Moslems

[Senator Clarence]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/03/egypt-court-rejects-second-mickey-cartoon-lawsuit/

[Yelnoc]

Every religion has its extremists.  Remember the Branch Dravidians?  Christianity just has less of this because most first world nations are (at least nominally) Christian.  And in the first world, the real God is the Almighty Dollar.

[Senator Clarence]

I agree we all have our crazies... my point is Moslems have more then their fair share

[Senator MaxQue]

I agree we all have our crazies... my point is Moslems have more then their fair share

Christians had their fair share in the past. Look at all the Religion Wars in Europe.

[Senator Clarence]

Do you not know how to spell properly or something? Everybody with half a brain knows it's spelled "Muslim" and not "Moslem" or whatevsky.

It is another way of spelling the word sh**thead
How about responding to my point rather then trying to be a smartass

[Senator MaxQue]

Do you not know how to spell properly or something? Everybody with half a brain knows it's spelled "Muslim" and not "Moslem" or whatevsky.

It is another way of spelling the word sh**thead
How about responding to my point rather then trying to be a smartass

Please do not agress Hashemite. He is just very intolerent of people who has questions which seems obvious to him.

I give you traces in my post.

To be simple, religious moderation comes with civilisation, modernity and education.
Some of the countries are still feodal states, with absolute monarchy, which takes their support from clergy.

Intolerence is eriged as a system. See St. Barthelemy massacre in France. The system used protestant intolerance to reach his ends.

Christian world went through that in the 1700's and the 1800's.
Arabic world is going through that now, I think, but it will be long and painful.

[Hashemite]

Do you not know how to spell properly or something? Everybody with half a brain knows it's spelled "Muslim" and not "Moslem" or whatevsky.

It is another way of spelling the word sh**thead
How about responding to my point rather then trying to be a smartass

I might take you seriously if you could spell a basic word correctly. In my book, people who can't spell the word of what it is they're ranting about lose all their credibility, and I can hardly take them seriously. Sorry to say that this is such a situation.

Please do not agress Hashemite. He is just very intolerent of people who has questions which seems obvious to him.

I'm sorry, but I don't see what you mean here. I'm pretty intolerant of idiots or trolls (or people who can't spell basic words in their language correctly), yes, but I don't understand what you meant.

[Senator Clarence]

Do you not know how to spell properly or something? Everybody with half a brain knows it's spelled "Muslim" and not "Moslem" or whatevsky.

It is another way of spelling the word sh**thead
How about responding to my point rather then trying to be a smartass

I might take you seriously if you could spell a basic word correctly. In my book, people who can't spell the word of what it is they're ranting about lose all their credibility, and I can hardly take them seriously. Sorry to say that this is such a situation.

Please do not agress Hashemite. He is just very intolerent of people who has questions which seems obvious to him.

I'm sorry, but I don't see what you mean here. I'm pretty intolerant of idiots or trolls (or people who can't spell basic words in their language correctly), yes, but I don't understand what you meant.

For someone as educated as you seem to think you are I would expect you to know Moslems is a fine way of spelling Muslims... two different ways- both are used often

If you are talking about my other spelling mistakes- I am not a good typist and my computer has some busted keys so typing is difficult. If you want to critique my spelling ratherthen argue my point then maybe you should find a grammer forum as opposed to a political one, jackass

As for the poster above- that is a fair point

[Lief]

Uh... Moslem is a correct alternative spelling of Muslim.

[Beet]

The correct spelling is mussulman... duh

[Senator MaxQue]

Do you not know how to spell properly or something? Everybody with half a brain knows it's spelled "Muslim" and not "Moslem" or whatevsky.

It is another way of spelling the word sh**thead
How about responding to my point rather then trying to be a smartass

I might take you seriously if you could spell a basic word correctly. In my book, people who can't spell the word of what it is they're ranting about lose all their credibility, and I can hardly take them seriously. Sorry to say that this is such a situation.

Please do not agress Hashemite. He is just very intolerent of people who has questions which seems obvious to him.

I'm sorry, but I don't see what you mean here. I'm pretty intolerant of idiots or trolls (or people who can't spell basic words in their language correctly), yes, but I don't understand what you meant.

Sorry to disagree with you, but he is right than Moslems is used, too, even by some organisation, like the Lebanese Moslems Association, which represent Lebanese Muslims in Australia, which use both interchangely.

[Lief]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moslem

[Χahar]

"Moslem" is a little dated, but it's perfectly acceptable.

[asexual trans victimologist]

"Moslem" is a little dated, but it's perfectly acceptable.

Particularly from Clarence, who is also a little dated but perfectly acceptable.

Clarence: I'm joking, I don't actually think of old people as 'dated' but the juxtaposition was too good to pass up.

To answer your question, it's more or less what MaxQue said, except I'd add that there are still parts of the Third World where Christians act like this or can act like this under certain circumstances. There's this weird millennial flavor to a lot of African armed groups, for instance, which once you get south of the Sahel tend to be, or claim to be, very Christian.

[Tender Branson]

In German, you hear both "Moslem" and "Muslim" - so both are correct.

As for the question:

Islam is a slightly younger Religion than Christianity. When did it start to exist ? Sometime around the year 600 ?

Remember what the Christians did when their religion was only 1000-1600 years old ?

So, Islam has about 600 years to "settle down" and come in line with Christianity ...

[asexual trans victimologist]

I agree with the consensus...Muslims tend to come from inferior cultures and their religion is a bit more juvenile than the ones we are accustomed to.....wait, then why aren't newer religion even more violent...and for that matter, why aren't non-Muslims from the same places just as violent?

First let me say that this is one of the most spectacularly paternalistic-racist things I've ever read on the Atlas Forum.

Non-Muslims from places where Islam meets with other religions are, in fact, just as violent as the Muslims in those places, with some exceptions like the Copts in Egypt (religious minorities in the 'Arab World' proper, generally speaking; again, with exceptions within the exception).

There is actually a spectacular amount of Buddhist-on-Muslim violence in parts of Thailand, and Hindu-on-Muslim violence in India and Indonesia.

[dead0man]

I agree with the consensus...Muslims tend to come from inferior cultures and their religion is a bit more juvenile than the ones we are accustomed to.....wait, then why aren't newer religion even more violent...and for that matter, why aren't non-Muslims from the same places just as violent?

First let me say that this is one of the most spectacularly paternalistic-racist things I've ever read on the Atlas Forum.

SWEET!  What do I win?

Non-Muslims from places where Islam meets with other religions are, in fact, just as violent as the Muslims in those places, with some exceptions like the Copts in Egypt (religious minorities in the 'Arab World' proper, generally speaking; again, with exceptions within the exception).

Can you give some examples?

There is actually a spectacular amount of Buddhist-on-Muslim violence in parts of Thailand,

Well lets look at that...from the list of terrorist acts in Thailand:
1972  Israeli Bangkok Embassy hostage crisis-A bunch of Palestinians attack the Israeli embassy
2005 Songkhla bombings-while no one ever claimed it, most clues point to the Patani United Liberation Organization (PULO)...guess what they fight for?
2006 Bangkok bombings-probably not Muslim related
2006 Hat Yai bombings-probably is Muslim related, but hard to say
2007 Songkhla bombings-same as above
2007 South Thailand bombings-same as above ( Buddhists or ethnic Chinese were the targets)
2009 Narathiwat bombing-not much info...but it was in the south
2012 Iranian blows up own self trying to kill Jews

2 out of the 8 was probably non-Muslim

and Hindu-on-Muslim violence in India and Indonesia.

I started doing the same for India, but holy crap they've got serious issues.  I know there are a lot of people there, but man, that's a lot of terrorism by a lot of different groups of people...Sikhs, commies, random regional groups, Muslims, Buddhists, Furries, Purple People Eaters and Flat Earthers.  I'll concede that Muslims aren't the champions of Terrorism in India (but they are certainly competitive!).

As for Indonesia, I haven't clicked on ALL the links, but after 8 or so I haven't seen one that wasn't done by Muslims.

In the future, when defending Muslims, you might not want to bring numbers into it.  It NEVER works out well.


..and no Xahar, we don't need yet another picture of the OKC bombing.

[Judäischen Volksfront]

There's also the ethnic dimension to these conflicts. When I was in China last summer I noticed that Hui Muslims (who speak Chinese, have Chinese names, practice Chinese customs, etc) were broadly accepted in society, and historically were and are more likely to serve in the army. By contrast, other Muslim groups were viewed as "foreign" and more observant, and once I probably met an Uyghur pretending to be Hui from a Tibetan region. There are always more dimensions than just religion and to ignore these is very lazy and ignorant.

[asexual trans victimologist]

I didn't bring numbers into it. You did. You're also only looking at acts of immediate and proximate violence rather than uses of structural or symbolic violence, which in the case of Thailand are mostly directed against the Muslims. I will grant you Indonesia for the most part, because Indonesia among other things has a lot of friction between hardline and more syncretic Muslims, who aren't necessarily always as distinguishable from the 'Hindus' as you'd think.

One could argue that the sorts of violence that happen to be favored by Muslims lack finesse (let it never be said that they lack panache or pizzazz).

I'm also not 'defending Muslims' as such.

In general, returning to the subject of structural or symbolic violence, it is usually instructive to note one's own attitude towards other cultures if one is wondering why they might tend to respond in less-than-helpful ways.

[London Man]

I would say that our cultures, that celebrate promiscuity and inebriation, while treating women as sex objects, can't exactly claim superiority.

[dead0man]

I didn't bring numbers into it. You did. You're also only looking at acts of immediate and proximate violence rather than uses of structural or symbolic violence, which in the case of Thailand are mostly directed against the Muslims. I will grant you Indonesia for the most part, because Indonesia among other things has a lot of friction between hardline and more syncretic Muslims, who aren't necessarily always as distinguishable from the 'Hindus' as you'd think.

So there is some "structural or symbolic violence" against Muslims by non-Muslims in a couple of places.  I agree.  It's wrong and should be stopped.  But it pales when compared to the "structural or symbolic violence" against non-Muslims by Muslims all over the Muslim world.

There are very few long running conflicts on this planet that don't have a strong Muslim component to them.  Odd that.

I would say that our cultures, that celebrate promiscuity and inebriation, while treating women as sex objects, can't exactly claim superiority.

Seriously?  You're going to bring how we treat women into this?  And then say it's a negative to OUR culture?  Dude, if I wanted to play softball I'd join a league.

[asexual trans victimologist]

There are also relatively few poor countries without large Muslim populations (compared to the proportion of rich countries without them, not necessarily in absolute terms), although the Muslim world tends to be somewhat more well-off than some non-Muslim parts of these same continents. Everybody sh**ts on everybody else. The Muslim countries where they are indeed so structurally violent to non-Muslims collectively get sh**t on by another set of countries, which they (and a bunch of other countries) in turn collectively spew sh**t back at.

When this was explained to me as a principle of anthropology, I think there was a less scatological metaphor employed.

Treatment of women is honestly pretty awful in most places, in different ways. Very conservative Muslim beliefs (or many other kinds of very conservative beliefs) certainly don't help, of course.

[ingemann]

I would say that our cultures, that celebrate promiscuity and inebriation, while treating women as sex objects, can't exactly claim superiority.

Muslim and their country leave nothing in the objectification of women as sex objects. The whole honoring women is bunch of sh**t. As for substance abuse they just tend to abuse other substances than alcohol.

[dead0man]

There are also relatively few poor countries without large Muslim populations (compared to the proportion of rich countries without them, not necessarily in absolute terms), although the Muslim world tends to be somewhat more well-off than some non-Muslim parts of these same continents. Everybody sh**ts on everybody else. The Muslim countries where they are indeed so structurally violent to non-Muslims collectively get sh**t on by another set of countries, which they (and a bunch of other countries) in turn collectively spew sh**t back at.

When this was explained to me as a principle of anthropology, I think there was a less scatological metaphor employed.

Treatment of women is honestly pretty awful in most places, in different ways. Very conservative Muslim beliefs (or many other kinds of very conservative beliefs) certainly don't help, of course.

Indeed, economics and a history of victimhood/revenge play an important role in this, just as they do in almost all conflicts.


And in no way do we treat women awful in the west.  Maybe 40 years ago one could make that argument, but not now.  Yes, SOME women are treated poorly, but so are SOME men.  Women can do anything they want in the west.  There is a list of things they haven't done yet, yes, but the great majority of those things are pretty freaking elite and it's only a matter of time before even those barriers are broken (I'm thinking US President, athlete competing against men professionally in sport...huh...others I'm sure).  Yes, there is some residual sexism, especially it certain places, but normally when it's brought to light the guilty take a lot of sh**t.  Like when men have the balls to take care of their children, women stand up and say "this will not do!".  Like recently in New Zealand when the government edited out a scene of a dad feeding his baby because of complaints from a breastfeeding organization.  As far as the west goes, women have almost as much power as the Jews or Skull and Bones.

[Sibboleth]

What a wonderful and productive thread.