Is Islam compatible with Western civilization?

[HeyCameron]

To what extent can Muslims "assimilate" in Western countries?

One of the primary concerns about refugees and migrants from Islamic countries is that they don't or can't assimilate; some people imply that the Islamic way of life itself is incompatible with the Western way of life.

I'd be interested to hear from Muslims (if there are any here) and from people who live in countries with significant Muslim populations.

[Oscar-V3.0]

My gf and her family are muslims, and they 'assimilate' pretty good.
As long as you dont try to impose your religion to any one and as long as you're not extremist and try to force girls to wear a hanky on the face, it will be fine :-)

[Jinglebottom]

I live in the most liberal Arabic country there is. The reason why the culture here is relatively westernized (compared to other countries in the Arab world and Middle East) is mostly thanks to our large Christian population. I bet if we had a 80% or 90% Muslim population (instead of 55%), the dynamics here would be very, very different, and, in my point of view, in a bad way. Here, the only Muslim that would have little problem assimilating in a Western country, would be a Muslim from the capital city who was brought up in a secularized environment/education. The Muslim areas outside of the capital are very conservative. Our Christian areas, while still conservative for Western standards, aren't as much. Keep in mind that Lebanon is among the most liberal countries with a large Islamic population, and still a sizable portion of the people here would not fit at all in a Western society with Western values. So, what would you expect from the more conservative countries? The cultures are radically different.

[ShineintheDark]

Liberalisation and assimilation only work when communities are broken up and exposed to a wide range of experiences outside of the norm. That's why you often find that extremely segregated communities that resist being broken up are often the most conservative and resistant to change. That's the issue you often have with the Middle East and the wider Muslim world: that it's all concentrated around a single region that rarely has to interact with other, less Islamic nations. That means that ideas don't get challenged and the status quo remains behind the times. This even happens in smaller scales, with old, single-nationality communities in Western nations. A strongly concentrated Evangelical community in the US will be far less liberal than a very multicultural and mixed community. An area with a strong concentration of conservative Muslims will STAY conservative unless broken up and forced to adapt to a new environment. This isn't just seen with the Middle East either. Most 'non-Western' countries often have very conservative, restrictive cultures that are struggling to adapt to the modern world. Majority Christian nations such as Russia, Burkina Faso, Gambia, Cameroon, Kenya, regions of Mexico, Jamaica etc as well as the majority Hindu nations of India and Sri Lanka amongst others still have very repressive laws against homosexuality since they are pretty much all surrounded by nations similar to them and so have no incentive to modernise or change. That means that, when immigrants from these countries move to more liberal countries, they may struggle to shift their stances to liberalise. However, as Jinglebottom references,a quite-mixed nation such as Lebanon is relatively liberal compared to its neighbours.

[Emilyfox]

It’s too big a generalization
Some want to assimilate and are just Muslim in name only because if you weren’t Muslim/gave up on it back home you’d have consequences
Others want to have the benefits of western nations but keep their old problems because it’s all they knew and feel bad to give them up, which is a bs excuse

[abcdeqwe]

I believe that just by being in a less conservative community they’ll become less conservative themselves, but this has nothing to do with the religion Islam, this has to do with the governments that control predominantly Muslim countries. I would also argue that Lebanon may not be the most liberal Arab state (of course, admittedly, I don’t know much about Lebanon). The Democratic Federation of Northern Syria is a self-governed area that is trying to splinter off from the rest of Syria. It created a democracy and was leading the assault against ISIS until they were invaded by Turkey and the U.S. removed it’s support for them in the war. They did a lot of progressive things, like gender equality in all government-funded institutions and granting women the right to serve in the military. And yet they are home to mostly Kurds and Arabs and it is a majority Muslim country. The fact that many Muslim majority countries also have very conservative governments is a correlation not a causation and has to do with the history of the area, such as European imperialism or tradition

[ShineintheDark]

The fact that many Muslim majority countries also have very conservative governments is a correlation not a causation and has to do with the history of the area, such as European imperialism or tradition

That's actually a really important point as well. Many Muslim nations have been quite liberal in the past and have shown signs of becoming increasingly Westernised such as Pakistan under Bhutto, Iran under Mosaddegh and the Shah, the Arab peninsula under the Sharif of Mecca etc. However, the takeover by extremely puritanical factions (the Wahhabist House Al-Saud, Ayatollah Khomeini, General Zia ul-Haq) gave power to the more conservative communities which in turn crushed liberal groups and held the culture in a state in which their ideologies thrived.

This is equally true with India as an example: homosexuality was not taboo or frowned upon before the takeover by the East India Trading Company. In fact, the law that had gay sex banned in India until last year was created under British rule and was just never repealed. By imposing a once-repressive culture upon the group, they created a new culture that outlasted even Britain's repression of homosexuality. It's approach to women and their stance in society remained unchallenged until the workforce required them, just as with the UK and US amongst many Western nations and so was forced to liberalise to sustain the nation's stability.

[Adamant]

I know some Muslim kids at school. They are not extremists. Strict parents and lots of rules but basically fairly western.
I think thats because east London is used to lots of different backgrounds.
The more you are suspicious of others the more they feel they have got to stick together and the less chance of people mixing and changing.
I think one problem is that Islam maybe doesn't agree with democracy. The Quran is right and should be obeyed even if most people in a country disagree with it.

[mattsmith48]

What I'd like to know what part of Islam is so incompatible with the western world? I mean anything someone could say is incompatible there is a 99% chance I could name another religion having the exact same thing or worse but yet we have no problem accepting that religion as having those ''western values''.

[Adamant]

What I'd like to know what part of Islam is so incompatible with the western world? I mean anything someone could say is incompatible there is a 99% chance I could name another religion having the exact same thing or worse but yet we have no problem accepting that religion as having those ''western values''.

Maybe just given part of it in my last post. Democracy not thought a good idea.

[mattsmith48]

Maybe just given part of it in my last post. Democracy not thought a good idea.

Like most other religion the idea of any kind of political leaders in anything from a free democracy to a dictatorship is highly talked against as they portrait God as the only true leader of humanity and you should only follow God through the various religious leaders.

[Max the Disenchanter]

Diversity yields democracy

[HeyCameron]

What I'd like to know what part of Islam is so incompatible with the western world? I mean anything someone could say is incompatible there is a 99% chance I could name another religion having the exact same thing or worse but yet we have no problem accepting that religion as having those ''western values''.

I do think Islam is more conducive to theocracy than Christianity or most other religions are. Any religion can be used in a theocracy of course, but Islam is more of a political system as well as a spiritual doctrine. Christianity teaches specific separations between the secular and the religious (i.e. "render unto Caesar"); Islam, as far as I know, does not. That at least is one key difference.

[mattsmith48]

I do think Islam is more conducive to theocracy than Christianity or most other religions are. Any religion can be used in a theocracy of course, but Islam is more of a political system as well as a spiritual doctrine. Christianity teaches specific separations between the secular and the religious (i.e. "render unto Caesar"); Islam, as far as I know, does not. That at least is one key difference.

Sure except for the part that theocracy is what lead to the Muslim world going from a progressive western style society to what is as been for the past few hundred years which is comparable to the crazy period of Christianity in Europe.

[Keenan.]

I have lived in Malaysia when I was younger - to be honest, old-fasioned Islam is not very... friendly to western culture. They are way too conservative, even to me and I'm a conservative (not strict at all). There is a new culture of Muslims who are ditching the Burka and wearing more showing outfits. Muslims, when they come to Western civilizations, the first generation will struggle to adapt since the contrast is massive. Later, though, they'll merge nicely.

[mattsmith48]

I have lived in Malaysia when I was younger - to be honest, old-fasioned Islam is not very... friendly to western culture. They are way too conservative, even to me and I'm a conservative (not strict at all). There is a new culture of Muslims who are ditching the Burka and wearing more showing outfits. Muslims, when they come to Western civilizations, the first generation will struggle to adapt since the contrast is massive. Later, though, they'll merge nicely.

Any old-fashioned insert religion here is not very friendly to western culture.

[Uniquemind]

Any old-fashioned insert religion here is not very friendly to western culture.

But to narrow in a bit; Islam has not undergone a Protestant reformation era, in the way Catholicism or Christianity has. That’s the main difference and it should also be acknowledged again, as it was already mentioned above, that the west has primarily a separation of church and state. That’s a big new mental concept for many who come fresh off the boat from more religious law = earthly government law.

[Spooky_Eli]

What I'd like to know what part of Islam is so incompatible with the western world? I mean anything someone could say is incompatible there is a 99% chance I could name another religion having the exact same thing or worse but yet we have no problem accepting that religion as having those ''western values''.
Stoning women under sharia law for claiming they we're raped. or how about "smite the unbelivers necks". beat that.

[HeyCameron]

But to narrow in a bit; Islam has not undergone a Protestant reformation era, in the way Catholicism or Christianity has. That’s the main difference and it should also be acknowledged again, as it was already mentioned above, that the west has primarily a separation of church and state. That’s a big new mental concept for many who come fresh off the boat from more religious law = earthly government law.

So then my question becomes: is it possible for Islam to undergo a Reformation?

I also think our ideas about Islamic societies are shaped by the Middle East, but what about Indonesia and Malaysia? I don't know too much about how those societies run.

[Uniquemind]

So then my question becomes: is it possible for Islam to undergo a Reformation?

I also think our ideas about Islamic societies are shaped by the Middle East, but what about Indonesia and Malaysia? I don't know too much about how those societies run.

Hmm I don’t know. I feel the jury is still out on this one for both questions.

I can’t speak to Indonesia and Malaysia. I do feel that because these countries are more likely to do business trade with the west and send individuals overseas for jobs it’s possible they’ll be enlightened. But some of their practices are very much influenced by the religious power structure of the Middle East.

[lliam]

There are 4 male Muslims among my kindred. They married some of my cousins but they didn't grow up in the Islamic world. So I would say they are proper assimilated.

And if I look at their relatives, those folks seem to be all liberal and such. Also they don't come from uneducated families.

Education certainly isn't a guarantee that a person integrates within a foreign culture properly, but in my opinion it's a very good condition that assimilation still happens in some way anyway.

[Uniquemind]

There are 4 male Muslims among my kindred. They married some of my cousins but they didn't grow up in the Islamic world. So I would say they are proper assimilated.

And if I look at their relatives, those folks seem to be all liberal and such. Also they don't come from uneducated families.

Education certainly isn't a guarantee that a person integrates within a foreign culture properly, but in my opinion it's a very good condition that assimilation still happens in some way anyway.


That’s makes sense because to an extent, the mistreatment of women, and the promotion of excellence in education is mutually incompatible with what history and science shows women CAN achieve. At best they have to change the narrative debate claim from a “woman can’t do ___” to “a women shouldn’t do ____” and that’s a big change as opposed to 100+ years ago.

[mattsmith48]

Stoning women under sharia law for claiming they we're raped. or how about "smite the unbelivers necks". beat that.

Where does it say that rape victims should be stoned to death?

The Bible call for the killing of non-believers and believers in other Gods. Almost every religion do, Gods don't like competition, they want a monopoly.

There are 4 male Muslims among my kindred. They married some of my cousins but they didn't grow up in the Islamic world. So I would say they are proper assimilated.

And if I look at their relatives, those folks seem to be all liberal and such. Also they don't come from uneducated families.

Education certainly isn't a guarantee that a person integrates within a foreign culture properly, but in my opinion it's a very good condition that assimilation still happens in some way anyway.

That’s makes sense because to an extent, the mistreatment of women, and the promotion of excellence in education is mutually incompatible with what history and science shows women CAN achieve. At best they have to change the narrative debate claim from a “woman can’t do ___” to “a women shouldn’t do ____” and that’s a big change as opposed to 100+ years ago.

Plus education is how you can get people to start doubting the religion and eventually leave which is never a bad thing no matter the religion.

[Spooky_Eli]

Where does it say that rape victims should be stoned to death?

The Bible call for the killing of non-believers and believers in other Gods. Almost every religion do, Gods don't like competition, they want a monopoly.


Quran 2:223 – “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will…”
An Islamic equvilant of a hall pass? If only.

Ishaq 969 – “Lay injunctions on women kindly, for they are prisoners with you having no control of their persons.”
Well well well, what do we have here?

Under Islamic law, rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses. Women who allege rape without the benefit of the act having been witnessed by four men (who presumably develop a conscience afterwards) are actually confessing to having sex. If they or the accused happens to be married, then it is considered to be adultery. (quoted from the religion of peace.com, as they say it far better than I)

would you be as thorough as to qoute the verse in the bible that calls for this? with context please, AKA no old testiment stuff that gets retconed by the new testimant.

[mattsmith48]

Quran 2:223 – “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will…”
An Islamic equvilant of a hall pass? If only.

Ishaq 969 – “Lay injunctions on women kindly, for they are prisoners with you having no control of their persons.”
Well well well, what do we have here?

Under Islamic law, rape can only be proven if the rapist confesses or if there are four male witnesses. Women who allege rape without the benefit of the act having been witnessed by four men (who presumably develop a conscience afterwards) are actually confessing to having sex. If they or the accused happens to be married, then it is considered to be adultery. (quoted from the religion of peace.com, as they say it far better than I)

would you be as thorough as to qoute the verse in the bible that calls for this? with context please, AKA no old testiment stuff that gets retconed by the new testimant.

I was actually going to go with Hinduism, another religion that treats women as property. After Islam they are 2nd in honour killings in world today in which you kill a (more often than not, female) family member for bringing shame and dishonour to your family for doing things like, adultery, divorce, homosexuality, leaving the religion or getting raped.

[NoLimitGuy]

Leave Europe to white and send all muslims to their deserts where they belong. Islam is a conservative and radical religion. Christianity is more liberal. On the example of political parties we very well know that conservatives and liberals can't peacfully coexist. So, if you don't want another crusade, we should live separetely.

[Pultost]

I'm no fan of Islam, to say the least, but I don't judge Muslims individually. Some manage to adjust and fit in nicely, while others cling to their caveman culture.

[lliam]

So, if you don't want another crusade, we should live separetely.


Since the West is still interested in oil from the Middle East, such a separation can not be realized. Therefore, a peaceful coexistence in the long run is a global inevitability.


Goes for the conservative and liberal parties too.

[mattsmith48]

Leave Europe to white and send all muslims to their deserts where they belong. Islam is a conservative and radical religion. Christianity is more liberal. On the example of political parties we very well know that conservatives and liberals can't peacfully coexist. So, if you don't want another crusade, we should live separetely.

So why are all right wing nuts and conservatives in the west almost always associate themselves and practice some form of Christianity?

[NoLimitGuy]

Since the West is still interested in oil from the Middle East, such a separation can not be realized. Therefore, a peaceful coexistence in the long run is a global inevitability.


Goes for the conservative and liberal parties too.

West is investing more and more in the "green" energy, researching new sources and ways. In the next 20 years or so, Middle East will enjoy bathing in their oil on their own.

[NoLimitGuy]

So why are all right wing nuts and conservatives in the west almost always associate themselves and practice some form of Christianity?

I'm a right wing and atheist... The right wing originally was designed to keep the historical traditions and familly values. From history we know that family values were dictated by the religion and that view has been saved till modern days. And not everyone in the right are believers. The majority are agnostics or atheists and they are interested in keeping original family and national values. However, the nutsacks on the left are living in their delusions and utopias of multiculturalisms, absolute freedom and socialism...

[mattsmith48]

I'm a right wing and atheist... The right wing originally was designed to keep the historical traditions and familly values. From history we know that family values were dictated by the religion and that view has been saved till modern days. And not everyone in the right are believers. The majority are agnostics or atheists and they are interested in keeping original family and national values. However, the nutsacks on the left are living in their delusions and utopias of multiculturalisms, absolute freedom and socialism...

Oh yeah those crazy people on the left looking for fairness and freedom, we must avoid that.

[NoLimitGuy]

Oh yeah those crazy people on the left looking for fairness and freedom, we must avoid that.

Humans must be controlled. Set humans free, they will burn the whole world down. And yes, leftists are not only crazy but they are also morons, living in a delusions of quadrillion genders, always relying on their feelings and morality, pushing their multicultural agenda... Right wing on the other hand is trying to do the right thing, trying to save values and a healthy society... And life is about to be unfair...

[lliam]

West is investing more and more in the "green" energy, researching new sources and ways. In the next 20 years or so, Middle East will enjoy bathing in their oil on their own.

The West already has sufficient knowledge in the field of green technologies to be able be at least 60% independent of oil as natural resource just today.

But the weak-minded decision-makers in business and politics do little to invest more in the necessary infrastructure, so that this technology can be used effectively here and now and in the near or far future. Certainly because that would significantly reduce the profit that the economy is currently achieving from using oil in general.

Therefore, I don't rely on the so often propagated "fact" that a lot will change in 20 years. And if I believe the wailing of some business leaders, the profit margins are often not that high anymore. Therefore, oil will continue to shape the today's era for several decades.

[HeyCameron]

Humans must be controlled. Set humans free, they will burn the whole world down. And yes, leftists are not only crazy but they are also morons, living in a delusions of quadrillion genders, always relying on their feelings and morality, pushing their multicultural agenda... Right wing on the other hand is trying to do the right thing, trying to save values and a healthy society... And life is about to be unfair...

Can you please keep this out of my question? We are talking about Islam and Western Civilization not polarizing left vs. right garbage. mattsmith48 too, come on. I don't want this question to be locked.

Since the West is still interested in oil from the Middle East, such a separation can not be realized. Therefore, a peaceful coexistence in the long run is a global inevitability.

There is notable hypocrisy in the West getting involved in various Middle East conflicts and then demanding that Muslims stay where they are. "We're going to disrupt your country, bomb it with drones, create refugees, but don't any of you dare come here".

There is a unique situation with certain countries like France, who colonized Muslim countries like Algeria and Tunisia, and during that time many Muslims from those countries came to France and formed Muslim communities there. It's a tall order to colonize another country and then demand that people from that country stay away from your country and culture.

This kind of intervention is going to lead to immigration. If we want to Muslims to stay out of our countries (not speaking for myself), then we need to stay out of theirs.

I was actually going to go with Hinduism, another religion that treats women as property. After Islam they are 2nd in honour killings in world today in which you kill a (more often than not, female) family member for bringing shame and dishonour to your family for doing things like, adultery, divorce, homosexuality, leaving the religion or getting raped.

Right. I'm not the type who would argue that all religions are the same. All or most religions have certain things in common: they teach a proper way to live and they teach that violence is sometimes acceptable, etc. Any religion can be used to justify violence, but it is possible that some religions, like Islam, can more easily be used to justify violence? That's a question that's not easy to answer, but I think it would be an interesting discussion.

[mattsmith48]

Right. I'm not the type who would argue that all religions are the same. All or most religions have certain things in common: they teach a proper way to live and they teach that violence is sometimes acceptable, etc. Any religion can be used to justify violence, but it is possible that some religions, like Islam, can more easily be used to justify violence? That's a question that's not easy to answer, but I think it would be an interesting discussion.

Islam is seen as being more prone to be used to justify violence mostly because of how western media portrait that part of the world and Islam in general. All religions have been and can be used to justify violence, and that's what my point was name anything from Islam that is seen as not compatible with western civilisation and I'll show you a religion we see as compatible having the exact same thing.

Western civilisation is about distancing ourselves from religion to form a secular society. We turned religion into a private thing where we allow people to follow and believe any crazy shit they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or infringe someone else's rights. That's what people coming from places where religion is the law of the land like the Middle East or the Bible Belt must understand.

[Diable rouge]

There is a unique situation with certain countries like France, who colonized Muslim countries like Algeria and Tunisia, and during that time many Muslims from those countries came to France and formed Muslim communities there. It's a tall order to colonize another country and then demand that people from that country stay away from your country and culture.

This kind of intervention is going to lead to immigration. If we want to Muslims to stay out of our countries (not speaking for myself), then we need to stay out of theirs.



It's only a very biased point of view said by many of the Arabs.


Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia) has historically been the place of the Berbers. And it has been colonised, partially or totally, many times.

It was first colonised by Phoenicia (current Liban).

Then Carthago (current Carthage in Tunisia), founded by Phoenicians, became independant and controlled most of Western Mediterranea.

Then the Romans defeated Carthago and colonised their territory.

Then the Germanic Vandals defeated the Romans and controlled a part of their former territory.

Then the Byzantine Empire (based in Constantinople, current Istanbul in Turkey) invaded it.

Then Muslim Arabs from Arabia came and invaded North Africa, defeating the Berbers and forcing them to convert to Islam, killing those who didn't convert or using them as slaves.

Then the Ottoman Empire (current Turkey) invaded Tunisia and parts of Algeria.

Then the French actually defeated the Ottoman Empire in these places and colonised Algeria and Tunisia. The the French left.



So now, who is the real invader? Ask the millions of Berbers, such as Kabyles, in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. They have fought for centuries to get rid of the Arabs. They are still fighting to have their rights recognised with political movements, strikes, violent demonstrations and uprisings.

Hundreds of Berbers have been killed, thousands have been injured, thousands have been arrested (if not tens of thousands injured and arrested, there is a lack of reliable numbers) by the Arab governments in the past decades. About 120 killed and 5000 injured in Kabylie in Algeria alone in 2001.

Just saying. It's a tall order to colonise another country and then criticise another country which does the same. Spain, France and Italy only colonised places which had already been invaded by the Arabs.

[lliam]

I wouldn't digg too deeply into the past. Our nowadays timelime seems far enough to me to be cited. Many empires arose and fell.

Arabs of today only take up their glory days, as folks in other colonial powers do. It's all melancholy, nothing more. And that's it, because todays descendants have no other relation to the past any more but the glorified history.

We have to learn to get over it. And here, we already have what we all have in common. It should only need to be uttered more often so that it'll becoming a thing in our collective consciousness.

All in all we are compatible, because we are humans. It's just the will to accept that which is missing. Or in other words: We all live, cry and die. What's missing is just the chill over the drill.

[Oscar-V3.0]

Leave Europe to white and send all muslims to their deserts where they belong. Islam is a conservative and radical religion

My gf and her parents are muslims, they were raised in UK, and they're not extremist, like 90% of them. they belong here. They are just as English as I am

So I think it would be better if YOU and your racist ideas were sent in the desert and stay there

[ShineintheDark]

.

Just saying. It's a tall order to colonise another country and then criticise another country which does the same. Spain, France and Italy only colonised places which had already been invaded by the Arabs.

Your tangent was very historically informative but doesn't really answer his point about the colonisation of African countries being the causation behind mass African migration to France. The exact same is true for Britain: after WW2, Britain lacked the men to makeup a large workfroce to get Britain back on its feet and so invited thousands if not millions of citizens of its old (and, at the time, current) colonies to come over and fill that space in the economy. When you colonise a place and declare it no different to the native country, you allow migration of colonised people to come back to the motherland in return.

[Light Brigade]

I feel that the very question this thread is based upon is the notion that all Muslims are somehow partially responsible for the actions of a few terrorist organizations. The question of asking whether or not Islam is compatible is like asking if Christianity is compatible because they are all members of the Westboro Baptist Church. It is completely unfair and irrational. Politifact and numerous other institutes note that Muslims integrate as well or better than other minorities. They reach higher levels of education than the average American and are active in civil and political life. However, I think this is mostly focusing on the problems of European immigration. The Cato Institute blames this difference on the fact that there is lees support for immigrants in Europe than in the US. The migrants in these countries tend to be more conservative and are less likely to hold jobs. I encourage everyone to read the article below. I think the problem is we as a society are not doing enough to solve problems we helped to cause. The world is becoming more connected, not less and it's time we stepped up and did our part. Any person who practices Islam is just as American as anyone who practices any other religion or abstains from religion altogether. Many of these ideas are based on xenophobia and fear and the only way to fix this is to become better educated and more accepting as a society.
https://www.cato.org/blog/muslim-immigration-integration-united-states-western-europe

[Stronk Serb]

What I'd like to know what part of Islam is so incompatible with the western world? I mean anything someone could say is incompatible there is a 99% chance I could name another religion having the exact same thing or worse but yet we have no problem accepting that religion as having those ''western values''.

Except in most majority-Christian countries or countries with a Christian background (the West) people have learned to look past their faith, and their laws reflect that. Despite the Old Testament saying some horrid things, people collectively have realized that it is bad and should not be practiced. The problem is that many Muslims still want religiously-inspired laws. For fuck's sake, you can fuck a girl in Pakistan if she is 9, assuming you married her.

The problem with most of the Muslim world is how backwards most of them are. I met a few Iranians, Iran currently being pretty liberal, for a Muslim country. If I, coming from a different background, had to live there, I'd leave as soon as possible. They are youths like me, and they enjoy leaving Iran because they can do what us, regular folk can do. Imagine getting honour killed for bringing 'shame' to your family? Throwing homosexuals from the roof. Lashing or killing them. Paying dearly for sex before marriage, getting killed or punished in another way by converting out of Islam... The Saudi government is promoting the strict school of Islam via mosques they built and are financing in Europe.
We, Europeans, were backwards as many Muslims are now, but we have embraced secularism and the separation of church and state.

[Spooky_Eli]

The problem is that nothing in extreme christian circles is backed up by the bible.
extreme muslim circles are however.

[HeyCameron]

Muslims would argue that the Qur'an does not support extremist beliefs. They would say that lines are being taken out of context, that it's just politics using religion as an excuse.

[Spooky_Eli]

Muslims would argue that the Qur'an does not support extremist beliefs. They would say that lines are being taken out of context, that it's just politics using religion as an excuse.

"smite the unbelivers necks." try defending that.

[Uniquemind]

To tangent a bit, and kind of knowing how from watching the generations before us age, can we like analyze the Islamic book, and see the character of Muhammad change as he goes from young to old? Does he follow the “a person gets more bitter and cruel” as they get older stereotype we usually think of when applied to some of the grouchy old neighbors on our street corners?


I was just wondering if a lot of religious debates about the faith are actually attributed to mental decline of the very human figure they were but also happened to have a high position in a religious power structure.

[THE_D3_4D_3Y_35]

The problem is that nothing in extreme christian circles is backed up by the bible.
extreme muslim circles are however.

"smite the unbelivers necks." try defending that.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/01/22/yes-the-bible-does-say-to-kill-infidels/

[Spooky_Eli]

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/01/22/yes-the-bible-does-say-to-kill-infidels/

And yet this is nutered by the new testament

[Uniquemind]

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/01/22/yes-the-bible-does-say-to-kill-infidels/

Old Testament versus, which no longer apply. Christianity also has the New Testament which says that a verbal rebuke envoking Christ is proper response and conversion of those Midieanites would have been the goal. As if you convert them their former self and beliefs would “die” and they’d be new creatures.

All of modern NT versus of evangelism, is the equivalent of violent versus used in the OT. Therefore violence is no longer needed.


And yet this is nutered by the new testiment

I go further to explain why it’s no longer practiced though and why it meshes better with western political earthly law.

[THE_D3_4D_3Y_35]

And yet this is nutered by the new testiment

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/no-jesus-did-not-soften-the-old-testament-in-fact-he-did-the-opposite-and-heres-what-that-means/

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ot.htm

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/old-testament-important/

http://www.evilbible.com/do-not-ignore-the-old-testament/

[Spooky_Eli]

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/no-jesus-did-not-soften-the-old-testament-in-fact-he-did-the-opposite-and-heres-what-that-means/

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ot.htm

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/old-testament-important/

http://www.evilbible.com/do-not-ignore-the-old-testament/

I could go back and forth on this, but i won't, because i don't want to waste my time defending qwackary, my original comment was soley in refferance to Light Brigades comment.

Honestly idk what your point is other than 'Chiristians don't practice what they preach.' it does nothing to disprove Islam as un-compatible with the west.


I go further to explain why it’s no longer practiced though and why it meshes better with western political earthly law.Yes. yes you do. What's your point?

[Uniquemind]

I could go back and forth on this, but i won't, because i don't want to waste my time defending qwackary, my original comment was soley in refferance to Light Brigades comment.

Honestly idk what your point is other than 'Chiristians don't practice what they preach.' it does nothing to disprove Islam as un-compatible with the west.


Yes. yes you do. What's your point?

I recognized and saw that this person was gonna scripture post a ton of stuff from the OT, is why I invested time in explaining why or how they were wrong.

[Spooky_Eli]

I recognized and saw that this person was gonna scripture post a ton of stuff from the OT, is why I invested time in explaining why or how they were wrong.
Except they arn't wrong, which you would know if you read their most recent post.

[Uniquemind]

Except they arn't wrong, which you would know if you read their most recent post.

The reason those from an Islamic view misunderstand the role of Christ “fulfillment” of the law Vs “abolishing” of the OT law, has to do with an abstract difference and ignoring of the word “fulfill”.


A true abolishment of the OT law, would mean modern Christianity would accept fornication, adultery, murder, etc....this is what this person seems to think western Christianity means because he doesn’t understand the Christian concept of repentance without a blood sacrifice.


The stoning, and all the kill this or that if they do ___ verses in the OT, aren’t abolished, but are rather fulfilled.


Jesus in Christianity even forgave a woman brought to him by others saying they caught her in adultery and what did he want them to do with her, implying the OT law says they should kill her and expecting that answer from him. He replied that he who hath no sin should cast the first stone. And then in subsequent versus of scripture forgave her and told her to sin no more.

[Spooky_Eli]

The reason those from an Islamic view misunderstand the role of Christ “fulfillment” of the law Vs “abolishing” of the OT law, has to do with an abstract difference and ignoring of the word “fulfill”.


A true abolishment of the OT law, would mean modern Christianity would accept fornication, adultery, murder, etc....this is what this person seems to think western Christianity means because he doesn’t understand the Christian concept of repentance without a blood sacrifice.


The stoning, and all the kill this or that if they do ___ verses in the OT, aren’t abolished, but are rather fulfilled.


Jesus in Christianity even forgave a woman brought to him by others saying they caught her in adultery and what did he want them to do with her, implying the OT law says they should kill her and expecting that answer from him. He replied that he who hath no sin should cast the first stone. And then in subsequent versus of scripture forgave her and told her to sin no more.
what do you mean, Islamic perspective?

[Uniquemind]

what do you mean, Islamic perspective?

The 3D_4D_3Y. Person was arguing from a pro-Islamic, the Christian perspective is wrong point of view. I was basically saying “no” that’s a straw man fallacy of the Christian faith.

Originally rattle, I was no responding to you. I quoted you so as to bolster your argument.

[Spooky_Eli]

Originally rattle, I was no responding to you. I quoted you so as to bolster your argument.
I'm sorry, i was under the impression you where critisizing me for not explaining more

[HeyCameron]

The point is that the way you defend the attack that the "Old Testament is violent too" is by putting everything in context. Out of context, it gives the same impression of a mandate for violence that you get from certain passages in the Qur'an.

[Uniquemind]

I'm sorry, i was under the impression you where critisizing me for not explaining more

Now going back to what this thread is mainly about, understanding the punishment Vs forgiveness structure of the two faiths is crucial to understanding how they will mesh with earthly governmental law.

In the west it’s somewhat inspired but yet separate, but in other countries who have not separated religious law from earthly law, you’ll find morality is a lot more black and white and therefore strict and permanent.

You’ll also find a lack of will to investigate wrongful deaths, as they shape lawful systems that are so proactive in stamping out “evil” that they also breed corruption or worse “ignorance of corruption”. Then you have a real Pharisees’s type situation only on the Islamic side.

Many women have testified abuses are inspired from the strict interpretation of Islamic law, and it’s where female genital mutilations come from, as a proactive step to stop “lust”.


——

Let me also add that on Christianity’s side in the Puritians, in Massachusetts colony, they also suffered a similar societal breakdown of trying to stamp out sin via executions of sinners.

Historians later found out that a mold/root growing natively in the area most likely amplified paranoia beliefs and contributed to an already established belief system that equated good with punishment (corporal) was God’s will.

In my view, the Islamic world is in a similar position as the Puritians.

[Oscar-V3.0]

'you shall not kill'

[Spooky_Eli]

'you shall not kill'

Islam or Chritianity?

if A then,
consult 'Smite the unbelivers necks' and verses i quoted a while back on this thread about the worth of a woman in islam: half that of a man.

[Oscar-V3.0]

Islam or Chritianity?

if A then,
consult 'Smite the unbelivers necks' and verses i quoted a while back on this thread about the worth of a woman in islam: half that of a man.
This is a Christian commandment

But I think there is something similar in Quran like
'You shall not take life, which God has made sacred'

[Spooky_Eli]

This is a Christian commandment

But I think there is something similar in Quran like
'You shall not take life, which God has made sacred'
well, unfortanetly the Quran has no jesus to hide behind and as many contridictory statments as the bible.

[mattsmith48]

Except in most majority-Christian countries or countries with a Christian background (the West) people have learned to look past their faith, and their laws reflect that. Despite the Old Testament saying some horrid things, people collectively have realized that it is bad and should not be practiced. The problem is that many Muslims still want religiously-inspired laws. For fuck's sake, you can fuck a girl in Pakistan if she is 9, assuming you married her.

The problem with most of the Muslim world is how backwards most of them are. I met a few Iranians, Iran currently being pretty liberal, for a Muslim country. If I, coming from a different background, had to live there, I'd leave as soon as possible. They are youths like me, and they enjoy leaving Iran because they can do what us, regular folk can do. Imagine getting honour killed for bringing 'shame' to your family? Throwing homosexuals from the roof. Lashing or killing them. Paying dearly for sex before marriage, getting killed or punished in another way by converting out of Islam... The Saudi government is promoting the strict school of Islam via mosques they built and are financing in Europe.
We, Europeans, were backwards as many Muslims are now, but we have embraced secularism and the separation of church and state.

Proving my point Islam is not the problem its the governments of those countries enforcing those laws. Its no different than any western right-wing party pushing for ''Christian values'' to justify their hatred of women and gays.

Btw I would just like to point out that child marriage is legal in the US. As far as I know they can't legally fuck them, unless they are part of the priesthood, but they can still marry them.

[Uniquemind]

Proving my point Islam is not the problem its the governments of those countries enforcing those laws. Its no different than any western right-wing party pushing for ''Christian values'' to justify their hatred of women and gays.

Btw I would just like to point out that child marriage is legal in the US. As far as I know they can't legally fuck them, unless they are part of the priesthood, but they can still marry them.

Yes and no, to say it’s strictly the government is to ignore the culture of beliefs that then gave way for a population to consent to setup that form of governmental structure. You can’t unlink the two through debate rhetoric alone.


The USA as we know it today was founded by deists. Which is why the west is much more flexible in its tolerance of many cultures. But also explains all the culture clashes.

[lliam]

The USA as we know it today was founded by deists. Which is why the west is much more flexible in its tolerance of many cultures.


when I think of deists of any sort, terms such as flexible and tolerance doesn't really come into my mind but big probs in case of culture clashes.

[ShineintheDark]

I'd type out my historical analysis of secularism and religious progressivism in the Middle East but it'd be a lot easier to tell you guys to just go back and find them. The fact is, there can be no objective discussion of the statement without consideration of both scriptural AND historical influences that have catalysed and inhibited progressive movements within the Middle East and wider Islamic world.

[mattsmith48]

Yes and no, to say it’s strictly the government is to ignore the culture of beliefs that then gave way for a population to consent to setup that form of governmental structure. You can’t unlink the two through debate rhetoric alone.

That happened a long time ago when Christianity was still in its crazy period. They just never changed back and for the countries who are a dictatorship it makes sense they don't change it. Everyone knows religion is a great way to control your population, some dictators create a religion around themselves, like in North Korea or Russia, but in countries like Saudi Arabia use Islam.

The USA as we know it today was founded by deists. Which is why the west is much more flexible in its tolerance of many cultures. But also explains all the culture clashes.

the US are probably not the best example of tolerance and opening to other cultures in the west.

[Stronk Serb]

Proving my point Islam is not the problem its the governments of those countries enforcing those laws. Its no different than any western right-wing party pushing for ''Christian values'' to justify their hatred of women and gays.

Btw I would just like to point out that child marriage is legal in the US. As far as I know they can't legally fuck them, unless they are part of the priesthood, but they can still marry them.

Except I do not really see secularist movementa springing up in the Middle East. Oh, wait, Syria was secular as a Muslim country can get and they rebelled againat that. Afghanistan in the seventies, and they rebelled against that too, the Shah in Iran, oh wait, THEY REBELLED AGAINST THAT TOO.

People give their governments legitimacy, by agreeing to their tyranny and not striving for change, you essentially endorse them.

[Uniquemind]

That happened a long time ago when Christianity was still in its crazy period. They just never changed back and for the countries who are a dictatorship it makes sense they don't change it. Everyone knows religion is a great way to control your population, some dictators create a religion around themselves, like in North Korea or Russia, but in countries like Saudi Arabia use Islam.



the US are probably not the best example of tolerance and opening to other cultures in the west.

No the USA has been very restrictive regarding its boarders.

But you can’t boil down religion as a fictional control structure because even the wealthy class of many societies genuinely believed in the religion or faith itself. At some point someone’s got to know the religion is a farce if it truly came from a man or woman. Like how we can trace N.Korea’s views to pure brainwashing, but we can’t do that for some of the Abrahamic faiths.

We also can’t explain documented miracle healings, like what happened to someone I know, and to be honest critics of faith or religion (which is a bad word as it ritualizes a faith to actions and routines without deep understanding) rarely seek out information disproving or challenging their own beliefs.

One should seek out genuine miracle healings especially those in foreign 3rd world countries regarding evangelism, as the 3rd world is already kinda open to the idea of the spiritual realm, whereas the west isn’t and they treat it as non-existent.

[HeyCameron]

But you can’t boil down religion as a fictional control structure because even the wealthy class of many societies genuinely believed in the religion or faith itself. At some point someone’s got to know the religion is a farce if it truly came from a man or woman. Like how we can trace N.Korea’s views to pure brainwashing, but we can’t do that for some of the Abrahamic faiths.


I wouldn't call what North Korea has a "religion". A personality cult is not the same as a religion.

Mormonism is a religion that can be traced to one man. Yet people genuinely believe it.

[Spooky_Eli]

Mormonism is a religion that can be traced to one man. Yet people genuinely believe it.
This makes Mormonsim a religious cult.

[mattsmith48]

Except I do not really see secularist movementa springing up in the Middle East. Oh, wait, Syria was secular as a Muslim country can get and they rebelled againat that. Afghanistan in the seventies, and they rebelled against that too, the Shah in Iran, oh wait, THEY REBELLED AGAINST THAT TOO.

People give their governments legitimacy, by agreeing to their tyranny and not striving for change, you essentially endorse them.

You know that those rebels groups formed as a result of the US overthrowing governments and are funded by Saudi Arabia, to help them control the region. They use religion to justify and to have a better control of the population.

No the USA has been very restrictive regarding its boarders.

But you can’t boil down religion as a fictional control structure because even the wealthy class of many societies genuinely believed in the religion or faith itself. At some point someone’s got to know the religion is a farce if it truly came from a man or woman. Like how we can trace N.Korea’s views to pure brainwashing, but we can’t do that for some of the Abrahamic faiths.

We can't trace back the religion to the exact point it was created like do for cults built around dictators. However you can go back to the end of Islam's golden age and see how that same brainwashing we saw in North Korea lead to what the region is today.

[Diable rouge]

Except I do not really see secularist movementa springing up in the Middle East. Oh, wait, Syria was secular as a Muslim country can get and they rebelled againat that. Afghanistan in the seventies, and they rebelled against that too, the Shah in Iran, oh wait, THEY REBELLED AGAINST THAT TOO.

People give their governments legitimacy, by agreeing to their tyranny and not striving for change, you essentially endorse them.

Turkey is on the same path as these countries with the Erdogan dictator. Backwards at full speed even though some are trying to prevent this, but they can't really say it (police, army, and other illegal political pressure to silence them).

Meanwhile Tunisia is officially debating the right of men/women equality in inheritance thanks to the proposition of the democratically elected President.
While it might not sound that much to some readers here, Tunisia is already the most sex equal Arab country and the first to debate this subject (it's not even considered in other Arab countries). The issue is that the population is still very strongly divided between progressists and the traditionnal religious parties and populations. Nobody knows whether the law will be passed. And Tunisia is only a small part of the Arab world (and still constitutionnally requires a Muslim president, for example).

I know several Muslim people who are or seem very well integrated to Western culture and habits. But many aren't. And sometimes people who I thought were somewhat progressist at first actually defended islamism, hated Jews (that's racism) and similar things. Their tolerance was actually very limited.

Islam is compatible with the Western world if people believe in it in the same way many people are Christians. Not believers in old antiquated rules and other scientific stupidities. It won't happen soon for the majority.

[Uniquemind]

Turkey is on the same path as these countries with the Erdogan dictator. Backwards at full speed even though some are trying to prevent this, but they can't really say it (police, army, and other illegal political pressure to silence them).

Meanwhile Tunisia is officially debating the right of men/women equality in inheritance thanks to the proposition of the democratically elected President.
While it might not sound that much to some readers here, Tunisia is already the most sex equal Arab country and the first to debate this subject (it's not even considered in other Arab countries). The issue is that the population is still very strongly divided between progressists and the traditionnal religious parties and populations. Nobody knows whether the law will be passed. And Tunisia is only a small part of the Arab world (and still constitutionnally requires a Muslim president, for example).

I know several Muslim people who are or seem very well integrated to Western culture and habits. But many aren't. And sometimes people who I thought were somewhat progressist at first actually defended islamism, hated Jews (that's racism) and similar things. Their tolerance was actually very limited.

Islam is compatible with the Western world if people believe in it in the same way many people are Christians. Not believers in old antiquated rules and other scientific stupidities. It won't happen soon for the majority.

Couldn’t it be said though that some individuals simply cherry picked parts of their faith whereas the literal scripture has not actually changed?

Whereas in Christianity the scriptures hasn’t changed and the only thing really advertised is conversion but they no longer ask for people to be physically put to death.

Whereas I don’t see scriptural changes in other Abrahamic faiths.

For Judaism, they somehow fractured into orthodox and other sects, and without Christ they somehow reached a rationalization that sins are just forgiven through Yom Kippur fasting. However some of my closest Jewish friends didn’t even know what Purim was which is supposed to be meaningful to them if they were learned in their beliefs.

[Stronk Serb]

Turkey is on the same path as these countries with the Erdogan dictator. Backwards at full speed even though some are trying to prevent this, but they can't really say it (police, army, and other illegal political pressure to silence them).

Meanwhile Tunisia is officially debating the right of men/women equality in inheritance thanks to the proposition of the democratically elected President.
While it might not sound that much to some readers here, Tunisia is already the most sex equal Arab country and the first to debate this subject (it's not even considered in other Arab countries). The issue is that the population is still very strongly divided between progressists and the traditionnal religious parties and populations. Nobody knows whether the law will be passed. And Tunisia is only a small part of the Arab world (and still constitutionnally requires a Muslim president, for example).

I know several Muslim people who are or seem very well integrated to Western culture and habits. But many aren't. And sometimes people who I thought were somewhat progressist at first actually defended islamism, hated Jews (that's racism) and similar things. Their tolerance was actually very limited.

Islam is compatible with the Western world if people believe in it in the same way many people are Christians. Not believers in old antiquated rules and other scientific stupidities. It won't happen soon for the majority.

It's not really up to the religion, but the believer. The thing is, Islam never had that struggle the Christians did with church and state. A large amount of Muslims either support the religious fanaticism (minority in group I mentioned), or quietly encourage it, either to not sound radical, or because they don't care. In the Muslim world, religion plays far more importantce than it does in the West. In the West it is an additional character trait you have, but in the Muslim world is a thing that defines you and defines your place in society. Whenever there is upheaval in the Muslim world, other religious groups suffer violence.

You know that those rebels groups formed as a result of the US overthrowing governments and are funded by Saudi Arabia, to help them control the region. They use religion to justify and to have a better control of the population.

It's the problem of the religion because through generations it bred people like that. It is pretty obvious in most Muslim countries that a large majority of the people do not want secularism, gender equality, religious tolerance etc. For many places it has to be strictly enforced. Look at the Muslims in Bosnia, after the secularism, gender equality etc under communist rule, they started to further radicalize themselves.

[ShineintheDark]

Except I do not really see secularist movementa springing up in the Middle East. Oh, wait, Syria was secular as a Muslim country can get and they rebelled againat that. Afghanistan in the seventies, and they rebelled against that too, the Shah in Iran, oh wait, THEY REBELLED AGAINST THAT TOO.
.
All 3 examples are proxy conflicts of wider Cold Wars between warring ideologies rather than separate examples of secularism vs puritanism.

Syria's infighting is between the Iran-backed Assad regime and the Saudi-backed Kurdish separatists: ISIS just sort of capitalised on the conflict to take over swathes of land (though they, too, have many Saudi connections). Saudi Arabia and Iran couldn't care less how Syrians actually practice their faith, they just want their buddies in control of the state so that they have allies against the other. They learned it from the previous Cold War in fact which brings me to...

Afghanistan! The USSR-backed Afghani government vs US-trained Mujahadeen insurgents whose religious fanaticism vs the secular strain of the government was rife proxy ground for the predominantly-Christian USA to show its superiority to the atheist USSR. Think the Kremlin or Washington were experts on the intricacies of Islamic sects and progressive movements? Na, they want those sweet Middle Eastern allies baby! Of course, this was hardly their first proxy conflict. Only a couple decades earlier was...

Iran! When the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran declared that their oil reserves would be renationalised in 1952 and taken away from British and American companies, Daddy Eisenhower was not a happy bunny. Within a year, the ELECTED government was overturned thanks to a Shah-led coup with British and American resources and troops, leading to the (admittedly secular) singular rule of the Shah alone. With all moderate and legitimate opposition destroyed in that coup, the biggest anti-Shah figure left in Iran happens to be the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Khomeini who whips up public disdain for the anti-democratic system and overthrows the Shah in 1979. Who benefits most from a new anti-USA state in the region? The USSR.

Religion has a very complex role in the history of many states, let alone the Middle East. Whilst it's very true that many autocrats genuinely believe in the authoritarian doctrines they preach, they also CHOOSE to believe those doctrines for the power it gives them. Do you think House al-Saud won control in the Arab Peninsula because of widespread belief in Wahhabism? No. They conquered the region by force and declared that it was either THEIR sect or death for apostasy. Do you think Iran CHOSE to be ruled so strictly by Sharia? Khomeini enforced his views on the country after liberating them from an equally oppressive dictator. This isn't helped when more powerful nations use these countries as pawns in their power plays, placing puritanical factions in power as an unforeseen consequence.

[HeyCameron]

Thanks for that answer, ShineintheDark. I'll admit this is an area of history that I don't know much about, but I have certainly understood many of the conflicts between secular and Islamist leaders in Middle Eastern countries to be proxy conflicts. Iran is an especially poignant example of people trading one oppressive authoritarian for another. Many people became disillusioned with the Iranian Revolution shortly after it happened.

[Stronk Serb]

All 3 examples are proxy conflicts of wider Cold Wars between warring ideologies rather than separate examples of secularism vs puritanism.

Syria's infighting is between the Iran-backed Assad regime and the Saudi-backed Kurdish separatists: ISIS just sort of capitalised on the conflict to take over swathes of land (though they, too, have many Saudi connections). Saudi Arabia and Iran couldn't care less how Syrians actually practice their faith, they just want their buddies in control of the state so that they have allies against the other. They learned it from the previous Cold War in fact which brings me to...

Afghanistan! The USSR-backed Afghani government vs US-trained Mujahadeen insurgents whose religious fanaticism vs the secular strain of the government was rife proxy ground for the predominantly-Christian USA to show its superiority to the atheist USSR. Think the Kremlin or Washington were experts on the intricacies of Islamic sects and progressive movements? Na, they want those sweet Middle Eastern allies baby! Of course, this was hardly their first proxy conflict. Only a couple decades earlier was...

Iran! When the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran declared that their oil reserves would be renationalised in 1952 and taken away from British and American companies, Daddy Eisenhower was not a happy bunny. Within a year, the ELECTED government was overturned thanks to a Shah-led coup with British and American resources and troops, leading to the (admittedly secular) singular rule of the Shah alone. With all moderate and legitimate opposition destroyed in that coup, the biggest anti-Shah figure left in Iran happens to be the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Khomeini who whips up public disdain for the anti-democratic system and overthrows the Shah in 1979. Who benefits most from a new anti-USA state in the region? The USSR.

Religion has a very complex role in the history of many states, let alone the Middle East. Whilst it's very true that many autocrats genuinely believe in the authoritarian doctrines they preach, they also CHOOSE to believe those doctrines for the power it gives them. Do you think House al-Saud won control in the Arab Peninsula because of widespread belief in Wahhabism? No. They conquered the region by force and declared that it was either THEIR sect or death for apostasy. Do you think Iran CHOSE to be ruled so strictly by Sharia? Khomeini enforced his views on the country after liberating them from an equally oppressive dictator. This isn't helped when more powerful nations use these countries as pawns in their power plays, placing puritanical factions in power as an unforeseen consequence.

My point is, in most Muslim countries, the people would rather overthrow secularists and pro-human rights fighters. I do not see a secularist front anywhere really like we had in France, Russia, Scandinavian regions, etc...

When total separation of church and state was done in France, the rest of Europe essentially attacked her. When that happened in Russia, the rest of the Entente attacked her, albeit because of Bolshevism, not strictly because of secularism, and in the end the Russians won. You had people willing to rise up against religious meddling in their lives, and rise they did. I simply fail to see that in the Muslim world.

Even now in countries of the former Eastern Bloc and on the other side of what used to be the Iron Curtain have protests against religious meddling.

Except in Muslim parts of Bosnia, where you have the president of the student senate in Sarajevo publicly saying how the fault for the floods that hit Bosnia is because of the lesbian PM of Serbia and the child she had. There were also very backwards sayings by other people who were among the University of Sarajevo.

[Allover Kelly]

To what extent can Muslims "assimilate" in Western countries?

One of the primary concerns about refugees and migrants from Islamic countries is that they don't or can't assimilate; some people imply that the Islamic way of life itself is incompatible with the Western way of life.

I'd be interested to hear from Muslims (if there are any here) and from people who live in countries with significant Muslim populations.

You have to want to join others in the country that takes you in or even you get dumped into. For the most part they do not want to do that. If you do not like the country that took you in, get the fuck out!

I'm sick of seeing other kissing the asses of Muslims. The ones that moved here say starting 20 years ago have wanted to stay in their own areas, But one before that wanted to join us in the USA and in other countries.

As a girl and almost 16 I sure would not want to deal with going to a Muslim country unless I'm in the Army or Navy and get deployed.

I can go on but if I do I have a feeling VT would do something that I would not like. I'm so like my Dad.

[Allover Kelly]

All 3 examples are proxy conflicts of wider Cold Wars between warring ideologies rather than separate examples of secularism vs puritanism.

Syria's infighting is between the Iran-backed Assad regime and the Saudi-backed Kurdish separatists: ISIS just sort of capitalised on the conflict to take over swathes of land (though they, too, have many Saudi connections). Saudi Arabia and Iran couldn't care less how Syrians actually practice their faith, they just want their buddies in control of the state so that they have allies against the other. They learned it from the previous Cold War in fact which brings me to...

Afghanistan! The USSR-backed Afghani government vs US-trained Mujahadeen insurgents whose religious fanaticism vs the secular strain of the government was rife proxy ground for the predominantly-Christian USA to show its superiority to the atheist USSR. Think the Kremlin or Washington were experts on the intricacies of Islamic sects and progressive movements? Na, they want those sweet Middle Eastern allies baby! Of course, this was hardly their first proxy conflict. Only a couple decades earlier was...

Iran! When the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran declared that their oil reserves would be renationalised in 1952 and taken away from British and American companies, Daddy Eisenhower was not a happy bunny. Within a year, the ELECTED government was overturned thanks to a Shah-led coup with British and American resources and troops, leading to the (admittedly secular) singular rule of the Shah alone. With all moderate and legitimate opposition destroyed in that coup, the biggest anti-Shah figure left in Iran happens to be the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Khomeini who whips up public disdain for the anti-democratic system and overthrows the Shah in 1979. Who benefits most from a new anti-USA state in the region? The USSR.

Religion has a very complex role in the history of many states, let alone the Middle East. Whilst it's very true that many autocrats genuinely believe in the authoritarian doctrines they preach, they also CHOOSE to believe those doctrines for the power it gives them. Do you think House al-Saud won control in the Arab Peninsula because of widespread belief in Wahhabism? No. They conquered the region by force and declared that it was either THEIR sect or death for apostasy. Do you think Iran CHOSE to be ruled so strictly by Sharia? Khomeini enforced his views on the country after liberating them from an equally oppressive dictator. This isn't helped when more powerful nations use these countries as pawns in their power plays, placing puritanical factions in power as an unforeseen consequence.

These 3 countries have been fighting from even unwritten time of at least 6000 years. It is all really tribal.

[ShineintheDark]

These 3 countries have been fighting from even unwritten time of at least 6000 years. It is all really tribal.

Almost as if they were forced together due to arbitrary lines drawn in the sand after the French and British retreated from the region in the 1930s. Plus, Iran would have likely deposed its Shah and become a pretty homogeneous state if not for the 1952 coup. Syria's biggest issue is the fact that the Kurds want a homeland and refuse to assimilate into the states they have been assigned to. That's a problem for the states that currently exist in the region to sole and doesn't warrant Western intervention. Hell, it's like the Native American tribes asking for their own reservations within US states. As for Afghanistan, it's impossible to determine what the people want there anymore thanks to decades of proxy war and Taliban control.

[Allover Kelly]

Almost as if they were forced together due to arbitrary lines drawn in the sand after the French and British retreated from the region in the 1930s. Plus, Iran would have likely deposed its Shah and become a pretty homogeneous state if not for the 1952 coup. Syria's biggest issue is the fact that the Kurds want a homeland and refuse to assimilate into the states they have been assigned to. That's a problem for the states that currently exist in the region to sole and doesn't warrant Western intervention. Hell, it's like the Native American tribes asking for their own reservations within US states. As for Afghanistan, it's impossible to determine what the people want there anymore thanks to decades of proxy war and Taliban control.

Can you read? I said they have been fighting for THOUSANDS of years, WAY before England and France existed. I think like my Dad and his friends. Sit back pull out and just let them fight.

[ShineintheDark]

Can you read? I said they have been fighting for THOUSANDS of years, WAY before England and France existed. I think like my Dad and his friends. Sit back pull out and just let them fight.

̶N̶o̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶r̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶d̶a̶d̶ ̶h̶u̶n̶. To write off the region as 'fighting for thousands of year' ignores the fact that every region was 'fighting for thousands of years' before circa. the 19th century when borders began to become more solid. Even then, Northern Ireland had its Troubles in the 1970s, Serbia has had its Kosovo conflicts since the 90s, Spain went into full civil war over the right of its internal states to be independent (and even now Catalonia still fights to be its own state) among plenty of other Western parallels to Middle Eastern conflicts. The only issue is that when it comes to the Arab Peninsula you dismiss it as infighting sandpeople and when it comes to the West you seemingly respect it as 'people fighting for their own self-governance.'

Furthermore, you say 'before England and France existed'. Well, let me tell YOU that before 1066 (when William the Conqueror unified his entire kingdom) England was...a region of warring kingdoms and tribes all struggling for dominance. Even then, let any history book tell you that England has never sat idly by for hundreds of years since, considering plenty of wars and battles over the crown, between far-opposed factions.
As for France, they too have had hundreds of years of turmoil, revolution and regression back to monarchy and feudalism. France as you know it today was formed only around 50 years ago after government after government fell from internal turmoil and civil unrest.

[Amy_n_Annie]

Western culture is becoming more and more gender equal and Islam is a misogynist culture so it doesn’t work in that regard

[Snowfox]

More interesting question would be Is Islam compatible with ANY other culture than Islam itself. Like can they coexist without major violence and harm with say buddhist or Hindu or what ever society. So far it seems that answer is no

[breaux]

If anyone believes that Islam has a place on earth anywhere other than the 51 current muslim countries (especially the west), then read these

Quran (3:56)
Quran (4:76)
Quran (4:34)

That should be enough. (I know there are many more disgusting verses but those are these ones I could remember.) Oh, and Aisha was 6.

[Amy_n_Annie]

I mean Islam is bigoted and misogynistic but it’s not like all of them are like that
Most of them are fairly normal caring people
It’s the religion that doesn’t fit, not all the people

[Pultost]

I mean Islam is bigoted and misogynistic but it’s not like all of them are like that
Most of them are fairly normal caring people
It’s the religion that doesn’t fit, not all the people

Exactly this. I don't despise the individuals. Most Muslims I've met are nice, but I do despise the so called "religion" of theirs.

[Zika]

More interesting question would be Is Islam compatible with ANY other culture than Islam itself. Like can they coexist without major violence and harm with say buddhist or Hindu or what ever society. So far it seems that answer is no

Given that many (most) wars are about religion and all major religions in the world have been or currently are involved in religion-related wars, it begs the question if any religion is compatible in a society with other religions.

[bentheplayer]

I mean Islam is bigoted and misogynistic but it’s not like all of them are like that
Most of them are fairly normal caring people
It’s the religion that doesn’t fit, not all the people

If u think about it, Christianity is bigoted and misogynistic too. Ultimately its all about how people choose to interpret things and lead their lives.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201408/does-christianity-harm-children

There is bound to be many issues when it comes to religion as a lot of those texts were written in ancient times where things/culture are very different from now. For example, the bible espouses to not spare the rod and spoil the child but that is clearly illegal in many countries today.

As far as I know, many Muslims scholars also teach of the need to follow the law of the land and if they feel that they are oppressed they should move elsewhere. Also, it must be remembered that there are many factions in Islam and not all of them share the same believes or teachings.

[Amy_n_Annie]

If u think about it, Christianity is bigoted and misogynistic too. Ultimately its all about how people choose to interpret things and lead their lives.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201408/does-christianity-harm-children

There is bound to be many issues when it comes to religion as a lot of those texts were written in ancient times where things/culture are very different from now. For example, the bible espouses to not spare the rod and spoil the child but that is clearly illegal in many countries today.

As far as I know, many Muslims scholars also teach of the need to follow the law of the land and if they feel that they are oppressed they should move elsewhere. Also, it must be remembered that there are many factions in Islam and not all of them share the same believes or teachings.

Except it’s not though, look at the church today
You can get churches fully accepting LGBT, many around the world are led by women
Nothing in Christianity specifically says women are worth less than men the way islam does

[Snowfox]

Given that many (most) wars are about religion and all major religions in the world have been or currently are involved in religion-related wars, it begs the question if any religion is compatible in a society with other religions.

Christians in USA and elsewhere live peacefully with Jews. Buddhists and Taoist live peacefully together. Shinto and Buddhism coexist without any problems.
In Germany some people are catholic and some are protestant and no problems again.

When it comes to my mind that there has been only one place on earth during modern times where large amounts of muslims lived peacefully with others who were mainly christian and that was Soviet Union. Where all religions but Communism were persecuted.

[Zika]

Christians in USA and elsewhere live peacefully with Jews. Buddhists and Taoist live peacefully together. Shinto and Buddhism coexist without any problems.
In Germany some people are catholic and some are protestant and no problems again.

When it comes to my mind that there has been only one place on earth during modern times where large amounts of muslims lived peacefully with others who were mainly christian and that was Soviet Union. Where all religions but Communism were persecuted.

Muslims in the USA and elsewhere live in relative peace with Jewish people (most incidents of antisemitism are not committed my Muslims in these areas).

Catholics and Protestants don't live peacefully in Northern Ireland (note the recent murder by a female member of the New IRA).

Buddhists and Hindus are involved in many conflicts with each other or other religious groups throughout Asia and Africa.

It is true Islam is involved in proportionally more conflicts than other religions, but it's a long stretch to say Islam is incompatible with any other religion.

[bentheplayer]

Except it’s not though, look at the church today
You can get churches fully accepting LGBT, many around the world are led by women
Nothing in Christianity specifically says women are worth less than men the way islam does

It is easy to point at churches who accept LGBT or who allow females to lead while ignoring the rest who don't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Christianity

Look up the New Testament household code.

Also doesn't the bible state that the wife should submit to her husband?

Sure one could argue that they have equal worth just different gender roles. But when one is asked to submit to another, doesn't it show that one is worth less than the other? Its just merely a question of semantics.

[Snowfox]

Muslims in the USA and elsewhere live in relative peace with Jewish people (most incidents of antisemitism are not committed my Muslims in these areas).

Catholics and Protestants don't live peacefully in Northern Ireland (note the recent murder by a female member of the New IRA).

Buddhists and Hindus are involved in many conflicts with each other or other religious groups throughout Asia and Africa.

It is true Islam is involved in proportionally more conflicts than other religions, but it's a long stretch to say Islam is incompatible with any other religion.

Relative peace.... Is like they fight and terrorize each other only every second week?
I never said that there is no religous violence generally. I said that for every other religion it is possible to live in peace not in relative peace but in peace. But for pious muslim it is honor to explode yourself in crowd of people.

[Zika]

Relative peace.... Is like they fight and terrorize each other only every second week?
I never said that there is no religous violence generally. I said that for every other religion it is possible to live in peace not in relative peace but in peace. But for pious muslim it is honor to explode yourself in crowd of people.

Forgive me, I generally don't speak in absolutes. If I were to say x and y live a peaceful coexistence, you would only have to find a single case of conflict to deny x and y live in peaceful coexistence. What you're doing is called the definitional sulk.

I wouldn't say Christians and Jewish people live peacefully, as an absolute. They live relatively peacefully, in some sectors of society, at some points in history. Certainly the KKK and neo-nazis, who generally identify as Christians, don't live peacefully with Jews.

You also make deft use of the red herring. In your previous posts, you talked about Muslims; that is, Muslims in general. Now you change it to "pious" Muslims. Big difference. And in fact, it would be more accurate to say 'Muslim extremists' engage in suicide bombings.

Do you agree that non-extremists Muslims can live peacefully with people of other religions?

[Snowfox]

Forgive me, I generally don't speak in absolutes. If I were to say x and y live a peaceful coexistence, you would only have to find a single case of conflict to deny x and y live in peaceful coexistence. What you're doing is called the definitional sulk.

I wouldn't say Christians and Jewish people live peacefully, as an absolute. They live relatively peacefully, in some sectors of society, at some points in history. Certainly the KKK and neo-nazis, who generally identify as Christians, don't live peacefully with Jews.

You also make deft use of the red herring. In your previous posts, you talked about Muslims; that is, Muslims in general. Now you change it to "pious" Muslims. Big difference. And in fact, it would be more accurate to say 'Muslim extremists' engage in suicide bombings.

Do you agree that non-extremists Muslims can live peacefully with people of other religions?

If muslim is non extremist he/she is not a real muslim. There are people who are muslim and then people who are not muslim in true sense. Sure we have people who have been born into some religious groups but who personally dont give a flying fuck about religious rules or anything like that.
But Islam embraces violence and terror and as long as someone practices that religion this person is ticking time bomb.

But even more important than true believer vs not so true believer is value set that comes with certain religion. Muslim people in general have values that are compatible with Islam and therefore noncompatible with other value systems like western for example.
Its embraced to steal from kuffar its embraced to murder them its embraced to rape them and its embraced to be dishonest asshole.
Muslim are not only group of people who generally speaking are disgusting filth if and if i look them trough lens of Judeo Christian values. Hindus of India are one group for plethora or reasons. (just to name one)

[Light Brigade]

Since this entire thread now consists of a few people yelling at each other and spewing ideas reminiscent of 1930's Germany, lets talk about some Christian genocide- that of the Native Americans. Also, since it's usually white Protestants committing domestic terrorism against other religions, why aren't we saying it's them who's incompatible?

[Zika]

Since this entire thread now consists of a few people yelling at each other and spewing ideas reminiscent of 1930's Germany, lets talk about some Christian genocide- that of the Native Americans. Also, since it's usually white Protestants committing domestic terrorism against other religions, why aren't we saying it's them who's incompatible?

While I don't agree with some of the posts here, I don't hear anyone "yelling" at one another. In fact, given the nature of the subject, it's been a fairly civil exchange, with strongly opposing opinions expressed, but without ad hominem attacks.

Look up Goodwin's Law re: "spewing ideas reminiscent of 1930's Germany."

If you want to talk about Christian genocide and White Protestant terrorism, valid subjects, that should be a different thread. This one is about Islam. Note the title of the thread.