Question about Islam

[OwnedByFerrets]

Why is Islam the fastest growing religion in the world? What is it that draws converts?

[wtmusic]

1. Maybe the evidence that Christianity is one of the most brutal religions

in history? I dunno. :shrug:

[javelina]

8. How are you quantifying that?

If someone was looking for a non-brutal alternative to Christianity, it would be silly to convert to Islam. They would convert to B'hai or Confucianism, or other religions with non-violent paths. Both Islam and Christianity have a history rooted in extreme violence.

[wtmusic]

9. 2 million dead Vietnamese don't lie

Is there anything comparable in the history of Islam? Hmm?

[javelina]

10. Wait

Are we now saying that any violence done by Christians, is "Christian violence"? Or, is only violence done in the name of Christianity, "Christian violence"? If we're going by the first definition, the Islam has the genocide of the Armenians in Turkey, the brutal atrocities of the Ottoman Empire, and genocides in Darfur and Iraq. If we go by the second definition, then Islam has the conquering through war of the Arabian Penninsula, Persia, Northern Africa, and half of Europe. Both religions have violent histories. It's the unfortunate nature of evangelical religions. To argue that one religion is nonviolent and the other violent is somewhat silly to one with even a cursory understanding of religious history.

[wtmusic]

12. In recent history, Christians are one up

and how do you figure Iraq is a "genocide", or "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group"? Your usage seems somewhat silly to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the English language.

[javelina]

14. Your original statement

Was that Christianity was one of the most brutal religions in history. Your "proof" for that at this points seems to be that, recently, Christians have killed more people.

Your first mistake, of course, is that you are attempting to prove the brutality of an ideology by looking at the actions of people who self-identify as members of the group that espouses that ideology.

Your second mistake is looking only at recent history while making the blanket statement that a religion is the most violent in history. What is "recent" history, anyway? Would recent history include the Ottoman Empire? If it does, then it's very likely that Muslim conquerors have killed more than Christian conquerors.

Your third mistake is not really knowing what you're talking about. Members of both religions are committing and have in recent history committed atrocities. At this point, it may be true that Christians kill more people - but that's largely because they have better technology and can kill more efficiently. It does not prove that one group is more brutal than the other - just that one group is more efficient than the other.

Your fourth mistake is assuming that Hussein's campaign against the Kurds was not a genocide. It was, and we helped him get the weapons to prosecute that campaign (which, could theoretically, mean that we are responsible for that as well).

Your fifth mistake, is not having a cursory understanding of the English language or of history. (I kid, I kid)

[wtmusic]

18. I'm going to try to spell this out without being as condescending as you

although it will be difficult. Bear with me.

The brutality of a religion is directly attributable to "the actions of people who self-identify as members of the group that espouses the ideology", which I assume is your highfalutin' way of saying the religion's members. I guess if a cross falls off a church and kills someone we don't have Christians to blame. Other than that, and far from being a mistake, it's true in a very trivial manner.

Now-when George Bush admits he gets his orders from God (a Christian one), then launches an invasion of a sovereign nation which results in the deaths of half a million people--that is by definition, one hell of a brutal ideology. And that is at a time when, at least in theory, society and civilization have made progress in every aspect of human rights. So comparing modern United States neoconservative imperialism to the Ottomans is apples/oranges.

And I will sign off on your suggestion that somehow killing half a million people with modern weapons is no more brutal than a bunch of Arabs hacking people with sabers. If anything, it's more brutal, because it involves less contact with the enemy, less risk, and thus less bravery.

[javelina]

20. You did well

as far as not being as condescending as me.

The brutality of a religion is not directly attributable to the actions of those who self-identify as members of the group. If that is the case, every single ideology that has ever existed is brutal, because members of every ideology have committed brutality. The proper test would be the tenets of a religion or the actions of its founder. That is not only a more quantifiable measure of a belief system, but a more accurate one. Do you think democratic thought is violent? People have killed and will continue to kill for democracy, so it would have to be a brutal ideology according to your logic.

It's interesting that our invasion of a sovereign nation makes Christianity a brutal ideology. Tell me what you think of the successive centuries of Islamic caliphates who invaded several sovereign nations, ending only after World War I? What about Iraq's invasion of Iran? Or, several Islamic nations attacking Israel? Were those not violent because we hadn't progressed as a world community? Or, is it just easier to obsess about the violent history of the United States, since you know something about that and clearly know very little about world history?

Either way - your assertion that recent history is somehow more important in determining the brutality of religions that are both over 1400 years old is just downright wrong. If we we are going to determine which is the most brutal religion "in history" (as your original post claims) then we need a wholistic picture that looks at all of history.

Your last assertion is just downright horrid. Somehow it's less brutal to kill a person if you do it in a more "brave" manner??? Are you serious? Tell me - is it brave to commandeer a plane full of innocent, unarmed people and ram it into a building? Does that make it less brutal to you? Is Islam "brutal" because the people who committed 9/11 did it in the name of Islam?

Have you ever even served in a war zone? Do you deny the bravery of our soldiers in Iraq? If you honestly think that our soldiers aren't fighting people face to face, I suggest you hop on a plane and go take a look.

I'm sorry to be so condescending, but your arguments are just terrible so I can't help it. Sorry to ask so many questions, but I really can't at all see where your logic is coming from.

[wtmusic]

22. Poor logic

"every single ideology that has ever existed is brutal, because members of every ideology have committed brutality."

This is so unbelievably weak I don't know where to start. Religions are nothing without the actions of their members. The tenets of the religion have always been subject to a wide range of interpretation and the actions of the founder are irrelevant, outside of how a religion's members care to interpret them.

Democracy isn't a religion, so let's stay on topic here. And somehow in your mind "thought" can now be "violent". How does that happen? Some kind of psychokinetic projection?

Though both religions have a history of atrocities, taking into the Crusades and the Inquisition I'd say there is a Christian/Muslim tie coming into the 20th century, with Christianity winning a clear tie-breaker after that. So yes, current history is more relevant.

9/11 was an incredibly brutal act, but denying that the people who did it are brave--giving their lives for what they believed--is nonsense. Our soldiers--the ones on the ground in Iraq--are incredibly brave as well. It was not up to them to start this war--it was due to Divine Christian guidance of their Commander-In-Chief, and it was incredibly cowardly act. Fact is, the people making the decisions in this war are cowardly Christian hypocrites who never served a day in their life, and right now they are the deadliest people on earth.

Don't feel bad about asking questions. It's the best way to learn!

[kwassa]

25. re-casting the Iraq war as a Christian crusade is nonsense of the first order

This war was not fought on that basis, nor would it have been supported on that basis. Bush has no interest in converting Iraq to Christianity, but in imposing a friendly democratic government beholden to America and American corporations. He thought he could pull it off despite lying to the American public about why we were invading; he couldn't, of course. Most of his administration cohorts, including those who long advocated invading Iraq long before Dubya was a player, are not fundamentalists at all, or in many cases not even Christian. The Bush Doctrine originated in the hands of Paul Wolfowitz, for instance, back in 1992.

[Finder]

26. Seems at least one General feels that way...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are defending a new deputy undersecretary of defense "who has reportedly cast the war on terror" in religious terms.

Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, whose promotion and appointment was confirmed by the Senate in June, has said publicly that he sees the war on terrorism as a clash between Judeo-Christian values and Satan, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday.

Appearing in dress uniform before a religious group in Oregon in June, Boykin said Islamic extremists hate the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christians. ... And the enemy is a guy named Satan."

more....

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/16/rumsfeld.boykin.ap/

[kwassa]

27. Right. One general.

but he ain't the commander-in-chief. Boykin has to follow orders, like all the rest.

He isn't most of the policy hawks, the neocons that were laughing behind their backs at the religious right.

[wtmusic]

28. Whatever you say

"Bush: God told me to invade Iraq

President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden's stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel, and a state for the Palestinians.

The revelation comes after Mr Bush launched an impassioned attack yesterday in Washington on Islamic militants, likening their ideology to that of Communism, and accusing them of seeking to "enslave whole nations" and set up a radical Islamic empire "that spans from Spain to Indonesia".

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article317805.ece

Sounds like a crusade to me. And the key to Wolfowitz-Perle et al's involvement might be found in the "security for Israel" part.

[kwassa]

32. Doesn't sound like a crusade at all

Considering this quote comes from a speech he supposedly made to non-Christian Palistineans! By pulling it out of context, you change the meaning of Bush's statement. I would point out that there is exactly one person making this claim, by the way.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html

George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.

(jump)

One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

[wtmusic]

34. And how's progress on that Palestinian state coming?

Just curious...

[kwassa]

35. and what exactly is your point?

[wtmusic]

37. lip service

words vs. actions

[trotsky]

33. It may be an arguable point, however,

that the whole neocon philosophy grew out of "Manifest Destiny" which certainly sprang from the Christianity early Americans used to justify their expansion and seizure of native lands.

[wtmusic]

36. What a coincidence! Spanish conquistadores used that same Christ

to justify decimation of native populations in South America (if I didn't know Christianity was a peaceful religion, I'd say it might have something to do with Christians).

[trotsky]

38. Here, let me help you!

All those baddies weren't "real" Christians.

See? Problem solved. :sarcasm:

[javelina]

29. You made my point

"And somehow in your mind "thought" can now be "violent". How does that happen? Some kind of psychokinetic projection?"

I'll let you retread through the thread and figure out how that proves exactly what I'm saying. (think - distinction between a religious ideology being "brutal" and a group of people being "brutal")

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. The Vietnam War did not have the "end times" underpinnings of

the Iraq War. (Nor do I think that the Iraq War is motivated primarily by end times theology, but by the simple sort of greed that can afflict anyone of any world view, although the Bushies may use their warped form of theology to build support among the fundies.)

The Vietnam War was always sold to the public as "democracy versus Communism," not "Christanity versus atheism or versus other religions." You must remember that the fundies weren't nearly as strong then as they are now. During that ear, I was attending a suburban, Midwestern high school where teaching evolution was absolutely non-controversial, except to the Jehovah's Witnesses, and this was in an era when almost everybody in Minnesota attended some sort of church, mostly Lutheran or Catholic, as in Garrison Keillor's stories.

Even Dr. Thomas Dooley's books (which are said to have been funded by the CIA) promoted fighting against the Vietnamese and Laotian Communists by portraying them as arbitrarily cruel to anyone who disagreed with them, not by calling forth some Christian crusade.

I'm not sure what the real motivations for the Vietnam War were, other than it starting as a product of the paranoid anti-Communism of the era and continuing as a matter of stubborn pride on the part of U.S. government leaders.

[Finder]

39. Communism was always described as "godless" by its enemies...

and religion is the great motivator for most soldiers regardless of what the purpose of a war really is.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. Really? I'd like to hear from some of the DU veterans on that point

What I've heard from combat veterans is that if they volunteered, it was out of "patriotism," whatever that is, and once they were in combat, it was to support and protect their buddies, even if they no longer believed in the cause.

[Finder]

41. Patriotism and religiosity were linked in the minds of many...

Here is a good article that explains it much better than I...

http://www.americanpopularculture.com/journal/articles/spring_2005/aiello.htm

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. For some, maybe, but I'd still like to hear from some actual combat vets

From what I've observed, it's more that religion is considered a part of patriotism han that patriotism is considered a part of religion.

[Finder]

43. I agree with that...

religion is considered part of patriotism for many.

[Realityhack]

45. even given that...

do you have any evidence that people view Islam as less violent than Christianity currently?

[bryant69]

19. God that's a stupid response.

Bryant

[wtmusic]

23. Don't feel any obligation to defend yours

I'm not sure it's defensible, anyway. :eyes:

[Realityhack]

44. Evidence?

Not of christianity beging violent but rather that people who are concerned about christianity being violent view islam as less violent.

You yourself say "one of the most brutal" wouldn't islam also be at least fairly high on that list? Wouldn't we expect to see huge numbers of converts to the religions that are viewed as the least violent?

Seems like a rather silly response to me.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. It's not the religion of the Western oppressors.

That, in and of itself, draws many, many converts (but not all, or even the majority). It is, not coincidentally, how the religion gained traction in the first place.

[Realityhack]

46. Definate possibility..

does anyone have a source on where most of this increase is occuring? That would tell us quite a bit more.

[izzie]

3. I am going to think about that one. Interesting subject.

I am willing to bet it has about 100 reasons.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. Couple of factors, I think

1. As others have mentioned, it's not Western. This makes it especially appealing in Africa.

2. Missionary efforts, including founding free schools and clinics

3. And we can't neglect that many of the world's existing Muslims live in countries where population growth is already high, and in addition, a low level of women's rights correlates extremely well with a high birth rate.

[Dorian Gray]

15. I think Lydia nailed the reasons...

I'm sure there are a few other socio-economic factors, as well. But, the high birth rate plus the missionary effort is a great force for conversion or raising the numbers.

[trotsky]

5. "Fastest growing" can be a misleading statistic.

If I start a new church today, with me as its lone member, then recruit one other person next year, I've got a 100% growth rate. My religion would in all likelihood be the fastest growing religion in the world.

Jews don't recruit. Christians do, but they've already tried to peddle their story to just about everyone. That leaves Islam, which also (interestingly enough) has been successful in stealing more than a few Christians away.

[Finder]

6. They count Nation of Islam...

converts...

NoI is an amalgamation of Islam and Christianity and is popular in the US. I personally consider it a new religion rather than Islam though.

[Dorian Gray]

16. Most members of Islam

don't consider Nation of Islam to be Islamic. There are Islamic sites that claim it is a "heresy," at best. But, it's considered alien to the Islamic world. Only in the USA would we categorize it as part of Islam.

[Finder]

17. Yes, and it is gaining many converts...

and is partly the reason for the stat.

[javelina]

7. It's not the fastest growing

in terms of conversions. It's the fastest growing primarily because of extremely high birth rates among Islamic peoples.

[OneBlueSky]

11. maybe some people long for strict rules and structure in a world . . .

reeling out of control . . .

or not . . . :shrug:

[kwassa]

13. It is often perceived as the least racist religion

by many people of color.

[happyslug]

24. Conversion to ANY cause is a Complex act.

People will stay with the world view their family has had unless that World View is no longer valid (and by Valid I mean it is causing more harm to the person holding onto that belief system that it helps that person). The classic example is the Roman Empire. Given that our records of Rome was written by the for or by the Roman elites (which consisted of no more than 3% of the population) most people have a view of Rome that reflected the wealth of this elite while ignoring the vast poverty that was characteristic of the Roman Empire. This was noted as early as the Second Century BC when the Gracchi tried to provide lands for Poor Romans and were murdered by their fellow Roman Elites for the attempt. Patches were attempted n this problem under the Empire by providing FreE grain and Games for the people living in Rome, but that was more to keep them from Rioting and demanding reform than any real charity (People will NOT revolt if one of the costs of the Revolt will be their food supplies). While the land situation as bad in the Second Century BC, it became worse over time, for example no Roman Citizen could be Whipped in the Second Century BC, but could be whipped by the Second Century AD (And the Roman Empire is viewed being at its height between these two dates). After about 212 AD (The Third Century AD), the Empire came under strain do even further economic decline as the Spanish Silver mines watered up (i.e. the Veins of Silver being mined reached a point below where Roman Engineers could pump out the water to get at the Silver). Do to this Silver Shortage, the Emperors started to Debase their Coins. Which lead to further decline in the economy do to inflation (You had inflation while the silver was being mined but it was controlled by the increase in the Silver Supply, with debasement the inflation skyrocketed and that was an additional problem to the excessive ownership of land by less than 3% of the population).

Do to the problem if economic decline and inflation the Empire provided less and less support to the existing Pagan religions and provided less and less support for the poor in the rural areas (Where 90% of the people Lived). As the situation become worse, the old family and tribal ties just broke down. At this point people embraced Christianity. Christianity had been a very small cult till about 200 AD but expanded broadly during the troubles of the Third Century AD. Even Karl Marx observed that the Expansion of Christianity during this time period was do to the Economic Situation, and the only group that provided some sort of solution was the Christians (i.e Charity and care for each other and other members of their Society).

By the time of Constantine in the Fourth Century, the Christian were a large group in the Empire (Through most historian believe Christians under Constantine were only about 1/3 of the population). Constantine then used his embrace of Christianity to steal all the Gold from the Temples (The Christians received the Temples while the Gold idols were given to the Emperor who used them to mint the Gold Coins he issued to replace the old debased silver coins of the previous century). The lost of the Temple caused further disruption of Pagan worship and many embrace Christianity. Further Economic Decline lead to even more disruptions and more conversions. Forced Conversions were not done till Justian's reign 200 years AFTER Constantine's Reign (By the Time of Justinian the number of Pagans are believed to have dropped to low single digits). Notice the reason for the conversions were the bad economic situation.

Today, Africa is seeing the greatest growth in Islam and Christianity do to the break up of that Continent do to AIDS, Economic stagnation and plain old corrupt Government (Except for AIDS, the same mix that occurred during the Roman Empire from 100 BC onward). Both Religions permit people to accept the situation they are powerless do change. Thus you have disruption of the old tribal system caused by the existing State borders dividing Tribes, the strain caused by AIDS, deterioration of the environment do to expansion of the Desert and other problems. In this environment any world view that provides people hope is embraced, Socialism is often claimed by many of the States, but it is an empty slogan in most of Africa. Capitalism does not provide any hope for an starving family with no or little resources. The old tribal Religions provide no hope for the tribes are breaking up do the strain caused by the above. Thus given that Islam and Christianity are the only world-view that is providing these people with ANY form of hope, both are expanding in Africa and this expansion in Africa is the reason both Islam and Christianity are expanding (Even as participation in Christin Services are in the decline in Europe and North America).

Thus the reason for the expansion of Islam is the terrible shape Africa is in.

[Ron Green]

30. It's got lots of mass appeal.

It allows for enemies.
It's got the 5-times prayer routine.
It's serious big-daddy monotheism.

[Chulanowa]

31. Many things

One, it's relatively simple as a religion. There is one god - no demigods, no trinity, no underlings, blah blah blah. It's just god. There is no convuluted dogma, no exacting ritual.

Two, it's relatively liberating. Contrary to popular perception, the religion of Islam does not oppress on women - Or at least, it doesn't do so as much as most other religions. There is no central authority to Islam. No "Islamic pope" to rule on how you must live. The god of Islam is all-merciful and all-just. Though the books of Islam do have their amount of violence and injustice, it is always conducted at the hands of men, and not god. In the bible, god wipes out entire nations and generations all by himself.

Three, it's accessable. Unlike Hinduism, Judaism, and many pagan faiths, it's easy to convert to Islam, and there are no secret teachings to it. Like Christians, Muslims are more than happy to "spread the word". Most major cities have a decent variety of ISlam versions, comprising many sects and ideologies. Even smaller cities tend to have at least a worship group who you can speak with.

Four, it stresses the values of a good life. Unlike Christianity, whioch focuses greatly on hte afterlife, Islam teaches that what's important is the world now. You conduct charity to help the needy, not to win "crowns in heavan". You practice peace, not for hope of a better reincarnation, but because it's the right thing to do. A big part of Islam is social justice and liberty, in fact, granted that's usually only practiced in western nations

Five... It's interesting. From a western viewpoint, Islam is exotic. That in and of itself draws interest. In recent years, it's also been the center of a storm of controversy, with events in the middel east. As a result, lots of people are trying to learn about the religion, hearing about it, whatever. Since Islam is not terribly different from the more common western faiths of Christianity and Judaism, it's a lot easier for people on this side of the world to swallow it, than an Eastern or Pagan religion - a Christian reading the Koran knows and understands what he's reading, and can relate and evaluate much easier, than if it were the Rig Veda, for example.

Six, it really pisses off the parents. Not a good reason, but I suppose it's a reason.