What's the problem with Islam, anyway?

[Masada]

Well, I dunno, aelf. I think we should just accept that Muslims are just waiting to subjugate or kill the kaffir. Islam is after all a violent intolerant faith which can't co-exist with other religions. Personally, I believe its the Qur'an egging them on to all those acts of intolerance and bigotry. The original sin of Islam as it was. Now I have a couple of questions since I know you lived in Indonesia.

1. How heavy was the jizya? I've heard its about $30US.
2. Was it an issue being an atheist there? I'm surprised the intolerant bigots didn't cut you down on the spot!
3. Should I expect violence when I visit Hindu Bali? I've been there a few times but now I've realised how violent Islam is I suppose I should be extra-super-duper careful!
4. What about getting into Christian Toraja? I mean, I have to get through Makkasar which is full of Muslims should I be worried do you think? Should I get ready to extricate my soon-to-be-mother-in-law?
5. Can I still buy beer?

I'm just buzzing with questions!

 

[aelf]

Well, I dunno, aelf. I think we should just accept that Muslims are just waiting to subjugate or kill the kaffir. Islam is after all a violent intolerant faith which can't co-exist with other religions. Personally, I believe its the Qur'an egging them on to all those acts of intolerance and bigotry. The original sin of Islam as it was. Now I have a couple of questions since I know you lived in Indonesia.

No, no. Islam is not bad. It's just that the Quran has violent verses - this is the truth that can't be denied. Take it from the expert. Name any number and that many incriminating quotes can be found in the Quran.

But it's not that Islam is bad, mind. It's just that a lot of its believers do bad things based on those verses in the Quran, which makes it a problem with Islam. And the Quran is the direct Word of God in Islam so Muslims have to obey it. Thus, even if most of them don't do bad things based on these verses, they would either defend those actions or just ignore the issue altogether. Or they would need to have some interpretation for Quran that would make them unorthodox Muslims - a view I don't necessarily share but would like to state so as to show you just how problematic the problem is in Islam.

Hence, this is a very real problem with Islam, which doesn't really exist in Christianity, I mean the whole jihad and persecution thing. Christianity is a European religion and Europe is modern and progressive. Maybe some day Islam will catch up. In fact, it would be helping Islam along to point out its problem with violence and persecution. This is doing all those poor confused Muslims a service, telling them to get their house in order.

1. How heavy was the jizya? I've heard its about $30US.

I didn't pay anything. Maybe Indonesian Muslims are just laicised or unorthodox. Maybe they are hypocrites. I lack knowledge about Islam so I can't say. You may want to ask Polish experts about that.

2. Was it an issue being an atheist there? I'm surprised the intolerant bigots didn't cut you down on the spot!

I wasn't atheist. I was Christian when I lived there. I suppose that made me one of the People of the Book, that's why I survived. I've never heard of mass killings of atheists, but I'm ignorant about Islam so I can't say.

3. Should I expect violence when I visit Hindu Bali? I've been there a few times but now I've realised how violent Islam is I suppose I should be extra-super-duper careful!

The Quran states that you must find unbelievers and either force them to convert or kill them. Surprisingly, however, the few times I've been to Bali it's pretty peaceful. But I'm ignorant about Islam, so I don't know whether this is due to the hypocrisy and unorthodoxy of Indonesian Muslims or the fact that Islam is a peaceful enough religion.

4. What about getting into Christian Toraja? I mean, I have to get through Makkasar which is full of Muslims should I be worried do you think? Should I get ready to extricate my soon-to-be-mother-in-law?

I've never been to Sulawesi and I lack knowledge about Islam so I can't say. But now that I think of it, the Indonesian constitution does provide for freedom of conscience. This shows that Indonesia is a Europeanised secular state. After all, it was a Dutch colony and the Dutch were Christians. That's why Indonesia is progressive by Muslim standards.

5. Can I still buy beer?

According to sharia law, alcohol is strictly forbidden. However, Bir Bintang was quite a popular beverage there and various alcoholic drinks could be easily and legally obtained. Maybe this shows that Indonesian Muslims are either hypocrites or do not understand the Quran.

 

[classical_hero]

No, no. Islam is not bad. It's just that the Quran has violent verses - this is the truth that can't be denied. Take it from the expert. Name any number and that many incriminating quotes can be found in the Quran.

But it's not that Islam is bad, mind. It's just that a lot of its believers do bad things based on those verses in the Quran, which makes it a problem with Islam. And the Quran is the direct Word of God in Islam so Muslims have to obey it. Thus, even if most of them don't do bad things based on these verses, they would either defend those actions or just ignore the issue altogether. Or they would need to have some interpretation for Quran that would make them unorthodox Muslims - a view I don't necessarily share but would like to state so as to show you just how problematic the problem is in Islam.

Hence, this is a very real problem with Islam, which doesn't really exist in Christianity, I mean the whole jihad and persecution thing. Christianity is a European religion and Europe is modern and progressive. Maybe some day Islam will catch up. In fact, it would be helping Islam along to point out its problem with violence and persecution. This is doing all those poor confused Muslims a service, telling them to get their house in order.

So your saying that it is not Islam's fault that there are verses prescribing violence against the unbelievers? So who's fault is it then? Also Christianity is not an European religion, since it started out in Jerusalem and is very much based on Jewish and thus Middle eastern traditions. You will be surprise how much richer the reading of the Bible is when you understand the views of the people of the time. The fact that is spread so readily to Europe and has had a tremendous mark on Europe is actually quite remarkable.

 

[Lone Wolf]

@ Aelf: Is it possible, in your option, for a religion to be "bad", or would you describe the concept of "an immoral religion" as being oxymoronic in itself? As in "religions don't kill people, people kill people"?

@ Squonk: You seem to be waay softer on other Abrahamic faiths then on Islam. Many Christians didn't and don't have any problems with going all Old-Testamenty on people. I bet the most stereotypical Inquisitors had their slew of Bible verses to quote on you, too.

And yeah. After reading Masada's questions, I seriously afraid for peaceful Christians in Australia and New Zealand. I heard that they are near to Indonesia, might Islamic Indonesia launch a jihad on Australia?

 

[Shekwan]

How is it remarkable? I mean the Roman Empire took up its cause, surely it was inevitable?

 

[aelf]

So your saying that it is not Islam's fault that there are verses prescribing violence against the unbelievers? So who's fault is it then?

Islam is a who? I think that's where you went wrong, comrade.

And what do you think about violent verses in the Bible?

@ Aelf: Is it possible, in your option, for a religion to be "bad", or would you describe the concept of "an immoral religion" as being oxymoronic in itself? As in "religions don't kill people, people kill people"?

I'm leaning towards the latter. However, I do think that it's possible for an idea or an ideology to be bad as in being logically or practically unsound. But that is a very difficult to thing to say about something as complex and as old (hence the complexity) as a religion like Islam.

 

[Verbose]

The Quran states that you must find unbelievers and either force them to convert or kill them.

Well, at least not here then:

[2:256] There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.

http://www.submission.org/suras/sura2.htm

 

[Formaldehyde]

One thing I didn't pick up on. If it's acknowledged that both Christianity and Islam have violent verses in their holy books but the argument is that Christianity is better in this regard because most/many Christians have become liberalised and tend to disregard these verses, does that mean that you can't be both a good Christian or a good Muslim and be a good person?

Apparently not. Muslims are supposedly incapable of interpreting the Qu'ran based on modern secular culture. But for some odd reason this ostensibly isn't an issue with Christians despite all the evidence to the contrary, especially with fundamentalists who still interpret the Bible literally.

And what do you think about violent verses in the Bible?

Why is it that so many Christians try to completely forget about the OT when they are making the case that their religion is inherently peaceful, but they seem to go there without hesitation when they need to rationalize the use of violence to achieve their political ends?

Both Christianity and Islam have the same roots. Their adherents pray to the same god. The only difference is whether Jesus or Mohammed is the major influence.

 

[Masada]

No, no. Islam is not bad. It's just that the Quran has violent verses - this is the truth that can't be denied. Take it from the expert. Name any number and that many incriminating quotes can be found in the Quran.

Well, sure, the Bible also has verses that can be used for violent purposes. Most Christians don't use them for those purposes. Some fanatics do. I suppose the Bible must be evil then as well.

But it's not that Islam is bad, mind. It's just that a lot of its believers do bad things based on those verses in the Quran, which makes it a problem with Islam.

Sure, Islam as a whole should be held to account for the actions of a small minority. Doesn't that place Christianity in a difficult position though? Surely the Christian Identity movement doesn't represent us! Islam was evil first, right? That has to count for something.

And the Quran is the direct Word of God in Islam so Muslims have to obey it.

I suppose all those people who don't pray five times a day must not be Muslims. That's like most of the Islamic world right?

Thus, even if most of them don't do bad things based on these verses, they would either defend those actions or just ignore the issue altogether.

Golly gosh. I thought various Islamic organisations like Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama were united in their stand against violence? Its obvious to me that they're just a front for the International Jihad!

Or they would need to have some interpretation for Quran that would make them unorthodox Muslims - a view I don't necessarily share but would like to state so as to show you just how problematic the problem is in Islam.

Slavish adherence to the Qur'an is the mark of a TRUE Muslim! Don't let any Scotsman tell you otherwise.

Hence, this is a very real problem with Islam, which doesn't really exist in Christianity, I mean the whole jihad and persecution thing. Christianity is a European religion and Europe is modern and progressive. Maybe some day Islam will catch up. In fact, it would be helping Islam along to point out its problem with violence and persecution. This is doing all those poor confused Muslims a service, telling them to get their house in order.

Christianity is just innately better. Its that simple. No need to make it complex.

I didn't pay anything. Maybe Indonesian Muslims are just laicised or unorthodox. Maybe they are hypocrites. I lack knowledge about Islam so I can't say. You may want to ask Polish experts about that.

Yes, I will consult the Pole. We are ignorant about Islam.

I wasn't atheist. I was Christian when I lived there. I suppose that made me one of the People of the Book, that's why I survived. I've never heard of mass killings of atheists, but I'm ignorant about Islam so I can't say.

This is strange. You should be getting persecuted. I don't know what to make of this. Obviously we are ignorant about Islam.

The Quran states that you must find unbelievers and either force them to convert or kill them. Surprisingly, however, the few times I've been to Bali it's pretty peaceful. But I'm ignorant about Islam, so I don't know whether this is due to the hypocrisy and unorthodoxy of Indonesian Muslims or the fact that Islam is a peaceful enough religion.

I've seen roosters fighting...? Maybe that is some sort of covert forced conversion effort. I don't know though I'm ignorant about Islam.

I've never been to Sulawesi and I lack knowledge about Islam so I can't say. But now that I think of it, the Indonesian constitution does provide for freedom of conscience. This shows that Indonesia is a Europeanised secular state. After all, it was a Dutch colony and the Dutch were Christians. That's why Indonesia is progressive by Muslim standards.

It was obviously a Dutch initiative. The Dutch were just so awesomely progressive and stuff that they would never have stooped to extra-judicial killings as a matter of policy during the Indonesian National Revolution? Anyone who says so is just ignorant of how superior Christianity is as a religious set of ethics. Islam is evil; Christianity is awesome!

According to sharia law, alcohol is strictly forbidden. However, Bir Bintang was quite a popular beverage there and various alcoholic drinks could be easily and legally obtained. Maybe this shows that Indonesian Muslims are either hypocrites or do not understand the Quran.

I am sure Pole will tell us that they are not Muslims!

And yeah. After reading Masada's questions, I seriously afraid for peaceful Christians in Australia and New Zealand. I heard that they are near to Indonesia, might Islamic Indonesia launch a jihad on Australia?

That is fine I will convert straight away. I know how evil Islam is now. I don't want to live under its yoke but if I do I might as well hold the whip, no?

 

[Lone Wolf]

I'm leaning towards the latter. However, I do think that it's possible for an idea or an ideology to be bad as in being logically or practically unsound. But that is a very difficult to thing to say about something as complex and as old (hence the complexity) as a religion like Islam.

I wouldn't say that the only way a religion or ideology can be is being "unsound" - for instance, most people would agree with me that, say, Nazism (hitler lol) is a morally "bad" ideology, worse then just "unsound". I agree that the complexity of Islam and the difference of interpretations makes judging it difficult and occasionally lacking a point. However, I also think that it shouldn't make Islam, Christianity, or the worship of Quetzalcoatl immune to criticism.

 

[Squonk]

How is the number of adherents relevant to a problem about a religion?

You know well what I mean. Even if judaism was an openly war-mongering religion, its influence on the world would not be so great, because of how few Jews are.

Stop conflating the community of believers with the faith.

Look who's talking! Aren't you the one who argues on and on that one can not say anything bad about islam, because large part of its followers doesn't act badly?

The new covenant is about salvation, about replacing the Ten Commandments and animal sacrifice with salvation through the ultimate sacrifice.

i.m.o. it makes OT more or less obsolete. Many Jesus' word were factual denying the orders of OT

the latter coming up with flimsy interpretations of the verses?

I don't think it's "flimsy"

You also argued that Islamic scholars have applied those verses to institute laws that discriminate against non-believers and therefore there is evidence that 'proper' Islamic practice favour those interpretations. Is that right?

One may say that, although it's simplification. A common modern interpretation is that all these laws may be enforced in a muslim state, and there is no muslim state today.

I'm not talking about you. Are you really pretending that no one in this thread has zoomed in on problematic parts of sharia as evidence that Islam is evil?

I don't recall

Wolves can come in sheep's clothing.

And sheep will remain sheep.

Well, at least not here then:

http://www.submission.org/suras/sura2.htm

These fameous lines were said by Muhammad in the Mecca period, when he was himself a religious minority. He changed his mind when he moved to Yathrib and because a ruler of a state. In shari'a, there's a rule that a later revelation abrogates the earlier one.

I'm leaning towards the latter. However, I do think that it's possible for an idea or an ideology to be bad as in being logically or practically unsound. But that is a very difficult to thing to say about something as complex and as old (hence the complexity) as a religion like Islam.

If all religions are good, is satanism etc good as well?
Also, what do you base your opinion on?

 

[aelf]

@Masada: And therefore we conclude that to be true Muslims, Muslims have to consult doctoral students about the practice of their faith.

I wouldn't say that the only way a religion or ideology can be is being "unsound" - for instance, most people would agree with me that, say, Nazism (hitler lol) is a morally "bad" ideology, worse then just "unsound".

Strictly speaking, no, I don't think an ideology can be said to be immoral. I think morality requires agency. Of course, Nazism is bad in that the adoption of its beliefs would make one morally deficient and probably destroy the prospect of peaceful coexistence with others.

I agree that the complexity of Islam and the difference of interpretations makes judging it difficult and occasionally lacking a point. However, I also think that it shouldn't make Islam, Christianity, or the worship of Quetzalcoatl immune to criticism.

I don't think religion is immune to criticism. However, I'd be careful in applying labels to it. I also disagree with the conflation of the community of believers with the faith itself. This might seem like nitpicking a little, but the practical reason for my objection is to avoid guilt-by-association. By implying that the practices of some adherents is a problem with the religion itself, you are only one step away from making the connection that other adherents must share the responsibility, a point that has indeed been implicitly made again and again in this thread.

 

[aelf]

You know well what I mean. Even if judaism was an openly war-mongering religion, its influence on the world would not be so great, because of how few Jews are.

And that is relevant to the religion itself how?

Look who's talking! Aren't you the one who argues on and on that one can not say anything bad about islam, because large part of its followers doesn't act badly?

Uh, what? Have you not bothered to read at all? Do you not understand the idea of making a distinction between the faith and the community?

i.m.o. it makes OT more or less obsolete. Many Jesus' word were factual denying the orders of OT

More or less obsolete? Yeah, let me know how it makes sense for Christians to disregard more than half the Bible. You won't let Muslims get away with that but you're fine with Christians doing so. Clearly, you have some misconceptions about Christianity.

I don't think it's "flimsy"

And I quote:

Thirdly, one may put Muhammad in his historical context, as I suggested. etc. One can try to make such interpretations of these verses that they are not violent anymore (although I'd find such interpretations far-fetched)

Is the second sentence an unspecified fourth option? If so, then the existence of the third option answers the problem you have with Islam.

One may say that, although it's simplification. A common modern interpretation is that all these laws may be enforced in a muslim state, and there is no muslim state today.

So you think a Muslim state has to persecute non-believers?

I don't recall

Yeah, whatever.

And sheep will remain sheep.

Of course, everyone here are ignorant sheeple except you, amirite?

If all religions are good, is satanism etc good as well?

I specifically said that religions can't be morally good or bad. Cannot be bad =/= good.

Also, what do you base your opinion on?

My studies in philosophy.

 

[Monsterzuma]

What's the problem with Islam, anyway?

Islam’s House of Islam and House of War

The world is divided into the House of Islam and the House of War, the Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-harb. The Dar al-Islam is all those lands in which a Muslim government rules and the Holy Law of Islam prevails. Non-Muslims may live there on Muslim sufferance. The outside world, which has not yet been subjugated, is called the "House of War," and strictly speaking a perpetual state of jihad, of holy war, is imposed by the law. The law also provided that the jihad might be interrupted by truces as and when appropriate. In fact, the periods of peace and war were not vastly different from those which existed between the Christian states of Europe for most of European history.

The law thus divides unbelievers theologically into those who have a book and profess what Islam recognizes as a divine religion and those who do not; politically into dhimmis, those who have accepted the supremacy of the Muslim state and the primacy of the Muslims, and harbis, the denizens of the Dar al-harb, the House of War, who remain outside the Islamic frontier, and with whom therefore there is in principle, a canonically obligatory perpetual state of war until the whole world is either converted or subjugated.

That, in a nutshell. Kinda hard to interpret the non-extremistic way.

 

[Squonk]

And that is relevant to the religion itself how?

I refer you to my actual post:

I don't know much about judaism. But I think it's perfectly possible that the problem with violence in this case is even bigger. But it is limited by two factors: firstly, the number of Jews worldwide is insignificant, they are not a missionary religion, and their state of a minority for the past milleniums possibly made their tradition not focus much on this subject.

My mistake was perhaps not beling precise. What I ment by "it is limited by" is "the practical consequences are limited by"

Uh, what? Have you not bothered to read at all? Do you not understand the idea of making a distinction between the faith and the community?

Apparently you don't. As I've mentioned, your pseudo-argument about why islam is good rests on behaviour of its followers.

More or less obsolete? Yeah, let me know how it makes sense for Christians to disregard more than half the Bible. You won't let Muslims get away with that but you're fine with Christians doing so. Clearly, you have some misconceptions about Christianity.

There's a clear cut between these two parts. No such thing in Al-Qur'an.
Anyway, aren't we talking about islam?

And I quote:
Is the second sentence an unspecified fourth option?

yes. Sorry if not saying "fourthly", but I was not sure if such a word exists.
to answer your doubts: there is a huge difference between denying the violent nature of these quotes (which is far-fetched) and between accepting it, but adressing it to specific historical conditions (which is not i.m.o.)

If so, then the existence of the third option answers the problem you have with Islam.

It would to a large extent (not entirely, because it still implies Muhammad was right to use violence), that's why I am speaking favourably of such an approach, and if it was the only one. Nowdays it's marginal among the jurists (which is no surprise, as this would undermine their position), although more widespread as a practical approach by ordinary muslims. If it was a dominant approach, I think it'd reduce drastically the problems with religious tolerance in the muslim world.

So you think a Muslim state has to persecute non-believers?

It depends on what it's version of islam. If it's, for example, a traditional sunni one, accepting entire shari'a - yes.

Yeah, whatever.

Isn't it sarcasm?

Of course, everyone here are ignorant sheeple except you, amirite?

Your words, not mine.
Am I a wolf?

I specifically said that religions can't be morally good or bad. Cannot be bad =/= good.

So sanatism isn't bad?

My studies in philosophy.

How do they prove anything?

 

[Masada]

@Masada: And therefore we conclude that to be true Muslims, Muslims have to consult doctoral students about the practice of their faith.

Yes, Muslims should be violent because the Pole and the Qur'an say so.

 

[Squonk]

Nazism is bad in that the adoption of its beliefs would make one morally deficient and probably destroy the prospect of peaceful coexistence with others.

I just can't imagine how you can fault something that doesn't actually exist.
After all, my claims that "A religion is, among others, a concept of how people should behave. If it tells people to do something wrong, I can blame it on it." are absolutely wrong.

How do you define nazism?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: If you guys are just going to trade sarcastic barbs, I will close this now and save us all a lot of time and trouble.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Squonk]

Sorry. I was being sarcastic, but that is actually an important point. If aelf believes that a secular ideology can be faulted for what it orders its followers to do, so can religious ideology be blamed for it. Therefore, we may blame medieval catholicism for crusades etc.

 

[Holycannoli]

They were neither.

They were a result of the monastic reforms of the tenth and eleventh centuries, of the Papal-Imperial power struggle that started in earnest in the 1040s, of millennialist ideas that had become somewhat popular in Western Europe...and, almost as an afterthought, because some Muslims were fighting with some Christians for reasons that had little to nothing to do with Islam or Christianity, and especially nothing to do with Catholicism.

If they were a result of things other than muslim conquests, then they would have happened regardless of whether or not those conquests occured right? Or they were just an excuse to call a crusade, like the pope was just waiting for an opportunity to call a crusade and suddenly got it?

Link to an article written by Thomas Madden about the Crusades. I cannot vouch for the site since I'm unfamiliar with it (it may be one of those wacko fundamentalist sites, I don't know), but it's only the article that matters. If you don't know who Thomas Madden is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Madden

(I doubt many will read the article in that link and even less will agree with it since it goes against the popular myths of the Crusades we've all heard since childhood).

Aelf also said something extremely important, IMO the most important reason why there's a "problem" with Islam today (emphasis added by me):

No, no. Islam is not bad. It's just that the Quran has violent verses - this is the truth that can't be denied. Take it from the expert. Name any number and that many incriminating quotes can be found in the Quran.

But it's not that Islam is bad, mind. It's just that a lot of its believers do bad things based on those verses in the Quran, which makes it a problem with Islam. And the Quran is the direct Word of God in Islam so Muslims have to obey it. Thus, even if most of them don't do bad things based on these verses, they would either defend those actions or just ignore the issue altogether. Or they would need to have some interpretation for Quran that would make them unorthodox Muslims - a view I don't necessarily share but would like to state so as to show you just how problematic the problem is in Islam.

I know this has been quoted in other replies, but I'm focusing on what I emphasized. That's been a major criticism since 9/11: where are the moderate muslims speaking out against all this jihadism/terrorism? Why are they all so silent? The only thing they seem to be doing lately is pushing ahead with a mosque in NYC they insist will help bridge the gap when in fact it's just creating more mistrust.

Moderate muslims do not speak out against jihadism/terrorism the way moderate christians speak out against extremism like vs that idiot pastor in Florida wanting to burn qurans. The lack of a moderate muslim voice keeps them mysterious and not trusted. "Why don't they speak out against all this?" is a common thought. "Are they not allowed to? Do they want to, but do not want to disobey the quran? Are they afraid of a death fatwah against them? Do they secretly agree with the jihadists/terrorists even if they occasionally denounce them in public?" These are the questions I most often hear, and that last one seems especially popular. People really do think that.

They need to speak out to stop it. They need to make their voices heard. Not doing so keeps people guessing if jihadism/terrorism vs the West really is something that's acceptable to them. The "problem" with Islam can be fixed if they just speak out, and not by pushing ahead with a mosque people do not want.