Nick Against the World (185 Viewers)
- Thread starter IncuboRossonero
- Start date
She ain't so pretty... http://images.google.ie/images?q=Im...a:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&sa=N&tab=wi
That's disturbing and I can place several parallels between what you described, and the rise of protestantism in Christianity.
From what I read, the main split in Islam is that of Sunni versus Shia (you may correct my spellings, I read about these things in Dutch which uses different phonetics for Arabic) which is comparable to the old [Catholicism <> Protestantism <> Orthodoxism] rift in Christianity. Besides that, there are various different streams of which I don't know all the names and characteristics in Islam (that would require some serious studying) but in Christianity they include Calvinism, Lutherism, Baptism, Mennonism, Reformed etc etc
Since I'm more familiar with Christianity, I'm going to draw some parallels here cause I'd like to know exactly how the evolutions of the two religions compare. Maybe you could point out where I'm wrong and where I'm right cause obviously otherwise I won't know
Christianity was first torn apart centuries ago in the days of the Roman Empire. That happened mostly because Christianity spread beyond its monocultural borders. Different peoples of different cultures and different languages all differently interpreted the Bible but most importantly the codes of conduct and protocols of the religion which lead to separate movements.
As times changed, the Roman Empire dissolved and the insecurities of the Middle Ages slowly but surely eroded the European continent; more and more splits occurred: which I would compare to current insecurities and severe lack of stability in most of the Muslim world right now, particularly the Middle East.
The fact Islam is a younger religion also adds up in the equation because what took place first in Christianity was the divide between Catholics and Orthodoxists (or Sunni and Shia). Protestantism and its numerous small movements didn't arrive in history until the Roman Empire had as good as disappeared and Europe was in absolute chaos comparable to the Middle East today but also applicable to large parts of Indonesia and other great Muslim countries like Pakistan.
Here's the backlash: Europeans know, because they are taught so in schools, that the violence within Christianity lasted for centuries on end. Dutch independence for example was directly inspired by Dutch Protestants seeking to tackle the Catholic Spanish rule in the Low Countries. The Northern Irish conflict still hasn't been resolved. The reasons the worst of the violence disappeared are easy to identify:
1) Secularity, the divide between Church and State and resulting freedom of religion.
2) Increasing wealth. If you have something to lose, you are unlikely to pick a fight.
So when Europeans today hear about conflicts within Islam, they visualise a bloody conflict that will last for centuries and that will expand into Europe since the Muslim minority here doesn't seem to be too worried about losing Western values and wealth to start with.
Is the above comparison completely wrong, or is there truth to it? Because if there is, an increasingly globalised world is going to suffer by the hands of a religion yet again.
"My God we need China now."
From what I read, the main split in Islam is that of Sunni versus Shia (you may correct my spellings, I read about these things in Dutch which uses different phonetics for Arabic) which is comparable to the old [Catholicism <> Protestantism <> Orthodoxism] rift in Christianity. Besides that, there are various different streams of which I don't know all the names and characteristics in Islam (that would require some serious studying) but in Christianity they include Calvinism, Lutherism, Baptism, Mennonism, Reformed etc etc
Since I'm more familiar with Christianity, I'm going to draw some parallels here cause I'd like to know exactly how the evolutions of the two religions compare. Maybe you could point out where I'm wrong and where I'm right cause obviously otherwise I won't know
Christianity was first torn apart centuries ago in the days of the Roman Empire. That happened mostly because Christianity spread beyond its monocultural borders. Different peoples of different cultures and different languages all differently interpreted the Bible but most importantly the codes of conduct and protocols of the religion which lead to separate movements.
As times changed, the Roman Empire dissolved and the insecurities of the Middle Ages slowly but surely eroded the European continent; more and more splits occurred: which I would compare to current insecurities and severe lack of stability in most of the Muslim world right now, particularly the Middle East.
The fact Islam is a younger religion also adds up in the equation because what took place first in Christianity was the divide between Catholics and Orthodoxists (or Sunni and Shia). Protestantism and its numerous small movements didn't arrive in history until the Roman Empire had as good as disappeared and Europe was in absolute chaos comparable to the Middle East today but also applicable to large parts of Indonesia and other great Muslim countries like Pakistan.
Here's the backlash: Europeans know, because they are taught so in schools, that the violence within Christianity lasted for centuries on end. Dutch independence for example was directly inspired by Dutch Protestants seeking to tackle the Catholic Spanish rule in the Low Countries. The Northern Irish conflict still hasn't been resolved. The reasons the worst of the violence disappeared are easy to identify:
1) Secularity, the divide between Church and State and resulting freedom of religion.
2) Increasing wealth. If you have something to lose, you are unlikely to pick a fight.
So when Europeans today hear about conflicts within Islam, they visualise a bloody conflict that will last for centuries and that will expand into Europe since the Muslim minority here doesn't seem to be too worried about losing Western values and wealth to start with.
Is the above comparison completely wrong, or is there truth to it? Because if there is, an increasingly globalised world is going to suffer by the hands of a religion yet again.
"My God we need China now."
What Altair said. My point is that these people are not just against people on the 'outside' but they're also pretty busy attacking their 'own'. Therefore all those theories people have about these people not liking the Western ideals/morals is a bunch of garbage. These people have nothing better to do but to stop development and continue with their barbaric ways. They want to continue to disobey the word of their book (The Qur'an).
Let me explain the sect I belong to and what the others have against it. The sect which I belong to, the Ahmadiyya sect in Islam, has three main differences from the others.
- That Prophet Muhammad (saw) was the last law bearing prophet but not the last prophet
- We believe that Jesus didn't die on the cross, nor was he replaced by a look-a-like, or taken up to the heavens by God
- The 2nd of coming of Jesus Christ, which almost every major religion is waiting for, whether it be Jesus himself, Buddha, Guru Nanak of the Sikhs, Krishna of the Hindu's, Messiah of the Jews, etc. has already come
So somewhere in the 1950's, under pressure from the Saudi government and the mulla's (the same people fueling this shit today against the West) of Pakistan, Pakistan began a movement to declare us officially "non-Muslim" under the constitution. Not only does that go against the purpose of Pakistan, but it is also against Islam. So in 1974 we were declared non-Muslim and we were no longer allowed to anything related to Islam. My family has had relatives and family friends jailed and killed just because they were Ahmadi.
I hope you get my point, sorry if I've confused you
