Clearing up misconceptions about Islam ( the religion ) , and a request . . . . . .

[ainwood]

Because this thread is not suppose to be about muslim people, but rather about misconceptions about the religion Islam.

Moderator Action: Agreed. And you're using it to bash islam.

Stop it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Imaginos]

The misconceptions of the religion, as seen from the links to indian hindu nationalistic anti-islam websites?

 

[Japanrocks12]

But not surprisingly, you live in the Western world, and that is not their home terf (yet). Try moving to Iran and preaching your tolerance views on gay marriage, or better yet - share the good news of the gospel with them. Then you'll see if they don't pull a gun to your head.

Besides, when their books Koran and Hadith clearly say what they do, why would you need to know muslims to know Islam. Because this thread is not suppose to be about muslim people, but rather about misconceptions about the religion Islam.

Again with your pathetic generalizations! A muslim abroad is no less a muslim than one at home.

 

[Babbler]

I haven't read the things aneesh posted and I probably won't.

Why?

First of all, I am a Muslim. Being raised in a religious Muslim family, I believe I have a better understanding of my religion than an ardent Hindu would.

I concur with Winner. You are rejecting to even see something because you think you know the subject better? How do you know? It seems closed-mined to me. I know it can be hard to exam materials going against you core beliefs, but I think it does not mean one should not try. You be the better off for it.

You can never have a good debate with one side with it fingers in it ear. Else this forum would have been 90% smaller.

Perhaps, but an outsider is in no place to tell the practitioner what the fundamental tenets of his religion are. How can you possibly claim to know what a religion is all about if you've never practised it?

So only true believers can tell us what their religion stands for? It seems non-sensible to me. By this standard, nobody can criticize a medical treatment (for example) until they "try it". The is no need to do so; investigating what the important texts, the rites and passages, the organization of its institutions and the behaviour of its adherents are all that is need to pass judgement on a religion.

There's been more than enough evidence to show to any objective outsider that Islam does not inherently support intolerance. Just because some muslims are intolerant, it doesn't mean they have to be.

What about all the passages of the Koran of intolerance? Since Muslims believe it is the Koran is the direct word of God, how can a Muslim just shrug these passages wrong. Ether he must follow them, or reject true Islam.

 

[Japanrocks12]

I concur with Winner. You are rejecting to even see something because you think you know the subject better? How do you know? It seems closed-mined to me. I know it can be hard to exam materials going against you core beliefs, but I think it does not mean one should not try. You be the better off for it.

You can never have a good debate with one side with it fingers in it ear. Else this forum would have been 90% smaller.

So only true believers can tell us what their religion stands for? It seems non-sensible to me. By this standard, nobody can criticize a medical treatment (for example) until they "try it". The is no need to do so; investigating what the important texts, the rites and passages, the organization of its institutions and the behaviour of its adherents are all that is need to pass judgement on a religion.


What about all the passages of the Koran of intolerance? Since Muslims believe it is the Koran is the direct word of God, how can a Muslim just shrug these passages wrong. Ether he must follow them, or reject true Islam.

I question the authencity of those passages. Muhammad always held Jews and Christians of high regard because they were "people of the book"

 

[MobBoss]

The condemnation is there.

Lists of statements:
http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html
http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-07/07/article07.shtml

But even then, people aren't satisified.

Its not a matter of satisfaction here bub...as an average guy I can tell you I have hardly heard of any of that what you linked too.

I want to see condemnation by throngs of people in the streets in muslim nations decrying that type of behaviour instead of them urging it.

To be honest, the only time I have ever seen that is recently in Jordan and it took muslims killing muslims for that to happen.

Sorry, your "condemnation" is not getting its message to the people it needs to get it too.

 

[superisis]

Ok, mind if I jump into this fine mess!

on supposed missconceptions of Islam

a) Islam is a peaceful , accepting religion , tolerant of other faiths

Islam has been historically very tolerant of other religions. Historical evidence seems to claim that the wasn't even a great deal of Arab conversion until the later 1300 hundreds. Currently there has been a surge in intolerance, but I'll get into that later.

b) Jihad refers only and only to some internal Jihad , not to Holy War against infidels

As said earlier in this thread, Jihad refers both to an inner and an outer struggle. So yes, you are correct there, that the assumption that Jihad was purely internal and theoretical would be wrong.

c) That the Quran can be explained away by looking at the context ( it cannot , because Islam holds it to be the absolute , eternal , and unchanging word of God ) , or the historical situation at the time ( what of the "eternal , unchanging , word of God" then ? )

The Qur'an might have been written by God, but that doesn'tmean that muslims agree on how to interpret it. Some Sunnis (most notably Hanbalis or people of the Wahabi school) interpret every word literally (though this can be hard since many words have several meanings). Some Sunnis (most notably some sufi schools) consider all words to be metaphorical or open to interpretation of something else, that only Allah can understand and that one life should be geared into getting closer to this understanding. Finally some Shia muslims believe that people who have Ilm (sort of traces of god, hard to explain) have a closer connection with Allah, and can therefore overturn the Qur'an, i.e. they have a higher authority than the Qur'an.

Thus the Qur'an is not the self evident instruction book you make it out to be (just as the bible isn't either).

d) That the dictates of the Ulema ( the Mullahs , the Ayatollahs , etc. ) are not valid , or not in accordance with the religion ( check up the Quran and the Hadis , and you will find that what they say is very well in accordance with the said teachings )

There are several Hadiths saying this and that, many were made up, several schools disregard hadiths that other schools keep as true. It's a messy business. Also, as said earlier, the Qur'an can be interpreted in many ways, and just like the bible, you can find passages that support almost anything (as an example check out the one promoting wine drinking: sura 16 verse 67 I believe)

I don't care what you believe in. It is completely irrelevant. I am interested in facts. The facts show us, that Islam as a religion is inherently more violent than Christianity or other religions.

What facts are these? I'm honestly curious, I've never made a check list comparing the violent content of religions, but it is my crude understanding that they are pretty much the same.

If you want to see if Islam is a religion of peace look at all the borders of the Islamic world; Kashmir, Sudan, Tjetjenie, Bosnia, Israel, East-Timor, Morocco, Sri Lanka, Libanon, Afghanistan etc. The list of conflicts goes on and on. It seems that whereever Muslims clash with people from a different religion its trouble. Just an observation...

the same can bee said about other religions. Take Zanizibar... sizable Christian and Muslim populations, where is the interal strife? What about the 50 or so million muslims in China?

THe question you ask can be said about other religions as well. For example: If Christianity is a peaceful religion, how do you explain World War I and World War 2, etc?

Now wait a minute. As goofy as Pat Robertson can be that is by far not a fair comparison. When Pat Robertson starts training christian terrorists and encouraging them to go out and blow themselves up for their belief then yeah, sure...but to my knowledge all Pat has done has been to say some stupid things - which other christians immediately denounced.

Which brings me to my main issue with Islam. If the religion is as you say it is a peaceful religion, then it sure is doing a poor job of cleaning its own house per se. I would have expected far more and a far wider range of opposition to islamic terrorists if the religion were so "peaceful" wouldnt you?

In these days and times if you see a christian do something idiotic like blow up an abortion clinic it is denouced by the christian community pretty much in total. Or like saying something stupid like assassinate someone - its spoken out against by the christian community....I havent seen that to a large extent in the Muslim world....

Herein lies one of the greatest problems of the muslim community. The problem with Islam today is that there is no sizeble muslim country that is democratic and has a relaxed position to its religion. Why is radical Islam gaining so much momentum in the world? Well, firstly one can blaim the Saudis. Extreme Wealth and Extreme viewpoints is not a good combination. Many of the muslim madrasas, schools and colleges are funded by the Saudi government. What does that mean? That those schools teach the Saudi version of Islam (which is very radical, fundamentalist and extreme). Where would Bin Laden have been without Saudi funding?

The second problem lies in th view point of radical Islam as an opposition to autocratic and/or oppressive regimes. Face it? Which Islamic country has the most pro-western youth today? Is it Egypt? Pakistan? Morroco? Nope, it's Iran. Why? Because the oppressive government is Islamic, so the resistance will obviously not be overly religious. However in many countries it's the opposite. The ruling regime is often oppressive, secular and pro-western. Which naturally makes the fundamentalist anti-western groups opposed to the government. Those who hate the goverment will then support these groups. This is true in to many cases. One major dilemma for the west is if they should accept pro-western secular dictatorships or try to create democratic states that will cause fundamentalist groups to win the popular vote. I could go on, but I'll wait for peope's responces.

What about all the passages of the Koran of intolerance? Since Muslims believe it is the Koran is the direct word of God, how can a Muslim just shrug these passages wrong. Ether he must follow them, or reject true Islam.

Just like a true chirstian must go to church every Sunday. Actually, the core prerequisits for being a muslim is basically to accept that there is only one God (Allah) and that Mohammed was his (ultimate) profet. Or in otherwords: La Illaha Illa Allah. Mohammed rasul Allah.

Just like the core prerequisits for being a christian is to to accept that Jesus was the son of God (the messiah if you will).

The rest is just nuances of the same religion.

If you (as an outsider) want to claim that the fundamentalist version of Islam is the true islam, then yes I'ld call that a pretty intolerant and violent religion. But I would also say that most of the 1 billion people who call themselves muslims don't adhere to that religion. I.e. if you want to narrow the definition of islam down to the version of the extremeists, you cannot claim that the others are a part of that definition.

 

[aneeshm]

When the Moors controlled Iberia, they allowed Jews and Christians to practice their faith. When the Christians conqured Iberia, the Moors were told to convert or leave.

Religious intolerance works the same way in all faiths.

What does that have to do with my point ? As I said , I criticise the religion as laid out in the books , not by the behaviour of its adherents ( unless they behave in accordance with what is set out in the books , which is clearly not the case here ) . I think I made that clear in the opening post itself .

 

[aneeshm]

The point is that the fundamentals of Islam do not prevent religious tolerence.

Over the course of history, Islam has actually been one of the more open-minded religions, espousing new ideas, all through the time Christians were burning "witches" and stretching people on racks just for being a bit unconventional.

Today, interloance amongst muslims has grown, but one simply cannot say that at the core of Islam is intolerance. That is simply not true.

Proof , please ?

I have provided the proofs for my side . Now you provide those for yours .

 

[aneeshm]

I haven't read the things aneesh posted and I probably won't.

As expected . This is precisely why I discount your opinion - it is born of ignorance . I have no gripe with you - I consider you one of those who have left their religion "proper" . Thus , you are among the good ones - you are on , after , what I consider to be my side .

Why?

First of all, I am a Muslim. Being raised in a religious Muslim family, I believe I have a better understanding of my religion than an ardent Hindu would. And from what I understand, Islam is a religion of ultimate peace - for the world and the soul.

I see . So the fact that I have read the Quran , the Hadis , and an number of collections of fatwas stands nowhere against the "inborn" knowledge that you have , by virtue of your birth .

I know what is being quoted in the links aneesh posted. But what is different is our understanding of them: if you want to believe Islam is a violent religion, you will read the texts and believe it is. If you want to believe Islam is a religion of peace, you will read the texts and believe that it is. This is isn't unique to Islam; no, if I wanted to convince myself that Christianity is a violent religion, I could read the holy texts in a way that would convince me. Have an open mind, don't go reading holy texts with a bias. (Like the one aneesh holds because of his nationalism.)

WTH ? I was initially biased the other way ( I tried to go out of my way to rationalise away all the things that were staring me in the face ) . But even I could not ignore the evidence when presented by Mohammed himself , in the form of the Quran , the Hadis , and the fatwas which even now emanate from Deoband ( as an example , the Deobandi Ulema ruled , just a few days ago , that the words "Talaq , Talaq , Talaq" , when sent by a husband to his wife by means of SMS , constituted a vilid divorce in Islamic law ) .

As for the texts themselves - please tell me how Jihad , if it is an inner war , can have rules about the division of plunder ? What do you plunder - your soul ? What of the Quranic rules about the division of captured female slaves as concubines among the victorious ? How can you capture a slave in an inner war of purification ?

Everything in religion has to be read in context - what that context is, is up to you. And you will find what you're looking for. But leave an open mind.

The context is a Prophet revealing the eternal , unchanging , and irrevocable word of God . Please tell me how else I can interpret it , given that this is what the Quran itself says ?

Rather than reading quotes of the Qur'an and the Hadith with biased commentary, why don't you, yourself read the Qur'an? Who knows Islam better? Muslims or Christians/Hindus/Followers of other religions? Muslims know their religion better. So why not read books written by Muslims? If you read actual Muslim texts, then you will understand Islam.

He who has studied the religion knows it better . Simple , isn't it ? In case you want me to quote the fatwas ( with their source and backing from the texts ) of the Deobandi school of Islamic law in India , I will do so . And I have read the texts written by Muslims - the Deobandi Ulema , to be precise ( the school which is followed in India ) .

As a Muslim, I believe is a religion of peace. And I believe almost all Muslims would agree with me.

And as an agnostic , I say that according to your religion , you are going straight to the lowest level of Islamic hell ( at least according to the Quran ) .

What defines a religion? Is it the majority or a minority?

The texts ( and the interpretation they provide of themselves ) are what defines the religion .

If a majority of a religion's adherents are peaceful, then in my opinion, that religion must be peaceful.

Nope . It means the majority are heretics if the religion is violent .

If a minority of a religion's adherents are violent, like in Islam and every other religion, does that mean Islam is a violent religion? No! The violent ones are a minority.

A minority of people do not define a religion.

First - do not try do drag every other religion through the mud to justify yourselves . Please find me this violent Buddhist who claims that he is violent because of his religion , and it capable of backing up his words ( I can't find him ) .

Second - if that minority have been given the power to speak on behalf of the religion , and they do , in fact , adhere to that religion's tenets , then they do define the religion .

 

[aneeshm]

Islam ruling India was one of our finest times, THE finest, maybe.

Did you even bother to read the links which I posted ( WRT Islamic history in India ?

 

[aneeshm]

Historically, before the foundation of secular governments, did people of opposite religions ever get along? Jews and Christians? Muslims and Christians? Catholics and Protestants? Buddhists and Hindus?

Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot - you did my job for me . Hindus , Buddhists , Jains , and Parsees ( Zoorastrians , whom , conicidentially , Islam drove out of their Iranian home ) have got along fabulously throughout history ( and still get along now ) . You have just owned yourself .

 

[CurtSibling]

Why should it interest non-Muslims which faction represents "true Islam"? We, after all, think they're all false.

It's only considered 'false' if you digest the tenets of the other mono-religions.

For me, I think a better word would be 'irrelevant'......

And on topic:
It's good to see the thread starter has removed the mask from islam. A pity
the christians lack the courage to also come clean. But I guess they always
had a skill at public relations...!

.

 

[Winner]

Do any of you characterizing Islam as an inherently violent religion actually know any Muslims? I know dozens, and strangely enough, none of them has held a gun to my head to force me to convert.

I disagree. I say a religion is defined by the actions of those who claim to follow that religion. Which means that a violent minority can´t be said to be less "true" followers.

OK. Imagine there is some hypothetical religion, worshiping one God and some of his prophets. In the holy book of that religion is written, that all infidels must die and a holy war has to be waged against them until the last of them converts or perish. Of course, the religion is not just that, it has many other commandments and is much more complex.

The vast majority of believers is peaceful. They tolerate people from a different faith, they don't wage a holy war against them.

What does it mean? That the religion itself is peaceful? Of course not, because the holy texts promote violence. It's just that majority of believers is sane enough to not follow these parts of their holy book.

Now, as you can see from my singature, I think that Islam is inherently more violent than for example Christianity. All its aspects were created as a tool for expansion. The difference is clear, when you look at the main prophets - Jesus was a pacifist, traveling in poverty and persuading people to follow his teachings. He died as a martyr. Aside from the Old Testament, Christianity should be based on his techings, which are inherently peaceful. Nobody denies that terrible things were commited in the name of Jesus, but when we stick to the holy texts, we see this was a deviation.

Then, there is Muhammad. He was a tradesman and then a warrior. The story of his life is how he promoted his new religion by force, conquering those who didn't believe in him. After his death, the Islam expanded through conquest, destroying ancient Persia, crippling the Byzantium, invading Iberia and trying to occupy the Western Europe.

This is a religion of peace? Hardly.

The texts anneshm linked should provide evidence for the claims that Islam is an unreformed religion, which has certain very dangerous aspects. It should argue for the theory, that the orthodox/fundamentalist muslims involved in a violent attacks against the other people are not a deviation, but a true and right followers of the pure Islam.

 

[CurtSibling]

And for the record:

I have to say aneeshm, while I disagree with islam as much as any religion;
You are fighting a convincing battle for your convictions here, nice posting.

.

 

[aneeshm]

Oh, no. I read Dhimmi Watch and Jihad Watch everyday, two blogs that are critical of Islam. I know exactly what is being said, and I know it isn't true.

And I am not concerned much with blogs . Do not try to divert the topic .

You can't truly understand it if you don't believe it. There is no way someone who doesn't follow the religion knows more than someone who does. I will never understand Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc, like their followers do. No matter how many years you've studied it, you will never understand Islam, unless you live it, unless you breathe it, and unless you are a part of it.

Convenient . But untrue . I understand the religion far better than you do , because I have a much better prespective .

Of course - I'm telling you to read books by the experts. Reading a book about Islam written by a Hindu nationalist is like reading a book on America written by a North Korean communist.

But you forget that the sources I quote are studying the religion as laid down by the Prophet . You also forget that the core of the books relating to history is the evidence Islamic historians have left ( mostly because the Hindu evidence was destroyed ) .

How can a religion be violent? Does the religion go around attacking people with swords?

It can be violent if the religion tells its followers to go around attacking infidels .

There is a difference between a religion and a minority of it's followers. There are other factors affecting these people to be violent, not religion. Poverty, politics, and culture has more to do with violence than religion does.

Absolutely true . Funnily enough , you happen to be the minority of the followers that you mention . The people who define the religion , who are in an intellectual , if not numerical , majority , are the Ulema . Another question - why do poverty , politics , and culture take their toll on the borders of the Islamic world everywhere ?

The "facts" are that a huge majority of Muslims are not violent. The facts are that a minority of Muslims that have been brainwashed by radicalism and hate because of geo-politics. No area in modern history has faced as much upheaval as the Middle East, and that is the reason for violence. Tyrannical regimes, occupation, and poverty have led to these violent Muslims. Not their religion.

And that "fact" is that the minority are the true believers , while the majority are the heretics . How does this childish game of numbers affect my criticism of the religion's core ?

 

[aneeshm]

I disagree. I say a religion is defined by the actions of those who claim to follow that religion. Which means that a violent minority can´t be said to be less "true" followers.

Your idealism , though noble , is still irrelevant to me . I hold only a follower of the Quran ( and the Hadis , and the Ulema ) in the strict sense to be a believer - and as Winner's siganture's quote testifies , we have all seen what these "true believers" do .

 

[aneeshm]

And for the record:

I have to say aneeshm, while I disagree with islam as much as any religion;
You are fighting a convincing battle for your convictions here, nice posting.

.

I am essentially agonstic ( which can , funnily enough , be considered a part of one of the Hindu traditions ) , and I wish to finish , in this thread , if possible , the core of the rationalisers' arguments . After that , I shall consider my job done .

I have realised that the most essential thing for winning debates of this kind is focus - you must focus only and only on the religion as defined and interpreted by the texts . Then all opposition will crumble .

 

[CurtSibling]

I am going to jump ahead here and guess the long shot of this debate is that total
destruction of the planet is a foregone conclusion, since the major religions all
have a core group of psychotics who think they have the divine right to destroy?

.

 

[aneeshm]

All these points about Islam are probably true. But it is also true that Islam has promoted enlightenment during its golden age, at a time when Christians were burning witches. It is also true that, in current times, Islam is the world's biggest source of terrorism. That just goes to show that a religion can be construed to mean anything you want it to mean.

I'm an atheist, so I don't see any one religion as special, either for bad or good, but I can't blame Islam specifically as being worse than any other religion.

A golden age is an easy thing to achieve if you simply have to live off the wealth of the lands you have conquered and destroyed .

Secondly - at the time the Christians were burning witches , the Islamic conquerors were burning infidels . Not much of a difference .

Thirdly - what , again , does this have to do with the texts themselves ?