Is Islam compatible with a post-Enlightenment, pluralistic society? It is now commonplace (one might even say trite) to commend Islam as a "religion of peace,"; and it is certainly true that most Muslims do not count themselves among those who wish to re-establish and expand the ancient caliphate (radical Sunnis) or those who wish to hasten the return of the Twelfth Imam (radical Shiites). But since a dedicated and militant minority--seven percent is the number I have most recently seen--can easily overwhelm an indifferent majority, it does not seem at all unreasonable to worry. Quite a lot, in fact.

Here is a pertinent quote from an article entitled "The Religion Of Peace Shows Its Fangs":

"While Moslem leaders insist that Islam is the religion of peace, the history of Islam says otherwise. Islamic radicals, and many sects of Islam, are anything but peaceful. These radicals can easily dominate the majority of Moslems, and perpetuate a reign of terror on local non-Moslems, as well as any Moslems who oppose this religious violence. Most Moslems, and especially Moslem leaders in Moslem majority nations, delude themselves that this 'Islam Is Peace' mantra is true. The result is that, when the Islamic radicals show up (and they have always been there, since the founding of Islam 1500 years ago), the more moderate leaders try to placate them. That doesn't work, and in a tragedy played out regularly in the history of Islam, the radicals are either suppressed, or gain strength until they are strong enough to fight a civil war. If the radicals win, they establish a religious dictatorship that lasts a generation or two, but eventually collapses from corruption and poor administration (running a government and economy according to the Koran does not work, a fact that the faithful keep denying despite evidence to the contrary)."

And the rest: Indonesia: The Religion Of Peace Shows Its Fangs

Comments?

You people can shove your tolerance crap back up into your backsides where it belongs!

We all know that the proponents of "tolerance" don't have that tolerance for everyone but, instead, only for groups on their approved list.

Talk to me about tolerance when the tolerant tolerate the intolerant.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Why? I have tolerance for many things but there's nothing wrong in tolerating only certain things, it's common sense.

As for the OP, blah. It's the usual islamophobic b/s, any discussion relating to religion's ability to work with modern political beliefs will be frought with errors, misinterpretations and will be forced to descend into the logical view that some religious people are compatible, others not.

__________________
Trust me, I'm a socialist!

There's power in a factory,power in the land, power in the hand of the worker. But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand, there is power in a union.
The union forever defending our rights, down with the blackleg, workers unite. To our brothers and our sisters in many far off lands, there is power in a union.
Money speaks for money, the devil for his own. - Billy Bragg

No, it's hypocritical. You can't go about promoting tolerance and acceptance and diversity and political correctness (they all go hand-in-hand) if you exclude certain ideas or groups.

The OP assumes that the modern, tolerant society is what must be imposed on the entire world. It's the same kind of Western superiority crap for which so much of the non-western world hates the West.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

I wouldn't promote tolerance itself, only tolerance of certain groups and behaviours. And I'd be happy to argue about why I would tolerate one group/behaviour but not another.

__________________
Trust me, I'm a socialist!

There's power in a factory,power in the land, power in the hand of the worker. But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand, there is power in a union.
The union forever defending our rights, down with the blackleg, workers unite. To our brothers and our sisters in many far off lands, there is power in a union.
Money speaks for money, the devil for his own. - Billy Bragg

Others would call this "intolerance" and I have no problem with people choosing to tolerate some groups/behaviors and not others - as long as they openly stand up for their intolerance and not try to hide behind some doublespeak about political correctness.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

That's fine, I'm perfectly happy to say that I wouldn't tolerate capitalism, or pedophilia, or murder or etc...

__________________
Trust me, I'm a socialist!

There's power in a factory,power in the land, power in the hand of the worker. But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand, there is power in a union.
The union forever defending our rights, down with the blackleg, workers unite. To our brothers and our sisters in many far off lands, there is power in a union.
Money speaks for money, the devil for his own. - Billy Bragg

Anybody that simply tolerates EVERYTHING is either going to be driven functionally insane, or is lying for brownie points. And, it's precisely this sort of black/white, either/or style of thinking that tends to hose us.

I try to remain consistent in that I condemn all religions as having a tendency towards idiocy, blind groupthink, and violence, I don't single out Islam as any more or less flawed than anything else.

Do I hate Islam? Not really. I think their #1 desire is be left alone, and I am happy to allow them to pretend it's 732 AD.

But lactose? Oh, I simply won't tolerate that at all! I just won't put up with that! (Kidding...)

__________________
"I don't think we should be governing ourselves. What need is a king, and every now and then if the king’s not doing a good job, we kill him." - George Carlin

A few points are probably in order here, viz.:

(1) The word "islamophobic" is hugely tendentious; and even more so when coupled with the noun "b/s." It appeals to the viscera, not to the intellect.

(2) The observation that the article cited at the beginning of this thread is "frought [sic] with errors [and] misinterpretations" begs the question: What, precisely, are those "errors" and "misinterpretations"? A few examples would surely be useful.

(3) The comment that "some religious people are compatible [with post-Enlightenment ideas of tolerance], others not" misses the central point, which is as follows: The nebulous "some" people who use religion as a battering ram, even if they constitute only a small minority--as I noted previously, seven percent is the number I have heard bandied about--can easily intimidate a much larger number of people ("moderates," as they are inaccurately termed), if the latter are complacent and largely indifferent to the bullying tactics of the minority, or even frightened by them. This is no small point.

Face, bothered?

Sorry John but I won't be debating this with you for the reasons already given.

__________________
Trust me, I'm a socialist!

There's power in a factory,power in the land, power in the hand of the worker. But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand, there is power in a union.
The union forever defending our rights, down with the blackleg, workers unite. To our brothers and our sisters in many far off lands, there is power in a union.
Money speaks for money, the devil for his own. - Billy Bragg