Ok. Can you explain how that leads to “Islam is a particularly bad religion?”
I think you could make the case that since the US called for the invasion of Iraq, it is responsible for all the civilian deaths from the war.
No argument there.
Because those things are done in the name of, and inspired by, Islam on a frequent/constant (depending on the charge) basis. I consider the promotion of such things to be bad. Hence, I consider Islam to be particularly bad, as a religion. It’s obviously somewhat subjective.
Because unlike many other religions, the top Islamic leaders not only condone, but help facilitate acts of violence against people that may have gone against their rules and regulations.
It would be like the Pope allowing stoning of adulterers on the steps of the Vatican.
For example:
Death threats were made against Salman Rushdie for writing a book, including a fatwā issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran. Many other Islamic leaders made similar threats against him and official bounties were placed on Rushdie’s head.
Same thing happened after the cartoon publication by the Danish Cartoonist. Almost the entire Islamic world in unison, wanted blood.
please make the case then, it’s a big claim to make.
I don’t know if most Muslims hate Americans, but many Muslims tend to support ideas that are against American ideals.
Opinions polls carried out by British Media have shattered the myth that only a minority of Muslims are extremists.
[ul]
[li]20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 London bombers[/li][li]Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent opposed it.[/li][li]Forty-five percent say 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American and Israeli governments.[/li][/ul]
Twenty-eight percent hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state. This comports with last year’s Daily Telegraph newspaper survey that found one-third of British Muslims believe that Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to end it.
The news is no less alarming on the question of freedom of speech. Seventy-eight percent support punishment for the people who earlier this year published cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Sixty-eight percent support the arrest and prosecution of those British people who “insult Islam.” When asked if free speech should be protected, even if it offends religious groups, 62 percent of British Muslims say No, it should not.
What about other Muslim majority countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh? What about Saudi? What about Muslims living in UK? It is all more complicated than you think. The Opinion polls published by reputed British Organizations give us the first TRUE insight into the mind of the educated Muslim. How do you argue against that?
And that’s unusual in what way? There’s Christians pushing for killing homosexuals all over, Christians calling for the death of doctors who perform abortions, and so on. Buddhist violence against Muslims in Burma.
No, because there is no Islamic equivalent of the Pope. Islam is more like Protestantism, with vast numbers of religious leaders; by picking and choosing, you can find one who’ll support anything. You want one who calls for violence? Sure, you can find plenty. You want some who opposes violence? You can find those too.
Meh. None of this contradicts my argument that, indeed, most Muslims do not hate America.
Even in the hand-picked surveys you cite, those Muslims with unpalatable opinions are still a minority. 20% in one survey, 40% in another, 45% in the other… Just as I said, most Muslims are not against us or our values.
Oh, and just for the record: I fully agree with Der Trihs. I’ll let him/her do the talking from now on because I’m off to bed 
That’s a false equivalency. While you won’t get me to defend Christians or Buddhists, you clearly know that violence in other religions doesn’t compare to violence in Islam.
Can you find me a religious leader of any significance from any other religion that calls for murder for writing a book or drawing a cartoon. Sure, there are nuts in every religion, but when Islamic leaders with a following of millions of people places a bounty on the head of an author or cartoonist … we are talking about something totally different. An Ayatollah is a high-ranking cleric with millions and millions of followers. I am not talking about some extremist priest at a small mosque.
Here we are talking about significant religious leaders calling for violence. Are there high-ranking Hindu and Christian priests that not only place bounties, but also kill people for merely offending them? No!
Oh, please; I live on a continent whose inhabitants were exterminated in large part in the name of Christianity. Christianity was built with genocide, religious wars, conversion by the sword, torture, pogroms, executions of heretics; centuries of brutality. Not by being nice.
The only real difference is that Christianity is most prevalent in nations whose governments are strong enough to keep its bloodthirsty tendencies suppressed. Magically switch the majority religions in Christian & Muslim nations, and you’d have “civilized” Muslims condemning the violence and terrorism of the “barbaric” Christians.
I didn’t hand pick surveys but chose British ones (more reputable, includes Telegraph and BBC) on British Muslims (more educated). If you like, I can find information on what Iranians and Pakistanis think about suicide bombing and jihad?
*20% in one survey, 40% in another, 45% in the other *… you call these minorities? These are the %-tages of Educated British Muslims who support Sharia Law and terror attacks on British Soil!
End of discussion, dude!
Like I said, you won’t get me to defend other religions.
But to strengthen my argument about Islam, consider this:
When British India partitioned into majority Hindu India and majority Muslim Pakistan there were about 10-15% minorities in each country. Today, India has increased it’s share of Muslims, while in Pakistan, the Hindu minority is down to 1%.
Why the difference? The minorities were either forcefully converted or killed. So, in this direct comparison between Hindus and Muslims of the same race, culture, etc. We see than one religion was more prone to violence than the other. Sure, both countries have had problems, but to equate the two would be laughable by any standards.
Whether Christians were violent 100 years ago or Zoroastrians were violent 1000 years ago is irrelevant! We are comparing religions as they stand today.
Yes. Because they are. Do you know what the word “minority” means?
No; we see that in a nation founded specifically as a bastion of a monotheistic religion, the adherents of that religion killed or drove out everyone else. Christians would have done the same.
Done. Had the US not started the war in Iraq; no civilians would have been killed in the war. That was easy.
Do you know context means?
If 40% of the population in city ABC were murderers and rapists … would you call them a minority?
*“Oh, murderers and rapists are only a minority in our city …”
*
It (Pakistan) was founded as a bastion of a monotheistic religion, Islam, only because Islam outright derides other religions (and violently). The Religious leaders supported that view and killed or forcefully converted the minorities in about 5-10 years.
You keep trying to create a false equivalency.
And? That’s quite normal for monotheistic religions.
I don’t think it’s false; I find Islam and Christianity largely interchangeable.
I…
(ahem)
Um…
IagreewitheverythingDerTrihshassaidinthisthread.
Against these claims, I will refer to the various polls I cited in an earlier discussion.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=17148755&highlight=limitations#post17148755
Now your next sentence is sufficiently accurate, although when claiming to know the “TRUE” beliefs, it would seem that you have cherry picked your data.
I would note the similarities in questions and answers provided by Muslims and non-Muslims in Europe and North America in the polls I cited, (where the Muslims often appear to be much more pacific and often more patriotic than the Christians or secularists among whom they live).
As to seeking Sharia, while there are Fundamentalists and even neo-Caliphatists, one will more often find that there is a group of Muslims who would like to see Sharia used for civil cases involving family law, but the reporting of the polls tends to fail to mention that–or the clear parallels to Catholic tribunals and Jewish Beit Din courts that are supported in a number of legal jurisdictions with the aim of keeping the civil courts free of entanglements with religious practice.