What's the problem with Islam, anyway?

[Squonk]

I
That [citation needed] tag is still there.

do you really believe muslim world in at the same level of scientific progress as the West and east Asia today?

Dude, you're the one not paying attention. What I'm saying is that quoting from holy books and old sayings can prove nothing particularly interesting about a religion today, unless you can show that those quotes have some sort of special significance or some real implication worth noting. And going on to cite few examples from the fringe also does nothing of the sort. You can do the same for any group that is large enough, whether it's a religion or not.

You're wasting your time by even coming up with these points as if they mean anything.

Huh? Someone asked for quotes, so I gave them.
Someone asked for how do these quotes relate to modern reality, so I've showed it: modern muslim scholars still use them.

please find quotes from post-ww2 catholic scholars who believe that no non-catholic temples should be built in catholic countries, not to mention that apostates should be punished by death.

 

[aelf]

Huh? Someone asked for quotes, so I gave them.
Someone asked for how do these quotes relate to modern reality, so I've showed it: modern muslim scholars still use them.

please find quotes from post-ww2 catholic scholars who believe that no non-catholic temples should be built in catholic countries, not to mention that apostates should be punished by death.

How academic of you. So tell me how your showing these amounts to anything in reality? Is it some sort of a futile attempt to prove that Catholicism is better than Islam? Maybe they are just bad at different things? You know it's a bit of an own goal when you try to cite the Catholic Church as the model religion of today.

 

[Squonk]

Catholic Church has its own problems, different than islam. It does not have problems with militant extremist groups, with openly theocratic tendencies. It does have many other problems - some which islam does not have, or at least not in this extent.

i provided you people with what you've been asking for, please provide me with that I'm asking for.


Does what I've shown amount to anything? What do you mean? There are serious problems with religious freedom in the muslim world, and with militant extremism. People denying muslims right to convert to another religion, or people who believe that entire world should be conquered by islam, use certain Coranic passages and hadiths as their support. CFCers apparently weren't aware of their existance. I've pointed some of them out. There is a problem with these verses and with these hadiths, and with much of islamic legal tradition concering them. If someone wants to fight religious intolerance and extremism in the muslim world, should also think what they should answer to those who use these verses.

And people in this thread omit this subject, they either treat islam as if there was nothing wrong with it, or as if it was, and all muslims were, evil. I find both these attitudes wrong. Some of teachings and acts of Muhammad were noble and may be example for people today, some clearly were not. It's hard for islamic scholars to forbid persecution (killing) of apostates if the creator of the religion clearly said (according to hadiths) that it should be done so, and it was so ever since, for example. it is a serious, real problem. Unless atheism is going to triumph over entire world, I don't see islam disappearing, and I do believe that modern rationality will win in the long run, so I believe that islam will eventually overcome this difficulty. But it did not yet, and it's a hard task.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Is the apostate killing Quranic, or does it only has support in the Hadith?

 

[aelf]

Catholic Church has its own problems, different than islam. It does not have problems with militant extremist groups, with openly theocratic tendencies. It does have many other problems - some which islam does not have, or at least not in this extent.

i provided you people with what you've been asking for, please provide me with that I'm asking for.

What for? I promised you nothing, nor am I trying to prove anything.

Does what I've shown amount to anything? What do you mean? There are serious problems with religious freedom in the muslim world, and with militant extremism. People denying muslims right to convert to another religion, or people who believe that entire world should be conquered by islam, use certain Coranic passages and hadiths as their support. CFCers apparently weren't aware of their existance. I've pointed some of them out.

Really? Either you think people in CFC in general are very ignorant or you are attempting to build a strawman here. Who's denying the existence of religious nutjobs?

I really question what your aim is. There are problems with every religion, bears crap in woods. Is there any use in pointing out the obvious? Is there any implication with regards to the vast majority of believers? Why are you expending so much energy on Islam anyway?

There is a problem with these verses and with these hadiths, and with much of islamic legal tradition concering them. If someone wants to fight religious intolerance and extremism in the muslim world, should also think what they should answer to those who use these verses.

You are acting like the majority of the Muslim world is unable to deal with this issue these days. I'm pointing out that this is not true. Get it?

And people in this thread omit this subject, they either treat islam as if there was nothing wrong with it, or as if it was, and all muslims were, evil. I find both these attitudes wrong. Some of teachings and acts of Muhammad were noble and may be example for people today, some clearly were not. It's hard for islamic scholars to forbid persecution (killing) of apostates if the creator of the religion clearly said (according to hadiths) that it should be done so, and it was so ever since, for example. it is a serious, real problem. Unless atheism is going to triumph over entire world, I don't see islam disappearing, and I do believe that modern rationality will win in the long run, so I believe that islam will eventually overcome this difficulty. But it did not yet, and it's a hard task.

Dude, are you implying that Islam is lacking in rationality compared to Christianity (or something)? You have no knowledge of Islamic religious scholarship, do you?

 

[Squonk]

What for? I promised you nothing, nor am I trying to prove anything.

Yes you do:

"You can do the same for any group that is large enough, whether it's a religion or not."

Really? Either you think people in CFC in general are very ignorant or you are attempting to build a strawman here. Who's denying the existence of religious nutjobs?

Many CFCers were doubting existance of Muhammad's word promoting armed fight against infidels. So I provided them with what they were asking for.

I really question what your aim is. There are problems with every religion, bears crap in woods. Is there any use in pointing out the obvious? Is there any implication with regards to the vast majority of believers? Why are you expending so much energy on Islam anyway?

There are problems with every religion, but not necessarily the very same ones.
if I am discussing islam, it's because I've finished arabic/islamic studies and know about islam more than an average CFCer.
is there any implication with regards to the vast majority of believers? It depends on what are we talking about: if about acts and words of the founder of the religion - yes there is. If about acts and words of respected modern religious leaders of this religion - also. If it's about existance of state laws based on this religion in several major states - also. An implication doesn't mean partaking in the fault of some action, it means that this action concerns this person.

You are acting like the majority of the Muslim world is unable to deal with this issue these days. I'm pointing out that this is not true. Get it?

What's your proof?
I believe majority of muslims simply ignores this subject, do not have a clarified opinion on it, but if they do, they will tend to defend Muhammad and muslim tradition in some way rather than condemn them. But I may be wrong, it's just a guess.

Dude, are you implying that Islam is lacking in rationality compared to Christianity (or something)? You have no knowledge of Islamic religious scholarship, do you?

and you are a 'alim?

Yes, I claim there's a conflict between modern rationality and traditional islamic thinking. There is a conflict between modern rationality and traditional christian thinking as well, but it's another matter and I find it silly you have to attack christianity each time you try to defend islam.

I believe that in traditional abrahamic thinking, in general, it's God who is the source and example of morality. it's fairly logical in fact, completely consistent. Modern rationality and morality is independent of religion, and judges deeds of (alleged) God's prophets and servants by its own standarts. This causes a conflict that both christianity and islam have problems with.

 

[aelf]

Yes you do:

"You can do the same for any group that is large enough, whether it's a religion or not."

What? Find examples of fringe groups? Christianity has Westboro Baptist Church, to name just one example. Amongst Marxists there groups such as the defunct Japanese Red Army. Catholicism has pedophile priest apologists (lunatic enough, no?). I thought of those examples in 30 seconds. Have I called your bluff yet?

Many CFCers were doubting existance of Muhammad's word promoting armed fight against infidels. So I provided them with what they were asking for.

Many CFCers?

There are problems with every religion, but not necessarily the very same ones.
if I am discussing islam, it's because I've finished arabic/islamic studies and know about islam more than an average CFCer.

Funnily enough you finished your studies not knowing that the majority of the Muslim world is quite peaceful and no more bigoted than your average group of people.

is there any implication with regards to the vast majority of believers? It depends on what are we talking about: if about acts and words of the founder of the religion - yes there is. If about acts and words of respected modern religious leaders of this religion - also. If it's about existance of state laws based on this religion in several major states - also. An implication doesn't mean partaking in the fault of some action, it means that this action concerns this person.

I don't even understand what you're talking about here. Let me rephrase this as a question: Are you trying to imply some sort of collective guilt for the examples that you cite? 'cause I see no reason to presume that Islam and Muslims in general are necessarily predisposed to apply their religion in a harmfully prejudicial manner.

The conditions in some Muslim countries certainly have a lot more to do with other factors than just Islam itself. I thought that's quite elementary.

What's your proof?

Proof of what? That it's not true that most of the hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world see no way of coexisting peacefully with people of other faiths because of those hadiths? What a stupid question.

I believe majority of muslims simply ignores this subject, do not have a clarified opinion on it, but if they do, they will tend to defend Muhammad and muslim tradition in some way rather than condemn them. But I may be wrong, it's just a guess.

What's your proof?

and you are a 'alim?

Yes, I claim there's a conflict between modern rationality and traditional islamic thinking. There is a conflict between modern rationality and traditional christian thinking as well, but it's another matter and I find it silly you have to attack christianity each time you try to defend islam.

I'm not attacking Christianity there. You are way too defensive, dude.

No, if you knew anything about Islamic scholarship, you'd know that it is anything but irrational. Granted there is always a strong element in religion that does not admit to rational analysis (i.e. faith), but Islamic religious scholars are no less capable of reasoning about their faith and the observance of it than Catholic or Christian theologians. Indeed, Islam lacks the kind of strict hierarchy that Catholicism has, making its nature more conducive for scholarly debate amongst the ulema, many of whom disagree with one another (even within crazier sects like Wahhabism).

:I believe that in traditional abrahamic thinking, in general, it's God who is the source and example of morality. it's fairly logical in fact, completely consistent. Modern rationality and morality is independent of religion, and judges deeds of (alleged) God's prophets and servants by its own standarts. This causes a conflict that both christianity and islam have problems with.

Ah, I think your problem stems from the fact that you don't know all that much about the role of reason and the different schools of thought in the Abrahamic religions, thinking that they are some sort of monolithic medieval (i.e. in the derogatory not necessarily historically accurate sense) entities.

 

[Squonk]

What? Find examples of fringe groups? Christianity has Westboro Baptist Church, to name just one example. Amongst Marxists there groups such as the defunct Japanese Red Army. Catholicism has pedophile priest apologists (lunatic enough, no?). I thought of those examples in 30 seconds. Have I called your bluff yet?

And? I was talking about specific cases: death penalty for infidels, support for armed struggle against infidels. I actually think it is very much probable that imams (if they can be compared with priests anyway) have smaller problem with child molesting than catholic priest. Does that make me biased against catholicism?

Many CFCers?

"some". That's better?

Funnily enough you finished your studies not knowing that the majority of the Muslim world is quite peaceful and no more bigoted than your average group of people.

Please tell truth, instead of offending me. I've never claimed majority of the muslim world is more bigoted than average group of people.

I don't even understand what you're talking about here. Let me rephrase this as a question: Are you trying to imply some sort of collective guilt for the examples that you cite? 'cause I see no reason to presume that Islam and Muslims in general are necessarily predisposed to apply their religion in a harmfully prejudicial manner.

I stated that what the founder of a religion says, what modern leaders of this religion say, what countries of that religion apply as a religious law, does concern adherents of this religion, although it is not (necessarily) their fault.

The conditions in some Muslim countries certainly have a lot more to do with other factors than just Islam itself. I thought that's quite elementary.

Please discuss with me not with your imagination. I never claimed that the condition in muslim countries have only to do with islam. But if several majorly muslim countries apply shari'a, it's hard not to blaim religious factor for it.

Proof of what? That it's not true that most of the hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world see no way of coexisting peacefully with people of other faiths because of those hadiths? What a stupid question.

If you claim that they successfully deal with this issue, by which I mean condemn this sort of action and similar actions today, you should have a proof. Otherwise, it's a guess, just like mine, which is that simply they do not bother themselves with this question.

I'm not attacking Christianity there. You are way too defensive, dude.

Why did you mention christianity, then?

No, if you knew anything about Islamic scholarship, you'd know that it is anything but irrational. Granted there is always a strong element in religion that does not admit to rational analysis (i.e. faith), but Islamic religious scholars are no less capable of reasoning about their faith and the observance of it than Catholic or Christian theologians. Indeed, Islam lacks the kind of strict hierarchy that Catholicism has, making its nature more conducive for scholarly debate amongst the ulema, many of whom disagree with one another (even within crazier sects like Wahhabism).

Again you do not seem to read my words carefully. I've stated a conflict between "traditional islamic thinking" and "modern rationality", and not "rationality" as a whole.
I'd also like to remind you I've posted that traditional abrahamic worldview is "fairly logical in fact, completely consistent". So once again, you're not telling truth and fight with something you've made up.

Ah, I think your problem stems from the fact that you don't know all that much about the role of reason and the different schools of thought in the Abrahamic religions, thinking that they are some sort of monolithic medieval (i.e. in the derogatory not necessarily historically accurate sense) entities.

No, I do not. Once again you're making up my alleged convictions.
As I've stated, religious viewpoint is "logical and consistent", but simply its axioms are different.

 

[aelf]

And? I was talking about specific cases: death penalty for infidels, support for armed struggle against infidels.

And what do these issues amount to other than that they are the realisation of the ideas of fringe groups? The fact that Western countries are better at keeping the worst of such groups out of power have more to do with politics than with religion or lackthereof.

Please tell truth, instead of offending me. I've never claimed majority of the muslim world is more bigoted than average group of people.

I stated that what the founder of a religion says, what modern leaders of this religion say, what countries of that religion apply as a religious law, does concern adherents of this religion, although it is not (necessarily) their fault.

Then why spend so much time talking about all that to the non-Muslims here? Why not talk to some Muslims about their views on those or something more productive like that? Your pontification with regards to the less appealing aspects of Islamic traditions on the Prophet's words and deeds here can serve no purpose other than to illustrate to the audience just how bad you think Islam is. Again, I question your supposedly pure motives because what you're doing doesn't mesh with your purported intentions.

Please discuss with me not with your imagination. I never claimed that the condition in muslim countries have only to do with islam. But if several majorly muslim countries apply shari'a, it's hard not to blaim religious factor for it.

That doesn't make as much sense as you think it does. Do you also blame freedom or democracy for regime changes initiated by Western nations?

The fact is a lot of the time Islam is not incompatible with tolerance and peaceful coexistence. So why not ask what the extremists are doing wrong, instead of looking for what is wrong with Islam?

If you claim that they successfully deal with this issue, by which I mean condemn this sort of action and similar actions today, you should have a proof. Otherwise, it's a guess, just like mine, which is that simply they do not bother themselves with this question.

Is this the classic complaint that moderate Muslims do not denounce their extremist brethren loudly enough?

Why did you mention christianity, then?

'cause that's what you seem to be comparing Islam with?

Again you do not seem to read my words carefully. I've stated a conflict between "traditional islamic thinking" and "modern rationality", and not "rationality" as a whole.

Traditional Islamic thinking is not irrational.

I'd also like to remind you I've posted that traditional abrahamic worldview is "fairly logical in fact, completely consistent". So once again, you're not telling truth and fight with something you've made up.

So what's the problem? If traditional Abrahamic worldviews are not irrational, why do you claim that they are in conflict with "modern rationality"? Are there different kinds of rationality?

No, I do not. Once again you're making up my alleged convictions.
As I've stated, religious viewpoint is "logical and consistent", but simply its axioms are different.

What does this even mean?

 

[Ajidica]

The hadiths are basis for the islamic law, besides Al-Qur'an.

Hadith=/= Qu'ran, just as Papal Bulls do not equal the Bible.

Defensive? Are you kidding? Muhammad was attacking the caravans of Meccans, and eventually conquered this city. Of course, Meccans did counter-attack and even besieged Yathrib.

Wasn't Mohammad kicked out of Mecca, fled to Medina, and then raised an army to attack Mecca?

It was? I believe that, while Mehmet Fetih let the patriarch keep this church, this quarter of the city was settled with muslims, and anyway some body of a muslim was found next to the church, so the patriarch let the church go and moved elsewhere, and the church was destroyed as it was already falling into a ruin, while a fameous mosque was built on its place. I don't see when this church was repaired. (this is the story I recall from Runcinman's book)
Yes, churches were sometimes repaired, which was officially illegal.

Yeah, it was that story. I got the churches wrong.

There were crosses, statues of saints...

I could have sworn exterior decorations was more of a Cathlolic/Protestant thing more than an Orthodox thing, but whatever.

Huh? Did I ever say that? I am only saying that the statements about islamic tolerance are bloated, and in reality it was on a level comparable to christian Europe.

No it isn't. Read my posts carefully, if you wish to comment on them. I claim muslims were no different from christians, not that they were worse.

I generaly yield to your knowledge here. I misinterpreted what you said as 'Muslims are intolerant of Jews and Christians' instead of what you actualy said 'niether side was particluarly good'.

 

[amadeus]

It's Arab-centric and dare I say, Arab-supremacist.

 

[Squonk]

And what do these issues amount to other than that they are the realisation of the ideas of fringe groups?

Well, these ideas are not so fringy in several, quite big, states. And it used to be mainstream in most of muslim world for centuries.

The fact that Western countries are better at keeping the worst of such groups out of power have more to do with politics than with religion or lackthereof.

what do you mean by that, exactly?

Then why spend so much time talking about all that to the non-Muslims here? Why not talk to some Muslims about their views on those or something more productive like that? Your pontification with regards to the less appealing aspects of Islamic traditions on the Prophet's words and deeds here can serve no purpose other than to illustrate to the audience just how bad you think Islam is. Again, I question your supposedly pure motives because what you're doing doesn't mesh with your purported intentions.

i didn't come to this forum to discuss islam nor did I start this thread, I don't care if majority of posters is christian, atheist, muslim or jewish etc.
If you don't see a difference between me and people who are simply labelling all muslims in a certain way, I pity you and your eyes.

That doesn't make as much sense as you think it does. Do you also blame freedom or democracy for regime changes initiated by Western nations?

Sorry, I do not understand you, what regime changes do you refer to?
I do hold, for example, XVIII century catholicism responsible for the decision to ban non-catholics from public offices in Poland (1717-67 or so). It is obviously about political situation, about several persons, one may argue this or that, but it was done in the name of catholicism with approval of many (most?) catholics, so it goes for catholicism's guilty conscience.

The fact is a lot of the time Islam is not incompatible with tolerance and peaceful coexistence.

Today's "extremist" islamists do not offer to non-muslims less than relatively tolerant muslim rulers did before XIX century. that is the problem. Shari'a's rules concerning non-muslims were average back then. Nowdays they are backwards, because the world moved forward in this matter, and shari'a didn't change.

So why not ask what the extremists are doing wrong, instead of looking for what is wrong with Islam?

I believe that the only successful way to fight this sort of behaviours within islam is through islam, using islam. One can find several Coran passages and hadiths that support fair treatment of non-believers. That is not the problem. The problem is how to deal with the other passages that are opposite, how to use proove that the more tolerant verses abrogate the less tolerant ones, and not the other way round. And that "fair treatment" is religious peace and freedom, not what the usual shari'a's responce.

Is this the classic complaint that moderate Muslims do not denounce their extremist brethren loudly enough?

No, it is a belief that we need serious scientific studies, polls, showing what the actual average muslim attitude in different countries is.

'cause that's what you seem to be comparing Islam with?

You've written

"Dude, are you implying that Islam is lacking in rationality compared to Christianity (or something)?", while the post you've quoted bore no mention of christianity whatsoever.

Traditional Islamic thinking is not irrational.

I never claimed it was, as you - once again - try to claim.

So what's the problem? If traditional Abrahamic worldviews are not irrational, why do you claim that they are in conflict with "modern rationality"? Are there different kinds of rationality?

What does this even mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

The line of thought and conduct of muslim jurisprudence is most often logical, but it has certain premises that stand as the starting points for developing legal opinions. If one accepts other starting points, he will get to other conclusions, while his line of thinking may be as rational.

 

[Squonk]

Hadith=/= Qu'ran, just as Papal Bulls do not equal the Bible.

i know it well, but, nevertheless, they are used for developing muslim law and play important role in islam, while papal bulls from past centuries do not.

I could have sworn exterior decorations was more of a Cathlolic/Protestant thing more than an Orthodox thing, but whatever.

it was not necessarily about decorations of chuches, although some definitely existed, as some umayyad caliph (Yazid?) ordered them to be taken of, which is fairly interesting, as iconoclasm happened in byzantium at similar time.
If you see the armenian church of Akdamar, Ani, it's full of statues on the exterior. I don't know about other churches of the region.

Anyway, it was mostly about crosses that were placed in marketplaces, I believe. Also, it was forbidden to held prayers in public space, ring the bells (not quite bells in fact, but I don't know how to call it) loudly, hold loud prayers in churches etc. Al-Hakim also forbade decorating churches with some palm hearts or whatever, and ordered the crosses to be removed from them, but I don't recall if others did so as well.

 

[aelf]

Well, these ideas are not so fringy in several, quite big, states. And it used to be mainstream in most of muslim world for centuries.

So you're saying that the fact that these ideas have come to fruition in some way in some fairly large states means they are fairly mainstream, just like how Le Pen's party gaining some prominence in France some time back means racist/xenophobic views were fairly mainstream in France?

what do you mean by that, exactly?

This:

It is obviously about political situation, about several persons, one may argue this or that, but it was done in the name of catholicism with approval of many (most?) catholics, so it goes for catholicism's guilty conscience.

The Islamic version, except that I don't buy the collective guilt bit. Those who approve should bear some guilt, but not those who don't. And even for the former we need to account for imposed ignorance.

i didn't come to this forum to discuss islam nor did I start this thread, I don't care if majority of posters is christian, atheist, muslim or jewish etc.
If you don't see a difference between me and people who are simply labelling all muslims in a certain way, I pity you and your eyes.

I'm questioning your motives because I literally do not see a point in your arguments. What are you trying to show? That every religion including Islam has problems? Do you realise the irony of supposedly trying to generate reasoned understanding by painstakingly highlighting unappealing examples quite without context in a thread that asks why people are so sensitive about Islam?

Sorry, I do not understand you, what regime changes do you refer to?[

/facepalm. It's just an example to illustrate how the same logic appears ridiculous when applied to another instance. Or do you need proof that Western nations have initiated regime changes before?

Today's "extremist" islamists do not offer to non-muslims less than relatively tolerant muslim rulers did before XIX century. that is the problem. Shari'a's rules concerning non-muslims were average back then. Nowdays they are backwards, because the world moved forward in this matter, and shari'a didn't change.

Sorry, dude. I do not believe this sharia didn't change nonsense because clearly there are countries where sharia law is applied but which do not harmfully discriminate against non-believers in any systematic manner.

I believe that the only successful way to fight this sort of behaviours within islam is through islam, using islam. One can find several Coran passages and hadiths that support fair treatment of non-believers. That is not the problem. The problem is how to deal with the other passages that are opposite, how to use proove that the more tolerant verses abrogate the less tolerant ones, and not the other way round. And that "fair treatment" is religious peace and freedom, not what the usual shari'a's responce.

No, it is a belief that we need serious scientific studies, polls, showing what the actual average muslim attitude in different countries is.

Your strange treatment of sharia and its application as a monolithic thing aside, again, what problem do you have? If you think that these issues has to be resolved within Islam, then why have you as a non-Muslim spent a few pages complaining about them, especially when you admit that you have no idea what most Muslims think?

You've written

"Dude, are you implying that Islam is lacking in rationality compared to Christianity (or something)?", while the post you've quoted bore no mention of christianity whatsoever.

No, man. I'm looking at what you've said in this thread. And note the bracketed words. You just look like you might be doing that?

I never claimed it was, as you - once again - try to claim.

You are either just backpedaling now or have failed to put your points across well. But I'm getting the passive-aggressive vibe of someone who is not an outright bigot but is prejudiced against a certain group anyway, since you seem to be oscillating between "I don't think Islam is bad" and "Look, the Prophet said this!".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

The line of thought and conduct of muslim jurisprudence is most often logical, but it has certain premises that stand as the starting points for developing legal opinions. If one accepts other starting points, he will get to other conclusions, while his line of thinking may be as rational.

"religious viewpoint is 'logical and consistent', but simply its axioms are different" is not a coherent statement. And I think you might be mistaking rationality with logic. I think of rationality as having the quality of being reasonable. For something to be rational, it has be the acceptable to (if not necessarily embraced by) those who are capable of reasoning.

On the other hand, if you begin from an irrational premise, then no matter how logically valid your argument is you can't be rational. And since I'm effectively agnostic, I don't think that faith is necessarily irrational in the first place but that all who are capable of reasoning can accept the possibility of there being a particular god even if they are not convinced.

 

[Lord of Elves]

It's Arab-centric and dare I say, Arab-supremacist.

That's rather inherent. Arguably the only reason that Christianity is less alienating towards different cultures/ethnic groups is that it's been spread further, and that's assuming that we can say that Christianity is less Eurocentric than Islam is Arab-centric.

 

[aelf]

Oh, BTW, showing that this or that person said whatever does not prove that the hadiths you cited have been translated into laws that persecute non-believers. And most of those hadiths are pretty strong, mind, so much so as to make even dhimmi status (which was traditionally justified by the fact non-believers did not have to pay zakat) seem comparatively benign.

Yet another example of someone trying to operate within elastic boundaries in order to paint something in a bad light. I've just re-read Squonk's posts in this thread and I think I'm done. There is no point arguing with someone who quite clearly has an unjustified beef with something but claims to have studied it. There's just no winning against 'informed' prejudices.

 

[Squonk]

So you're saying that the fact that these ideas have come to fruition in some way in some fairly large states means they are fairly mainstream, just like how Le Pen's party gaining some prominence in France some time back means racist/xenophobic views were fairly mainstream in France?

If they won and pushed through their agenda, and it stayed that way for dozens of years - yes. There's death penalty for apostasy and for gay sex in several muslim states, which makes me believe fringy views are mainstream there.

This:

The Islamic version, except that I don't buy the collective guilt bit. Those who approve should bear some guilt, but not those who don't. And even for the former we need to account for imposed ignorance.

I do hold islam responsible for shari'a, though, as I do hold catholicism responsible for the canons of its councils, although it is somewhat problematic, because there are/were many schools of islamic law on one hand, and the decisions of councils were varied, and there were regional councils etc. But it's clearly part of tradition of respective denominations.

I'm questioning your motives because I literally do not see a point in your arguments. What are you trying to show? That every religion including Islam has problems? Do you realise the irony of supposedly trying to generate reasoned understanding by painstakingly highlighting unappealing examples quite without context in a thread that asks why people are so sensitive about Islam?

I entered this thread because I was apalled by the "christianity was worse oneday" argument, on several levels: firstly, it was not necessarily so 9and, as I've mentioned, I've written my thesis on this subject, so it interests me), and secondly, it has little to do with the subject. Islam has problems with several issues and saying "no it does not, everyone has that" is not helping at all.

/facepalm. It's just an example to illustrate how the same logic appears ridiculous when applied to another instance. Or do you need proof that Western nations have initiated regime changes before?

Sorry, still I do not understand. What do regime changes and democracy have to do with implementing shari'a and religious factor? Please elaborate.

Sorry, dude. I do not believe this sharia didn't change nonsense because clearly there are countries where sharia law is applied but which do not harmfully discriminate against non-believers in any systematic manner.

Like which ones? Probably you mean countries which's legal system is influenced by shari'a, or which accept shari'a in specific fields, like marriage law. But shari'a concerns relations between muslims and non-muslims as well, so if some country implements shari'a as a whole, it has to implement also these parts.

Your strange treatment of sharia and its application as a monolithic thing aside,

Either is shari'a implemented as a whole, or partly, or it may influence parliament's decisions etc. There may be many shades. I do not deny it. But each surviving school of islamic law has similar laws concerning non-muslims.

again, what problem do you have? If you think that these issues has to be resolved within Islam, then why have you as a non-Muslim spent a few pages complaining about them, especially when you admit that you have no idea what most Muslims think?

Because they concern human rights, religious freedom, world politics, etc. It's sad that you apparently want to hush me up.

No, man. I'm looking at what you've said in this thread. And note the bracketed words. You just look like you might be doing that?

The specific words you've quoted didn't mention any other religion but islam nor did they imply that other religions were better. I did defend christianity against certain accusations as well as I negated some embellished images of islamic tolerance in this thread, but only by stating some facts, and, anyway, it wasn't me who brought christianity in this thread. It is in fact those who believe to be "defending" islam who brought this topic in, and so did you in this very precise case.

You are either just backpedaling now or have failed to put your points across well. But I'm getting the passive-aggressive vibe of someone who is not an outright bigot but is prejudiced against a certain group anyway, since you seem to be oscillating between "I don't think Islam is bad" and "Look, the Prophet said this!".

I reported this post, as it's offensive towards me, as were some of your previous remarks.
Anyway, as I've already mentioned, I claimed that traditional islamic thinking is "logical and consistent", and this should end this matter.
I think islam has some brighter and some darker points.
What's wrong in quoting Muhammad, especially if someone asked for it?

"religious viewpoint is 'logical and consistent', but simply its axioms are different" is not a coherent statement. And I think you might be mistaking rationality with logic. I think of rationality as having the quality of being reasonable. For something to be rational, it has be the acceptable to (if not necessarily embraced by) those who are capable of reasoning.

Unlike you (apparently), I do not deny muslims capability of reasoning. Going by the line of shari'a is completely reasonable for someone believing Muhammad is a prophet of God.

On the other hand, if you begin from an irrational premise, then no matter how logically valid your argument is you can't be rational.

It may not be rational in definitive terms, but subjectively, if one accepts the premise, it is.

 

[illram]

Tunisia and Azerbaijan are faaar from being democracies imo

Tunisia is super awesome and I highly recommend a visit. Very nice beaches, friendly people, beautiful weather (can get very hot, though), affordable, safe, liberalized, and the best olive oil in the world.

 

[Squonk]

Oh, BTW, showing that this or that person said whatever does not prove that the hadiths you cited have been translated into laws that persecute non-believers. And most of those hadiths are pretty strong, mind, so much so as to make even dhimmi status (which was traditionally justified by the fact non-believers did not have to pay zakat) seem comparatively benign.

if you want an actual "prove that the hadiths you cited have been translated into laws...", I'd have to read the works of the fathers of madhhabs, and I'm too lazy to do it just for your fancy. I can provide you with an example of how specific examples of Al-Qur'an were used for this purpouse, though. Ibn al-Athir cites a letter of caliph 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, which quotes Al-Qur'an and orders firing of non-muslim officials. I may translate this bit, if you like.

as I've mentioned, dhimmi status may have been relatively benign before modern times. now it's not.

I've just re-read Squonk's posts in this thread and I think I'm done. There is no point arguing with someone who quite clearly has an unjustified beef with something but claims to have studied it. There's just no winning against 'informed' prejudices.

 

[Squonk]

Tunisia is super awesome and I highly recommend a visit. Very nice beaches, friendly people, beautiful weather (can get very hot, though), affordable, safe, liberalized, and the best olive oil in the world.

been there, liked it. it doesn't make it a democracy, though.