1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

"Islam is violent! Just read the Koran to see for yourself!"

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Phlegmak, Sep 10, 2007.

  1. Princeps

    Princeps More bombs than God

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,265
    State organized religion had very little to do with personal religiosity or theological or social aspects of religion, I believe. State systems are violent institutions which, above all, desire control and therefore state systems organized the previously free-going religion to gain control of the movement and to form a strong ideological ground for the existence of state coercion. I genuine religion is not organized or controlled by anyone.

    It doesn't matter what the prophets or scriptures state or preach-- what matters to centers of power and to violent state institutions, is the irrational group mentality which they can abuse in order to pursue their interests.

    Well, you just answered the question. You see, unlike theological interpitations, political issues actually matter. Political issues are about power, resources, wealth, control, freedom, etc and above all life, whereas theological interpretations are nothing but words of some meandering old men. You can ask yourself which matters to the people in power, increased tax revenue or religious identity.
     
  2. CurtSibling

    CurtSibling ENEMY ACE™ SLeague Staff

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2001
    Messages:
    28,381
    Location:
    Innsmouth
    Another great post - Princeps has the high ground in this argument!

    ...
     
  3. Princeps

    Princeps More bombs than God

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,265
    Looks like I have a cheerleader.:D
     
  4. CurtSibling

    CurtSibling ENEMY ACE™ SLeague Staff

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2001
    Messages:
    28,381
    Location:
    Innsmouth
    Don't think I would suit the pleated skirt and pom-poms, dude!

    I just appreciate common sense when it is on display.

    :)
     
  5. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    42,000
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Oh, I wouldn't even say that. Islam elevated women's rights relative to the cultures of its inception-time. I don't know if that's true, but my comment is not changed even if it is true.

    Relative to NOW, the Islamic system is oppressive of women's rights, in a horrible , horrible way. It's mostly horrible because it's unchanging: it's immune to any insights or enlightenments we may have.

    That's what I mean about 'screeching halt', because it's harder to improve women's rights under Islam than it is under other modern systems. Even if it was the Golden Child 1400 years ago, I don't want to compare the status of current women with 1400 years ago.
     
  6. Squonk

    Squonk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,477
    Location:
    Poland
    Sure, I've heard about people killing daughters etc, but on the other hand Hadiga, Muhammad's first wife, was a businesswoman before islam. Al-Qur'an didn't give women more rights than they had in contemporary christian societies. Or did it?

    It is not sure if they actually betrayed. As far as I remember muslims suspected them of talks with Meccans, and there were some attacks on Jews. They were besieged and agreed to an arbitrage, according to which they were killed, while Muhammad praised the verdict as the will of God. And no, not every deal broken in these times ment massacre of all men and enslavement of the rest. And what You say only confirms my previous opinion: what Muhammad did was "normal" in his times, but can hardly be example for people today.
    The massacre was done cold-blooded, long after the battle itself. It was not necessary.

    The same: then "normal", but now not, and not OK in general. Many muslims hold him as a universal example...
    It's the first time I hear about A'isha being that old as You say when the marriage was consumed. Usually muslims claim that while she was that young, she's grown prematurily. I'm not really a specialist on the earliest muslim history, but it seems Bukhari, Tabari and others claim her young age




    Curt, Princeps doesn't stand on higher ground. His opinions are simplicistic and ahistorical. He believes people in antiquity, middle ages and further on thought the same way we do today. Do You think atheism and religious indifference was as wide-spreaded centuries ago as today? Do You think all rulers are areligious? Do You think christianity, which You can't call unorganised even before Nicea, grew with the help of some state? :rolleyes:
     
  7. Princeps

    Princeps More bombs than God

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,265
    I've debated this issue with some self-described historians, and its quite funny that when I point out the obvious (but contriversial) similarities in past and contemporary human nature and behaviour of state institutions, they always resort to this nonsensical "you don't know what people thought back then, humans change blah blah. They were different, they had different morals!"

    No, human behaviour and morals haven't changed much, you can see that from just reading past authors, like ancient philosophers, including Jesus and classical liberal intellectuals and humanists and so forth. They all wanted humans to be free and prosperous and many had the same elementary moral principles. State institutions have always behaved the same way, they've always functioned for the interests of the ruling classes, regardless whether its the nation-state systems of later Europe, or the Roman Empire, or Arab Empires.

    And wars, which violent institutions tend to wage, are fought for real reasons, like wealth and power, not for theological interpitations. Saying that the Muslims conquered their empires to spread Islam is like saying that United States conquered Iraq to spread democracy, or Britain invaded India to tame the barbarians, or that the US civil war was fought because of slavery. The declared reasons for the war are rarely the real ones.

    Obviously the structure of society has changed, people no longer live in confined villages and have more sources of information, not just the local priest and the landlord and the occasional merchant. So, obviously, that results in a substancial changes in people's opinions and level of knowladge, and in response, the state institutions first came up with the propaganda methods like they used in Nazi Germany and Britain, primarily. But now that has proven ineffiecent, and now private concentrations of power and state institutions and their puppet intellectuals have doctored fluid doctrines to explain institutional coercion, economic abuse and aggression. Doctrines like "fighting terrorism", "clash of civilizations", "free markets", "the retiring baby-boomers" which are more difficult for the average folk to deeply understand but sound nice/scary or convincing. Whereas leaders previously could just say "God wills it!" to the peasants.

    Yes, leaders were religious, because much of their power was based on the group mentality, on the irrational attidutes of submission to authority, which still dominate politics in many ways, but is no longer as religious in nature. However, back then, being seemingly religious was an institutional demand. I mean, when the Pope wanted to get rid of someone, he accused them of heresy or atheism.

    Christianity was very disorganized before that. There was no compulsory organization, no "ministery of truth" like they had in totalitarian societies, like the soviet union and the catholic church, nothing to enforce some dogmas or interpitations above the rest. Basically, it was a group faithful and disorganized preachers, who were not in the movement because of group mentality but because of ideological and theoligical reasons and were not even remotely organized in the way of a coercive state sponsored religious apparatus. That changed when Roman imperial establishment took over.

    No, like back then, and today, it's normal and acceptable when 'we' do it, but if they 'they' do it, it is an outrage. So when a Western power is carrying out atrocities, like wiping out cities, it is acceptable, and when the Christian God wipes out the entire world and carries out hidiously barbaric genocides, it is accetable, even revered, but when their prophet did it, all the Eurocentrist anti-semites gather around to demonize Islam.
     
  8. Bad Player

    Bad Player Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,531
    Location:
    (Bris)Vegas!
    Actually I was asking for primary sources preferably to support "Early on, in the areas where Arab Empires had spread, Islam was the religion of the ruling classes and their associates, and these established Muslims tried to actively stop people from converting to Islam".

    Secondly what primary sources support your assertion that the Islamic expansion (e.g. the Battle of Badr), which was claimed to be for Islam, was not for Islam but for other reasons such as wealth and power. The Muslims claimed it was for Islam so if you want to doubt that then the burden of proof is upon you*.


    (I'm trying to be open-minded here but wanting good evidence rather than someone's opinion.)



    *And sorry Curtsibling but conjecture a good post does not make. ;)
     
  9. Bad Player

    Bad Player Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,531
    Location:
    (Bris)Vegas!
    From my quick googling, Islam gave women better conditions than what other women in the Arabic region had at least.
    Source
     
  10. Erik Mesoy

    Erik Mesoy Core Tester / Intern

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Messages:
    10,955
    Location:
    Oslo, Norway
    I've tried to shift this discussion to somewhere more appropriate, but one last comment here since in my experience subtopics tend to die rather than be moved: Paul writes, in Galatians 1,
    "Let me be blunt: If one of us—even if an angel from heaven!—were to preach something other than what we preached originally, let him be cursed. I said it once; I'll say it again: If anyone, regardless of reputation or credentials, preaches something other than what you received originally, let him be cursed."

    Your "ministry of truth" and "totalitarian societies" ad hominems aside, there seems to have been a dogma right from the beginning.
     
  11. Squonk

    Squonk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,477
    Location:
    Poland
    Oh, I know that. But Khadiga owned property before islam, didn't she?. And I am not sure if there was no women inheritance earlier as well. I think Muhammad just spread through islam mildier attitudes of an urban elite.
     
  12. Smidlee

    Smidlee Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,348
    Yet these Christians (preachers), like the Baptist, did finally prevail in USA for they impacted the government to give them the freedom of religion. There is no more burning of the stake for those who preached against the "state church".
     
  13. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,549
    Location:
    Scotland
    Well, that is true, yes.
     
  14. Princeps

    Princeps More bombs than God

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,265
    Well, I hesitated to make that write that initially, because some of us don't read everything on the internet. I'll google if I can remember the name of the article where I read about it. It seems to be a difficult to google about -- with all that "dhimmi watch" nonsense.

    However, basically the article explained that dhimmis payed more tax (quite a lot of more actually), but were not required to serve in the military. So, initially Islam was a religion of the newly imposed ruling class, their associates and soldiers, but later on conversion to Islam was quite attractive to many -- not only because of its simplicity, like today -- but due to priviliges a Muslim was entitled to, compared to a dhimmi, for example. So more and more people converted to Islam, which was bad for the tax revenue. So, there was efforts to prevent people from converting to Islam.

    I was primarily refering to the later Islamic expansion over the greater middle East, to places like Egypt, Persia and so forth. Also, battle are always claimed to be fought for whatever reason, but reasons given are often entirely different from the reality. Battle of Badr was fought for power and control of trade and commerce, which is quite explicit in some cases. Also, there was Quraish aggression involved as well.

    Yeah, you know, it wasn't as if every Christian preacher in the Roman Empire had a large collection of Christian literature or could've been controlled by some central apparatus of the Christian movement. There were many "heresies" undoubtly and many interpitations -- and if anything, what Paul writes, is a sort of measure taken against them. Also, religious literature was controlled by a group of people, indeed form what we've found some of the material was gotten rid of because some people didn't like what they were saying.

    And yes, the catholic church was a totalitarian institution during the middle ages, I see nothing contriversial about that. It wasn't intended to be an ad hominen. The papal regime was the ministery of truth.

    From Constantine to Kings and emperors throughout the middle ages, Christian leaders used Biblical sculptures to justify their liberal use of the sword -- but that's not an insult to Christianity, because they obviously ignored many other parts, like the definition of hypocrite for example, and misquoted and distorted others. During the middle ages, religious literature was controlled by a small elite class and written in language that normal people did not use, so obviously what the bible actually said matters very little.
     
  15. aronnax

    aronnax Let your spirit be free

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    6,344
    Location:
    Air Temple Island
    Well then I have to agree with you on that point. Maybe there was no plot dicussed with the Meccans. Maybe there was. I do remenber reading somewhere that they were thinking about attacking the Muslims because they were fedup with the constant attacks from the Meccans.

    Also no, not every broken deal meant death. But their crime (assuming it is true) was considered treason and meant death as punishment even today in some countries.

    I would also like to thank Princeps with that post on what is normal now outrages people in the past. It helps me make my point
     
  16. mythmonster2

    mythmonster2 BEC NOIR! RUN!

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,873
    Location:
    Houston TX, Yeeeehaw!
    Well, I'm just glad you guys are apparently talking about some completely different Islam which has the "Koran" or "Al-Quran" as the holy book.

    To people who say Islam is violent, honestly, how many Muslims do you know who would willingly strap thmeselves to a bomb in the name of Allah, or Mohammed? (Yeah, I know, I stink at spelling his name, I hope it dosn't go against me when I'm being judged!) Hmmmm? Anyone, anyone at all. Yup, just what I though, zip, zero, nada. Most Muslims today have adapted Islam to their own personal lives. Me, for example, have drunk beer (In the presence of an adult, mind you) and am currently not fasting. Flaming of me begin in 3...2...1. Commence flaming! Bring it on! BRING IT ON!!!
     
  17. Bad Player

    Bad Player Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,531
    Location:
    (Bris)Vegas!
    The problem I have with second guessing in your interpretation of those battles which were claimed to be in the name of (in this case) Islam is how do you know that you are right? It might well just be coincidence that there were other benefits or it might be that the other benefits were secondary to the primary (and claimed) cause which was religious (Islamic) war.
     
  18. Bad Player

    Bad Player Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,531
    Location:
    (Bris)Vegas!
    Most people of Muslim culture may well not be any more violent than anyone else. The question is more about whether a fair and reasonable interpretation of the Koran would mean that a Muslim is excessively violent. For example, would a fair and reasonable interpretation of the Koran forbid the consumption of alcohol?
     
  19. Princeps

    Princeps More bombs than God

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,265
    So you think the Neocons invaded Iraq to spread democracy? Do you think the British invaded India to tame the barbarians? Do you think the US civil war was fought to abolish slavery? Do you think that Spanish invaded South America to abolish human sacrifice and to spread Christianity? Do you think the Nazis invaded Europe save the Christian civilization? Do you think the Arabs invaded the Middle East to spread Islam?

    I doubt that, because warmongerers always give benign reasons for their aggression, but usually what they are after is power, wealth, resources, things of pleasure, value, production and domination. Decent people don't like mudering hundreds of thousands of people for the material needs and deluded imperial ambitions of their leaders, but people are willing to fight if they think they fight for something benign, altruistic or necessary.

    The important thing when you study history, is to never trust the benign declarations of leaders -- because they will always say that they have altruistic intents, no matter how terrible mass murderer the leader actually is.
     
  20. Bad Player

    Bad Player Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,531
    Location:
    (Bris)Vegas!
    But you're still second-guessing them.

    Perhaps it could be argued that Richard I (the Lionheart) was going on a religious war because he sold so much of his land to finance the crusade and didn't he get all pissy about visiting Jerusalem while it was under Islamic control?

    So maybe you can't always assume rulers go to war primarily over reasons that they don't give. Or at least making the blanket assumption that that will always be true (which I doubt). That is why proof is needed (or at least good evidence) on a case by case basis.
     

Share This Page