Good grief. Who’s painting with a wide brush now?
Well, while Kalt certainly has a bit of venom in his post, I still think he/she makes some valid points.
Mainly, that the problem with Islam is that it hasn’t, “Made the great leap out of the middle ages!” Muslims are still expected to take every word in the Koran, a book written more than a millennium ago, at its literal meaning. And Islam is expected to be the absolute and ultimate force in their lives.
IMO, only a tiny minority of Christians still actually believe the Earth was created in 6 days, or that Noah saved all life on Earth in a big boat, or that Adam & Eve really existed.
And more importantly, Christians no longer let specific religious dogma rule their lives or societies. In America, while The Constitution clearly adheres to judeo-christian values, it, and not the Bible, is the ultimate word of law. In fact, again while the founding fathers were clearly religious men, they saw the importance and especially the need to specifically delineate church and state.
I know this is totally politically incorrect, but frankly I think its silly the way muslims still think they must face Mecca and pray 5 times a day or incessantly wash their hands before praying. Its a throwback to believing the Earth is flat, or that God would be vengeful (or even care) about such inconsequential things.
Religion should be taken for what it is, a faith and a philosophy. Not literal, absolute instructions for specific and exact day to day activity and behavior. But this is an absolute tenet of Islam. Passages of The Koran are not to be studied or interpreted or discussed. They are to be memorized.
And as Kalt also mentioned it is significant that Mohammed preached that Islam should be spread ‘at the end of a sword’. While millions have died in the name of all religions Jesus did preach ‘do unto others…’ and ‘let he without sin…’ etc. Say whatever else you want about it but these are not hardcore tenets of Islam.
Christianity encourages progress, creativity, tolerance, and worship thru personal thought.
Islam encourages conformity, control, strict & unwavering discipline & commitment and worship thru repetitive routine.
Which do you consider more ‘enlightened’?
Everybody should be Jewish. That would fix things right up.
First of all, Mohammed didn’t preach conversion “at the end of a sword”. He preached tolerance for non-Muslims, and said Muslims should only fight in self defense, or to protect Islam from those people who are attacking it. Also, “do unto others…” and “let he without sin…” are part of Islam. Muslims are urged to be charitable and help other people, and to forgive people if the person wronged them.
Islam also encourages tolerance and creativity. The good Muslim is supposed to know the Koran and the Hadiths and use them to judge right action for him or herself. Ultimately, he or she isn’t responsible to anyone but G-d.
Christianity encourages progress, creativity, tolerance, and worship thru personal thought. -Hail Ants
thats is bull shit. i dont know anything but the basics of islamic culture, but being an athiest (raised christian) I know for a fact that christianity is nothing like that. tell that bit about tolerance to some of the cultures it destroyed
Ok I’m by no means a scholar of Islam, but this is an argument (not my argument per se) that I’ve seen presented repeatedly, and I’d like to hear intelligent opinons.
The argument is that the Quran does indeed specifically teach the killing and enslaving of non-believers, and no other modern religion has such tenets.
Quran:
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore
make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those
who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every
fingertip of them.
[9:5] But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the
Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in
wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and
establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the
way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near
to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with
those who guard (against evil).
[47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the
necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and
afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom
(themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah
had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but
that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who
are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to
perish.
I don’t recall such inflammatory statements in the bible, but I’m not a bible scholar either.
Oops forgot the verses specific to slavery:
[24.32]: And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit
among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah
will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is
Ample-giving, Knowing.
[39.29]: Allah sets forth an example: There is a slave in whom are
(several) partners differing with one another, and there is another
slave wholly owned by one man. Are the two alike in condition? (All)
praise is due to Allah. Nay! most of them do not know.
I am not familiar with your views. What thread are you referring to? Can you provide a link?
Kalt (and everyone else saying “Islam says this”), I think you should provide a cite for your sweeping statements about Islam. Or at least a Quranic textual reference, since you’re talking so much about what the Quran supposedly says.
For all the atheists posting in this thread: re-read my first line. I am suspicious of organized religion, but not one in particular.
This is totally untrue, especially in the Shi’a version of Islam. Sunna does put a lot of emphasis on taqlid, or imitation (ie, tradition), but yes, room still exists for social change. I’d say that it’s fairly equivalent to Roman Catholicism in its movement, and now that I think about it, that might be because the two faiths are similar in size. In other words, it’s hard to really change a religion with so many millions of followers.
In Shi’a, which is practiced primarily in Iran, Islam is a religion of constant interpretation and reinterpretation. Shi’a Islam is a dynamic and changing faith.
This is why my great-grandparents, and millions of other Eastern European Jews came to the United States in the early part of the 20th century. Because their Christian neighbors encouraged them to leave with their progressive, creative, and tolerant pogroms.
Give me a break.
>First of all, Mohammed didn’t preach conversion “at the end of a
>sword”. He preached tolerance for non-Muslims, and said
>Muslims should only fight in self defense, or to protect Islam
>from those people who are attacking it.
That’s total bs. I’ll spare you quotes from the koran that dictate exactly the opposite of what you just said, because you’ll just say “oh it doesn’t reall mean that.” Mohammed said convert 'em or kill em. That’s the koran summed up in one line for ya.
>And a far greater number have died in the name of atheistic
>worldviews. (Look up “Mass murders” in the Guiness Book of
>World Records sometime.)
Aside from stalin, i’d like some examples. Anyway, Stalin didn’t kill in the name of non-believers, he did it because he was a power-hungry nutcase. We could debate hitler’s motives, but i’ve seen more than enough hitler quotes to be confident that he was no atheist.
DesertGeezer, i’m in NO WAY defending christianity. I think it is 99% as vile and disgusting as islam. But while christians have become more secular and less prone to violence over the past few hundred years, muslims are more rabid and murderous than ever. If someone says to me “christianity is a peaceful religion,” I’ll be the first one to list all the times throughout history that christians have slaughtered, raped, pillaged, and massacred in the name of christ. BUT, that being said, today, in October of 2002, christians are not the problem (unless you are walking into an abortion clinic or at a homosexual’s funeral, then they cause trouble). Muslims are the problem. Muslim men named mohammed are the ones causing the trouble RIGHT NOW. Sorry. You can yell, kick, and scream “racist! hater!” all you want, but muslim men are the ones killing non-muslims in the name of their religion TODAY. History is tons of fun, but when we’re talking about whether islam is to blame for the violence committed today by muslims, the answer is a simple, resounding YES. There IS something fundamentally wrong with Islam and Islamic culture. Looking at a picture of a muslim child dressed up as a suicide bomber with fake dynamite strapped to him is more than enough proof for me. Show me a christian/jew/atheist who would even consider such an act. How many muslims danced in the street when 3000+ people died on september 11th? I didn’t see christians, jews, or atheists dancing and yelling “alalalalalalalala” in celebration of murder.
On the 4th of july when someone started shooting in LAX airport, the first words out of my mouth were “betcha his name is mohammed.” It was. Over the past few weeks I’d been saying “betcha the sniper’s name is mohammed” and unfortunately, I was right again. Yeah, i’m a cynical jackass. Regardless, how many more people need to die at the hands of wackos named mohammad before we start to recognize a pattern? Or will we just choose to remain blind in the name of political correctness? Just for the record, I’m not happy or proud about being right about the sniper being a muslim. It’s fucking depressing. What’s even more depressing is that eventually we’ll hear his reasons for killing all those innocent people: he did it for allah. He wasn’t a tax protester, I promise you.
Anyway, I have a simple solution. I’ll re-write the Koran. I’ll fix it up so it’s perfectly clear what its followers should and should not do. I’ll even do it for free. While I’m at it, the old and new testaments both need a little clarifying as well. I’ll do that too if ya want. No charge. Oh yeah, I’m divinely inspired. Trust me. Whatever I write will be (your) god writing through me. I promise it will be the newly revised word of god.
**
Well, like I said, the Koran allows fighting in self defense and against persecution
I believe this chapter was written when the people of Mecca were marching against Medina, with the intention of taking it over, and wiping out the Muslim community of Medina. If you keep on reading the chapter, it also says (This is in 8:38-40:
If you look at 9:12-13, you can see this is about people who made a peace treaty with the Muslims then broke it:
I don’t recall such inflammatory statements in the bible, but I’m not a bible scholar either.
[/QUOTE]
Again, these are rules for fighting disbelievers. When you fight them, take them prisoner, then either set them free, or ask for ransom.
This is of course totally false. To give an example of the numerous violent statements of Islam, the Hadith states that on the Last Day the Jews will hide behind trees to avoid being slaughtered by “believers,” and the trees themselves will cry out that a Jew is hiding behind them. This is all because, as Islam itself holds, Muhammad demanded to be named the spiritual leader of the Jews of Medina and was turned down, so he threw a hissy fit and started hating Jews.
UnuMondo
for what it’s worth, I do apologize for any venomous tones in my posts on this thread. Every day I get angrier and angrier at islam in general, and those who defend it sound dumber than jerry falwell to me. I’m friggin SICK of the “oh the koran doesn’t really mean that” crap. Yes, it does – it really does mean what it says, it’s followers are expected to accept it word-for-word, and it’s a crying shame. I don’t hate someone because they are a muslim, but I do think islam is a horrible religion. If someone is a half-assed muslim who believes in peace and non-violent spreading of their faith, then that’s great; I have no problem with them (but they’re not a real muslim).
So, who’s going to be the first to tell Eleusis that those quotes really don’t mean what they say?
Then ipso facto, a majority of Muslims in this world are not real Muslims. Which would seem to present a problem of definition, wouldn’t it?
- Tamerlane
Oops, I posted before I saw Eleusis’ posts. So far he’s the only critic of Islam in this thread to back his views up with references.
Now I have three more questions:
-
Are those quotes from the Quran in context?
-
Are they contradictory to any other passages from the Quran? (I ask this knowing that there are many contradictions in the Bible between God’s bloodier and more tolerant commands. This may be because the Bible was written over hundreds of years and had many authors. Perhaps this problem of internal contradictions may not apply so much to Islam, since the Quran was completed faster and had fewer authors.)
-
In direct rebuttal to Kalt: isn’t there usually a distinction between the writings of a religion and the lifestyle of its adherents? Take for example the Jews. The Old Testament is full of bloody-minded and intolerant stuff, and yet Jews today are not, on the whole, regarded as doctrinaire, intolerant fanatics. In fact, Jews in the United States are famously liberal. Is Kalt going to claim that they are not “real Jews”, or that the only “real” adherents to Judaism are the West Bank settlers??? shudder!!!
It is true that Western Christians used to stereotype Jews as bloody-minded fanatics, and that led to some of the worst atrocities in Western history. Beware of stereotyping religions.
It’s not an Old Testament/New Testament dichotomy either – some New Testament passages sound pretty intolerant and medieval too, particularly the letters from Paul.
To press the point: who are you to claim that someone is not a “real” Christian or a “real” Muslim??? For an atheist, you certainly seem to be claiming God-like knowledge about other people’s faiths.
I am going to directly challenge Kalt on another point, where he says that religious fanaticism has nothing to do with social conditions. Sorry, but I think Marx was correct in identifying economics as the cause of most human conflict. If Islam seems to be in turmoil today, I think it probably has a lot to do with the fact that a greater proportion of Muslims than Christians lives in poverty in the world today.
I’m going to challenge december’s conclusion that the problem with Christianity was “fixed” in the last 800 years while Islam stayed in the middle ages. The main change of the last 800 years is that the Western world has become materially prosperous and economically and militarily powerful, partly at the Islamic world’s expense.
With all due respect, that’s a stupid argument to make. The Koran has 114 chapters, and about 10,000-12,000 verses. It says a lot of things. There are also thousand of hadith, with various degrees of authenticity and reliability. Some parts of the Koran and hadith do promote violence, but other parts denounce it. Picking verses of a holy book out of context in Islam, or any religion, doesn’t prove anything. It’s not your place to say who is or is not a “real” Muslim, or to say that Muslims who believe in peace and non-violent spreading of their faith is “half-assed”.
Yeah, there are problems in Islam today, and a lot of them are due to Muslims who think like you do…who think they’re the only ones who know how to read the Koran, who think it commands them to kill everyone who disagree with them, and who think they’re able to judge who’s a “real” Muslim. But, you know what? Their beliefs are out of touch with Islam throughout its history. There are a billion Muslims in the world, and Islam’s existed for 1400 years. And over those 1400 years, the vast majority of Muslims, not just marginalized Muslims, but well respected religious leaders, have said that Islam is about “peace and non-violent spreading” of the faith. Muslims didn’t historically come into an area and say “convert or die”. As a matter of fact, a lot of Muslim leaders, for political and financial reasons, discouraged conversion to Islam, and most Muslim states, historically, from Spain, to India, to Indonesia, have been multi-religious.
With all due respect, don’t post based on ignorant stereotyping.
I stated that throughout history there has been killing in the name of all religions.
The context of my post is Christianity in modern, western societies vs. Islam in the current Middle East.
Try Lenin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot, then.
You’re assuming that people’s motives can be boiled down to a single cause. In reality, they often aren’t. Stalin chose to enforce atheism through his Communist regime, just as the medieval Roman Catholic Church chose to enforce Catholicism through bloody means. In both cases, they had additional motives (power in Stalin’s case, power and gold in the RCC’s case), but this does not negate their philosophical worldviews either.
Bullsh*t.
The oil riches of the muslim world wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for us ‘infidels’. We all but discovered & built their entire oil industries in the 40s and 50s. And when they, rightly or wrongly, nationalized them and basically said ‘we do not recognize the hundreds of billions of dollars you’ve poured into our countries’ did we, the evil infidels, take them back by force? No.
And what have the Islamic nations done with their wealth? Worked toward creating fair and democratic societies? Eliminated poverty and suffering for all their people? Generally, no. They’ve built palaces and bought fighter jets bigger than their neighbors.
Well, Hail Ants, 50 years is only 1/16 of 800 ;).
Actually I wouldn’t place Islamic decline back 800 years in terms of parity with the west. More like 17th century. Starting in this period the “Christian” west did begin to expand and it indeed expand at the Muslim world’s expense to a considerable degree. But I don’t consider this any great moral problem - It is in fact a morally neutral. If the shoe would have been on the other foot, the Muslim world, sensu latu would have done the same. It was just a gradual geopolitical shift in the currents of world power and no one is to “blame” for it.
However you are only partially correct in your assesment in the last 50 years, at least in tenor. The west didn’t poor ‘hundreds of billions’ into oil fields and exploration for any altruistic reasons and they did intervene occasionally to preserve profits ( see the overthrow of Mossadegh and the re-installation of the Shah of Iran ).
That the Arab oil states have mostly squandered their wealth is correct ( though in fact the lightly populated oil nations as in the Gulf and even Libya, whatever their bigotry towards migrant workers and the ultimate wisdom of their programs, did provide handsomely for their “subjects” ), but then so to a ( admittedlylesser ) extent did some of the Latin American OPEC nations. In both cases undemocratic regimes and the rampant corruption that flowed from them was the problem, not necessarily Islam ( one could make the argument that Islam is inherently undemocratic, but I don’t think it would be a very strong argument if you compare it to other major religions ).
- Tamerlane