Moslems in Western Society

wes

Dai John wrote: »

More people have died in the name of " God " and religion than any other cause.

I have heard that said a lot of time, and a honest question here, can you actually prove it? Seems to me most Human conflict, is rarely about a single thing, and to say its only about one things seems to be reductive in the extreme imho. So basically, its very different to say God, or say Greed or any single motivation is solely responsible for violence.

hivizman

I'm with Wes on this.

This is one of those claims that comes down to definitions. What does it actually mean to "die in the name of 'God' and religion"? To give an illustration of the problems of definition, this on-line discussion provides a neat illustration of the issues. Someone suggests that the number of people who were killed by Nazis or Communists was a very large contribution to those who did not "die in the name of religion", and a respondent claims that Nazism and Communism were in effect religions. Another poster lists the number of Christians and Jews who died under Nazism and Soviet and Chinese Communism, and the answer comes that most of the victims were not killed because of their religious faith but for some other reason, such as being of the "wrong" class. These are good examples of how the discussion can involve questions of what actually counts as a religion, and when a death can be attributed to religion rather than some other factor.

As this is the Islam forum, it may be worth mentioning (not for the first time!) that the idea that "Islam was spread at the point of the sword" is a gross oversimplification, which ignores the fact that the Arab conquests in the first century AH did not involve forced conversions - the native populations were usually able to preserve their religions rather than having to adopt Islam. It also ignores the spread of Islam into south east Asia, which came about largely through the positive influence of Muslim merchants rather than through conquest. The early conquests in the Middle East were partly a reaction to threats from the Byzantine and Persian empires, and were effective mainly because these empires were in a period of decline at the time. They were not purely religious wars.

Dai John

Nazism and communism were regarded as a religion by a lot of their fanatics.Must I assume that Catholics V Protestants, Hindus V Sikhs ,Jews V Moslems V Christians had nothing to do with religion ? 2 popes ruled at the same time and one was reputed to have said that "this myth has served us well for over 1000 years ".This might or might not be true but it does have a ring to it.There might well be a God, he has proved to be conveniently fortuitous to a large number of religious leaders. Where was the charity in the industrial schools etc. ? The sheep can follow their beliefs if they want, just count me out.

hivizman

Dai John wrote: »

Nazism and communism were regarded as a religion by a lot of their fanatics.

So you agree that the issue is, at least in part, a matter of what counts as "religion"?

Dai John wrote: »

Must I assume that Catholics V Protestants, Hindus V Sikhs ,Jews V Moslems V Christians had nothing to do with religion ?

No - all you were asked was to justify your claim "More people have died in the name of 'God' and religion than any other cause." I doubt if anyone would claim that no-one has died in the name of God/religion. However, is God/religion the cause of more deaths than any other cause?

Dai John wrote: »

2 popes ruled at the same time and one was reputed to have said that "this myth has served us well for over 1000 years ".This might or might not be true but it does have a ring to it.There might well be a God, he has proved to be conveniently fortuitous to a large number of religious leaders.

The remark "It has served us well, this myth of Christ" is commonly attributed to Pope Leo X (1475-1521 - Pope from 1513). However, the earliest known source is an anti-papal book by John Bale The Pageant of the Popes, published in 1575. In this book, the remark appears somewhat differently:

At banqueting he [Pope Leo] delighted greatly in wine and musike: but had no care of preaching the Gospell, nay was rather a cruell persecutour of those that began then, as Luther and other to reveale the light thereof: for on a time when a cardinall Bembus did move a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gave him a very contemptuouse aunswere saiying: All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to us and our companie.

If Leo had indeed said something along these lines, he would have spoken in Italian or Latin, and so we don't know what words precisely he used. In any event, if he said what Bale claimed, he could have been sarcastically referring to the ways in which belief in the story of Christ has benefited Christians spiritually down the ages.

Dai John wrote: »

Where was the charity in the industrial schools etc. ? The sheep can follow their beliefs if they want, just count me out.

Probably more appropriate for the Christianity site.

wes

Dai John wrote: »

Nazism and communism were regarded as a religion by a lot of their fanatics.

Communism was intensely anti-religious. So you have instantly underminded your own point. Communism, was about as Anti-Religion you could get, and to present it as any kind of proof of Religion being responsible for most of the violence in the world seems ridiculous to me.

Dai John wrote: »

Must I assume that Catholics V Protestants, Hindus V Sikhs ,Jews V Moslems V Christians had nothing to do with religion ?

So every single one of the conflicts, between those groups, are purely Religious then? You aren't providing any detail, and are being general in the extreme. Conflicts between those groups have been over Religions, but they have also been over lands, power, money and a whole load of other crap, and very often a mixture of them all.

ballsymchugh

wes wrote: »

Communism was intensely anti-religious. So you have instantly underminded your own point. Communism, was about as Anti-Religion you could get, and to present it as any kind of proof of Religion being responsible for most of the violence in the world seems ridiculous to me.

i think he means it along the lines of cult status, like in north korea, where kim il sung is revered as their god. if i attached this right, check out half way down on the right hand side.
by the way, with regard to ease of integration into US or Europe, wouldn't language have made quite a big deal??

nuts! upload didn't work, but check this link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID2yqumCB1w

Nodin

Dai John wrote: »

RELIGION IS THE OPIUM OF THE MASSES.

Possibly the most common 'selective quote' of all time. In context its part of a far more nuanced judgement on the role of religon and the human condition.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo

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

wes

ballsymchugh wrote: »

i think he means it along the lines of cult status, like in north korea, where kim il sung is revered as their god. if i attached this right, check out half way down on the right hand side.

Alright, fair enough, but I think it does show that people will believe pretty much anything, regardless of its origin then.

ballsymchugh wrote: »

by the way, with regard to ease of integration into US or Europe, wouldn't language have made quite a big deal??

I think language largely ceases to be a issue when it comes to the 2nd generation for the most part, and is practically non-existent, when it comes to the 3rd generaton.

imported_guy

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Hi

Is there a problem with Moslems adapting to Western Society and what can be done to assist Moslems to do so?

in b4 1023910238091283 pages





people should have clued up when he didn't spell MUSLIM properly

The Recliner

imported_guy wrote: »

people should have clued up when he didn't spell MUSLIM properly

Imported Guy if you have an issue with a post please use the Reported Post button

Calling people trolls on thread is not helpful and drags threads off topic, please help us Moderators by reporting posts rather then having a go at people in thread

hivizman

imported_guy wrote: »

people should have clued up when he didn't spell MUSLIM properly

Interesting to note how language changes. My dictionary (The Chambers Dictionary) gives "Muslim" and "Moslem" as equivalents - the latter form may have originated as a phonetic rendering by non-Arab speakers of "Muslim". On the other hand, my dictionary is very clear that "Mohammedan" is inappropriate and offensive (since it implies that Islam was created by Muhammad - compare Buddhist, for example).

A recent guide for journalists published by the Society of Editors and the Media Trust in the UK, Reporting Diversity: How Journalists Can Contribute to Community Cohesion, contains the following:

Is it correct to write Muslim or Moslem?

Muslim is preferred. People refer to themselves as Muslims. Many regard Moslem as a term of abuse, like people of African descent dislike being called negroes. Also avoid Mohammedan and Musselman.

imported_guy

muslimeen or muslimaan isnt considered offensive it is just a plural (in english muslim is plural you dont have to say muslims, i.e euro and euros etc) if my arabic isnt wrong