|
Islam: A Defective Civilization? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by hausmusic
Political problems, Shiite-Sunni that has nothing to do with religion
they both follow the same religion they are different Political parties. So when i said that 'when has Islam been the cause of war?' I wasnt looking for phoney sites that claim Islam was ruled by the sword. Yes i will admit some places around the world people converted to Islam centuries ago in order to form good ties with the ruling power, but that doesnt happen today And it IS the fastest growing religion in the world. No i dont know what the 6th pillar of islam is and i dont care.
If you want to learn more try:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundame...tropillars.html
maybe you'll get more understanding |
Erm, shiites and sunnis are different sects of islam, they are not political parties. |
|
|
| hausmusic |
Umm NO... thats a western misconseption which try and separate them,
they are historicly different Political Parties, the only way they would be different sects is if they had some substantial differences in religion, which they dont. Both believe in the same book both inter-marry.
Shiites believe that the person who took control of the Islamic Kalifate after the passing of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)wasnt rightfully chosen. So they are basicly the opposing party.
With 1.2 Billion muslims in the world theyr bound to have difference of opinion. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by hausmusic
Umm NO... thats a western misconseption which try and separate them,
they are historicly different Political Parties, the only way they would be different sects is if they had some substantial differences in religion, which they dont. Both believe in the same book both inter-marry.
Shiites believe that the person who took control of the Islamic Kalifate after the passing of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)wasnt rightfully chosen. So they are basicly the opposing party.
With 1.2 Billion muslims in the world theyr bound to have difference of opinion. |
Umm yeah...to delineate the branches of Islam to only represent political parties and not recognize the true religious differences is shortsided on your part.
Is it minor? Yes, but does little to legitimize your point of view.IMO |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by hausmusic
Umm NO... thats a western misconseption which try and separate them,
they are historicly different Political Parties, the only way they would be different sects is if they had some substantial differences in religion, which they dont. Both believe in the same book both inter-marry.
Shiites believe that the person who took control of the Islamic Kalifate after the passing of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)wasnt rightfully chosen. So they are basicly the opposing party.
With 1.2 Billion muslims in the world theyr bound to have difference of opinion. |
Hmm, actually there were 4 kaliphs who inherited Muhammed's rule, but shiites recognized only one, Ali, as a legitimate successor since he was Muhammed's heir. Unlike sunnis, shiites believe in the Imamah system, that is they consider that after Muhammed assigned the first Imam, there can only be one Imam who is a supreme muslim leader as well as being sinless and appointed by god. After the 12th imam disappeared, they didn't have a religious leader until the arrival oh Homeini. Besides, it's paradoxical to have an opposing party in a theocracy. You can only have an opposing sect. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
wasn't the islamic-arabic empire the most developped scientifically, culturaly and economically for a long period of time?
obviously it can work because it already proved itself. |
no, they stole most of their ideas from the Romans :whip: :whip: |
|
|
| Psygnosis |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Well actually the US was a supporter of Shah Reza Muhammad Pahlavi. What technology are we talking about?
Well that would be a desire of the east, not the west. But you're misinterpreting the point that the author is trying to make. He's not saying that the west does not have ambitions to rule the world, he's saying that the west does rule the world and hence projects a certain sense of arrogance. He's accusing Islam of not ruling the world, and being outraged, or whatever, that it's not.
Anyway good post renegade. |
The advancement technology, they had all high advancements in military and society.. i can say Iran looked like US. They had a Air Force, Navy base and all those. When the Shah was in control he improved life of the persians and the whole Islam view.
Now i find it stupid again at how he calls Islam ignorant when he claims that the west already rule the world, pffft. West don't rule anything other their own land.
Reverend_Trance : Sure the writer is entitled to his own opinion but you said you ignored post that went against him, how stupid can you get. So your actually following his stupid comments and ruling out everyone elses opinion. We are entitled to our opinion too, so respect it.
Another thing, Islam was the strongest civilisation ever, has people read those history books? All facts say that Persia was the first strong nation ever but it doesn't say why it crumbled. If it was doing so well before, what went wrong. The US interfered, thats what. AND that my fellow TAs is the reason why Islam hates US. This whole terrorism nonsense is stupid and inaccurate. Islam is far from being terrorist.
The very fact Iran lost it's power in this game, US throwing the Shah into exile and bringing in a convicted criminal (Ayotallah) to rule the country, US very well knew that Iran would crumble without a vision in the leaders mind. |
|
|
| Psygnosis |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
no, they stole most of their ideas from the Romans :whip: :whip: |
pfft who told you that, Persians actually beat the romans back then and remained the strongest civilisation. Alexander the great then beat Persia.. but married a persian himself (couldn't resist the beauty of persians :p) |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Erm, well, Persia was one of the firs strong nations, however that was about 3000 years before islam. And Alexander came before the Romans started their expansion outside of the apennine peninsula. |
|
|
| torontotrance |
I agree with some point of the original thread
without oil, the middle east is ed, that is true and some other things about islam. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psygnosis
The very fact Iran lost it's power in this game, US throwing the Shah into exile and bringing in a convicted criminal (Ayotallah) to rule the country, US very well knew that Iran would crumble without a vision in the leaders mind. |
Where are you getting this? The US supported the shah. Are you sayign that the US toppled Mohammed Mossadeq for nothing, brought into power teh ayotollah who subsequentely declared jihad against the United States, And supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war for s and giggles??? Or is this all an elaborate scheme to conceal the fact that the US wanted to remove a pro-western/pro-US leader from power? |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Where are you getting this? The US supported the shah. Are you sayign that the US toppled Mohammed Mossadeq for nothing, brought into power teh ayotollah who subsequentely declared jihad against the United States, And supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war for s and giggles??? Or is this all an elaborate scheme to conceal the fact that the US wanted to remove a pro-western/pro-US leader from power? |
Mossadeq was toppled because he nationalized the Anglo-Iranian oil company. That's why the UK and the US declared sanctions on Iran and installed Pahlavi. When Pahlavi had second thoughts about extending British Petroleum license, the UK stopped buying oil from Iran, although the agreed minimum was 5m barrels/day. Not to mention that the shah was considering buying nuclear technology from France or Germany. Americans agreed with that policy, partly because of the special relations with UK, and partly because there was a probability that creating an islamic fundamentalist state could cause a spread of fundamentalism which would result in soviet muslim rebellion. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Mossadeq was toppled because he nationalized the Anglo-Iranian oil company. That's why the UK and the US declared sanctions on Iran and installed Pahlavi. When Pahlavi had second thoughts about extending British Petroleum license, the UK stopped buying oil from Iran, although the agreed minimum was 5m barrels/day. Not to mention that the shah was considering buying nuclear technology from France or Germany. Americans agreed with that policy, partly because of the special relations with UK, and partly because there was a probability that creating an islamic fundamentalist state could cause a spread of fundamentalism which would result in soviet muslim rebellion. |
So the US toppled the Shah, and created a far greater mess of anti-western sentiments, through the UK who simply stopped buying oil from Iran? And how exactly did this increase Khomeini's ability to sieze power? SOurce? |
|
|
|
|
