premjan

A lot of Gulf (Islamic) countries are middle to high income countries.

As for Islam being a problem rather than a solution, that's no doubt a matter of perspective. Historically (and perhaps even now) it may serve some political purpose.

French Prometheus

Much could be said about the actual distribution of wealth among the populations of Gulf countries. Anyway, a high GDP per capita is not enough to make a country 'developed'.

You can take a look at Human Development Reports, to see what I mean.

I'm talking from the point of view of a 21st century Westerner. Saeed is trying to convince us that Islam is a 'solution' (for us). He asked us to look at the low HIV rate of Muslim countries. But that's not what we see when we look at them. We see backward Third-World dictatorships.

premjan

Well, even if the ME countries are not "developed" they are not "third world" either (whatever that means it probably means poor). Plus there are some parts of the "third world" that show "first world" population characteristics including fertility (e.g. the state of Kerela).

French Prometheus

From Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
Now, I agree that whether a given country is developed depends on where we draw the line. AFAIC, any country that is not in dark green on the following map is a developing country or "not a first-world country" if you prefer.

premjan

I think we should wait to see the effect of peak oil before we consider terms like "developed" and "first world" to be immutable (of course countries which use only nuclear power may not change status much).

chapka

Actually, I've already posted the data I think is significant. If you think posting these details will help your cause, post them. But it sounds to me like you're just trying to use the "no true Scotsman" fallacy--in other words, claiming that anyone who gets AIDS is, by definition, not a Muslim. In which case, Christianity and Judaism, which contain similar prohibitions against premarital sex, can make the same claim as Islam.

Can I take it from this that you're now admitting that your original post in this thread, in which you claimed specifically that the low rate of AIDS infections in predominantly Muslim countries was evidence of the benefits of Islam, was incorrect?

J-D

Absolutely!

And as soon as you do all that I'll sit up and take notice. Until then, I think you've just given us warrant for regarding your original assertions as worthless.

saeedalyousuf

I understand that neither lesbianism by itself nor homosexuality as such can produce any progeny. The same is true for using condoms, therefore people have to resort to unprotected heterosexual acitivity for having progeny and that is where the Qur'an provides the practical solution for STD free family life.

Saeed

JPD

Which is quite amusing when you consider that Mohammed couldn't keep his cock in his pants.

French Prometheus

Saeed, how many times do we have to tell you that:

- The "solution" proposed in the Koran is not different from that proposed in the Bible (both Jewish and Christian versions).
- Islam doesn't protect against AIDS since a believer can get infected through blood transfusion.
- Japan has a low rate of STD's and yet pre-marital sex is very common there. I should know since I "contributed" to it when I was in Japan (and I'm of course STD-free).
- STD's aren't the major concern of first world countries. We won't forsake our beloved freedom just for fighting AIDS.
- If you only have unprotected sex in a committed relationship then you're very unlikely to catch a STD and you can still have children. But you can still have protected pre-marital (or even extra-marital) sex.
- Islam is a greater scourge on this planet than all STDs put together.