countries, if you concede it applies there then you concede my point. That the people in the other less developed countries might be more radical was also part of my point. I note however that people in the Congo and Ivory coast are probably radical too.
I understand your point was with reference to Western countries. My point is this restriction is not helpful for you to understand the full impact and threat of the evils potential of Islam [by some Muslims] on humanity in the future. This is show by your seemingly indifference to Islamic related violence per se.
You might be right but I don't think that is a sensible way to try to work out the numbers as if no non-muslims are violent prone.
You should compare the violence rates between a group of muslims and a comparable group of non muslims. Or better yet - violence rates for people who become Muslims before and after. Muslims have a strong foothold in prisons for various reasons resulting in a lot of criminals with high violence rates becoming muslim - which may well reduce their violence rate and yet still make muslims far more violent on average.
Humanity must deal with all sorts of violence and evils from all sources. Since this OP is about Islam, we should restrict the point to Islamic related violence and nothing else [to avoid going off topic].
Amongst many others, here is a good benchmark we can use to discuss Islamic based violence.
It [25,616] may not be precise and we can allow a 10% margin of error.
Note the 25,616 is counted based on each event/attack which comprised 1 deaths or 180 deaths per event.
It appear the annual number of event is appx. 2,000 events per year.
So the objective of humanity or UN is to reduce to a minimal of less than 10 or to zero per year.
False, Muslims predictably has a greater potential to kill any non-believers in the West and anywhere else. This can manifest from any of the 10% = 150 million Muslims around the world.
Do you have some statistical evidence of that? Or is to just like "murder can manifest in 100% of all people in the world given appropriate circumstances".
10% is a very conservative figure based on the related knowledge I have gathered so far. DNA wise all humans are 96-98% beasts and animals. Humans has an inherent 'fight or flight' instinct plus a 'kill or be killed' instinct which are ever ready to be triggered. The neurons inhibiting these fundamental impulses are very thin and thus most humans can turned murderer or hurt the other person given the right conditions of stress to loosen those inhibitors.
Also note that the Japanese were into the Bushido code which motivated their suicide bombers but nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki made them reconsider how committed they were to that idea. And the Tamil tigers were Hindu although I suspect largely not motivated by religion to suicide bombing.
Suicide bombings did happen but most are not driven by religious doctrines other than Islam. Bushido is a samurai code not from Buddhist teachings [which you listed earlier] Some claimed the Japanese Kamikaze were also influenced by an extreme sect of Zen, but that is not mainstream Buddhism.
-- Sat Apr 18, 2015 5:55 am --
Belinda wrote:Sharia Law. _________________
Muhammad himself claimed that Islam was a continuation from previous prophets who had advanced the same ethics. And that he was reminding Muslims of what they already knew.
Jesus' teaching improved significantly from the OT but Muhammad condemned the Christians and resorted to include in the Quran many violent elements from the OT. So it is very ugly regress in moral and ethics.
The Quran did not include public stoning to death but many Hadiths/Sharia scholars insist to follow the stoning that was in the OT and argued that it was accidently deleted from the Quran. On this matter I would suggest you get familiar with the Hadiths and Sunnah.
Sharia Law may have worked somewhere during some time in the past for political reasons.
1. However basically there is an existential lust element for Muslims to implement Sharia Law.
2. To avoid going to hell and to end up in heaven with eternal life [with virgins for some] a good Muslim must complied as fully as possible as to what is deemed to be God's word within the holy texts.
3. The holy texts [Quran, Hadiths, Sunnah, ] contain commands by God that Muslims must comply with God's Law and since God's words is final and immutable, the whole set of Sharia must be implemented without changes.
4. Therefore to be assured of eternal life in heaven and avoiding hell, a Muslim will be driven to support Sharia Law regardless of how barbaric it is, e.g. flogging in public, chopping of hands, beheadings, even when it is not 2015!
If not for the personal psychological existential desperations, countries with majority Muslims could adopt parts
of the Sharia Law which are effective into their constitutional laws which are open to change with time and circumstances. Many Muslims argue that Sharia Law is a good deterrent. This is not a good excuse as those countries with capital punishment still have many no death row.
IMO, if humanity can expose the psychological insecurity of Muslims in their existential 'lust' to support Sharia Law, the world would be a better place without images and threats of woman [usually victim of Muslims] being stoned in public to the enjoyment of some sadists and relieve of angst for some.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.