Religion and Islam

Feel free to extend my challenge to any religion (or the belief of atheism then).

Let the proselytizing begin! :lol:

Atheism is a separate concept from materialism, but they have similar aspects.

Materialism predicts that people can be trained to 'feel' a response to their efforts to worship and pray, and that it does not depend upon which god they're trained to worship - the feedback will be similarly convincing (at a subjective level).

As well, Materialism predicts that people will not become more enlightened regarding the true nature of reality if they focus their spiritual meditation over Scripture that speaks in metaphors. A pious and devout member of any religion who is raised to believe in certain Scipture (from the Vegas to the Torah) will come to believe it to be more and more literally true as they pray and meditate over it; especially if they're not given robust evidence against it from an outside source.

In other words: piety, faith, devotion, and prayer (regarding Scripture) will not correlate with comprehension of the world. As well, intensity of faith will have no correlation with the truth. The only factors that allow one to twist (or cherry-picking) the Scripture into conforming with reality will be a combination of education and intelligence. This is meaningless, because a devoted Trekkie is more able to "cherry pick" a Star Trek episode into seemingly conforming based on his intelligence and education (by declaring what's metaphor and what is fact).
 
But that's exactly the challenge that I've posed.

If you believe the Qur'an is false, what is the truth in your eyes?

I've learned that I form an opinion on truth that grows as I get older. When I was younger, I suspected that the Qur'an was not divinely inspired by a moral agent. As I got older, I found it to be true.

In general, I suspect that a materialistic world view is the most accurate and that our society is formed of sentient being similar to me. And that I know that I exist.

In other words: "I think therefore I am" -> "You exist, and think that you exist" -> "The best way to find truth is through materialistic explanations"

I also suspect heavily that there is no afterlife, of course, I'm hesitant to test this theory :)
 
Surprisingly, there have not yet been any Christians offering their perspective on why the Christian religion espouses truth.

In my eyes, belief in a religion will not harm you (in terms of an afterlife) if there is no "Hereafter" whereas disbelief will be a massive mistake if the outcome is some sort of eternal damnation.

I really want to hear from some Christians :'(.
 
In my eyes, belief in a religion will not harm you (in terms of an afterlife) if there is no "Hereafter" whereas disbelief will be a massive mistake if the outcome is some sort of eternal damnation.

Pascal's Wager, while it may be a way of hedging one's bets for the next life, is not a good way to actually find the truth.
 
In my eyes, belief in a religion will not harm you (in terms of an afterlife) if there is no "Hereafter" whereas disbelief will be a massive mistake if the outcome is some sort of eternal damnation.

And strictly abstaining from wine hurts my life here, given the medical benefits of wine. There's a balance to be struck. Especially when balancing what you know to be true and what you worry is true.

A tin foil hat is the game winning strategy if aliens really are reading your thoughts. But it's a poor way of making friends. A balance must be struck. Of course, the people who tell me about the aliens also tell me that humans evolved from clams ... so, it's easier to make my decision.
 
And strictly abstaining from wine hurts my life here, given the medical benefits of wine. There's a balance to be struck. Especially when balancing what you know to be true and what you worry is true.

From my experience, every doctor that I have spoken with on the matter, and every item that I've read suggests that although alcohol/wine may have some cardiovascular benefits, it is not a good enough reason to start drinking alcohol if you consume none to begin with. Rather it is a benefit of alcohol consumption, but there is nothing (that I've seen) to suggest that this benefit outweighs the costs and disadvantages of alcohol consumption.

A tin foil hat is the game winning strategy if aliens really are reading your thoughts. But it's a poor way of making friends.

It's not that difficult to make friends when you're surrounded by others wearing tin foil hats. You and others may think it's strange to see observant Jews, Christians, or Muslims, but in many places in the world, it's very weird if a person is not religiously observant (and I'm not talking about top-down enforcement of religious ideologies by governments, but rather societal pressure). For instance, there are few Muslim cities (outside of Turkey) where you'll see open, public alcohol consumption (even in the most politically moderate and democratic countries).
 
From my experience, every doctor that I have spoken with on the matter, and every item that I've read suggests that although alcohol/wine may have some cardiovascular benefits, it is not a good enough reason to start drinking alcohol if you consume none to begin with. Rather it is a benefit of alcohol consumption, but there is nothing (that I've seen) to suggest that this benefit outweighs the costs and disadvantages of alcohol consumption.
Wine, specifically, has a host of benefits. The main reason researchers are hesitant to give a stamp of authority to consuming a glass each day is the controversy that will result when people misuse the idea. As well, it might not be globally applicable.

I'm quite certain that individual people can collect enough information about themselves to determine whether they're better off or not.

The only reason I'm able to collect enough information, though, is because so many other people have consumed wine and then had their data examined. This benefit would not have been available to me if people had abstained.

Anyway, my point is that I have to judge whether wine benefits me and whether that should outweigh an historical poetic text's recommendations.
It's not that difficult to make friends when you're surrounded by others wearing tin foil hats.
I was speaking metaphorically, about how belief in an outrageous idea can impact your life negatively. Though you seem to have understood. And your counter-point is so funny and clever that I'm happy to concede. We're mainly agreeing anyway, nonlogical behaviour is okay when everyone else doesn't think it's weird.
 
In response to saying that the bible cannot be taken as literally as the Koran because of translation:

I understand that some of you are Muslim and some are Christian and some Atheist. So, obviously each of us is going to think our book is the best. However, look at the situation from a standpoint other than your own for a second. You say that the bible didn't come from one main source and that since the Koran did and that is has staying in one language that it must be correct. Muhommed (I know I am misspelling this and I'm sorry) was a man, just like all the other "prophets" who came before him. So, since he was a man, isn't it possible that he was a dilusional pschysophrenic who thought he saw an angel and was told all this stuff? The answer is yes. Isn't it possible that Jesus was some guy with a huge ego and thought it best to take it upon himself to fool the world into thinking that if they followed his teachings they would goto heaven? The answer is yes. Isn't it possible that the founder of Mormonism (Joseph Smith?) was just as dilussional as Muhommed? The answer is yes.

The reason why the Christian Church puts tradition as high as the Word is because of Apostolic Succession. The Church and its teachings have been passed down from pope to pope and bishop to bishop. Granted there were evil men in the history of the Church (just as there were evil men in the history of Islam and other religions), but the Church itself has remained mostly unchanged throughout its history. And that is due to tradition. We believe that Jesus is part of what we call the Holy Trinity. So, I suppose I am one of those Trinitarian Christians.

Let me explain our view: God is one entity. Everything we see and witness is God. Basically the one true diety. The Holy Spirit is the essence of God which can take hold of man and change man. It also is responsible for what we call Grace, which is being filled with the Holy Spirit. Jesus was born a man from a woman by the Holy Spirit. In other words, he was filled to the brink with the Holy Spirit to the point where he channeled God. These three entities make up the Holy Trinity (Father (God), Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit).

The Holy Spirit is what we believe came upon the apostles and the disciples and INSPIRED them in their writings. Think of it like waking up at 3:00 AM and being filled with an inspiration to write a book (kind of like in Jerry Maguire). This is where the New Testiment comes from. It is the NEW TESTIMONIAL of God and Jesus' teachings on Earth.

Does the bible have fallacies? Of course it does. Does the Koran have fallacies? Of course it does. The point of these writings was not to read each individual word and live by those individual words. If so, Christians and Jews would be killing homosexuals everyday (Leviticus 20:13). Christians and Jews I think have it right in that we do not take our texts to the literal extent that Muslims do. However, just as with suicide bombers and radical Muslims, there are some Christian sects that do some radical things based on what the bible teaches (i.e. Ku Klux Klan).
 
Basically I believe that everyone has a right to choose the path that they will, and should God exist, they'll know after their death whether that choice was right.

Even if I was 100% certain in a certain belief, I would be vehemently opposed to enforcing it on others. The reason, despite my complete certainty? Imagine if someone enforced a religion that I knew to be false on me. I would lack the freedom to fulfill what I felt are the requirements set on me and in the best cases, I would have to fight violently against the oppressive regime for my right to freedom of worship or I would have to practice in secret. Religious observance in secret is also not always possible, for instance, praying daily or women wearing a Hijab/Niqab (full face veil) in such a repressive society.

I find this view consistent with one important verse in the Qur'an, stating that there shall be no compulsion in religion.

One interesting event was the outlawing of Burqas (full body and face coverings for women) in the Netherlands. Prior to the ban, the number of women in the entire country of about 16 million that wore them could probably be counted on one hand. Following the ban, dozens of women, who didn't believe it to be a religious obligation started wearing them, demonstrating that they show solidarity with these women, and are willing to fight for their right to express their belief in this way.

Bans of the Hijab (head scarf) in schools and other public institutions throughout secular Europe is another thing that I find very wrong. This has been done following the argument that "religion and the state should be kept completely separate" but there has been no disagreement against leading human rights organizations that such policies violate freedom of religion.

Hopefully people will become more, rather than less tolerant, especially as immigration and citizens with immigrant backgrounds become more prominent in Western societies. I've heard statistics (on CNN I believe), that 45% of the children under 10 years old in the United States are part of minority groups. This, to me, is a very exciting statistic and speaks to greater plurality within the USA in the future.

I also find it fantastic that Americans have elected their first Muslim Congressman (Keith Ellison). Also of significance is that he's a convert to Islam, and has made the conscious choice to accept the religion, unlike children born to Muslim parents. Despite the impact it would likely have on his political career, he chose not to compromise is religious beliefs for an easier election campaign and future. I find that worthy of great respect and see him as a pioneer in that regard.
 
All that, I can agree with. To be honest, I feel that there is more compulsion in Islam than there should be; but that is true of all religions and many ideologies.

What struck me most about Keith Ellison was all the dingbats who complained that he was sworn in with a Qur'an instead of a Bible. The horrors! At least he actually believes the book he was using . . .
 
It seems pretty clear to me that the goal of Islam is to create a theocracy, moreso than any other religion.

I find this view consistent with one important verse in the Qur'an, stating that there shall be no compulsion in religion.
How can you want to impose a tax on non-Muslims and then state that there's no compulsion? Regardless, it seems to me that the cartoon rioters chose to ignore this verse. Not really a surprise, given all the other things that we willfully ignore in the Qur'an. (Fer Cripes Sake, it endorses the Flood myth!)
 
Christians and Jews I think have it right in that we do not take our texts to the literal extent that Muslims do. However, just as with suicide bombers and radical Muslims, there are some Christian sects that do some radical things based on what the bible teaches (i.e. Ku Klux Klan).

This is a common misconception among non-Muslims. There is nothing in the Qur'an that condones suicide, in any manner or form, even if you are capable of eliminating every single enemy of your religion, were you simply to take your own life as well. There is a zero tolerance stance regarding suicide, and as is often the case, cultural/ideological issues are confused with the religion.

Palestinians are the "pioneers" of this whole suicide-martyrdom movement. You have to remember that Fatah, earlier the Palestinian Liberation Organization is predominantly secular and nationalistic, both of which are completely contrary to Islam. The group has made mistakes in the past, such as the death of civilians.

Unfortunately, many Palestinians feel that they are in a very desperate position given their lives under constant occupation and the annexation of their land. In their desperation, they do stupid things such as committing suicide attacks and/or harming civilians because they can't reach Israeli soldiers.

This also applies to Iraqis and Afghanis who are convinced by someone or another that committing a suicide bombing is permissible. These people often receive support for their families through these actions and are convinced that they will attain martyrdom and enter paradise.

Islam is very clear that no form of suicide is acceptable, and that it is among the gravest of sins. Furthermore, the death of civilians is never permissible, under any circumstances, and the way these dissidents manage to convince people to commit such acts is by convincing them the people that they're killing aren't civilians at all. They use logic such as:

1. Israelis are all forced into military service and remain in the country's military reserves. Children will invariably grow up to be soldiers, so no Israeli occupying Palestinian land can be considered a civilian and protected.

2. Citizens of democratic governments that engage in war against Muslim countries can not be considered innocent in the conflicts, as these people have voted in the government that made these decisions.

Both of the above arguments, and others have no worth in my opinion. A civilian is a noncombatant, a person who is in no position to fight you or do you any harm.

The Qur'an is clear about not transgressing these limits.

Also prisoners of war are to be well treated. Many knowledgeable Westerners know about Saladin's great chivalry, especially compared to the European Crusaders of the time. Some groups nowadays kidnap journalists and other noncombatants, having little regard for their safety or health.

My point is, it is a great insult to suggest that suicide bombings, attacks on civilians, or anything similar is condoned in the Qur'an, and that those people taking this revelation literally are radical fundamentalists (as portrayed by some of the Western Media) and are more likely to do the disgusting things mentioned above.
 
It seems pretty clear to me that the goal of Islam is to create a theocracy, moreso than any other religion.

The theocracy you describe is somewhat misleading. Muslims after the death of Muhammad (pbuh) selected their leaders by consensus. There is therefore a democratic tradition from the earliest times in Islam, though many of the later leaders of the various Muslim empires ruled more like kings and emperors (or tyrants) rather than leaders chosen by their people to serve.

How can you want to impose a tax on non-Muslims and then state that there's no compulsion?

When Muslims say that there is no compulsion in religion, the point is that no one is (or should be) forced to convert to Islam, or that no interpretation of Islam should be forced on everyone. In Islam there is a concept known as ijtihad, which means making decisions based on individual interpretation.

The tax levied on non-Muslims is not at all compulsion in religion, and I don't see how it can be characterized as such. It applies only to Muslim governed countries/areas. Non-muslims are not required to serve in the Muslim army, while Muslims are, and they, because they have a different religious tradition do not have to pay 2.5% of their savings in the form of Zakat each year(which is an Islamic requirement). However, these Non-Muslims benefit from infrastructure investments, defense/the military and other public services.

This requirement on Non-Muslims in no way restricts them from practicing their religion, it simply ensures that they contribute to society. They are free to pray and gather as they want, celebrate the festivals and holidays that they have and so on.

Compare this to the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades, in which Muslims were at best exiled and more commonly slaughtered where they stood for their beliefs. Forced conversion (or death) was completely commonplace. That is an example of genuine compulsion in religion.
 
Even if I was 100% certain in a certain belief, I would be vehemently opposed to enforcing it on others. The reason, despite my complete certainty? Imagine if someone enforced a religion that I knew to be false on me.
Problem with that! Namely, the fact that enforcing religious code on members of a religion is, by definition, opposition to freedom of wroship. It doesn't matter whether or not a someone who is truly religious would believe that - such a thing by definition enforces a particular religious interpretation, and thus does not show freedom. It doesn't matter if it is the same religion or not in this case - someone has to consent to his removal of his universal human rights, and religion isn't always a choice.

Bans of the Hijab (head scarf) in schools and other public institutions throughout secular Europe is another thing that I find very wrong. This has been done following the argument that "religion and the state should be kept completely separate" but there has been no disagreement against leading human rights organizations that such policies violate freedom of religion.
I'd like to see the citations that such an opposition has a consensus - laïcité is a huge tradition in many european countries.

Hopefully people will become more, rather than less tolerant, especially as immigration and citizens with immigrant backgrounds become more prominent in Western societies.
The proble is that you will never see western society in principle, tolerate a belief system which infringes upon human rights. Islam in pricniple doesn't have to do this, of course, but that's not the point...

Anyway, what I'm mostly talking about is the fact that quite a few muslim countries (Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia for example) oppose the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the fact that they feel that it is a secular view of the judeo-Christian tradition. Even though in reality the consensus of the UDHR being a fundamental principle of society is far more than merely the West. The document the countries had signed as a sort of islamic version of the UDHR (The [wiki]Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam[/wiki] is far more restrictive. Namely the fact that, first of all, it is inferior to Sharia law. Second of all, the fact that it puts men in a superior position to females - women are only guarenteed equal dignity and not in other matters. And heck, the most timportant thing, the fact that there is no guarentee of freedom of religion in the document. Freedom of Speech is highly restricted as well such that it does not contradict Shariah. Et cetera.

The only way to rationally justify allowing some of this infringments of human rights is moral relativism - and that's philosophically bunk. So quite literally it is the systems of the respective countries in the ME that need to change, and not a matter of tolerance.

Yes, there is Islamophobia as a result of 9/11 that can be quite dangerous. That does not mean that criticism of Islamic radicalism is unjustified, however. Nor does it mean that ad hominem attacks are justified - just because an opponent is hypocritical in his practices does not make his points any less justifiable.

I would bet that most likely, Islam needs a reformation just like Christianity needed one. "Islamism" needs to be gotten rid of. The concept of it is just as stupid as [wiki]Christianism[/wiki] - often for my first point - the government enforcing religious principles on someone of the same religion necessarily is not freedom of religion, regardless of whether or not other religious/the irreligious are held to the same standards.

This requirement on Non-Muslims in no way restricts them from practicing their religion, it simply ensures that they contribute to society. They are free to pray and gather as they want, celebrate the festivals and holidays that they have and so on.

Compare this to the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades, in which Muslims were at best exiled and more commonly slaughtered where they stood for their beliefs. Forced conversion (or death) was completely commonplace. That is an example of genuine compulsion in religion.
While it does not prohibit the practice of other religons, it does not endorse the free worship of them - it makes the other religions inherently inferior, and encourages them to convert because of the tax.

Yes, the idea is far more tolerant than what it was like in Christianity was like before secularism was invented, but the fact is that it is not a justification for such a system to exist today. Christianity had to be reevaluated by people as time went on. Such is the case for all religions - the simple fact is that society changes, and thus religion must also change in order to accomodate society.
 
The tax levied on non-Muslims is not at all compulsion in religion, and I don't see how it can be characterized as such. It applies only to Muslim governed countries/areas. Non-muslims are not required to serve in the Muslim army, while Muslims are, and they, because they have a different religious tradition do not have to pay 2.5% of their savings in the form of Zakat each year(which is an Islamic requirement). However, these Non-Muslims benefit from infrastructure investments, defense/the military and other public services.

The reason why I believe it to be a compulsion is because you're charging people money if they claim to be non-Muslim. You can see, certainly, that that is a type of compulsion. The only way it's not a compulsion is if the economic burden on Muslims (discounting the Zakat) is higher or equal to the burden on the nonMuslims

Forgive my ignorance: it seems that there are three 'taxes' involved in the Muslim system.

- serving in the army (certainly a type of tax)
- the compulsion to give charity (the Zakat)
- the infidel tax (which I'm referring to in the post you're replying to).

Are you saying that a non-Muslim only pays the infidel tax if he chooses to not serve in the army? Is this an option only available to non-Muslims?

Or does a non-Muslim have to pay an additional tax? Is the cost of the societal infrasctructure divided up equally, and people who've served are given a discount?

Let's please disregard the compulsion to give to charity, because my giving to charity does not free me of the infidel tax.

It seems to me that in the modern world, the economic burden of supporting government infrastructure is much higher than the burden of serving a term in the army. If Muslims can offset their obligation to pay taxes by military service, then the cost on nonMuslims will be much higher. Looks like the creation of a slave class to me.

I can tell you that I certainly would have served a couple terms in the armed forces if it meant I was exempt from government taxes afterward!
 
Back
Top Bottom