Shouldnt be "Islam vs. Western World"

I have a strong aversion to the title of "Islam vs The Western World" for two reasons:

1.) Islam is an Abrahamic Religon, along with judiasm and catholicsm/christianity. It makes little sense to call one "western" and the other "eastern"

2.) It is not the whole of islam that has anti-western sentiment, and it isnt solely the west (ex. Russia with chechnyian rebels). While i believe this section is Important, i also believe that the name shouldn't represent the general misunderstanding that drives intolerance in america.

I suggest we change the name to Fundementalism vs The Established Order or something along those lines.

Zen

1) Not really. Christianity and Judaism have caught up to modern times, Islam has not.
2)Islam Vs Western World makes more sense, especially since the majority of people on the other side are muslims.

Islam has adapted to the modern world, there are more jewish sects that arent "adapted" along with christian sects that aren't. generalizations are bad

Originally Posted by Zen

Islam has adapted to the modern world, there are more jewish sects that arent "adapted" along with christian sects that aren't. generalizations are bad

Not in population %.

And thats what matters.

I agree Zen

well the religon isnt against the western world either:

1. Accept Allah as god, and that Muhammad was the true prophet. (paraphrasing of course) that has to be said in the presence of another of Islam to be converted, and should aslo be said upon a persons death bed (if they are islamic or follow the path of islam)

2. pray five times towards Mecca, the follower must wash themselves before prayer (if in the desert, sand is acceptable)

3. Fasting, three different types, generally to show closeness and dependence on allah

4. Alms giving, all muslims shall donate 2.5% of all their wealth (atleast) to ease the pain and suffering of those less fortunate and end inequality. When donating there are four principles:

A.The giver must declare to God his intention to give the Zakat.
B.The Zakat must be paid on the day that it is due.
C.Payment must be in kind. This means if one is wealthy then he needs to pay 2.5% of his income. If he does not have much money, he needs to pay in a different way such as good deeds and good behavior toward others.
D.The Zakat must be distributed in the community from which it was taken

5. the Hajj; or pilgramge to Mecca that all muslims must make at least once in their life. (one of the most famous was when the ruler of mali went to Mecca in ancient times; he stopped in cairo and donated so much gold it wrecked the economy if cairo for 13 years.)

Please; tell me where in those five pilars does it contradict with western philosophy?

They're generally not as accepting of western society, especially of those with differences. For example, homosexuals... or.. anything that isn't muslim... or... drawings of prophets.

"DO NO DRAW MUHAMMAD PLS" is not in the 5 pillars, so why is there always a shitstorm? So, by that understanding, from now on I can do anything against Islam as long as it's not in the 5 pillars, including, but not limited to, the committing of homosexual acts, killing infidels, or marrying an 8 year old.. scrap the last one, that is permitted anyways. Thanks for the generalization.

Fundelmentalism is bad in any sense, no matter the group. find me one group throughout history that hasnt been any of those things.

Christians are anti-homosexual too and theyre "Western" also its only the fundelmentalists are the ones who sent the death threats...and theres nothing wrong with not wanting to have your god and prophet drawing becasue of the human inability to draw anything in their true form.

Marrying 8 year olds: Warren Jeffs a westerner
Anti Homosexual: Republican party, a western group
Killing infidels: Knights Templar, also westerners.

its people like you that give westerns bad names.

Originally Posted by barklolbark

I thought the bible also states marriage should be between man and women?

Originally Posted by Zen

Fundelmentalism is bad in any sense, no matter the group. find me one group throughout history that hasnt been any of those things.

Why is it me? I didn't do anything wrong. You see, we here in the western world have 2 sides to a view. For example, what you call the republican party, we have the democratic party. What you call the Knights Templar hasn't existed for 700 years.

You see, whenever the is a conflict, the western world seeks to dissolve it from the inside. Opposing factions, for example. But so called non-extremist Muslims just sit around and watch the extremist Muslims... for claiming such a peaceful and tolerant religion, you sure don't try to keep the peace.

Originally Posted by dw3fan

I thought the bible also states marriage should be between man and women?

I could care less, I'm not a christian.

See those dark red, almost brown, areas? If you commit a homosexual act, you are KILLED there. The dark orange is life in prison, and the light orange is a large penalty, most likely a fine and/or a long time in prison.

The blue areas are areas that are accepting of homosexuals. See the difference between equality in Islam and the Western world? And this is just one example.

The USA is somewhat on the road to accepting homosexuality and gay marriage, and many European countries, which are more tolerant than the USA, have already done so.

Womens rights could be another example. Tolerance in general, actually.

NO, If you advocate homosexuality in middle east u are killed not if u keep it to yourself.

Originally Posted by dw3fan

NO, If you advocate homosexuality in middle east u are killed not if u keep it to yourself.

As long as you keep your heterosexuality to yourself and not infringe on homosexuals rights. A person shouldn't have to be killed just because they love someone of the same sex.

yes i know there are two sides; but i was responding to your arguements as a disproof. again; the womens rights was a fundelmentalist law, and if women choose to wear hajib it is their choice.

and also, much like the roman catholic religon there are many man made laws that arent in the actual religon when it was first founded:

Roman Catholic Examples:
1. Women priests
2. Priests Marrying

etc.

BUT ITS NOT THE RELIGON THAT IS AGAINST THE WEST, it is a bunch of small fundelmentalist groups. there are fundmentalist groups all around the world: Checnyan rebels, warren jeff-esque sects of mormonism, some enviromental groups and anti-abortion groups border on the Fundelmentalist fringe.

all im saying is that "Islam vs the Western World" is furthering a sterotype.

Surprisingly it's not because a majority of the argumentative Muslims that come to the debate section do argue that the west is evil.

And ethrereal enough of the copy/paste we get your point, you know how to use the internet to make Muslims look evil.

Shouldnt be "Islam vs. Western World"

Post a Reply

Tags for this Thread