2 opinions, 8 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
User voted Yes.
2 votes
Feb 1, 2016

Yes.

"Western culture" already has had many contacts with Islam. "Algebra", "assassin", "admiral, "albatross", "adobe"... there have been extensive interactions between the Occidental and the Oriental world, and not all have ended in gunfire.

"Western culture" has assimilated faiths and coexisted with people ranging from Native Americans to African-Americans. In the United States, we have people practicing Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Santeria, forms of Voodoo, Rastafari... Just because the dominant culture is Christian doesn't make our institutions only work with Christians.

Islam is not just Wahhabism. It is also the Sufis, the Arabian Nights, the rich cultures of a beautiful region. I suggest anyone who has doubts that the faith of Mohammed can coexist with any society read the stories about Nasruddin Hodja.

The good aspects of Western culture are derived from periods of enlightenment. From the best of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment to the best of the Romantics, Western societies say that every human being has rights and every human being has something to contribute. Everyone is equal before the law and everyone has the right to participate. People have the right to seek out a better life, to work hard, and to trade with others. Their faith is irrelevant. Their ethno-racial group is irrelevant. And while a culture with totalitarian values may not be consistent with Western societies (though frankly I would suggest that people look carefully at Christian fundamentalists, right-wing parties in Europe and fascists throughout European history to see how consistent Western culture often empirically is with violence and totalitarian ideologies), many other cultures that are different from the majority are.

It is perfectly possible for Muslims to live alongside non-Muslims, just like it's possible for Christians, Jews, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists and neo-Pagans to get along.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted No.
main reply
3 votes,
Feb 2, 2016

Islam is only compatible with Western culture, if it's a minority. Look at any place where Islam is a majority and you'll see that anyone who isn't Muslim is at best a second class citizen. Even in the days that most Muslims point too and say see how good Islam treated those of a different religion, forget to mention that non-Muslims had to pay a special tax, their testimony didn't count in court, even today we had a judge(s) say “It is unacceptable for a Christian to testify against a Muslim.” In fact, Islamic law maintains that the testimony of an “infidel” cannot be accepted against a Muslim. Look at Islam and see how women are treated, and that some Muslim communities in Yemen, Saudi Arabia ,India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria and elsewhere have insisted that it is their Islamic right to marry girls below age 15. Free speech really isn't permitted under Islam, if you don't think so look at someone who say anything against Islam, or who dares draw a picture if Muhammad. And tell me that Islam is compatible with Western culture.

"...though frankly I would suggest that people look carefully at Christian fundamentalists, right-wing parties in Europe and fascists throughout European history ...."

That is more the result of the failure of government, the government allowed immigration without a plan, settle people in areas that were already struggling. The government also didn't have jobs waiting for the immigrants, allowed them to take part in the welfare system, heath care system, etc. while the people who paid in taxes were basically told they were bad people for even saying that it was unfair, that the government push immigrants onto the local taxpayers, and all the while the perception was that the citizens were getting short changed. They also have a perception that the government is soft on immigrant crime, as seen in the grooming scandal in the UK. The sexual assaults that are happening in the EU, it doesn't take many incidents, with what people feel is less than adequate response from the government, for people to start forming groups demanding that government take action, and generally the action they want is for immigrants to be kicked out of the country.

And by the time the government did start to look at the "problem" it had already grown out of their control. So when the government did finally act, it was too late and as far as the groups were concerned too little. Had the government had a plan, and followed through they wouldn't have had this problem and at best these groups would be a tiny fringe groups with no real power.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Yes.
2 votes,
Feb 2, 2016

Islam is only compatible with Western culture, if it's a minority. Look at any place where Islam is a majority and you'll see that anyone who isn't Muslim is at best a second class citizen. Even in the days that most Muslims point too and say see how good Islam treated those of a different religion, forget to mention that non-Muslims had to pay a special tax, their testimony didn't count in court, even today we had a judge(s) say “It is unacceptable for a Christian to testify against a Muslim.

Look at any place where Christianity has been a majority and you'll see a long history of brutal racism, imperialism and often genocide. I mean, come on, look at Leopold in the Congo! Hitler with the Jews - "second class citizens" would be a grotesque understatement! America with the Native Americans and the blacks, slaves until the 19th century and officially second-class citizens in the lifetimes of living people (and still facing a second Jim Crow in the criminal justice system and elsewhere)! The Crusades! The Dark Ages! Female genitalia mutilation in the Christian majority countries of Eritrea and Ethiopia!

Would you accept this picture for a moment if it was applied to you? It's sheer bigotry. It is cherry-picking. You are

a) Making all of "Islam" into a single monolith, across both space and time, pretending that there's been no variation in its practice;
b) Obliterating all sectarian difference between Sufi, Sunni, Shia, and any other group;
c) Pretending that no racial, gender, national, economic, or political factors matter, only religion;
d) Even with all of these assumptions, STILL only picking the absolute worst behavior

That is bigoted. By definition.

Look at Islam and see how women are treated, and that some Muslim communities in Yemen, Saudi Arabia ,India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria and elsewhere have insisted that it is their Islamic right to marry girls below age 15. Free speech really isn't permitted under Islam, if you don't think so look at someone who say anything against Islam, or who dares draw a picture if Muhammad. And tell me that Islam is compatible with Western culture.

Indonesia and Bangladesh are not Saudi Arabia. All of the Muslim countries you listed have problems with sexism, too. So too do the Christian majority countries of the United States, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the Philippines and Peru. I mean, Christian majority countries have huge problems with Communist guerillas: Look at the Shining Path in Peru, Russia, East Germany and the former Soviet satellite states! Would you accept this as a fair picture of Christianity? Would you accept being lumped in with Eritrea and Ethiopia just because you happen to (probably) be in a country that happens to share the same dominant religious majority?

Even Turkey is not like this. Their genocide of the Kurds is far more racial than sectarian. But those are the kind of little details that people who are committed to not being bigots learn.

Point to me the last time that a Muslim country overthrew a Christian majority country with impunity, the way the United States did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again, you are being a bigot.

That is more the result of the failure of government, the government allowed immigration without a plan, settle people in areas that were already struggling.

That is monstrous buck-passing and cowardly apologia for fascists and the flipside of bigotry: special pleading for people who look like you. The Nazis and the Italian fascists were not caused by "government allow[ing] immigration". Christian fundamentalists had a CHOICE: They could CHOOSE not to be homophobes. White supremacists had a CHOICE. For you, when Muslims do it, it's indicative of a deep problem with their religion (and, it's quite clear, their race or ethnicity or something else beyond their religion); but when Europeans or Christians do it, well, it's because government failed in some absurd way. You do know that far-right racist parties in Europe and Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. PRECEDE the Syrian refugees, right? When it's white people and Christians, the timeline gets blurry for you and only the most recent things even exist; when it's brown Muslims, then suddenly every single Muslim is responsible for what happened in 1000 AD. Your compassion and willingness to recognize complicated factors only applies to non-Muslims. Hmmm...

In what way is the EU as a whole struggling? Oh, Greece is, sure, but all of the EU has right-wing parties who repeat the same kind of bigoted horse excrement you do.

And WHY didn't the governments in this situation have jobs and infrastructure waiting? Right, racist and classist policy priorities.

Muslims in France could be described as second-class citizens, and there have been waves of Muslim immigrants since way before the newest Syrian wave.

Oh, and one more little wrinkle: WHY are Syrian refugees coming AT ALL? Well, gee, Russia backs the Assad regime and is bombing, and ISIS was created to a large degree by the U.S. bombing Iraq for its oil and to prove its new "we can invade anyone" doctrine. Sounds to me like all Christians should be rounded up and deported to the moon: They've proven they can't be trusted with nuclear weapons or drone strikes!

So let's think about Islam the same way you do Christians. What factors might be going on THERE?

Well, Islam for much of its history was far more civilized than the Europeans. Look at what Charlemagne did to numerous groups, like the Avars: At least other ethnic and racial groups in Muslim societies were citizens AT ALL instead of being exterminated. The treatment of Jews by Christians in Europe has never once been good, and Jews have routinely chosen to side with Islam (as they did in Spain) because Islam's anti-Semitism is nowhere near as deeply held.

In the modern era, suddenly Islam seemed to be associated with some of the most brutal and horrible regimes on the planet (many the U.S. supports, incidentally). Why?

In a word: Colonialism. (The picture is more complicated than that but I'm playing the game your way and much more fairly).

European colonialism everywhere, but especially in Africa and the Middle East, in very recent history left behind national borders that had zero relationship to the sectarian, ethnic, cultural, geographical, climatological, or any other cleavages that were already in those societies. These new states had to try to craft a new identity out of nothing. It's never easy: See The Idea of India to see how the Indians had to make up an Indian identity out of whole cloth, because it had basically never existed prior.

Then the United States made sure to use post-colonial arrangements to control much of the world.

We, and our allies (especially Israel), repeatedly have chosen to stop secular democracy. We overthrew Mossadeq and installed the Shah. We viciously opposed Nasser. We opposed the PLO and got Hamas and Hezbollah instead. We back the Saud regime and many other brutal autocratic societies. We supported Mubarak in Egypt. I can go on and on.

When you do that to people for long enough, they get really, really angry. They get hopeless. When their routes to conventional success and self-expression through secular means like nationalism, secular politics and economics are routinely blocked, they embrace whatever's left. Radical religion comes in when the center doesn't hold (and here I agree that, in America, radical religion has the same source: radical religion rose again here in the 1970s and it's no coincidence that that was after Watergate, growing cynicism about the government, the end of Bretton Woods and the start of neo-liberal globalization).

But none of that is intrinsic to Islam, or Muslim peoples, or Arabs, or Syrians, or Iranians, or Turks, or Indonesians. Every single faith group, nation, culture, and any other group you want to construct and point to throughout history has had massive problems. But only when it comes to Islam do so many people assume that somehow they can't keep it straight in their brain how to be democratic people. That is racist AND religiously chauvinistic. It is purely, simply bigoted. There is NOTHING in Islam, just like there is NOTHING in Christianity or Judaism or Voodoo or Santeria to Hinduism, that prevents Muslims from being able to participate in civilized societies, whether as majorities or minorities.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No.
0 votes,
Feb 3, 2016

Leopold in the Congo had nothing to do with suppression of Muslims, the Christians or Jews didn't get a free pass from the the approx. 10 million (depending on what estimate you believe) people who died. Nor did you get a free pass if you converted.

Hitler was baptized and confirmed a Catholic in his youth, and raised by an anti-clerical father and practicing Catholic mother. In adulthood, he became disdainful of Christianity, but retained some respect for the organisational power of the Church so he was a rationalist and a materialist "who believed neither in God nor in conscience."

Native Americans and the blacks, slaves ...

Again you didn't a free pass if you were a Christian, Christians happily suppressed everyone no matter what religion.

"The Crusades! "

Well at least you got one that was at least based on religion, and you do know that at least some of the Crusaders converted to Islam.

"Making all of "Islam" into a single monolith, across both space and time, pretending that there's been no variation in its practice; "

Never said Islam is a monolith, what I have pointed out that in Muslim majority countries those of other religions are treated as second class citizens, and the Quran backs me up.

"Female genitalia mutilation in the Christian majority countries of Eritrea and Ethiopia!"

And it's mainly Christian doing that to other Christians.

Your point a b c d

a. I pointed out correctly that in every country where Islam is the religion of majority, those of other religions are at best second class citizen and have not only the Quran to back me up but also rulings from judges.

b) Again it didn't matter what sect they belonged to the Quran is the Quran and the Quran backups my statement.

c) Didn't pretend anything it not hard to find evidence on what I said no matter what country you look at.

d) I didn't pick the behavior, I can if you wish point to the versis in the Quran that shows I'm right.

Bigot having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

Let's see, I not obstinate, I'm not intolerant of other opinions, I use facts to back up my statement, and admit when I'm wrong. I don't that the definition of a bigot fits me. But I will point out that when you start calling the other person names, you've basically said "You're right, and I have nothing to refute what you've said, so I'll call you a name to discredit you."

"That is monstrous buck-passing and cowardly apologia..."

The government failed long before the Syrian refugee problem, the government fail to address the problem people had been complaining about for a long time before the Syrian refugees started to come over. The government failed to address them in a timely manner, thus when the Syrian refugees started to come over the far right had a new target to point too. "You (the government) couldn't solve the immigrant problem that we have now, why should we trust you to fix this one?"

I could go on and on going point to point from your post, you seem to mix up Christians, like you did you Hitler and countries that are trying to expand like, England, Spain, France, and many other world powers. Every world power, including Islamic country have expanded Leopold wasn't forcing the country he went into to convert, he was after power and their resources.

"But none of that is intrinsic to Islam,.."

Really have you even read the quran or the bible. What is the stated goal of Islam? Does not the Quran state fight until all are muslim? Are Muslim not commanded to fight non-believers until they are either dead, converted to Islam, or in a permanent state of subjugation under Muslim domination?

“Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth , (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” S. 9:29 Y. Ali

So convert, die, or submit.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
Feb 3, 2016

Leopold in the Congo had nothing to do with suppression of Muslims, the Christians or Jews didn't get a free pass from the the approx. 10 million (depending on what estimate you believe) people who died. Nor did you get a free pass if you converted.

He was a Christian who obliterated millions of other people. How is that any different from how you blame all Muslims for the acts of some? Because it wasn't specifically religious?

Oh, so you want cases where people were spared when they were converted? How about almost the entire history of European colonialism? When does your apologia end for white people and Christians?

Well at least you got one that was at least based on religion, and you do know that at least some of the Crusaders converted to Islam.

A) So what if it was BASED on religion? So atrocities committed by Christians are okay if they're not specifically about religion?
B) I submit that much of what we call radical Islam today is "based" on power politics, money, racism, sexism, sectarian politics, etc., and so does virtually every other scholar in the region.
C) Who cares who converted to what? Christians came together to prop up the Byzantines and behaved brutally in a religious conflict.
D) Nice ducking slavery and the genocide of Native Americans, both of which were HEAVILY justified by religion.

Never said Islam is a monolith, what I have pointed out that in Muslim majority countries those of other religions are treated as second class citizens, and the Quran backs me up.

When you include taxation for Jews and the behavior of a few courts, as if all Muslim majority countries discriminate in court as a matter of law, you are treating Islam as a monolith. Period.

Oh, the Quran backs you up! The same way that the Bible backs up atheist's assertions that Christianity intrinsically supports slavery, mandates the death of the infidel, and otherwise defends barbarism? Why is Christianity any different, pray tell?

Do you include the passages in the Quran about just war, passages like "Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle" or "If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam" or "Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience" or "No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire"? Does the fact that these passages make most of what Muslim terrorists do flatly against the word of the Prophet matter one iota to you?

Real human beings are not robots. They pick and choose what parts of scripture they empathize with and what ones they don't. There is absolutely nothing intrinsic to Islam, any more than anything intrinsic to Christianity or Buddhism, that makes Muslims incapable of having a fair criminal justice system or a democracy.

And it's mainly Christian doing that to other Christians.

So what?! By your logic, majority Christian countries have female genitalia mutilation, so they must not be able to have civilized human societies and should never be allowed to be the statistical majority! Do you see how all of the excuses get trotted out when it's the group you like?

a. I pointed out correctly that in every country where Islam is the religion of majority, those of other religions are at best second class citizen and have not only the Quran to back me up but also rulings from judges.

You mean, an unsourced ruling from one judge you put up with no proof.

If you wanted to do this correctly, you'd at LEAST point to some study of judicial corruption or discrimination that showed that Muslim majority countries were more likely to be judicially corrupt or to discriminate.

Does the fact that the U.S. criminal justice system (and most other political institutions) discriminates against blacks and Muslims make it so that all Christian majority countries are barbaric lands of racism? When will you ever admit that something that Christian nations do tarnishes Christians or Christianity the same way you will instantly leap to do for Muslims?

Bigot having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

"I, a non-Muslim, am saying that Muslims do barbaric things when they are the majority and other groups don't". That is bigotry, even by your idiotic definition that you cite from nowhere.

The government failed long before the Syrian refugee problem, the government fail to address the problem people had been complaining about for a long time before the Syrian refugees started to come over. The government failed to address them in a timely manner, thus when the Syrian refugees started to come over the far right had a new target to point too. "You (the government) couldn't solve the immigrant problem that we have now, why should we trust you to fix this one?"

Nice not responding to every argument of substance I made.

A) The European governments failing to adequately provide for refugees is no moral excuse for right-wing parties to be racist, or demand refugees get kicked out. The only moral response would be if 100% of the population demanded that refugees WERE properly treated fairly. That has not happened. Does this make every European racist or bigoted or Islamophobic?
B) Right-wing parties in Europe preceded any possible failure you are discussing. Right-wing parties in Europe are DECADES old. Do I need to cite you a history book?
C) America exists too. America has white supremacist movements and a huge portion of the population who refuse to take in the refugees that their military helped displace. In a country with massive wealth and a huge landmass with a massively low population density, we are taking in very few people. That's because of attitudes like YOURS, that refugees must all be ISIS when only three refugees for about a decade have been charged with a terror plot by the U.S. (and not one of those plots was directed against the U.S.)
D) I mentioned fascism and Christian fundamentalism. Do you have any excuses for those things to trot out?

Really have you even read the quran or the bible. What is the stated goal of Islam? Does not the Quran state fight until all are muslim? Are Muslim not commanded to fight non-believers until they are either dead, converted to Islam, or in a permanent state of subjugation under Muslim domination?

In the Bible, Jesus will crush sinners and non-believers in a winepress. Do you think Quakers are intrinsically violent because that's what their book says?

There are marauding Buddhist monks in Myanmar. Please tell me that Buddhism endorses violence.

Your claim about the Quran is actually, FACTUALLYwrong. Surah 2: 193, "And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allāh; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression".

Wow, it's almost like you only paid attention to the passages that reaffirmed your bigotry. You can't even cite a single sura to make your point. You sure as heck can't cite any statistics or facts or studies or data. What were you saying before about bigots not having facts again?

You fail to respond to my entire detailed explanation about why Wahhabism and violent Islam has surged, which means that your position is historically bankrupt and, yep, bigoted.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No.
0 votes,
Feb 4, 2016

2.193. Keep on fighting against them until mischief ends and the way prescribed by Allah

How is it wrong here's another translation
Sahih International 9:29

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

but your post is cherry picking

2.190. Fight against those who fight against you in the way of Allah, but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors.

2.191. Kill them whenever you confront them and drive them out from where they drove you out. (For though killing is sinful) wrongful persecution is even worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight against you; but if they fight against you kill them, for that is the reward of such unbelievers.

2.192. Then if they desist, know well that Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Compassionate.

2.193. Keep on fighting against them until mischief ends and the way prescribed by Allah prevails. But if they desist, then know that hostility is only against the wrong-doers.

2.194. The sacred month for the sacred month; sanctities should be respected alike ( by all concerned). Thus, if someone has attacked you, attack him just as he attacked you, and fear Allah and remain conscious that Allah is with those who guard against violating the bounds set by Him.

So how am I wrong?

All religions practice some form of discrimination, some worst that others, Islam, the Christians, jews, etc all have some form of discrimination. Does it make it right no, which is why I have always conteded that religion is bad, and I would go as far as to say evil.

The oldest militant organisation active in the region is Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), headed by a Buddhist monk U Thuzana, since 1992. In the recent years the monks, and the terrorist acts, are associated with the nationalist 969 Movement particularly in Myanmar and neighboring nations. So every religion has it problems and violence, even when it goes against the basic teachings.

"I, a non-Muslim, am saying that Muslims do barbaric things when they are the majority and other groups don't".

First oft I never said that, so to act like it's a quote is a lie. I never said other groups don't do barbaric thing, I do contend that the followers of Islam follow their book more closely than people of other religions. It doesn't make them more or less barbaric.

But the question is, " Is Islam compatible with Western culture?" given what the quran says it's not.

I can understand that you want to defend Islam, no problem, I take the same flak when I point out to Christians the flaws in their religion. My own sister stated recently she would stone me, I point out two things, 1 that would be agreeable with the bible, and 2 bring a lot for friends I don't shoot to wound.

Is it ok for other people religions, government to commit atrocities, of course not only a fool would believe that, but to imply that Islam is immune to such things is also a lie.

Islam does not give equal rights to everyone, sorry that true. With just a little searching on your part you can find where testimony from non-Muslim has been disallow, how member of other faiths have been jail for trying to convert Muslims. Again not hard to find, and if you do a little digging you can find Muslim clerics who agree that Islam and democracy can't co-exits.

As I feel this thread like the other thread is getting us nowhere, I won't answer any other post, but I will read you response if you choose to post one.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
Feb 4, 2016

[I]but your post is cherry picking
2.190. Fight against those who fight against you in the way of Allah, but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors.

"Cherry-picking" like failing to respond to "Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle" or "If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam" or "Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience" or "No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire"? I invite you to point me to a comparable just war idea that is within the Old or New Testament.

This quote is actually ESPECIALLY illustrative, because it says "Fight against those who fight against you" (meaning do not attack civilians) "in the way of Allah" (meaning within religious restrictions) "but do not transgress" (meaning follow particular rules). It says the OPPOSITE of what you are asserting it says, and innumerable scholars can tell you this.

o how am I wrong?
All religions practice some form of discrimination, some worst that others, Islam, the Christians, jews, etc all have some form of discrimination. Does it make it right no, which is why I have always conteded that religion is bad, and I would go as far as to say evil.

Point me to a single thing that matches the Nazi slaughter of Jews in an organized industrial fashion that any Muslim nation has done in any way. Please.

The oldest militant organisation active in the region is Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), headed by a Buddhist monk U Thuzana, since 1992. In the recent years the monks, and the terrorist acts, are associated with the nationalist 969 Movement particularly in Myanmar and neighboring nations. So every religion has it problems and violence, even when it goes against the basic teachings.

Which does not lead you to think that Buddhists are too barbaric to be a majority of a society. Only Muslims. How much more do I have to define "bigotry" for you?

First oft I never said that, so to act like it's a quote is a lie. I never said other groups don't do barbaric thing, I do contend that the followers of Islam follow their book more closely than people of other religions. It doesn't make them more or less barbaric.

Which is why I did not italicize it, giving no indication that it was an actual qote.

You assert that Muslims are different, in a bad way, from other groups, and your only proof is to point to disgusting passages in their holy books, despite the fact that you know full well that other holy books have disgusting passages. You assert that other groups are better at ignoring those bad passages. You provide no PROOF of this assertion, and the only way to read it is that somehow Muslims are for whatever reason (their Arab brains or their inferior cultures) worse people, less capable of critical reading and compassion, than others. That is bigotry. It is in fact the most base kind of bigotry.

But the question is, " Is Islam compatible with Western culture?" given what the quran says it's not.

Western culture was founded by people from a Christian belief system. You have conceded that the Bible is full of barbaric passages. So, again, why are Muslims robots and Christians discriminating thinkers? Because Christians are more likely to be white?

I can understand that you want to defend Islam, no problem, I take the same flak when I point out to Christians the flaws in their religion. My own sister stated recently she would stone me, I point out two things, 1 that would be agreeable with the bible, and 2 bring a lot for friends I don't shoot to wound.

I am defending MUSLIMS. Not Islam. MUSLIMS. Because you are asserting an argument that is used to keep them from seeking a better life: Better work and sanctuary from maniacs. Your total lack of regard for this fact is repellent.

Is it ok for other people religions, government to commit atrocities, of course not only a fool would believe that, but to imply that Islam is immune to such things is also a lie.

Of course it isn't. It's exactly as prone to those things when given the same economic, political, racial, social, gender, etc. factors. Because people are basically the same.

slam does not give equal rights to everyone, sorry that true.

It is the opposite of "true" because "Islam" as a monolith does not exist across time and space. You are asserting an ontology, a taxonomy, a way of thinking about the world, you do not consistently adopt. That is bigotry.

With just a little searching on your part you can find where testimony from non-Muslim has been disallow, how member of other faiths have been jail for trying to convert Muslims.

With just a little searching you can find examples of the mass killing of and violence against Muslims, DELIBERATELY, by Christians. Iraqi soldiers bulldozed to death in the Gulf War. People tortured by American soldiers.

Again not hard to find, and if you do a little digging you can find Muslim clerics who agree that Islam and democracy can't co-exits.

You can even find Muslim clerics who agree that ISIS defines Islam. The fact that those clerics are monsters doesn't lead you to reject their argument, while the innumerable fatwas against those people and the polls you yourself cite that the MAJORITY of Muslims disagree does not change your position one iota.

subscribe
0
0 votes
Feb 1, 2016

My problem with this question is that it implies "one" Western culture.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No.
main reply
0 votes,
Feb 3, 2016

It also implies "one" vision of Islam, but you are free to expose the various degrees of both Islam and western culture in a bigger opinion.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Feb 3, 2016

Yes, that was in the back of my mind, but I don't have actual knowledge of (inherent) various degrees of Islam. And to only elaborate on various degrees of Western culture would be counterproductive to this question (or create skewness in my answer), I think.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: