Why do islam hates people?

[WallSinger]

How can you conclude that !? You will know about Islam if they are in their environment, you will realize that Islam is peaceful and beautiful

I can think of lots of places where "In their environment" one would NOT CONCLUDE that Islam was peaceful and beautiful.

But yes, there would be places where one could reach the conclusion it was peaceful and beautiful.

+1

Islam is peaceful in peaceful countries like US, Canada, European Union etc.

It is hard to see the beauty in it when you have to watch executions in the city square.

Islam is peaceful in Europe?? are you serious Come in France to see, you are welcome !!!

[1714543862]

1714543862

[1714543862]

1714543862

[1714543862]

1714543862

[1714543862]

1714543862

[1714543862]

1714543862

[1714543862]

1714543862

[semaforo]

      There is a lot of misunderstanding, fear, and confusion being thrown around here. Which is understandable- if there wasn't it would mean a centuries long propaganda effort, that currently costs billions of dollars every year, was totally ineffective. Which it isn't.

         The notion that western countries are somehow less violent than Muslim societies taken as a whole stems not only from disproportionate coverage of violence in the Muslim world (which has clear motives). It also comes from something that essentially boils down to a form of deception, I call it 'externalization,' although the term 'misdirection' could also be used. This is a major trend at the core of the western worldview, and I'll give a few examples.

Violence

     The United States is an incredibly violent country. I was researching the Egyptian revolution recently and I wanted to find out the death toll from all the events. Including the overthrow of Mubarak, the election of Morsi, the coup, and the Sinai insurrection and all of the bombings, including the downing of the Russian airliner, the total number killed in the last 6 years was between 7,000-8,000. I was surprised, because the number of killings in the US in an average year usually totals around 10,000-11,000. Of course, the US has a much larger population than Egypt. Egypt's murder rate is .8 per 100,000 people, which means there are between 700 and 800 homicides in the whole country. The number of killings has spiked during the revolution and the insurgency/low level civil war happening now, and if we average out all that violence, and add it to the normal murder rate, we get a number close to 2000 murders per year- and that's rounding up. Egypt's population is estimated at 91 million, while the US is 321 million, so there are 3.5 more people in the US.

   So if we divide America's rate of killings by 3.5 and compare it to Egypt's, even in a time of violence, revolution, massacres, and armed insurrection against the government, we find that America has approximately 50% more annual killings per capita.

   Living in Egypt, I really had to wonder why I felt so much more at ease and so much more peaceful.

     The actual statistic doesn't really reflect how violent America is, because a huge amount of the violence is prevented through imprisonment. This is what I mean by "externalizing." A lot of very disturbed and violent people are locked in boxes in remote and rural areas where no one sees them. No one denies that this system is basically ineffective in actually changing people's behavior- rates of recidivism are very high. All this does is effectively kicks the can down the road, not dealing with the problem, but simply hiding is away, where the same behaviors and mental illnesses are intensified by creating an artificial peer group composed of criminals and the mentally ill, so these tendencies bounce off of each other in a sort of echo chamber and intensify. There is a huge cost to this, with costs to house one prison inmate running an average of about $50,000 a year.

      In Egypt there are an estimate 100,000 people in prison, compared to over 2 million in the US. This means that at least .6% of the population is in prison, though most estimates put the number closer to 1%. By contrast, in Egypt, only .001% of the population is in prison. If the prison population of the United States were the same proportion as the prison population of Egypt, it would mean releasing over one and a half million inmates. Since many of these inmates would most likely be mentally ill and very difficult to employ, it would probably lead to a sharp increase in violence. When we try to imagine these numbers we get a feel for just how much more violent American society is than Egyptian society.

        Prison is also a form of psychological torture, and it does untold damage to individuals and communities- but instead of outright physical damage, it disfigures and mutilates people's minds- another form of externalization.

   So we don't have public discipline like hangings or canings in the US anymore, but we are doing similar damage in order to achieve social control, but it is hidden in two ways- one is physically the violent people are quarantined and hidden from view, and the second is that the violence that is done to them is on a less obvious level, since damage done to the body is much easier to understand and grasp than damage done to the mind and emotional health of a person.

    The alliance of NATO also serves as an externalizing factor by means of specialization. European states have extensive social systems and low rates of violence, but if NATO were to break apart it would be clear that they simply don't have the means to defend themselves in a range of military scenarios. So they present an image of peacefulness, but in reality they are major economic and social accessories to the NATO alliance, which is only functional due to the massive and tremendously expensive military force of the United States.

Environmentally

    Many elements Europe and the US also frequently talk about environmental regulation, sustainability, and similar trends. At the same time, they are utterly economically dependent on a range of imports from China, where environmental regulation is comparatively lax. Labor law and health regulations are such that people suffer under tremendous burden of stress, and many people develop cancer and other diseases as a result of being exposed to toxic chemicals during manufacturing processes. This is what makes the Chinese exports which are so important to both the happiness of individuals and the success of corporations located in Europe and the US so cheap. Again, countries like the US and Western European nations can claim to be environmentally friendly and champions of human rights and labor laws while their societies are actually indirectly contributing to destructive environmental practices that are accelerating the processes, like the damage of the earth's atmosphere, that they claim to be drafting legislation to protect.

Human Rights

     Besides just the importing of cheap manufactured goods from countries with no protections for workers, violence is externalized by support for a number of dictators who routinely use torture, completely disregard due process and civil liberties, and often engage in indiscriminate and extra-judicial killings. Some examples would be the foreign aid from the US to governments like Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Uzbekistan, paramilitary groups in Colombia, the Suharto massacres in Indonesia, just to name a few off the top of my head.

   In this way the United States can utilize methods that are not consistent with the ideals of human rights that are the supposed claim to superiority, while being conveniently insulated by a degree of separation that allows the creation of a narrative of moral superiority.

Temporally

    If moving atrocities, injustice, and cruelty to locations that are more out of view is one means of creating an illusion of moral superiority, it would follow that to do so temporally would also be a means of cultivating this illusion. This is evidenced by the extreme short term perspective.

   It is the national perspective that allows Europe and the US to claim superiority- they can point to the lower pollution levels, or other statistics, within their borders, omitting the effects that their markets and import and export patterns have on other countries, and can actually use the damage that they wreak on other countries as proof that those societies and their ways of life are in need of 'development aid,' or salvation by European cultures.
If we move the level of analysis to the global level, this narrative rapidly falls apart as the interdependencies become clearer.

   Temporally, this same logic can be exemplified by the model of corporate profit, planned obsolescence, or a for profit medical model.

   Corporate profit only focuses on the bottom line in a limited time period. Just as a territory like the United States is cordoned off with a border, a fiscal year or a quarter is cordoned off, and one measure of success is emphasized- overall profit. Never mind that IKEA may have had to pay fines for purchasing wood that was illegally logged from protected forest lands in Siberia- if the profits gained from the furniture that was sold with this wood are enough to counterbalance the fines that had to be paid, it was a successful venture. This doesn't factor in other sources of value- the biodiversity of the earths last remaining virgin forests, the genetic resources of the plants that grow in it with unresearched medical value, the intangible value of the cultural traditions of the native people of those forests and their traditional knowledge, the long term benefit that those forests could have had in offsetting and absorbing pollution, the wind force that those trees would have absorbed and how the extra windforce that now sweeps over plains rather than being absorbed by trees could contribute to storms that cause billions of dollars of damage at some point in the future, the loss of topsoil that could have produced food at lower levels of production but over a longer period of time than industrial agriculture, preventing future famines, to name just a few temporal considerations.

      Planned obsolescence is another example of temporal externalization, where resources are abused in order to achieve higher profits, eventually leading to major costs for society. In planned obsolescence, goods are intentionally produced to be low quality and to break, which forces the buyer to purchase new goods and throw away the old ones, thereby increasing profit for the producer. Subtle effects include developing an attitude towards material objects as being disposable, which leads to a general attitude of wastefulness that can also affect interpersonal relationships. It also leads to acceleration of the depletion of non-renewable resources while simultaneously generating dependence on goods that, when resource supply shocks occur, will lead to major difficulties for the individuals and societies that have become dependent on these goods.

     The for profit medical model, a problem which can also be observed with the military ventures and the police system of the United States, means that there is an unconscious imperative to ensure repeat business. If the cures actually permanently addressed the problem, the companies marketing the cures would rapidly become insolvent. This goes for the pharmaceutical industry, the prison industry, and the arms manufacturing industry. When these initiatives becomes wholly privatized and increasingly centralized in a democratic system, the influencing of legislation becomes key to profitability, and major conflicts of interest are created as power and influence is concentrated by the collusion of private industry and state. In other words, the manufacturer with the most wealth can use the wealth to influence legislation in such a way that competitors are disadvantaged, thereby augmenting the wealth and influence of the largest manufacturer(s) still more. This system thereby favors those who are most willing  to engage in business practices that are detrimental to consumers in the long term, while beneficial in the short term, ensuring maximal repeat business.

    If a state is not powerful enough to enforce this kind of legislation, or if legislation is immutable and cannot be changed, this kind of moral hazard cannot exist, and natural forces of competition will prevent these kind of abuses. This is the heavy price of a large government that tries to regulate a permanent state of consumer protection- regulatory bodies which were originally created for the protection of consumers can also be utilized to exert influence on industries to the advantage of certain players in those industries.

   And of course, the centralizer of power par excellence, is interest banking. There is no other institution that so thoroughly ensures that the rich become richer and the poor poorer as interest.  As for the source of influence being exerted in favor of interest banking, we need look no further than where the largest concentrations of capital are located- New York and Switzerland, incidentally where the two largest headquarters of the United Nations, the closest thing to a world government on earth, are located.

   Of course, the harms caused by these practices are both abstract and cumulative- meaning the harm caused is not readily visible, and there are enough factors involved in these scenarios that plausible deniability is possible. Everything I am saying can be disputed by a range of tactics, particularly if there is enough funding to hire PR managers, lawyers, and media firms to diffuse any sort of concerted attack on the centers of capital. In other words, through a process or misdirection, profits and wealth are obtained by causing suffering both in remote locations, and in the future. 

Islam

     If someone subscribes to and implements the pure doctrine of Islam, the effect on them will be more or less the same as if one were to condemn and disassociate oneself from all of the destructive practices described above. To disassociate oneself from all this destructive behavior, deception, and hypocrisy, means ultimately limiting both emotional and material support for those who are engaged in these practices, to limit ones own participation in these practices.

  Since divinity represents the highest principles of an individual or society, the emphasis in Islam on absolute unity of divinity means that there is a corresponding understanding of unity of the universe- since all of reality has a common source. This principle of unity means that what is detrimental to others is ultimately detrimental to ones self, so if people are engaged in harming others, and thereby themselves, a Muslim cannot in good conscience be "tolerant" and thereby supportive of a persons self destructive behavior. In this case, showing friendliness and kindness to a person engaged in self destructive behavior would actually be no kindness at all, because it would lead them to believe that you approve of their self destructive behavior and to feel more justified in continuing this harmful behavior. This is why the Quran describes those favored by their Creator as being "humble with the believers and stern (or proud) with the disbelievers," (Surah Maeda, 54). The most fundamental issue is the perception of the common origin of all phenomena, and all other moral issues stemming from this initial concern.

     In short, this is why we see consistent enmity between those who believe in a multiplicity of deities, or who do not have a clear boundary line between the eternal and the temporary, and those who believe in a unified and transcendent divinity.

[Spendulus]

     There is a lot of misunderstanding, fear, and confusion being thrown around here. Which is understandable- if there wasn't it would mean a centuries long propaganda effort, that currently costs billions of dollars every year, was totally ineffective. Which it isn't.

         The notion that western countries are somehow less violent than Muslim societies taken as a whole stems not only from disproportionate coverage of violence in the Muslim world (which has clear motives). It also comes from something that essentially boils down to a form of deception, I call it 'externalization,' although the term 'misdirection' could also be used. This is a major trend at the core of the western worldview, and I'll give a few examples.

Violence

     The United States is an incredibly violent country. I was researching the Egyptian revolution recently and I wanted to find out the death toll from all the events. Including the overthrow of Mubarak, the election of Morsi, the coup, and the Sinai insurrection and all of the bombings, including the downing of the Russian airliner, the total number killed in the last 6 years was between 7,000-8,000. I was surprised, because the number of killings in the US in an average year usually totals around 10,000-11,000. Of course, the US has a much larger population than Egypt. Egypt's murder rate is .8 per 100,000 people, which means there are between 700 and 800 homicides in the whole country. The number of killings has spiked during the revolution and the insurgency/low level civil war happening now, and if we average out all that violence, and add it to the normal murder rate, we get a number close to 2000 murders per year- and that's rounding up. Egypt's population is estimated at 91 million, while the US is 321 million, so there are 3.5 more people in the US.

   So if we divide America's rate of killings by 3.5 and compare it to Egypt's, even in a time of violence, revolution, massacres, and armed insurrection against the government, we find that America has approximately 50% more annual killings per capita.

   Living in Egypt, I really had to wonder why I felt so much more at ease and so much more peaceful.

     The actual statistic doesn't really reflect how violent America is, because a huge amount of the violence is prevented through imprisonment. This is what I mean by "externalizing." A lot of very disturbed and violent people are locked in boxes in remote and rural areas where no one sees them. No one denies that this system is basically ineffective in actually changing people's behavior- rates of recidivism are very high. All this does is effectively kicks the can down the road, not dealing with the problem, but simply hiding is away, where the same behaviors and mental illnesses are intensified by creating an artificial peer group composed of criminals and the mentally ill, so these tendencies bounce off of each other in a sort of echo chamber and intensify. There is a huge cost to this, with costs to house one prison inmate running an average of about $50,000 a year.

      In Egypt there are an estimate 100,000 people in prison, compared to over 2 million in the US. This means that at least .6% of the population is in prison, though most estimates put the number closer to 1%. By contrast, in Egypt, only .001% of the population is in prison. If the prison population of the United States were the same proportion as the prison population of Egypt, it would mean releasing over one and a half million inmates. Since many of these inmates would most likely be mentally ill and very difficult to employ, it would probably lead to a sharp increase in violence. When we try to imagine these numbers we get a feel for just how much more violent American society is than Egyptian society.

        Prison is also a form of psychological torture, and it does untold damage to individuals and communities- but instead of outright physical damage, it disfigures and mutilates people's minds- another form of externalization.

   So we don't have public discipline like hangings or canings in the US anymore, but we are doing similar damage in order to achieve social control, but it is hidden in two ways- one is physically the violent people are quarantined and hidden from view, and the second is that the violence that is done to them is on a less obvious level, since damage done to the body is much easier to understand and grasp than damage done to the mind and emotional health of a person.

    The alliance of NATO also serves as an externalizing factor by means of specialization. European states have extensive social systems and low rates of violence, but if NATO were to break apart it would be clear that they simply don't have the means to defend themselves in a range of military scenarios. So they present an image of peacefulness, but in reality they are major economic and social accessories to the NATO alliance, which is only functional due to the massive and tremendously expensive military force of the United States.

Environmentally

    Many elements Europe and the US also frequently talk about environmental regulation, sustainability, and similar trends. At the same time, they are utterly economically dependent on a range of imports from China, where environmental regulation is comparatively lax. Labor law and health regulations are such that people suffer under tremendous burden of stress, and many people develop cancer and other diseases as a result of being exposed to toxic chemicals during manufacturing processes. This is what makes the Chinese exports which are so important to both the happiness of individuals and the success of corporations located in Europe and the US so cheap. Again, countries like the US and Western European nations can claim to be environmentally friendly and champions of human rights and labor laws while their societies are actually indirectly contributing to destructive environmental practices that are accelerating the processes, like the damage of the earth's atmosphere, that they claim to be drafting legislation to protect.

Human Rights

     Besides just the importing of cheap manufactured goods from countries with no protections for workers, violence is externalized by support for a number of dictators who routinely use torture, completely disregard due process and civil liberties, and often engage in indiscriminate and extra-judicial killings. Some examples would be the foreign aid from the US to governments like Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Uzbekistan, paramilitary groups in Colombia, the Suharto massacres in Indonesia, just to name a few off the top of my head.

   In this way the United States can utilize methods that are not consistent with the ideals of human rights that are the supposed claim to superiority, while being conveniently insulated by a degree of separation that allows the creation of a narrative of moral superiority.

Temporally

    If moving atrocities, injustice, and cruelty to locations that are more out of view is one means of creating an illusion of moral superiority, it would follow that to do so temporally would also be a means of cultivating this illusion. This is evidenced by the extreme short term perspective.

   It is the national perspective that allows Europe and the US to claim superiority- they can point to the lower pollution levels, or other statistics, within their borders, omitting the effects that their markets and import and export patterns have on other countries, and can actually use the damage that they wreak on other countries as proof that those societies and their ways of life are in need of 'development aid,' or salvation by European cultures.
If we move the level of analysis to the global level, this narrative rapidly falls apart as the interdependencies become clearer.

   Temporally, this same logic can be exemplified by the model of corporate profit, planned obsolescence, or a for profit medical model.

   Corporate profit only focuses on the bottom line in a limited time period. Just as a territory like the United States is cordoned off with a border, a fiscal year or a quarter is cordoned off, and one measure of success is emphasized- overall profit. Never mind that IKEA may have had to pay fines for purchasing wood that was illegally logged from protected forest lands in Siberia- if the profits gained from the furniture that was sold with this wood are enough to counterbalance the fines that had to be paid, it was a successful venture. This doesn't factor in other sources of value- the biodiversity of the earths last remaining virgin forests, the genetic resources of the plants that grow in it with unresearched medical value, the intangible value of the cultural traditions of the native people of those forests and their traditional knowledge, the long term benefit that those forests could have had in offsetting and absorbing pollution, the wind force that those trees would have absorbed and how the extra windforce that now sweeps over plains rather than being absorbed by trees could contribute to storms that cause billions of dollars of damage at some point in the future, the loss of topsoil that could have produced food at lower levels of production but over a longer period of time than industrial agriculture, preventing future famines, to name just a few temporal considerations.

      Planned obsolescence is another example of temporal externalization, where resources are abused in order to achieve higher profits, eventually leading to major costs for society. In planned obsolescence, goods are intentionally produced to be low quality and to break, which forces the buyer to purchase new goods and throw away the old ones, thereby increasing profit for the producer. Subtle effects include developing an attitude towards material objects as being disposable, which leads to a general attitude of wastefulness that can also affect interpersonal relationships. It also leads to acceleration of the depletion of non-renewable resources while simultaneously generating dependence on goods that, when resource supply shocks occur, will lead to major difficulties for the individuals and societies that have become dependent on these goods.

     The for profit medical model, a problem which can also be observed with the military ventures and the police system of the United States, means that there is an unconscious imperative to ensure repeat business. If the cures actually permanently addressed the problem, the companies marketing the cures would rapidly become insolvent. This goes for the pharmaceutical industry, the prison industry, and the arms manufacturing industry. When these initiatives becomes wholly privatized and increasingly centralized in a democratic system, the influencing of legislation becomes key to profitability, and major conflicts of interest are created as power and influence is concentrated by the collusion of private industry and state. In other words, the manufacturer with the most wealth can use the wealth to influence legislation in such a way that competitors are disadvantaged, thereby augmenting the wealth and influence of the largest manufacturer(s) still more. This system thereby favors those who are most willing  to engage in business practices that are detrimental to consumers in the long term, while beneficial in the short term, ensuring maximal repeat business.

    If a state is not powerful enough to enforce this kind of legislation, or if legislation is immutable and cannot be changed, this kind of moral hazard cannot exist, and natural forces of competition will prevent these kind of abuses. This is the heavy price of a large government that tries to regulate a permanent state of consumer protection- regulatory bodies which were originally created for the protection of consumers can also be utilized to exert influence on industries to the advantage of certain players in those industries.

   And of course, the centralizer of power par excellence, is interest banking. There is no other institution that so thoroughly ensures that the rich become richer and the poor poorer as interest.  As for the source of influence being exerted in favor of interest banking, we need look no further than where the largest concentrations of capital are located- New York and Switzerland, incidentally where the two largest headquarters of the United Nations, the closest thing to a world government on earth, are located.

   Of course, the harms caused by these practices are both abstract and cumulative- meaning the harm caused is not readily visible, and there are enough factors involved in these scenarios that plausible deniability is possible. Everything I am saying can be disputed by a range of tactics, particularly if there is enough funding to hire PR managers, lawyers, and media firms to diffuse any sort of concerted attack on the centers of capital. In other words, through a process or misdirection, profits and wealth are obtained by causing suffering both in remote locations, and in the future.  

Islam

     If someone subscribes to and implements the pure doctrine of Islam, the effect on them will be more or less the same as if one were to condemn and disassociate oneself from all of the destructive practices described above. To disassociate oneself from all this destructive behavior, deception, and hypocrisy, means ultimately limiting both emotional and material support for those who are engaged in these practices, to limit ones own participation in these practices.

  Since divinity represents the highest principles of an individual or society, the emphasis in Islam on absolute unity of divinity means that there is a corresponding understanding of unity of the universe- since all of reality has a common source. This principle of unity means that what is detrimental to others is ultimately detrimental to ones self, so if people are engaged in harming others, and thereby themselves, a Muslim cannot in good conscience be "tolerant" and thereby supportive of a persons self destructive behavior. In this case, showing friendliness and kindness to a person engaged in self destructive behavior would actually be no kindness at all, because it would lead them to believe that you approve of their self destructive behavior and to feel more justified in continuing this harmful behavior. This is why the Quran describes those favored by their Creator as being "humble with the believers and stern (or proud) with the disbelievers," (Surah Maeda, 54). The most fundamental issue is the perception of the common origin of all phenomena, and all other moral issues stemming from this initial concern.

     In short, this is why we see consistent enmity between those who believe in a multiplicity of deities, or who do not have a clear boundary line between the eternal and the temporary, and those who believe in a unified and transcendent divinity.

I think that's a croc of shit. You've wandered off into about eight different subjects, babbled about murder rates for a bit, then leaped off into some nonsense about Islam totally unsupported by any prior word salad.

As for Egypt, check it out here.

www.thereligionofpeace.com

As for comparison of statistics, which you seg into to support premises which themselves are falsely stated,
here is a reference.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people

But you need to check your numbers, don't you?

 In Egypt there are an estimate 100,000 people in prison, compared to over 2 million in the US. This means that at least .6% of the population is in prison, though most estimates put the number closer to 1%. By contrast, in Egypt, only .001% of the population...

So there are about 600 people in prison in Egypt?

Why that's so very nice(but unhappily, it's a lie).  How about this statistic?

Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam

[Sithara007]

I agree that hate is true. But who hates more? Islamic people or others? Because whenever i check the topics on this part of forum there are always some kind of provocations against islamic people. I believe that muslims are forced to hate other people by the people who hates muslims.

The provocations here are just limited to words. But what about the Islamic provocations? What about the incident in Sinjar, where more than 5,000 Yazidi girls were enslaved and gang raped by the ISIS barbarians?

Such questions to the likes of people who all agree to use physical violence when someone draws a picture of their prophet?

Religion is not above criticism. I have seen many Islamic preachers (for example Zakir Naik) abusing the other religions and their followers openly in the public. But when someone points the inconsistencies in the Koran, then these people go ballistic.

[Spendulus]

I agree that hate is true. But who hates more? Islamic people or others? Because whenever i check the topics on this part of forum there are always some kind of provocations against islamic people. I believe that muslims are forced to hate other people by the people who hates muslims.

The provocations here are just limited to words. But what about the Islamic provocations? What about the incident in Sinjar, where more than 5,000 Yazidi girls were enslaved and gang raped by the ISIS barbarians?

Such questions to the likes of people who all agree to use physical violence when someone draws a picture of their prophet?

Religion is not above criticism. I have seen many Islamic preachers (for example Zakir Naik) abusing the other religions and their followers openly in the public. But when someone points the inconsistencies in the Koran, then these people go ballistic.

Well, unless you unfortunately live in a country where religion is above criticism.

[Coffee135]

And where it is not a country? In all countries the state is there to protect the dominant religion. Religion has long been part of the policy and, therefore, I do not believe neither the officials nor the preachers.

[Spendulus]

And where it is not a country? In all countries the state is there to protect the dominant religion. Religion has long been part of the policy and, therefore, I do not believe neither the officials nor the preachers.

No.

[bryant.coleman]

And where it is not a country? In all countries the state is there to protect the dominant religion. Religion has long been part of the policy and, therefore, I do not believe neither the officials nor the preachers.

That is wrong. For example, can you point out what is the dominant religion in China? The Chinese government never favors any particular religion. Another example is from Central and Eastern Europe, where atheism is the dominant ideology. Anyway, the majority of the world nations are secular, at least nominally. The only exceptions are the Muslim nations and certain third world nations in Asia and Africa.

[Kovdoron]

And where it is not a country? In all countries the state is there to protect the dominant religion. Religion has long been part of the policy and, therefore, I do not believe neither the officials nor the preachers.

That is wrong. For example, can you point out what is the dominant religion in China? The Chinese government never favors any particular religion. Another example is from Central and Eastern Europe, where atheism is the dominant ideology. Anyway, the majority of the world nations are secular, at least nominally. The only exceptions are the Muslim nations and certain third world nations in Asia and Africa.

I don't know of any countries in Europe where there is no dominant religion. Typically, this is Catholicism. Therefore, in all European countries the Pope is of great authority.

[Spendulus]

And where it is not a country? In all countries the state is there to protect the dominant religion. Religion has long been part of the policy and, therefore, I do not believe neither the officials nor the preachers.

That is wrong. For example, can you point out what is the dominant religion in China? The Chinese government never favors any particular religion. Another example is from Central and Eastern Europe, where atheism is the dominant ideology. Anyway, the majority of the world nations are secular, at least nominally. The only exceptions are the Muslim nations and certain third world nations in Asia and Africa.

I don't know of any countries in Europe where there is no dominant religion. Typically, this is Catholicism. Therefore, in all European countries the Pope is of great authority.

No, that isn't even right assuming your premises are valid. But they are not.

Some Catholic influence on society and even law can be seen in Italy, Spain, and France.

But that's "some" influence, and it's more or less measurable. In no place is the Pope "of great authority." That's my opinion, of course. We could hear from others in Europe, what they think. Additionally, various protestant influences certainly are as strong, or stronger, in places.

[sonicwave]

The question is certainly interesting, but you do not need to think long to answer it and say about the attitude towards Muslims. It is worthwhile only to look at the news and about the terrorist attacks, and it becomes clear why everyone hates Muslims.

[Spendulus]

The question is certainly interesting, but you do not need to think long to answer it and say about the attitude towards Muslims. It is worthwhile only to look at the news and about the terrorist attacks, and it becomes clear why everyone hates Muslims.

Muslims, though, would have you believe differently. They would have you believe that these terrorists "are not True Muslims" and Muslims are a good and peaceful and loving people.

[noone000]

Anyone who says that 'Islam hates people' does not properly understand the religion. I have studied a bit upon both Christianity and Islam and I will say that neither religion is very much more violent than another. The main reason why Islam gets such bad press is because of those few radical terrorists out there committing heinous acts to tarnish the name of Islam. I have however met many people in the religion (and once belonged there myself) and I will say that you cannot judge such a massive group of people based upon the actions of a few. This is the same as saying that everyone in the middle east are terrorists.

[Spendulus]

Anyone who says that 'Islam hates people' does not properly understand the religion. I have studied a bit upon both Christianity and Islam and I will say that neither religion is very much more violent than another. The main reason why Islam gets such bad press is because of those few radical terrorists out there committing heinous acts to tarnish the name of Islam. I have however met many people in the religion (and once belonged there myself) and I will say that you cannot judge such a massive group of people based upon the actions of a few. This is the same as saying that everyone in the middle east are terrorists.

Well, let me rephrase your assertions. May I?

The main reason why Islam gets such bad press is because of over 30,000 Islamic terror attacks just since 9/11.

[laredo7mm]

The question is certainly interesting, but you do not need to think long to answer it and say about the attitude towards Muslims. It is worthwhile only to look at the news and about the terrorist attacks, and it becomes clear why everyone hates Muslims.

It is true that majority of terrorist groups are muslims but that doesn't mean that each and every muslim is terrorist or a bad person as there are many muslims who believes in having peace but their name is getting spoiled due to some bunch of people who are involved in terrorist activities.

[smalltimer]

When there are no extreme terrorist organizations like isis, there will be no reason to hate Muslims. Damn the terror.

[Proton2233]

Muslims hate us we hate them. Evil begets evil and good begets good. Until someone will break the circle of evil among us will hate. But do it after what happened will be very difficult.

[gondes21]

Islam are actually does not hate anybody.
It is their dogma that consider other people than muslim as sinful and don't belong to heaven.
This made Islam to have negative impression to non-islam.

[kirch]

Religion, all of them, are not only oppressive, they are based on ancient, inaccurate teachings that have been abolished by science and by our lessons learned from the past that didn't work.
Humanity will eventually turn all man made religions extinct.
Because willful ignorance is no longer the accepted norm

[Spendulus]

When there are no extreme terrorist organizations like isis, there will be no reason to hate Muslims. Damn the terror.

There are hundreds of extremist Muslim organizations, but ISIS gets all the publicity today. These organizations go back to the 1970s with their atrocities-designed-to-get-world-media-attention.

It is no different today, and if it wasn't ISIS, it would be another. Islam continually seems to generate these groups. It would seem where ever there is Islam, there are some of them.