Generally, I think little good can ever come of lies, even well-meaning deceptions, and thus I’m pretty critical of religion. I believe people should be allowed to practice their religions so long as they aren’t coercive. However, people should also be educated away from their superstitions. People’s beliefs don’t exist in a vacuum, they don’t discard them when they walk out of their door. At a certain point, a person believing a lie may be induced by his false perception of reality into doing something which will directly affect other individuals and the world around them.
On the balance, does Islam have a positive or negative effect on individuals and on the world?
I would have to conclude that it is a harmful set of beliefs. It has led to the recent formation of oppressive theocracies with no respect for individual liberty. It has provided a convenient excuse to whip up frenzy in the masses, for the purpose of carrying out various acts of violence. While these things certainly have an economic component, the religious component is not dispensible. The religious component allows those who would do evil to polarize the population, to cast all the others as wicked heathens who merit no better than second-class status. Islam sets up a framework that is readily exploited by those who wish to do harm. This alone makes it a dangerous force in the world.
Any positive consequences the religion might create, including support for those charities that aren’t just Al Queda front groups, could easily be mirrored by a non-religious population. Charitable giving is not the exclusive province of religion, after all. Thus I would conclude from a quick survey of the impact of Islam on the world that it is more harmful than beneficial.
I am interested in hearing arguments that Islam has had either harmful or beneficial consequences, and why and how? (I’m not particularly interested in comparing it to other world religions, rather to give Islam an isolated and critical look, as I and other secular humanists have already been giving to other prominent religions. Saying “Christianity caused X” is not a counterargument to “Islam caused Y”.)
On the plus side, you could say that it provides a set of ground rules for societies which are ruled by it to live by. It provides a common reference point. In centuries past (when times were more barbaric than they are now) this was probably invaluable.
You may think islam has faults but at least it provided some kind of common reference point for people - something they could all agree on. Even if it was objectively wrong, at least they all agreed on it (at least the basics).
On the minus side, I personally never believe what one guy tells me and, ultimately, that’s what muslims have to do - believe what one guy told them.
In keeping with your rule of not comparing Islam to other religions, one still has to ask that if Islam did not exist, what would fill the vacuum. Or, how could one eliminate Islam and what system would that require? Since the only* secular societies we have seen are communist China and the USSR, it would seem that it would require an extremely repressive regime to stamp out Islam (or any religion). And that regime, from empirical evidence, would be worse than the alternative. We’ll have to see if China is able to evolve into a democratic, rights-honoring nation and still retain it’s secular nature. The USSR did evolve into a a more or less democratic set of regimes, but not without letting religion back into its society.
*substitute “most significant” if you don’t like the word “only”
I’ve always thought religious fundamentalism was a barrier to the advancement of human knowledge. It tends to breed power brokers.
Which makes me wonder if the progenitors of Islam sought a flat hierarchy to avoid the pitfalls of corruption that power always seems to bring.
To answer the question directly, I would say that Islam has played a major role in the political stagnation of nations. It is not a breeding ground for independent thought or lifestyle. It needs to evolve and that will not happen until religious leaders are removed from power by the will of the masses. Iran may prove an interesting challenge for all parties concerned.
Hmm. Well, if you start from the basis that all religion is lies, deceptions which are at best well-meaning, and superstitions, I can’t avoid the suspicion that you’ve already decided what answer you want to your question, and are just looking around for a plausible route to arrive at that answer.
I think John Mace’s approach is correct. If there was no Islam, what would the world be like? But the question is not “what would the world be like if Islam disappeared”, since the previous existence of Islam would still have current consequences which might be beneficial or harmful for us. For Islam to have no consequences it has to have never existed at all. So what would the world be like if Islam had never existed?
The idea that it would be just like the world we have now, except with no Islam, is plainly nonsense. The direct and indirect contributions to the development of Western civilisation are enormous. It is entirely possible that, if the Prophet had never received his revelations, our civilisation would be different in ways we cannot imagine. To pick a few points at random, it is highly possible that important advances in mathematics, science and philosophy would not have been made when they were, or possibly at all, or, if made, that they would not have been communicated as widely as they were. There would have been no crusades, and therefore completely different interactions between Europe and the Middle East. Gothic architecture might never have developed. Constantinople might never have fallen, and that could have meant that the Renaissance took a very different course, or didn’t happen at all in the sense that we know it. Without the refuge provided by Islamic countries, Judaism might have been completely eliminated by Christians. North Africa would have remained at all time within a European sphere of influence, and the extension of European influence over the rest of Africa might have happened much earlier than, in the event, it did. Orthodox Christianity might have come to dominate over Roman Christianity, but on the other hand Orthodox Christianity might itself be very different. The Protestant reformation might never have happened. And so forth.
In other words, the alteration in the history of the world posited here is so fundamental that I doubt if any meaningful answer is possible. Instead the thread will provide an entertaining opportunity for posters to air their prejudices and preconceptions about Islam.
It has its good and its bad, the same as any organized religion. As you said, organized religion in itself imparts some negative aspects to a populace. You can’t say its completely bad or completely good.
And just like all religions, its original tenets have been transformed to serve the rulers. You’ve seen it all through history, you see it around you today. Small parts of religion are taken as natural law and decisions are based solely upon them. They are misinterpreted. That blame doesn’t belong upon religion solely, it belongs on the leaders that transform the tenets into evilness.
And how precisely would this make Islam different from the various secular ideologies–nationalism, fascism, communism, etc.–that did exactly the same thing?
though you’d specifically stated not to compare islam with another religion, i find that ‘islam’ in your entire OP could easily be interchanged for that other religion, as would some of the replies that you will be getting.
I don’t think the word “Harmful” is very good. I’d prefer something like “Outlived its usefulness”.
I think all major religions (and other ideologies) arose in places and at times where and when they had something positive to offer the population. Often these ideologies continued to impact the life of the masses for the better for many hundreds of years following. But ultimately, every system of beliefs tends to stagnate, ossify and fall behind newer, more vigorous frameworks. Most major religions have, IMO, outlived their usefulness.
I think that Isalm, like many or all other religious and ideological frameworks, is not, in itself, “good” or “evil”, “right” or “wrong”. All things must be judged in context.
I would like to see nothing better than the disappearence of all religion (read - formalized and organized ideologies based on some form of Deism), but it just ain’t gonna happen… and that being given, I don’t think the (relatively) few Muslim Exremists and Terrorists should cause us all to discard Islam as something inherently worse than any other religion (or, indeed, any other ideology).
And, just as an aside, imagine what Europe would have looked like circa 1500-1600 if there had been no Islam to exert external pressure on the slowly decaying religious autocracies of the continent… bye-bye, renaissance?
I can’t find a single thing in the OP that is specific to Islam.
Same goes for the other two religions stemming from Abraham.
And the same can be said for almost every religion as well as political movement.
Once again, something that it has in common with almost every religion and political movement.
So in reply to the OP, I think religion in general is bad, and fundamentalism especially so. Limiting this debate to Islam is like starting a debate on how much black peoples feces stink and asking people not to compare to other ethnic groups. Everyones shit stinks. Singling out one oarticular group like this is bigoted.
My question: ISLAM had its “Golden Age” ca1000-1300 AD. In this time period, Aranb intellectualism flourished…I read that most of the great mathematics and philosophy got done in this period…for example, an Arab physician wrote the first tretise on the human eye during this period. But, after this Islam became more and more regressive, and more dogmatic. Now, we see many Muslim clerics who think that all wisdom is contained in the Koran.
Now, look at what happened in the West…the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation made Western Chruistianity more liberal and gave rise to democracies.
So, as I see, it, Islam became less and less friendly to intellectualism…the question is why?As for current-day Islam…Whabism seems to me to be totally regressive, and lacking in any usefulness…indeed, its tenets seem to me to be a positive danger to the Western cincepts of freedom,human rights, etc.
I’m sorry, but I think that your post is utterly ridiculous.
“But, after this Islam became more and more regressive, and more dogmatic. Now, we see many Muslim clerics who think that all wisdom is contained in the Koran.”
Amazing how Christianity, and the U.S. in particular, doesn’t seem to have this problem.
Oh, wait. It does. Seems that there’s this enormous population of backward loudmouth fudamentalist assholes who have some sort of problem with this idea called “evolution” precisely because it contradicts the wisdom contained in some other book. :rolleyes:
Let’s not forget that Islam provides enormous comfort to an enormous number of people.
And I have to say that if I were inclined to be, I would be offended by your (admittedly tacit) assumption that all Islam is fundamentalism. How many people are there who believe and are reasonable and decent and tolerant at the same time? Easy to forget, I find…
Cheers.
Desmostylus, this is absurd retort; nothing in ralph124c’s post merited the knee-jerk response you provided.
You use the exact same type of mindless, dogmatic orthodoxy that stifles thought and discourages expression of honest disagreement, so vital to the health of the marketplace of ideas.
“Backward loudmouth fundamentalist assholes” use judgment without reason and subsequent condemnation of unbelievers’ morality to impose their backward beliefs. Frankly, they make it quite easy for thoughtful people to make their own judgment and condemn these people as “backward loudmouth fundamentalist assholes.” The judgment rendered, the dissenters can then make the arguments necessary to refute the fundamentalists’ beliefs. The supply of philosophy to the marketplace of ideas is provided, and idea consumers can make up their own minds what philosophy to buy because they have a fair choice.
Considering that 400 years ago in Massachusetts, young women were hanged by the reigning political authorities for heresy and witchcraft (an impossibility today in the West), I think the dissenters are making headway in the debate, no? Unfortunately, the idea of executing a woman for heresy or adultery isn’t such an impossibility in too many parts of the Arab/Muslim world; maybe that’s because those in political or religious power do everything they can to shut down the marketplace of ideas; prevailing orthodoxy is thus guaranteed the monopoly in far too many Arab/Muslim marketplaces of ideas - though it should be pointed out that some (Qatar, Oman) are better than others (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Egypt).
Desmostylus, your tactic - similar to the one employed by those I described above - is to impose your beliefs by excluding ideas that compete with yours from the marketplace. You didn’t even attempt to refute what ralph124c wrote; you just turned the debate into a wholly unrelated rant on Christian fundamentalists - even though the thread is titled “ISLAM: BENEFICIAL OR HARMFUL TO THE WORLD.”
Ralph124c made a well-intentioned foray into the marketplace of ideas. You saw yourself as ralph124c’s competition, but you could only supply a vastly inferior product. Your only hope to compete was to deny ralph124c’s entry into the marketplace. You attempted to do so by tainting his product with the sins of fundamentalist Christianity (guilt by association), even though his contribution into the “ISLAM: BENEFICIAL OR HARMFUL TO THE WORLD” thread is, quite reasonably, about whether Islam is indeed beneficial or harmful to the world.
You attempted to make consumers afraid that buying (or even considering) ralph124c’s product would - by some flimsy shred of association - link them with a philosophy you were confident the marketplace (the SDMB board, which you are well aware does not embrace fundamentalists of any ilk) would flatly reject. You hoped consumers would reject ralph124c’s ideas not on their merits, but on a wholly unsubstantiated, unsupported linkage to fundamentalist Christianity that ralph124c never espoused nor even implied.
Ralph124c made a pretty reasonable statement. Perhaps not nuanced, but generally accurate:
“But, after this Islam became more and more regressive, and more dogmatic. Now, we see many Muslim clerics who think that all wisdom is contained in the Koran…As for current-day Islam…Whabism seems to me to be totally regressive, and lacking in any usefulness…indeed, its tenets seem to me to be a positive danger to the Western cincepts of freedom,human rights, etc.”
Perhaps ralph124c may be chided for writing “Islam” was responsible for regression and dogmatism, when instead he may have said “some (not all) Muslims” or maybe “Muslims who held political or religious authority.” Nevertheless, the gist of his statement is supported by the facts. And if you’re prepared to counter his judgement of Wahabism, I’d like to introduce you to a wonderful thing called a “clue.”
Even though it may strike you as antithetical to your own entire political orthodoxy to admit this basic truth, can you actually refute ralph124c’s contribution to the marketplace, Desmostylus, by providing credible evidence to the contrary?
In desperation, you used the intellectual atomic bomb; the imposition of good old reliable post-modern guilt that all Westerners/Christians are somehow saddled with because of the tides of history. The guilt is designed to make us mindless automatons because it seeks to forbid us from using the tools of rational thought - these same tools that allowed the Western world to shoot past the Arab/Muslim world in almost every imaginable way - to make logical judgments about the current state of the Arab/Muslim world. IOW, if people would only focus on Western sins, they would avoid the heresy of making judgements about Arab/Muslim shortcomings, thereby ensuring the continued embrace of post-modernist dogma.
The difference between the “enormous population of backward loudmouth fudamentalist assholes” in the U.S. is that the system of laws, the ordering of society to tolerate and even encourage dissent, the belief in rational thought - all of which have occurred in the West (and quite noticeably in that wasteland you call the U.S.) allowed reasonable people to judge their beliefs. This scenario has not taken root significantly in the Arab/Muslim world. Ralph124c simply acknowledged this fundamental truth.
What are you so afraid of, Desmostylus? I’m inclined to agree with the general thrust of what ralph124c said, yet I’m perfectly capable of acknowledging that the West’s ability to apply violence, combined with a healthy dose of historical Christian intolerance and aggression and political stupidity fueled by greed, had a deleterious effect on the Arab/Muslim world. But these factors alone don’t tell the whole story, IMHO.
Various Arab/Muslim fueled phenonena such as xenophobia, tribalism, religious extremism, corruption, economic stagnation, absence of an Islamic Reformation, lack of separation of mosque and state, discouragement of dissent from prevailing orthodoxy (religious or political), lack of a free press, misogyny, honor killings, fascism, theocracy, anti-Semitism, corruption, oppression, degree of acceptance/celebration of terrorist acts, cultural backwardness, a flawed intelligentsia…do I need to go on?..also has quite a bit to do with Arab/Muslim decline. There is oodles of evidence to support these assertions, and one only has to open his/her eyes to the reality of the MENA region to grasp this. And the vast majority of people who cause this phenomena are Arabs and/or Muslims, and much of the aforementioned phenomena have a not-so-proud but prominent place in this region.
To acknowledge this fact is not racist - it is rational. Those of us sympathetic to the general thrust of this argument are not saying that Arabs and/or Muslims are backward simply because they are Arabs and/or Muslims. THAT IS racist. However, I think it’s fair to argue that the prevailing socio-political-economic order of far too many parts of the Arab/Muslim world has produced Arabs and/or Muslims unable to compete in the modern world. In short, the Arab/Muslim world is churning out 21st century failures.
Don’t call me anti-Muslim for saying this - Mahathir said the same thing and got a standing ovation from most of the leaders of Arab and/or Muslim states, and a degree of acceptance from those on the political left for its implied criticism of the West - Jews and Americans in particular. He wanted Arab/Muslim advancement to enable them to defeat the Jews; I call for Arab/Muslim advancement so that Arabs and/or Muslims can thrive in the modern world.
In conclusion, Desmostylus, just like the fundamentalists you decry as “backward loudmouth fudamentalist assholes,” you seek to impose guilt to stifle debate and enforce belief. You just do it from the other side of the political spectrum. In short, you’re no better than they are.
I don’t see what is particularly accurate (or particularly Muslim) about Ralph124c’s statement. The “regression” of Islam can pretty well be tied to the rise of particular governments and empires, themselves inherently conservative (in the sense of choosing adherence to the past and consolidation over expanding research and outward exploration).
The Islam that peacefully migrated across the Northern plains of India, down through Southeast Asia, and out toward Oceania might easily have spurred its own renaissance if it had not been challenged by Christians with guns before it could consolidate enough territory to establish a growing empire. Meanwhile, the Islam of the Middle East and North Africa was sublimated to what became the Turkish Empire. Nearly all the “backward” voices in Islam are heard from places where it is a rallying point to resist cultural hegemony from Europe and North America.
China has a history of taking great leaps backward on several occasions–all tied to particular political events rather than being attributed to religious belief. There is ample evidence that the Mycenaean proto-Greek culture regressed long before the rise of the Golden Age of Greece. Rome demonstrated more philosophy and engineering ingenuity in the years prior to its becoming the sole Mediterranean empire (and long before Christianity took control of that empire).
Barring evidence that Islam, itself, is causing the problem (as opposed to being a cultural artifact of the societies experiencing the problems), I see no reason to ascribe any cultural or philosophical “regression” in the MENA region to Islam. Even examining the situation, today, we find the Whabbists and similar groups getting their greatest strength, not in the core areas of Islamic education, but in the lands with the fewest cities and in the cultures that have been most seriously disrupted by European intervention: Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, (which are either sparsely populated or have been subjected to direct interference and conquest) rather than, for example, Turkey (which was treated as a defeated, but not conquered, nation after WWI and then allowed to develop on its own).
All religions have proven to be a beneficial, Islam is no different. For centuries they have provided the basis of a method of social cohesion and control. These societies have gotten us where we are now, for better or worse, in a way that could not have been achieved any other way.
Undoubtedly they have had their drawbacks. But I am unconvinced that these wars and persecutions wouldn’t have occurred without religion. These sort of things are ultimately political; based in plain old, ugly human behaviour and religion proved to be a convenient peg to hang them on, and still does.
Unfortunately, from religion’s point of view, we have reached the point in most of the world where their need has expired and their rational can no longer be defended. But they are so engrained into our societies, and so perfectly modeled to match our human desires and insecurities, that they are not going to depart quietly.
This is the dilemma of Islam. It isn’t any more stubborn than the rest, it’s just shouting louder on the way out.
Its an unanswerable question. None of us can predict what the consequences would be.
Don’t single Islam out for blame, the majority of muslims are fairly moderate. The real problem as I see it are fundamentalists of what ever denomination - people who believe that only their point of view is valid, and that anyone else is dammed.
What’s different is that these ideologies were intellectually derived (however flawed) in recent history rather than being an ancient and deeply held set of beliefs that insists it is the will of Almighty God. And as intrusive as these ideologies have been, they are not quite as intrusive into many aspects people’s private lives as Islam is. Furthermore, since the secular ideologies had not succeeded in brainwashing the masses quite as thoroughly as the Islamic religion, their subjects have shown a willingness to abandon the ideology en masse given the opportunity.
But it seems as though that the sharia is often more strictly enforced in traditional tribal regions than in areas where the central government–which isn’t always officially Islamic–has greater control.
Islam did not “migrate peacefully” across the northern plains of India. It came with fire and sword. The atrocities the Muslims committed against the Hindus are among the most horrible in human history.