It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Islam: Some more thoughts

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   
My father forwarded me an article in email last night, detailing concerns that are held by the current Danish government, about the risk of complete Islamic cultural assimilation of the country. I thought I'd post what I wrote to him in reply, here; my perspective was that I don't believe that violent resistance is a good idea, but probably not for the reasons that most might think.

The article made an analogy between Islam and cancer; and although said analogy might seem at first to simply be pejorative and hateful, I tried to look at how, from the perspective of virology, the analogy is actually more accurate than people might think; but that at the same time, ironically, also provided the reason as to why I do genuinely now believe, that Islamic expansion is not to be feared.

--

The spread of Islam reminds me of what I read years ago, of the replacement
of all other minicomputer (that is, larger than PCs; the old industry)
operating systems with UNIX. UNIX was generally considered technically
inferior to most of the operating systems it replaced; yet the main reasons
why it spread so rapidly and replaced everything else, was because it was
comparitively small, zero cost, and initially non-proprietary.

Islam has similar evolutionary advantages, when compared to most other
religious systems. It's a fascinating example of how those organisms and
memetic complexes which have the least social desirability, can often also
have the greatest degree of evolutionary fitness and success.

In theological and social terms, it is probably the single most abhorrent
religion in existence, yes; but its' adherents and evangelists are incredibly
aggressive. Islam also has one other major reproductive advantage over
non-Islamic society, as well, and that is the absence of feminism. It's a
patriarchic, potentially polygamous (multiple wives) religious and social
system, whose adherents don't practice birth control. As a result of this,
it is an issue of pure pragmatism that non-Islamic reproductive rates are
going to be nowhere near competitive.

An analogy from virology, however, can allow for a small degree of optimism,
where Islam is concerned. It has been observed that the most successful
viruses in the wild, are generally those which are not fatal to their host
organism. Viruses which do cause the death of the host organism will die
with it, so it is in a virus's long term best interests, not to compromise
the longevity of its' host, but to eventually reach a point of equilibrium
in that regard. Viruses which do remain uncompromisingly fatal, generally
burn themselves out within a relatively short space of time; all of the
hosts die, and all instances of the virus die with them.

As the article implied, Islam is thus the theological equivalent of the
bubonic plague, in more ways than one. Given its' degree of virility, we
might conceivably expect a complete Islamic assimilation of the planet
within three generations of the present, (roughly 90 years) but I would also
expect the epidemic to have run its' course in 4-5 generations. (120-150
years; roughly 30-60 years after complete planetary saturation)

Islam is not sociologically stable. It has been observed that even when a
given area has been entirely assimilated, violence will generally still occur
between Muslims themselves, over whether or not individuals are still adhering
with sufficient vigilance, to the religion's repressive and dehumanising legal
system. Using the virus analogy given above, it thus cannot be expected to
continue to exist, long term; even if, as mentioned, entire planetary
assimilation occurs.

I also doubt that it would succeed in annihilating the entirety of the human
population in the process. The real danger to humanity, I feel, primarily
lies in violent attempts at resistance to the disease at its' current point,
when infection is already at a sufficiently advanced state, that present
recovery is highly unlikely. A nuclear World War 3 in an attempt to prevent
planetary Islamic assimilation, would probably be a much greater potential
threat to long term human survival, than Islamic assimilation itself.

As undesirable an option as this may seem, I believe that the best chance of
survival lies in allowing the epidemic to burn itself out. It eventually
will, and when it does, human society can pick up the pieces and continue.
We are much more likely to kill ourselves completely, in the process of
fighting off something which has (at least in Europe, apparently) largely already
taken over anyway, than we are in simply waiting for it to pass.
edit on 19-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:03 AM
link   
My dad once told me that the time of religions is over, and people don't need religions to live in ethical, socially unified and coherent ways. Besides making a very astute observation, his deduction didn't come from a simple observation, but of knowledge that Islam has run its course. That it has, to a very large extent, established what it wanted to establish from the very beginning.

To an outsider who knows nothing about the gist of Islam, it may seem like what it's trying to establish now is some sort of world domination. But this isn't the case. Although Muslims, who come from third world countries, who haven't heard of birth control, may make the virus theory plausible in every way. However, the educated of us, always make a distinction between what Islam as a religion (way of life) aims, and what Muslims aim for. These two are not the same. And from a basic understanding of society, you should already know by now that monotheistic religions have all flourished under the same circumstances: there was a minority who was being oppressed, said minority found a voice and enlightenment in new religion, said minority triumphed over oppressors, and that was that. What happens after the religion of minorities became the religion of MASSES though, is an altogether different story. But history repeats itself: its not pretty.

Where am I going with this? To an educated Muslim, Islam was probably one of the only monotheistic religions that had clear cut rules for ethical warfare. You cannot find verses within the Bible or the Torah about how to conduct ethical warfare as clearly as you would inside the Quran. (If there are any of comparison, I don't know them, and I would love to be informed about them). To an educated Muslim, Islam has taught those it touched, ethics in such clear ways, that these teachings have passed through time and religions and have found places within other people's cultures, especially the West. It has enlightened people in so many ways, that the things it aimed for, have been largely accomplished. The world does not live in a state of ignorance like it used to, and Europeans and consequently the West have the teachings of Islam to thank for that. But their pride, nor their love of their own religion would ever let them admit that.

Islam has accomplished what God intended for it. Its core concepts, of ethical societal reform have been established in the majority of developed countries in the world. To the extent that everyone who has a mind, who reads, who reasons, can now very clearly say that it's wrong to kill children and women during a war; that their leaders should be voted for and criticized because they're only human, and that attacking someone without being attacked first, is a crime. All of these concepts were clearly outlined in the Quran.

So yes, to an extent you're right. But now the burden remains on those who know to teach those who don't know.

Islam is a way of life, even if one does not profess to live by it, or believe one word of it, one can live within its core rules. I've met a lot of atheists who do. They just make me smile.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by nusnus
To an outsider who knows nothing about the gist of Islam, it may seem like what it's trying to establish now is some sort of world domination. But this isn't the case. Although Muslims, who come from third world countries, who haven't heard of birth control, may make the virus theory plausible in every way.


I'm afraid that there are a number of European countries, nusnus, whose native populations do currently view Islam as a genuine threat to both their cultural, and their literal physical survival. France, Norway, Denmark, Sweden; Scandinavia is being overrun. These are countries that have never had large native populations, and at this point, really don't have any means of defending themselves. I believe, as I said to my father, that their extinction (or at least complete cultural assimilation) is probably inevitable at this point; but that doesn't mean that I do not consider it a tragedy.


So yes, to an extent you're right. But now the burden remains on those who know to teach those who don't know.


Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

The LORD said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

-- Genesis 18:18-43

The question is, how can those of you who I know are moderate and intelligent, accomplish that without the fanatics simply murdering you as an infidel, as well?

I have said before, nusnus, that the main reason why I am able to keep an open mind about Islam at all, is because of my contact with individual Muslims like yourself. At the end of the day, however, I worry about how much restraining influence, moderate Islam can have over the fanatics.

One of the reasons why, even though with the virus theory it may not have sounded like it, I also do try and discourage my father and other people from the idea of violence against Muslims, is because I have faith in the idea that yes, given enough time, reform even among the fanatics would occur, because the moderate population would simply get sufficiently tired of them that they would no longer be willing to tolerate the fanatics' behaviour. I'm just also worried about how much damage will be done before we get to that point.

I do not make, in my own mind, the sort of negative generalisation about Muslims which a lot of people in the West seem to, and I hope that I've demonstrated that to you. At the same time, however, I think that there is an element of the Islamic population, even if they aren't everyone or even a majority, who are a genuine problem. I'm not really sure how to cope with them, or what we can do about them.
edit on 19-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


I've said this to Bo Xian the other day in one of his threads. If by an unfortunate twist of fate, did the number of Christians who believed they were absolved of ANY sin simply because they believed in Jesus Christ's sacrifice for them, decided to get up and kill people, because well they have a very twisted understanding of this teaching, what can the average Christian do on the street?

The answer is nothing. You as an average person can do no more than going around and informing these people that their ignorance is so deep and wide that they need to stop what they're doing and seek guidance from God. But since they already believe they've got guidance from God, this would be a completely mote move. So what is a person to do?? Nothing. You as a person cannot go around judging people, or dishing out justice the way you feel like it. You can only hope the government can. You report them and be done with it, or you challenge their ideas in a forum somewhere and hope they see the light.

Now notice when I said that educated Muslims believe that the European countries and consequently the developed ones have in turn taken over the values that Islam preaches. A lot of educated Muslims know that these countries are more 'Muslim' in spirit than Muslim countries are. This is why they chose to live in them. So what can I do as a Muslim? I support these governments when they fight ignorance, I support them when they try to implement moderate laws that allow for expression, and I support them when they for example ban the burqa. Because I know that these societies need to coexist peacefully and thats what God wants for all of us regardless of whatever religion we choose.

"And when thy Lord said to the angels, I am going to place a ruler in the earth, they said : Wilt Thou place in it such as make mischief in it and shed blood? And we celebrate Thy praise and extol Thy holiness. He said : Surely I know what you know not." Quran 2:30

And since nothing takes place without God's knowledge, and permission, there is wisdom even in the darkest trenches of ignorance that are presented by my brethren. Surely He knows best, and maybe somethings that look terrible are good for us in the long run. You gotta have some faith that it'll all turn out alright. A lot of us believe God is keeping the planet alive till a moment comes and not a single enlightened being exists on it. Lets just hope we have enough enlightenment in our hearts to keep it alive.

Edit: Another thing my dad told me was that God does not need to bring about natural disasters to teach us lessons about our errors anymore, since the number of humans on the planet is so large, He can inspire humans to go out and teach others how to live properly. And if that means lending His strength to non Muslim armies to teach Muslims a lesson, so be it, it has been done before. The US attacking Afghanistan wasn't just some crazy neo-con plan to bring about NWO. God was teaching them a lesson, alas they haven't learnt it very well.
edit on 19-3-2012 by nusnus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by nusnus
Edit: Another thing my dad told me was that God does not need to bring about natural disasters to teach us lessons about our errors anymore, since the number of humans on the planet is so large, He can inspire humans to go out and teach others how to live properly. And if that means lending His strength to non Muslim armies to teach Muslims a lesson, so be it, it has been done before. The US attacking Afghanistan wasn't just some crazy neo-con plan to bring about NWO. God was teaching them a lesson, alas they haven't learnt it very well.
edit on 19-3-2012 by nusnus because: (no reason given)


This is an extremely interesting perspective. I will admit, that it doesn't reflexively occur to many of us, to assume that the American government is directed by divine guidance. Most of us probably tend to believe that the inspiration for Uncle Sam's actions generally come, conversely, from the man downstairs.


It's also interesting though, that you apparently advocate banning the burqa? Did I misinterpret, or can you elaborate a little on that for me?
edit on 19-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by nusnus
 


Also, show me a decent Muslim. My guess is, you'll have a hard time finding one.


The woman you are talking to.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 

Could you provide the original article, so that some perspective about the discussion would be gained?

Also, why do you assume that only about 3 generations from now (after almost 1.5 thousand years) that islam will extinguish itself?



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by petrus4
 

Could you provide the original article, so that some perspective about the discussion would be gained?

Also, why do you assume that only about 3 generations from now (after almost 1.5 thousand years) that islam will extinguish itself?


www.sullivan-county.com...

I originally got the article as an email forward, but managed to track it down here, among other places. Apparently it's been doing the rounds of admittedly fascist blogs for close to the last two years. My father is also conservative (although personally, I relate the word "conservative," to fascism in the same way as some others consider socialism a slightly tamer version of outright Communism) and we generally have fairly wide differences of opinion, politically.

But to answer the question of why I think Islam could extinguish itself in that timeframe; it's mainly because up to this point, it's been comparitively passive. Yes, there's been the Ottoman Empire and various other things; but I don't think we've seen quite the same level of sustained Islamic aggression before, that we are currently observing right now.

I also think that the main thing which has prevented Islam from extinguishing itself, is the very fact that it hasn't been able to entirely take over the planet. If you remember the virus analogy that I used, it is only those viruses which threaten to kill the host, which end up dying with the host, when the host dies. So it's easier for a religious system to maintain homeostasis, and therefore long term preservation, when while having a healthy base of adherents, it hasn't managed to saturate literally the entire planet. I mean, once something has managed to go literally everywhere in the world, where else is there to go?

This is especially true in the case of the Abrahamic monotheisms, because other than Judaism, they are fiercely evangelical. Christianity and Islam do not recognise the right of other religious systems to exist, although the Qu'ran does, depending on who you ask, but many Muslims do not adhere to that theology, apparently. They both have an attitude of extreme exclusivity, and weren't designed to peacefully co-exist with other religions.

So if you've got a system that is designed to subjugate the planet, and it successfully does, there's really nowhere else to go after that. You might argue that it took Christianity more than 2,000 years to burn itself out after attaching itself to a global empire, as it is in systemic decline at the moment; but even Christianity has generally been a lot more tolerant of the existence of other systems, and it is said comparitive moderation that has helped it to survive.

There is also the issue where, as mentioned, once an entire country or area becomes Islamic and there are no non-Muslims to fight against, Muslims have been observed as starting to fight amongst themselves. They will be violent towards those who they think aren't sufficiently devout, as well as murdering apostates, etc. So Islamic society is not stable, and cannot be, even when it has successfully removed external opposition from a given area.

Any religion or social system which behaves in that manner, is eventually either going to be radically reformed if it wants to survive, or die out. The reason why is because the survival of such a social system, is not conducive to the survival of humanity overall. So if Islam does manage to become globally dominant, it's going to be a question of which dies first; the religion, or the population.

Maybe I'm not being generous enough; it might take a few hundred years more than I projected, but then again, the environment doesn't have that kind of time frame available to it right now. The sort of global problems that we have at the moment, mean that we don't have 200-500 years to spare for a social system with Islam's degree of legalism and violence to overtake the world at this point. If that does happen, we will probably end up becoming extinct.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by InfoKartel
 


There is a saying in Turkish it goes like this: "the wet hay burns alongside the dry one"

This means that innocents will also get hurt alongside the guilty when God's wrath descends upon people. Usually this itself is His Mercy. The innocents who die have nothing to fear because they're going to Heaven without questioning anyway. But God only bothers warning those who He believes will learn a lesson from it. He could easily have destroyed all of them in one shot couldn't he? Or He could have let them live in their ignorance for the end of time, without giving so much as a single warning.

When the leaders of Muslim countries are drowning in their ignorance, in their obvious hatred of others, are being a bad example for the world, take down other people's holy items, (like the statues of Buddha in Afghanistan) and produce more ignorance than enlightenment, God is not going to sit and let that go by honey pie.

The same analogy could be made of the Palestinians and Israelis. Why does God allow the Israelis prosper and not the Palestinians? Have the Palestinians ever thought about that? Because Israelis take care of their own better than the Palestinians take care of their own. You can call me whatever you want, but are you going to argue with me over the fact that MOST non Muslim countries are driven by laws that value human life more than those in Muslim countries? You can't argue with the obvious. Those non Muslim countries have understood what God wants, the Muslims in majority have yet to wake up. Thats all I'm saying.
edit on 19-3-2012 by nusnus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


I don't advocate things by simply balancing them against my value system. I advocate what is necessary for society to function properly.

A lot of Muslims know that there is a concept in Islam called: fitnah. This is a very interesting concept, because it means: planting/causing mischief.

Now, in a country where seeing another persons face is a sign of trust, covering your face is obviously going to do more harm than good. If you are a selfish person who thinks its going to put you into heaven, you're an idiot because Islam is mostly about your inside personality and not just your looks. So a Muslim HAS to think. Does wearing the burqa in a country where seeing your facial expressions benefit anyone? Or what harm does it do to OTHER Muslims? You have to question this because wearing the burqa is not a must to be a Muslim.

Similarly, in a country where NOT wearing the burqa is going to cause trouble, you use your brain and wear it to blend in the culture, to show signs of good faith.

So if the government feels that those who wear the burqa make the majority of the populace feel uneasy, then they are free to do whatever they want. And a Muslim who truly believes its NECESSARY to cover their face to be a good Muslim, can simply get up and leave this country who isn't even a Muslim one. They shouldn't try to force others to accept them with all their oddnesses. This just causes more trouble than good.
edit on 19-3-2012 by nusnus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by nusnus
reply to post by InfoKartel
 

You can call me whatever you want, but are you going to argue with me over the fact that MOST non Muslim countries are driven by laws that value human life more than those in Muslim countries? You can't argue with the obvious. Those non Muslim countries have understood what God wants, the Muslims in majority have yet to wake up. Thats all I'm saying.


I see your point. One of the things which people who worry about Islamic expansion bring up a lot, is the comparitive birth rate; they say that it is a lot higher in Muslim countries. As politically incorrect as it might be, I blame feminism and to a lesser extent homosexuality for that. Neither of those two things are tolerated in Muslim countries, so reproductively successful straight sex happens more often.
edit on 19-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Not to be extra or anything, but I'm decent, I'm muslim, and I wrap it up.... And for a while my wife was on the pill...

There are different sects within this faith, and the sect that believes that birth control is wrong is the most unpopular, yet most vocal. The reason they're the most vocal is because they were established, funded, and are promoted by the government of Saudi Arabia, and that is the salafi/wahhabi sect...

I really wish people would stop talking about all 1.7 billion muslims like we're some damn zoo animals who need mental evaluations because we're violent, barbaric and "7th century".



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
I really wish people would stop talking about all 1.7 billion muslims like we're some damn zoo animals who need mental evaluations because we're violent, barbaric and "7th century".


Islam has more or less the same problem that non-Islamic society does. Humanity is comprised of 4-7% psychopaths, and 95% non-psychopaths. The 95% (also known as the "silent majority," or the "herd," etc) allow the psychopathic 4-7% to rule them, because they would literally prefer to die than think for themselves, or accept anything vaguely resembling personal responsibility. They also don't like violence, whereas the psychopathic minority enjoy violence to the same degree that the sheep are averse to it.

You're not all violent, barbaric, and 7th century, no. However, the people who rule you are, and generally speaking they will murder you if you try and do anything about them. In the West we have a similar problem. We're not all acquisitive, Capitalist oligarchic billionaires over here, either; it's just our rulers who are...and one of us who tried to complain about them at Zucotti Park last night, had a cop drive his head through a reinforced glass window.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


You do realize this a form of non violent Jihad , simply taking over a society by breeding superior numbers the. Voting all Islamists into office and changing the laws to there belief system . It won't work in every country eventually cou tries will see what has happened in cou tries like your dads ( which will be assimilated ) and put place st measures in the way .



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
I really wish people would stop talking about all 1.7 billion muslims like we're some damn zoo animals who need mental evaluations because we're violent, barbaric and "7th century".


Islam has more or less the same problem that non-Islamic society does. Humanity is comprised of 4-7% psychopaths, and 95% non-psychopaths. The 95% (also known as the "silent majority," or the "herd," etc) allow the psychopathic 4-7% to rule them, because they would literally prefer to die than think for themselves, or accept anything vaguely resembling personal responsibility. They also don't like violence, whereas the psychopathic minority enjoy violence to the same degree that the sheep are averse to it.

You're not all violent, barbaric, and 7th century, no. However, the people who rule you are, and generally speaking they will murder you if you try and do anything about them. In the West we have a similar problem. We're not all acquisitive, Capitalist oligarchic billionaires over here, either; it's just our rulers who are...and one of us who tried to complain about them at Zucotti Park last night, had a cop drive his head through a reinforced glass window.


Islam exists in the west, I'm American born, and American in decent as well, so there is no need to differentiate between the west and Islam.

Second, what people outside of Islam don't realize is that 1.7 billion aren't on the same page. There are close to 73 sects and we are not "ruled" by the same people. Most aren't "ruled" at all. It's not simple enough to explain it but put it like this - are all Christians ruled by the same group? Or do different sects and churches do their own thing?



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azadok
reply to post by petrus4
 


You do realize this a form of non violent Jihad , simply taking over a society by breeding superior numbers the. Voting all Islamists into office and changing the laws to there belief system . It won't work in every country eventually cou tries will see what has happened in cou tries like your dads ( which will be assimilated ) and put place st measures in the way .


The irony of a non-muslim classifying something as non-violent Jihad.

Non-violent Jihad is Jihad against the ego.... Take it from a MUSLIM.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
Islam exists in the west, I'm American born, and American in decent as well, so there is no need to differentiate between the west and Islam.


Most of these threads are due to our awareness that the invasion is proceeding apace. The fact that I had to try and reassure my father that it wasn't necessary for him to take to the streets, shotgun in hand, was what prompted me to begin this thread. There are times when I need such reassurance myself, almost as much as he did.



Second, what people outside of Islam don't realize is that 1.7 billion aren't on the same page. There are close to 73 sects and we are not "ruled" by the same people. Most aren't "ruled" at all. It's not simple enough to explain it but put it like this - are all Christians ruled by the same group? Or do different sects and churches do their own thing?


The differences between the majority of Christian denominations, are truthfully not as large as they would generally have you believe. There are, of course, the further outlying splinter groups; Mormonism and the Seventh Day Adventists are the main two that immediately spring to mind. Your average fundamentalist redneck from the Bible Belt, however, while nominally Protestant, is unlikely to know enough about Christian theology in general terms, to be able to tell you how his beliefs differ from Catholicism.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


My point is that they don't have a "single ruler" just like muslims aren't ruled by anyone. Though there are some muslims who are addicted to "scholars" and their rulings, a.k.a "fatwa's" the majority of muslims just do their thing. There is a large percentage of muslims who follow different sufi sects who have spiritual guides, but that's about it.

People have a wrong idea, and don't want any other one, even when they hear it straight from "the horses mouth".



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join