I don't mean reform as it happened in Christianity, because the problems of Islam are very different. The Catholic Church was rigid and corrupt, Islam has no hierarchy and encompasses all kinds of practices.

It seems to me the practice of Islam is often closely linked to the country where it is practiced, so you have a Moroccan Islam, an Algerian Islam, a Pakistani Islam, etc.

I know there is Sunnism and Shiism, but outside the Middle East, it's mostly Sunni Islam, yet it doesn't mean it's practiced in the same way everywhere.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are spreading salafism on top of this, which is a nightmare and can only lead to religious wars or worse.

What do you think could happen, is it up to politicians ?

We all bring our national complexities to our analysis of religion. It's very easy to ignore the ongoing troubles with Christianity as well, such as evangelicalism. During my adult lifetime there were periods where Catholic terrorism was the major religious concern in some western nations.

No. It's a catch-22. By divine diktat, the prophet was the last and final and what's said and written is final. So no one can produce a scrubbed version. If one does, they are breaking the core covenant (there is but one god and all that) and are an apostate, punishable by death. And as long as the book has those verses, one can always point to the book, kill in the name of the religion and absolve themselves. After all, they are doing it on the command of their god and prophet, as written in the book.

A lot of the ills is relatively recent (less than a century) and was spread from Saudi Arabia in the form of Wahabism. The end of the petro-economy bodes well. With the slow end of the petro dollars, there is dwindling funding of the Wahabi madrasas in Africa and Asia. As the madrasas close down, funding of radical mullahs and mosques end, it may happen that future generations may be more mainstream educated and the fanatical interpretations may be less preached. Saudi Arabia under MBS already seems to be reforming. albeit at a very slow pace.

If it reforms, it won't be because of the adherents themselves but because generations will slowly turn away from religion with contemporary scientific education.

The real joke of it all is that the Saudi and other GCC royals don’t even practice salafi lifestyles themselves. This is reflected in the handful of critical radical clerics who have surfaced in each country that clash with the government. A very convenient way for these governments to show action on counterterror coordination with the west even as they fund madrassas abroad and continue fomenting radicalization beyond their borders

Islam needs more people as brave as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has written a book on the subject:
Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now

golfradio wrote:

No. It's a catch-22. By divine diktat, the prophet was the last and final and what's said and written is final. So no one can produce a scrubbed version. If one does, they are breaking the core covenant (there is but one god and all that) and are an apostate, punishable by death. And as long as the book has those verses, one can always point to the book, kill in the name of the religion and absolve themselves. After all, they are doing it on the command of their god and prophet, as written in the book.

A lot of the ills is relatively recent (less than a century) and was spread from Saudi Arabia in the form of Wahabism. The end of the petro-economy bodes well. With the slow end of the petro dollars, there is dwindling funding of the Wahabi madrasas in Africa and Asia. As the madrasas close down, funding of radical mullahs and mosques end, it may happen that future generations may be more mainstream educated and the fanatical interpretations may be less preached. Saudi Arabia under MBS already seems to be reforming. albeit at a very slow pace.

If it reforms, it won't be because of the adherents themselves but because generations will slowly turn away from religion with contemporary scientific education.

I agree this is a catch-22 situation. They can only reform when there will be enough people looking for a real change and a real reform. I hardly believe this reform can ever come from the top

In countries where Islam is the state religion, it could come from politicians. MBS has brought some changes to Saudi Arabia for example.

Islam is relatively moderate in Morocco, and has been tamed in Algeria (after a civil war against radicals) and Tunisia. If these countries, maybe with Western help, could flourish, it would show that having religion separated from the state, and not the be all and end all of ones life, is better for everyone.

> Saudi Arabia and Qatar are spreading salafism on top of this, which is a nightmare and can only lead to religious wars or worse.

When we think of Islamic nations most go straight to Saudi Arabia and other major gulf nations most closely associated with extremism. But look at the list of biggest Islamic populations:

Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Algeria.

The level of religious conservatism in those countries is mixed but all of them lower than Saudi Arabia, which only comprises 2% of total world muslims.

Most Muslims live in relatively less conservative nations. And 20 years of counter extremist action has decreased islamic extremist threat to the West considerably. I now believe that security agencies rate far right terrorism as a bigger risk to the West than Islamic, look at how a bunch of far right extremists managed to slip under the noses of security agencies and attack the US Capitol on January 6th

Can Christianity reform? - after two world wars the people of Europe seem to have come to the conclusion the answer is no. And the US and Canada are coming to the same conclusion. Even Trump who conservative Christians bet the farm on was not able to come through for them. Islam may not be inherently fundamentalist, but its ethos and tribal background has thus far resisted the sort of reform that would encourage the kind of scientific excellence that characterized much of its last two centuries of the first millenium CE.

Subject of discussion is not the situation in the United States but what is stated in the first post. So please keep this thread on topic.

sierrakilo44 wrote:

Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Algeria.

I'm not familiar with all of these, but I'll comment.

Algeria, already mentioned, there was a civil war with radicals (who incidentally planted bombs in France). It's basically a dictatorship of old people, with extremely high youth unemployment, so I worry radicals will find a fertile ground there.

Indonesia, some parts have been given to radicals, empowering them to apply charia strictly

Pakistan, apostasy means a death sentence, the country is unstable, the "security services" are playing with fire. The Taliban come from there, and of course Ben Laden was welcome there, too.

Bangladesh : don't know.

Nigeria : don't know much except of course for Boko Haram.

Iran : another form of Islam, not exactly reformed but at least not trying to spread, and I expect Iranians to conduct another revolution at some point.

Egypt : the military had to take over after islamists were elected...

Turkey : Erdogan is playing with fire, transforming a country that was almost westernized in its approach to religion, into just another authoritarian regime justified by religion.

The problem is not religion, the problem is the horrible behavior of horrible people who want to harass, injure or kill people based on a flimsy religious justification. My religion is simple: that hell is real, and all those people will burn in hell.

Aesma wrote:

What do you think could happen, is it up to politicians ?

Anything is possible. But a perhaps more valuable question is what are the push/pull factors that would cause the entrenched interests and clerics, which like things the way they are now in that they keep everyone in their place and the religious interpreters employed, to for some reason wake up and decide OK, today Oct 26, 2021 we are going to change. And not only that, everyone's little fiefdom variety of this religion is also going to see me change and then try to 1 up me to see who can reform the best!

I just don't see it happening so easily. One thing that has motivated these nations in the past have been... oil export and sovereign national security?

Also there is kind of an inherent bias in this question that Islam needs or should reform. I have a feeling some people might question why? I personally feel human rights in the predominantly Islamic countries would be a good first start, and perhaps creating a secular space in public and a private space at home where there is a separation of church and state.

How about we just end all religions, I think we’re more than advanced enough now to realise sky fairies are not real, why waste time and energy on them. When you die that it’s life ends there are no second chances, no heaven, no rooms full of virgins.

Religion is first and foremost a belief system, are you suggesting that the entire world just trust our politicians only, because they are just and the only true forces on earth who have the interest of all mankind at heart?

par13del wrote:

Religion is first and foremost a belief system, are you suggesting that the entire world just trust our politicians only, because they are just and the only true forces on earth who have the interest of all mankind at heart?

Religion is predominantly a tool with which to keep the poor and uneducated under control. Is your existence a steaming pile of manure because you’re dirt poor? Don’t worry, if you behave you’ll have untold wealth and eternal life when you’re dead.

Kiwirob wrote:

How about we just end all religions, I think we’re more than advanced enough now to realise sky fairies are not real, why waste time and energy on them. When you die that it’s life ends there are no second chances, no heaven, no rooms full of virgins.

Well therein lies the problem. you have to oppress a population to purge their beliefs...and is that not exactly why religion has such a foothold today? Let people be free, and in a few generations they will voluntarily turn a way of life into a tradition only their ancestors really do..and a few generations after that, it turns into a fable that only idiots listen to factually...but the point is you cannot forcefully take it away, or they come back at you with guns and explosives.

par13del wrote:

Religion is first and foremost a belief system, are you suggesting that the entire world just trust our politicians only, because they are just and the only true forces on earth who have the interest of all mankind at heart?

So clearly you want to miss the point here. Go do a poll of atheists and ask if they trust politicians. Like, go fuck your strawman, buddy.

Look, my atheist is coming out in response to you, but could you please get into your head that we are in all strata of society, and probably are in your daily life more than you think...only we don't grab a megaphone and say "god is bollocks!!!" all the time. Like on a daily basis, you are dealing with atheists and you don't even know it. It would be nice if you would stop assuming we are fucking idiots with no moral compass. ALL the fucking politicians are religious! Don't paint us with your brush! We are the minority, we listen to our hearts and brains. Some of us are sorry examples of humanity, but same with any group of people. I bet you judge Islam off of ISIS? Well, we use an Arabic numeral system, most (2/3rds at least) of the stars are named things brown people wanted to name them and the number zero was invented by a guy who if he wasn't Islamic, came from the part of the world that was crazy about Islam...now, do you think any of those people really gave a shit about Islam? No, to come up with the number 0 you have to go against god, because religion is deviod of math. Islam isn't the problem, fucking idiots are the problem. To go back on my point to KiwiRob, I also wish we could live in a world without religion, because it is fucking stupid to think that a natural disaster was caused by not worshipping the right god. I only think he expressed his point in a way i disagree with, and I haven't seen his reply yet, but he has a reputation on this board, so we know where he is coming from, and I KNOW he won't say something like "fuck you! My atheism is better than yours!!"

scbriml wrote:

par13del wrote:

Religion is first and foremost a belief system, are you suggesting that the entire world just trust our politicians only, because they are just and the only true forces on earth who have the interest of all mankind at heart?

Religion is predominantly a tool with which to keep the poor and uneducated under control. Is your existence a steaming pile of manure because you’re dirt poor? Don’t worry, if you behave you’ll have untold wealth and eternal life when you’re dead.

This is one of the best summations of religion I have ever read! Very true.

meecrob wrote:

par13del wrote:

Religion is first and foremost a belief system, are you suggesting that the entire world just trust our politicians only, because they are just and the only true forces on earth who have the interest of all mankind at heart?

So clearly you want to miss the point here. Go do a poll of atheists and ask if they trust politicians. Like, go fuck your strawman, buddy.
/quote]
Clearly you miss the questions asked of Kiwirob, but good avoidance of the question which still remains. If we do as Kiwi wants and get rid of religion which is a belief system, what do you replace it with? The OP question was can Islam be reformed, I don't think elimination will work, even in communist and Muslim countries where western religion has been "legally" persecuted, followers still remain risking life and limb. Humans are raised with a belief system, it starts with parents and usually grows during the formative years.

Right now in the "developed" world, big government and socialist principles rule, and guess what, those are led by politicians, so maybe if we replace politicians with government, is that more palatable? As for the rule of law, the politicians do ensure that the law follows their desires, it changes based on conditions, it is not certain.

Religion and politics are used to control people, they are both tools which in the hands of extremist can create massive damage. Religion did not get the west into Afghanistan, but religion did ensure that western principles of government and rule of law did not take hold, that collapsed in days when the military power was removed.

Islam like any other religion is very very far from homogeneous. And like other religions, it is dynamic, the views and practices are constantly evolving. The basic tenants are very subject to interpretation.
Although I think the Koran is more prescriptive, and less allegorical then the Bible, slowing the relitive interpretive evolution of Islam.
But interpretations have varied in time, in setting , and unfortunately far too often, the very earthly ambitions of leaders of the local practitioners.
In this it shares with Christianity and probably every other faith.
I think all faiths need constant scrutiny, constant reform if you like, to curtail their misuse as powerful means of oppression.

ztarizona wrote:

Aesma wrote:

What do you think could happen, is it up to politicians ?

Anything is possible. But a perhaps more valuable question is what are the push/pull factors that would cause the entrenched interests and clerics, which like things the way they are now in that they keep everyone in their place and the religious interpreters employed, to for some reason wake up and decide OK, today Oct 26, 2021 we are going to change. And not only that, everyone's little fiefdom variety of this religion is also going to see me change and then try to 1 up me to see who can reform the best!

I just don't see it happening so easily. One thing that has motivated these nations in the past have been... oil export and sovereign national security?

Also there is kind of an inherent bias in this question that Islam needs or should reform. I have a feeling some people might question why? I personally feel human rights in the predominantly Islamic countries would be a good first start, and perhaps creating a secular space in public and a private space at home where there is a separation of church and state.

So maybe democracy would be the key, when people can choose their leaders, they might start to wonder about the legitimacy of their clerics...

Religion along with ritual is as much about how humans and human society establish meaning. Humans are hungry enough for meaning that leaders find it easy to co-opt established religions to gain that control some are mentioning. But no one can stop that need to establish meaning, so get used to it. Better, put a wall between religion and the state. Both will be the healthier for it.

"I also wish we could live in a world without religion"

I think that was official Government Policy in the early Soviet Union (Lenin and Stalin), Cambodia (Pol Pot), and currently North Korea. Now those guys make radical Islam look like the JV team.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

"I also wish we could live in a world without religion"

I think that was official Government Policy in the early Soviet Union (Lenin and Stalin), Cambodia (Pol Pot), and currently North Korea. Now those guys make radical Islam look like the JV team.

Okay, but this is one guy stating a hopeful wish, not a policymaker advancing an authoritarian antireligion agenda. Don’t conflate the two.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

"I also wish we could live in a world without religion"

I think that was official Government Policy in the early Soviet Union (Lenin and Stalin), Cambodia (Pol Pot), and currently North Korea. Now those guys make radical Islam look like the JV team.

No, this isn't the abolition, this is effectively making the state the religion. To conflate the apparent ban on religion and other extreme activities arising is quite frankly missing the point, the danger is dogmatic thinking.

Fred

flipdewaf wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

"I also wish we could live in a world without religion"

I think that was official Government Policy in the early Soviet Union (Lenin and Stalin), Cambodia (Pol Pot), and currently North Korea. Now those guys make radical Islam look like the JV team.

No, this isn't the abolition, this is effectively making the state the religion. To conflate the apparent ban on religion and other extreme activities arising is quite frankly missing the point, the danger is dogmatic thinking.

Fred

I don't think I missed the point at all.
With or without religion, humans can be incredibly evil. And humans will always be susceptible to extreme dogmatic thinking. It's who we are. It can be a religion twisted by evil nuts or crazy atheists running marxist dictatorships. It's been happening since the dawn of time.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

"I also wish we could live in a world without religion"

I think that was official Government Policy in the early Soviet Union (Lenin and Stalin), Cambodia (Pol Pot), and currently North Korea. Now those guys make radical Islam look like the JV team.

No, this isn't the abolition, this is effectively making the state the religion. To conflate the apparent ban on religion and other extreme activities arising is quite frankly missing the point, the danger is dogmatic thinking.

Fred

I don't think I missed the point at all.
With or without religion, humans can be incredibly evil. And humans will always be susceptible to extreme dogmatic thinking. It's who we are. It can be a religion twisted by evil nuts or crazy atheists running marxist dictatorships. It's been happening since the dawn of time.

I agree, evil people will do evil things and good people will do good thing. It takes dogmatic thinking to allow good people to do evil things.

As you say, Christianity and Islam are as dangerous to the world as unfettered communism or capitalism. Why should religion get a free pass where communism doesn’t?

To paraphrase: “Name one good deed or good word said in the name of religion that couldn’t have been done or said by an atheist. Then name one atrocity carried out in the name of a dogmatic belief.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Islam doesn't need reformation.

It's Muslims that need reformation - or more accurately reversion back to when Islam was at its golden age, where Muslims are more tolerable, more open minded, less holier than thou, more humble, and most importantly emphasizes intelligence.

And it has to come from within. It can't come from without

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Islam doesn't need reformation.

According to the Quran what is the punishment for apostasy?

Fred

Why should religion get a free pass where communism doesn’t?

Wouldn't you say that's too broad a statement? Not sure the Mennonites or Amish have set up Gulags or invaded anyone at least recently.
" Amish people live in close-knit communities and don't become part of the other population, whereas Mennonite lives as a part of the population not as separate communities. Amish strictly follow the non-resistance, whereas Mennonites follow non-violence and are known as peacemakers.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Why should religion get a free pass where communism doesn’t?

Wouldn't you say that's too broad a statement? Not sure the Mennonites or Amish have set up Gulags or invaded anyone at least recently.
" Amish people live in close-knit communities and don't become part of the other population, whereas Mennonite lives as a part of the population not as separate communities. Amish strictly follow the non-resistance, whereas Mennonites follow non-violence and are known as peacemakers.

No, nobody gets special pleading. If they are all loving and great then why would they need a free pass? I find it pretty horrific that children are told that there is some almighty weirdo in the sky watching them masturbate and deciding what to do with them when they die pretty bad even if they do seem gentile with all their ponies and traditional dress.

I don’t get a pass from scrutiny over my behaviour towards others, I have to act suitably.

Fred


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Islam doesn't need reformation.

It's Muslims that need reformation - or more accurately reversion back to when Islam was at its golden age, where Muslims are more tolerable, more open minded, less holier than thou, more humble, and most importantly emphasizes intelligence.

And it has to come from within. It can't come from without

Perhaps watch this video on the Rise and Decline of Science in Islam. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60JboffOhaw
It may be difficult to comprehend, but once the Middle East was a beacon of reason and intellect in an otherwise dark period of time (Europe).

I don’t get a pass from scrutiny over my behaviour towards others, I have to act suitably.

Fred


Huh? If you shoot someone, rob them, rape them, hurt them, abuse children, spouses or animals - then we care about what you do.
Otherwise no one really cares what you do.

Thread has kinda drifted off topic.

The trial of the November 2015 Paris attacks is going on currently (and for months and months). The only surviving member of the commando is talking, and said today that "you live how you like here, let us live how we like there (in ISIS land...)". As if he didn't realize that he was part of a terrorist attack against our "way of living here".

flipdewaf wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Islam doesn't need reformation.

According to the Quran what is the punishment for apostasy?

Fred

There's no mention of any worldly punishment for apostates in the Quran, only hadiths which may or may not be accurately translated. In fact, some scholars argued that only when one forsakes religion and wage war against it shall he be liable for punishment of death.

So how is it any different from say a soldier who committs treason? I do believe that in some countries the death penalty still applies.

Detritus from tribal customs and other cultural remnants infect most religions.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Detritus from tribal customs and other cultural remnants infect most religions.

Of course it is, the issue that that’s all it is.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Homo Sapiens sometimes desperate search for food, shelter, sex, and tribal loyalty is all there is. And it can be brutal. Evolution is a better place to look to understand it, than a simple opposition to religion.

Possibly more pertinent is "Does Islam want to reform?". There's not much evidence to say it does.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Homo Sapiens sometimes desperate search for food, shelter, sex, and tribal loyalty is all there is. And it can be brutal. Evolution is a better place to look to understand it, than a simple opposition to religion.

Religion ⊆ Cultural remnants
Cultural remnant =! Religion.

Of course evolution is the place to look as to why we have the traits we do. As a species we have a fairly unique ability to have foresight and imagination, the fact that we have evolved this unique ability demonstrates that it has likely use and is effective at increasing our ability to pass on genes. Just because it has an advantage however does not mean that it is useful, moths for example have not evolved to fly in to light bulbs, they have evolved to use stars at night for navigation it just so happens that this ability is short circuited when they see a very bright star (candle) they get confused, likewise our evolutionary advantages can have negative consequences outside of their primary function.

There is an evolutionary advantage to assuming that there is conscious intention behind natural events, if you hear the grass blow in the wind it might have been a tiger or it might just be the wind, either way you are alive if you run, if you don't run there's a chance its a tiger so you might die. Advantage goes to the ones that run, they are more likely to survive and so those genes remain.

If you take the abilities to have foresight and imagination then that gives the ability to learn without experience and this has a tremendous evolutionary advantage. If the herd elders were to teach you that fire is hot then you don't touch the fire, you didn't have to burn yourself to find out. If the tribal elder tells you not to eat the berries while they are green then you don't eat the green berries. If the tribal elder tells you the thunder is made by an angry man in the sky then you think the thunder is an angry man in the sky. The last one is wrong but is an evolutionary short circuit in the same way as the moth flying to the candle. Imagine if the tribal leader then told the tribe that it was the people from over the river stealing the red berries, or the rain hadn't fallen because they hadn't danced enough or the reason they weren't making progress was because of black people. Suddenly you have dogmatic thinking.

Fred

“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”


― G.K. Chesterton

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”


― G.K. Chesterton

Pretty absolutist statement. Among the folks under 50 in my family, the ones who have gone atheist are just as stable in career and financial lives - lower divorce rate by factor of two than the religious ones. Their life results owe more to quality parenting and education than any faith-based belief.

Braybuddy wrote:

Possibly more pertinent is "Does Islam want to reform?". There's not much evidence to say it does.

It really depends how you define “Islam”.

I’ve spent a lot of time living and working in the Middle East and North Africa. In my experience, the vast majority of Muslims (by that I mean just about everyone) just want to live a peaceful life in exactly the same way the vast majority of the rest of the World does. They are not very different from you or I - we want the best for our family and friends and treat others the way we’d like to be treated.

Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”


― G.K. Chesterton

Pretty absolutist statement. Among the folks under 50 in my family, the ones who have gone atheist are just as stable in career and financial lives - lower divorce rate by factor of two than the religious ones. Their life results owe more to quality parenting and education than any faith-based belief.

The quote simply says they then become capable of believing in anything, that can be themselves above everything, parents, the "God" of science etc etc. In my opinion, it goes along with my earlier post, our human race so far has been built on belief systems, it does not have to be religion, but most do not think we can function properly in a void of believing in nothing.

scbriml wrote:

It really depends how you define “Islam”.

I’ve spent a lot of time living and working in the Middle East and North Africa. In my experience, the vast majority of Muslims (by that I mean just about everyone) just want to live a peaceful life in exactly the same way the vast majority of the rest of the World does. They are not very different from you or I - we want the best for our family and friends and treat others the way we’d like to be treated.

That's true, and I think you'll find that the world over. Most people just want to get on with life and want the best for their family and friends. I was more thinking of the way Vatican 2 modernised the Catholic church in the 1960s, or the ordination of women in the Anglican church and the continuous debate about celibacy in Cahtolicism. Or the way younger people in all the Christian denominations have been increasingly renouncing their faith over the last 50 years or more. None of this seems to be happeing within Islam.

Braybuddy wrote:

scbriml wrote:

It really depends how you define “Islam”.

I’ve spent a lot of time living and working in the Middle East and North Africa. In my experience, the vast majority of Muslims (by that I mean just about everyone) just want to live a peaceful life in exactly the same way the vast majority of the rest of the World does. They are not very different from you or I - we want the best for our family and friends and treat others the way we’d like to be treated.

That's true, and I think you'll find that the world over. Most people just want to get on with life and want the best for their family and friends. I was more thinking of the way Vatican 2 modernised the Catholic church in the 1960s, or the ordination of women in the Anglican church and the continuous debate about celibacy in Cahtolicism. Or the way younger people in all the Christian denominations have been increasingly renouncing their faith over the last 50 years or more. None of this seems to be happeing within Islam.

Given the different flavours of Islam I’m struggling to see how a top-down ‘reformation’ (which I think is what someone upthread said was needed) can occur. It’s also difficult to see how a bottom-up ‘revolution’ can force out the radicals (who are invariably heavily armed). I can’t imagine how hard it is to express disagreement when that disagreement is likely to be met with extreme violence.

Aesma wrote:

I don't mean reform as it happened in Christianity, because the problems of Islam are very different. The Catholic Church was rigid and corrupt, Islam has no hierarchy and encompasses all kinds of practices.

It seems to me the practice of Islam is often closely linked to the country where it is practiced, so you have a Moroccan Islam, an Algerian Islam, a Pakistani Islam, etc.

I know there is Sunnism and Shiism, but outside the Middle East, it's mostly Sunni Islam, yet it doesn't mean it's practiced in the same way everywhere.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are spreading salafism on top of this, which is a nightmare and can only lead to religious wars or worse.

What do you think could happen, is it up to politicians ?

At least in several examples, the state apparatus is subservient to the Religious apparatus, which always brings about rotten outcomes.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”


― G.K. Chesterton

Yawn, another guy (G. K. Chesteron) and his opinion.
I never understood this obsession with quoting (well-known) people as if that makes that opinion suddenly carry weight (and "true" by dogmatic default).

Personally, I like this quote much better: "“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”

― Harlan Ellison