Is Islam The Problem?

[TheMeInTeam]

Since that was directed at me: He asked me a question, so I gave him an answer. An answer that actually commended his version of belief. What is your problem?

What is more interesting, is that of everything that I posted on the topic, about the problems with Islam, possible ways to reform the religion, the Mekka and Medina parts of the Koran, challenging Islamic orthodoxy etc, you chose to pounce on a quote which you apparently found inappropriate and make a snarky remark. This says more about you and your unwillingness to deal with the topic than it does about me.


Such as?

Deuteronomy. If a topic point targeting Islam specifically is that its holy scripture advocates killing people, it's not alone.

Killing people who try to convert you to a false faith with your own hands doesn't strike me as a particularly "high road" alternative to Islam. I concede that dictatorships of today abuse Islam more than Christianity or Judaism, but assert the issue is more fundamental that religion, it's the simple use of beatstick faith in anything as an irrational basis for decision-making.

I do wonder how many of the controlling authorities believe what they're selling, versus knowingly wielding it as a tool though.

 

[Berzerker]

You said this to the fact that the same sorts of passages can be found in the Bible:

This is implying that Muslims have not done so. That is a blatant sweeping generalization.

No, I said that about Christians and Jews who dont execute people for apostasy or blasphemy. That does not imply "all Muslims" believe people should be executed for apostasy and blasphemy. You just made that up. Thats your sweeping generalization, not mine. And thats your honest effort

I even pointed out that blasphemy was just recently abolished in England and Wales, and it is still illegal in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which you didn't even respond because those facts run contrary to these views.

Your point is irrelevant, I never said all Christians, Jews and Muslims believe blasphemy should be legal or illegal. So whats the punishment in Scotland? Death? Its absurd to compare the two.

I also pointed out a number of times that there was no such thing as "Islam's treatment of civilians" because it is clearly based on the specific sect as well as regional and cultural differences. Yet you continued incessantly with the same blatantly absurd sweeping generalization.

What does "Islam" say about treating civilians? You said they're not to be killed. But now "Islam" doesn't treat civilians? Islam does advocate treatment for apostates and blasphemers, the fact some Muslims disagree aint relevant. It is not a sweeping generalization to say Islam advocates punishing apostates and blasphemers, it is a sweeping generalization to say Islam prohibits killing civilians - there are all sorts of exceptions to that prohibition.

 

[Tahuti]

Yes it does - if you are an apostate, God will violently punish you for eternity.

That's a - probably false - belief, not a commandment.

 

[Funky]

Deuteronomy. If a topic point targeting Islam specifically is that its holy scripture advocates killing people, it's not alone.

Killing people who try to convert you to a false faith with your own hands doesn't strike me as a particularly "high road" alternative to Islam. I concede that dictatorships of today abuse Islam more than Christianity or Judaism, but assert the issue is more fundamental that religion, it's the simple use of beatstick faith in anything as an irrational basis for decision-making.

In Islam the penalty for apostacy is death, as stated several times in Koran. You don't find this in the bible. In fact, the New Testament, which is the reference point for most Christians, is a very benign book when it comes to violence. It has other problems, like the concept of hell and eternal damnation. But it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that all holy books are the same. In Christianity, punishment of sin comes after death. In the Koran, Muslims are ordered to punish sinners in this world. This is a huge difference which should not go unnoticed. That is not to say that Christians can't and haven't justified violence and other hideous things by pointing at specific verses of the bible. But it is much easier to extract a narrative which legitimizes violence from the Koran than it is from the bible.

Moreover, the context of the holy books is only relevant when the doctrines are abided by believers and translate into actions. Even if the bible did advocate killing unbelievers, say, we do not see Christians running around blowing themselves up in crowds of people on a daily basis. We do not see them stoning homosexuals or blasphemers. We certainly don't see them trying to establish a Christian version of the caliphate which is governed by Mosaic law. Christian extremists go to funerals and hold up signs. This is not comparable in the slightest.

Finally, the idea that Islam is being abused by dictatorships has been quite virulent, but does not survive scrutiny. Many Muslim countries are not run by dictators. Where they are, the dictators often are forced to restrict Islamist movements in their countries, like formerly in Iraq, in Syria, in Iran since Rouhani, or Morocco (though the latter is officially a kingdom). Where there are elections, we have seen the people vote for Erdogan, the Muslim Brotherhood, and even Hamas. This should not come as a surprise to anyone who has looked at the polls and has seen majorities in many countries who are for theocracy and for sharia. Many Muslims really do believe in Islamic rule. And those who don't are the ones we must support and empower and help them challenge Islamic orthodoxy.


Now, I have made a few points. I wonder what will happen with the SJWs who are running rampant in this thread. Will they:

a) engage in an honest conversation over these arguments and attempt to point out the flaws or acknowledge where I am correct?

b) ignore the arguments and pick out a line which they can use to distract from the topic by pointing to Christianity, or the evil-doings of the West, and in future posts proceed to claim that Christianity and Islam are equally dangerous as if this had never been posted?

We will see.

 

[Formaldehyde]

In Islam the penalty for apostacy is death, as stated several times in Koran. You don't find this in the bible.

Again, most Muslims no longer do that. Only the ones in the more backward countries do.

Again, it does state in the Bible that the penalty for apostasy is death.

Deuteronomy 13:6-9:

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.

Deuteronomy 17:3-5:

And he should go and worship other gods and bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens, .....and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die.

In fact, the New Testament, which is the reference point for most Christians, is a very benign book when it comes to violence.

"In fact", many Christians completely ignore the differences between the two parts of the Bible and preach hatred towards others and other religions. Take Muslims and Islam, for example.

In Christianity, punishment of sin comes after death.

That's not what the Bible says.

Moreover, the context of the holy books is only relevant when the doctrines are abided by believers and translate into actions.

And they clearly are in the case of the Bible. There have been far more deaths in the US from Christian terrorists than there have been from Muslim ones. The military is full of Christians who are there to kill Muslims ever since 9/11.

We do not see them stoning homosexuals or blasphemers.

Where have you been? Muslims and Christians get stoned in the occupied territories all the time. They even stone women and children. A predominately Christian country in Africa even recently tried to pass a law that practicing Christians be given the death penalty. It was inspired by American missionaries.

We certainly don't see them trying to establish a Christian version of the caliphate which is governed by Mosaic law.

Many would wish to do so. Many in the US have succeeded in the past and continue to try to force all Americans to live under their Christian version of sharia law.

And there is a "Jewish version" of this today. It is called "Israel". Perhaps you have heard of it?

Yes, there are indeed some "bad Muslims", as there are "bad Crhstians" and "bad Jews". But you try to condemn them all from believing in the very same god as Christians and Jews do based on the acts of a few of them. Acts which frequently have nothing whatsoever to do with their religion.

Again, 95% of suicidal terrorist acts have nothing at all to do with religion. Those who committed the atrocities on 9/11 certainly didn't do so because of religion. Most Americans didn't really care about Islam one bit until that magical date. Now, many virulently hate the entire religion. Those who even appear to be Muslims aren't even safe on our own streets anymore.

To many, this is a holy war against Islam. And the views you try to promulgate is a large part of why it continues.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In Islam the penalty for apostacy is death, as stated several times in Koran. You don't find this in the bible. In fact, the New Testament, which is the reference point for most Christians, is a very benign book when it comes to violence. It has other problems, like the concept of hell and eternal damnation. But it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that all holy books are the same

It depends on what you're trying to frame. It'd be a strawman to say I claimed they're all the same. However, I do claim many have a foundation in encouraging (on pain of severe penalty) belief in assertions without evidence. I'm just pointing out that if you changed the entire Middle East to Christianity overnight somehow, it'd still have tons of problems, terrorism/violence, and rule by dictators, and that the way the governing bodies manipulate the populace and perpetuate irrational beliefs is a stronger factor in these problems than any religion could be.

Religion just serves as a strong tool for that end, because it is a *widely accepted* irrational belief that's easier to twist than a using a belief in unicorns to get people to die for you.

Moreover, the context of the holy books is only relevant when the doctrines are abided by believers and translate into actions. Even if the bible did advocate killing unbelievers, say, we do not see Christians running around blowing themselves up in crowds of people on a daily basis. We do not see them stoning homosexuals or blasphemers.

I assert that if you put widespread Christianity into countries with dictators who have similar incentives to those harboring terror right now, that's exactly what you would see. History has shown us that as well.

Though Islam does have a way of perpetuating the nonsense pretty effectively. You can't just swap out one ruler and everything is better, because you have generations of people ingrained in believing without evidence. Of course those people aren't going to turn around and start picking rulers based on rational criteria, they've been taught to reject that approach and punished for using it.

I would rather say that instead of "Islam is *the* problem", that acting on irrational belief structures is a global problem, with violent application of Islam being a subset of that problem. Islam is a problem in that like most religions its teachings ask people to believe in something without evidence or even to reject evidence/punish non-belief. However, I also believe that evidence of behavior patterns in the areas with the most terror suggests that simply removing or somehow changing the faith would not change the underlying problem.

 

[tetley]

I can go along with Islam being a subset of the problem. More importantly, though, I need to highlight the part WE play in the problem: that we don't get our information about Islam from Muslims. Instead we trust the media more, and the media IS far more Jewish than it is Muslim. Indeed, Iran state news and Al Jazeera are freely available, in English, and we treat it like "terrorist TV".

If you listen to someone's enemy, what do you expect him to say? If you are considering a President, do you listen to Hillary--or do you listen only to what Donald Trump says ABOUT Hillary?

 

[illram]

This thread just gets better and better.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Indeed, Iran state news and Al Jazeera are freely available, in English, and we treat it like "terrorist TV".

I watch Al Jazeera more than I do CNN for the most part. They are ironically far more "fair and balanced" than CNN, much less Fox News.

They are also far less US-centric in their coverage, so you actually get to hear much more about foreign affairs than what is covered on any US media.

If anybody tries to disparage Al-Jazeera it is an excellent indicator that they are the ones spreading propaganda via "terrorist TV".

 

[tetley]

Don't you love news that is not US-centric? It's fascinating.

 

[Funky]

@TheMeInTeam:

First of all, I'd just like to point out that it is a breath of fresh air to have somone deal with the arguments and talk about the topic at hand. This should be the standard in any thread really, but it often falls victim to the censorship which is imposed on certain issues.

I'm just pointing out that if you changed the entire Middle East to Christianity overnight somehow, it'd still have tons of problems, terrorism/violence, and rule by dictators, and that the way the governing bodies manipulate the populace and perpetuate irrational beliefs is a stronger factor in these problems than any religion could be.

This is of course a hypothetical scenario which is rather hard to imagine, since the culture and politics in the Middle East are to a large extent the result of centuries of religious dogma in action. There is a reason why human rights, tolerance of unbelievers, equality of the sexes, or condemnation of terror happen to be in a far less developed state in the Muslim world, regardless of government type or economical wealth, than anywhere else.

But let's do the thought experiment.

If we swapped out Islam for Christianity in the Middle East, and granted that all Arabs believed just as much in its doctrines than they do in those of Islam, we'd have the same amount of irrational belief. There would be some similarities, but there would also be some differences.

Homosexuals would still be hated. Slavery would be condoned. Blasphemers may still get treated harshly. The people would indoctrinate their kids to believe in nonsense. Evolution would be rejected.

There would be some things that were worse. Like the belief in the soul entering the zygote at the moment of conception (as opposed to Islam, where it happens 40 days later), which impedes the research of embryonic stem cell research.

But there would also be some other differences. The whole issue of terrorism would be on a much smaller scale. The bible doesn't contain anything like the doctrine of jihad. Its central message is not a call for violence against unbelievers. It is certainly possible for people to commit acts of terror for Christian reasons. But it is much more difficult to justify such behaviour using the bible. Verses like "love your enemy", "turn the other cheek", or "render unto Caesar" provide powerful incentives to resent from committing violence. On the other hand, that Muslims are responsible for 99 percent of deaths caused by terror attacks cannot be explained without making the connection to the specific Islamic doctrines of jihad and martyrdom.
Women would no longer be treated as badly, though they may not obtain equal rights. Antisemitism would be a lot less virulent, though would probably still exist. The whole political dimension of the religion would be a lot less pronounced - Christianity simply doesn't have a political dimension to it which is as all-encompassing as in Islam.

In short, the differences we'd see would be due to the specific verses in the particular holy book. Now, if we swapped out Islam with Jainism, a religion that has non-violence as a central tenet, the situation would be different again. And I dare say that religious violence would no longer be an issue of any concern in the entire region. It is close to impossible to justify any kind of violence based on Jainism.

To sum up, religions are different. What people believe matters. And specific beliefs in certain religious doctrines have specific consequences.

I would rather say that instead of "Islam is *the* problem", that acting on irrational belief structures is a global problem, with violent application of Islam being a subset of that problem.

Sure, I totally agree. The larger problem extends beyond religion, and certainly beyond Islam. The thing is, that while acknowledging the bigger picture is important, we still have many separate individual problems to deal with. We can broaden out the issue on a lot of problems, but this rarely helps solve them. Say a guy gets beaten up by a gang of thugs. The adequate response is not to blame violence in general. Not that it wasn't true, it just won't do any good. If I stand up at a health conference about possible cures for cancer and start saying that singling out cancer is unfair, the bigger problem are diseases in general, I probably won't get re-invited.

So yes, irrational beliefs are a problem. The reason I focus on Islam is that it is currently not astrologers who are killing people by the thousands every month. It is not homeopaths who are suppressing women. It is not Buddhists who are killing gays, Hindus who are on jihad, or Christians who are building a theocracy by means of brutal force and genocide. The priorities of concern in regard to human suffering seem to be fairly one-sided when it comes to the consequences of the various irrational beliefs of our time.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The whole issue of terrorism would be on a much smaller scale.

Only, again, this obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam because it is specifically forbidden.

Again, 9/11 had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

 

[brennan]

Osama Bin Laden said otherwise.

 

[Senethro]

Osama Bin Laden said otherwise.

He can probably be considered as speaking for all muslims to the same extent that some murderous christian can be said to represent their religion.

 

[brennan]

Yes and if a murderous Christian said that they murdered because of their religion and cited relevant passages of the Bible and explained other features of their worldview that were pertinent then i'd view anyone who said their violence had 'nothing to do with Christianity' as a blinkered fool as well.

 

[Ironsided]

Moral Tribes by Joshua Greene - read it.

 

[Senethro]

Yes and if a murderous Christian said that they murdered because of their religion and cited relevant passages of the Bible and explained other features of their worldview that were pertinent then i'd view anyone who said their violence had 'nothing to do with Christianity' as a blinkered fool as well.

And most reasonable people could see your dishonesty in choosing the worst member of a group as representative of them.

 

[brennan]

I see you are inventing surreal versions of what other people think in your head again.

 

[Senethro]

If so then I'm the second person to do so in a couple of pages, so you might need to reiterate what you think the link between Islam and terror is.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Osama Bin Laden said otherwise.

Did he now?

In Osama Bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America",[5][6] he explicitly stated that al-Qaeda's motives for their attacks include: Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia,[6][7][8] US support of Israel,[9][10] and sanctions against Iraq.[11]

Bin Laden didn't "hate your freedom" and he wasn't trying to "kill all the infidels", as so many falsely allege. But he did try to manipulate other Muslims into violating even the most basic precepts of Islam by intentionally killing civilians. In that regard, the Muslims who decided to do so are no different from the millions of Christian Americans who joined the US military afer 9/11 to specifically kill Muslims and get revenge.