From: Richard Ridge (richard_ridge@tao-group.com)
Date: Wed Jan 02 2002 - 04:11:11 MST
> This theory requires that enough people are stupid enough to be converted
> to Islam.
The theory nonetheless seems to be correct and as such one can deduce that
idiots appear to be in plentiful supply. Christianity is currently 33% of
the global population - a percentage that is probably decreasing gradually.
It is expected that, if current trends continue, Islam will become the most
popular religion sometime in the mid-21st century.
> It's only fundimentalist(sic) that are intollerant(sic) of other
religions, other islamics
> I've met are very tollerant(sic) towards other religions and none have
ever put
> a fatwa on me for not sharing their belief.
Not sharing their belief has never been an offence in Islamic law, so that
fact is hardly surprising. Try asserting to them that Muhammed was a blood
steeped warlord best described as being on a par with Vlad Tepes, and you
might elicit a rather different response. See also:
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D386.htm. However, your post
makes use of a misleading and wholly inaccurate division of terms; namely
between fundamentalists and other Islamics. As has been stated often enough
within this forum, Islam has no tradition of exegesis and as such faith is
far from being a matter of interpretation. Conversely, Islam at present
lacks any ecclesiastical hierarchy in the way that the Catholic Church does,
and as such is no position to impose Koranic interpretation onto believers:
one if left with the precarious position of having a religion that demands
fundamentalist interpretation from all muslims but lacks any means to
achieve consensus as to what correct interpretation might be (i.e. the
apparent inability of the Islamic world to make its mind up as to what is
meant by the concept of jihad). That is an extremely volatile and dangerous
predicament, which would seem ideal as a breeding ground for fanaticism.
> We do have to fight against
> fundamentalism in all religions, why purely focus on Islam, when in
> pratice(sic) the religion(sic?????) is no worse than any other.
Largely because that is probably not the case - it's always likely to be
somewhat otiose to attempt to assert that there is no difference between
Buddhism and Islam. I think it is a reasonable statement that Islam is
certainly much more actively belligerent religion than Christianity at
present (confining the debate to the two largest religions, given that
making comparisons with smaller religions is likely to be more difficult).
In part, I'd suggest that the accelerated pace of globalisation and
encroaching (occasionally mandatory) secularisation have created a violent
backlash which is present but less forceful in Christianity. The much more
attenuated pace of modernisation in the West is one probable cause for it,
as well as the fact that the West is in a position of cultural hegemony,
whereas the Islamic world sees itself as having been marginalised ever since
the lifting of the siege of Vienna. On September 11th, 1569, I believe.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:37 MDT