So, of the two people mentioned here, which one is closer to following what their religion says? Or, does it matter what the doctrine says because their followers are just going to do what they want in any case? Hey, I’m happy to agree that all religions are bad. But I do think some are inherently worse than others.
I’m rather curious about something that should be, IMHO, answered in this thread. Who made you the one who gets to decide what someone else’s “religion says”?
I suspect the point is more “lack of power gets its ass kicked if it’s not careful”.
I’m challenging what people say with passages out of particular holy books. Should I just take their word for it that it that those passages mean something entirely different than what they clearly say?
Brain breaker: https://www.al-islam.org/philosophy-islamic-laws-nasir-makarim-shirazi-jafar-subhani/question-54-interpretation-quran-based
Fun fact: the burka isn’t in the Quran, and isn’t universal to Muslims or even close. For its time, the Quran is actually quite progressive about gender equality.
It sounds more like you had a problem with Yemeni culture, frankly.
Seems like you aren’t even trying to learn. You didn’t read 9:1-7, did you? How can “the unbelievers” mean non-Muslims generally, when in the text “the unbelievers” made a treaty with Muhammad in the Great Mosque in Mecca? Seems awfully specific, doesn’t it?
I mean, have you even considered the notion that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and ought to educate yourself? When you didn’t know that pre-Islamic Mecca was polytheistic, that’s what we call a red flag.
The Religion of Peace is a genuine, no-fooling hate site. With you, they apparently succeeded in their mission, which is to prey on the prejudice and intellectually laziness of people who have a vague sense that Islam is bad, by giving them a bundle of out-of-context quotes, knowing that most of them will never actually read the passages or the historical background behind them for themselves.
I was once in the same boat, more or less. I believed, like you, that the Quran commanded Muslims to wage aggressive wars, but was simply ignored by most Muslims. Then I actually read the chapters in question, and was embarrassed to learn that I’d been completely wrong in that belief. All it took was about two hours of reading; not a bad rate of return.
In the time it’s taken you to post to and read this thread, you could have done the same…and it’s not too late. English translations of the Quran are readily available online.
Seriously? Uzi didn’t know that? The issue of pre-Islamic Arabs being polytheistic and idolators is one of the defining foundation narratives of Islam.
Draw your own conclusions:
Muslims in the U.S. pay the same taxes everyone else does. Why should they have to pay more, just because their faith isn’t the same as yours?
Have you ever read the Bill of Rights?
You can’t be serious. Unless your “for it’s time” covers everything.
And the final one will be… the last of the Meccans!
Just passing through, and thought I’d drop in.
I worked in fintech for a while, and Islamic finance is a sort of generically good thing. In concept, not that much different from Christian finance, or Jewish finance, or fully-regulated retail housing finance, (but very different to business finance, or Hindi finance). Mechanics are diferent, technically open to the same kind of abuses, but genericaly kindo a good/moral thing.
More if you want to see what a group or person is really like, put them in a position where they can do as they please.
“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” - Abraham Lincoln
200+ posts and almost every ‘counter argument’ suffers from the tu quoque logical fallacy, launching into dissertations about Christianity or ‘Abrahamic faiths’ though in the usual politically correct form, Judaism is never criticized by name.
Why not just say, ‘OK, there’s nothing positive about Islam’ if you can’t answer the question with something positive about Islam?
OTOH I would answer as follows. What’s positive about Islam in my view is lots of people who fervently believe, and try to live their lives according to a benign interpretation of the faith. I’ve known some and admired them, and have never personally known any Muslim who eg. claims the right to commit domestic violence let alone terrorism in the name of the faith, though obviously such people exist at large. But there is IMO a specific issue with Islam, now, in its origin, led by a temporal warlord. It’s more subject to adaptation as a violent political ideology, in today’s world, than other religions. For example in the article about ISIS in the Atlantic magazine Mar 2015 (not exactly an ‘alt-right’ outlet 
)
“People want to absolve Islam,” he said. “It’s this ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ mantra. As if there is such a thing as ‘Islam’! It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.” Those texts are shared by all Sunni Muslims, not just the Islamic State. “And these guys have just as much legitimacy as anyone else.”
And as was brought up a few pages ago, there’s a basic logical flaw in imputing bad behavior to religion when the religion specifically denounces that behavior. If you think the religion has no effect on behavior, fine, then so does lack of religion, logically. OTOH if you make an extraordinary claim like saying “belonging to a religion that says ‘turn the other cheek’ makes you less likely to turn other cheek” you need extraordinary proof of that double secret reverse influence. I don’t see that proof. Human societies where Christianity was dominant did wrong, so did Stalin’s and Pol Pot’s societies, Buddhist societies, all human societies.
However if there’s actually a significant (not the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda) faction(s) in the religion using the religion and its teachings (not ethnic/national grievances of groups which happen to share the religion) now (not centuries ago) as a violent political ideology, that’s a specific problem that religion must deal with. Islam has that specific problem, and must somehow deal with it. The other major world religions do not have that specific problem as of now.
However that doesn’t exclude positive aspects of Islam on an individual level, which I have seen, just trying to answer the question asked.
True in a sense, but this particular issue - due to ethnocentrism - needs context to be understood.
My ultra short answer to the OP might be “Nothing much is good about Islam. The supernatural aspects are bullshit. The life advice stuff is the usual mixed bag ranging all the way from reasonable moral guidelines to nasty and violent bigotry.”
Taken in isolation, many people (OP I suspect included) would see my answer as being criticism of Islam in particular. But I would say the same about all religions.
The Mark 1 human brain discounts faults, risks and dangers in the familiar, but exaggerates such things in the unfamiliar. Ethnocentrism is a specific instance of that basic human attribute. Also, human behaviour and morality are somewhat relative. Consequently, people find it very hard to look at a religion or culture not their own and objectively evaluate it.
In this particular debate, dissertations about “Abrahamic faiths” aren’t so much a tu quoque as provision of a unit of measurement.
“How bad is Islam?”
“Well, it’s at -285 RU [religious units]”
“Nyah, nyah, told you Islam was a horrible religion!”
“Well, it might help you to know that Christianity is at -297 RU, Judaism is at -283 RU and Pastafarianism is at -300 RU.”
I didn’t type “for its time” by accident, if that’s what you are asking.
Let’s go through the Top 10 list from your cite:
- A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a field.
This just means that no positions are forbidden.
- Husbands are a degree above their wives.
Compare to the situation in Europe at the time: coverture, in which a married woman had no legal rights distinct from her husband’s, and functioned as his property.
- A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female.
Meanwhile, in Europe, inheritance followed the rules in the Book of Numbers, in which women could only inherit from their parents if they had no brothers. If a married man died, his sons inherited the estate, and not his wife. Women were clearly better off under Islamic inheritance rules.
- A woman’s testimony counts half of a man’s testimony.
Elsewhere, women couldn’t testify at all.
- A wife may remarry her ex—husband if and only if she marries another man, they have sex, and then this second man divorces her.
In Europe, after the 10th century, divorce was forbidden.
- Slave—girls are sexual property for their male owners.
This was the status quo at the time.
- A man may be polygamous with up to four wives.
The limit of four was a reform, along with requirements that the wives must be adequately taken care of and etc. I don’t consider multiple marriage to be inherently problematic, so I don’t find this to be a persuasive point.
- A husband may simply get rid of one of his undesirable wives.
Under the Quran, both men and women may initiate divorce. Meanwhile, divorce in England required either an act of Parliament or a lengthy, expensive annulment process until 1857.
- Husbands may hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives (quite apart from whether they actually are highhanded).
It should come as no surprise that men striking their wives was the status quo at the time.
- Mature men are allowed to marry prepubescent girls.
…As was this.
To recap: Islamic law granted women far more equality than what was available elsewhere at the time.
I have to admit that given the nature of the passage, I had made the assumption that there were at least two groups of people in Mecca. Those who would be allowed to surrender and those that wouldn’t be allowed. The later being polytheists.
Fitnah is a rather ambiguous term. If we take it for what it means in the above passage it is pretty clear that non-believers can be killed at will until they convert (or submit, or leave, etc).
If we take it to mean ‘persecuted’ as many do, then we can see that Muslims are only allowed to fight defensively until the persecution stops, which means the other side has surrendered, left, converted, etc.
So, let’s understand what really happened in Mecca. Mohammed started preaching, al a Joseph Smith, and that pissed off the current hierarchy. They gave him the boot and his people a number of times. Mohammed spins this as being persecuted and now we have a ‘defensive’ war. Given that the spoils of these wars were divided 80-20 between the army and the prophet, it doesn’t take much of an excuse to make any excursion about stopping persecution.
Nope, just the one, the Muslims left with Mohammed on the Hegira.
When the Muslims conquered Mecca, the polytheists’ surrender was accepted, and there was no massacre of non-Muslims.
Note that the Sahih International Quran translates “Az-Zalimun” as “oppressors”, and your source’s 2nd translation (“wrong-doers”) seems to fit with that.
That is how armed conflicts traditionally end, after all: somebody gives up.
To be clear: you are claiming that Muslims were not persecuted in Mecca, that this was merely “spin” by Mohammed? Wow.
It’s how they start that is somewhat pertinent.
They may well have been. Do we have any records from the other side? In any case, a perfect opportunity for a ‘defensive’ war and a division of the spoils, conversion of the remaining heathens, etc.
Sure. Killing people for advocating a different religion and threatening the pilgrimage business is one way a conflict could start.
You seem very eager to justify your dislike of Islam, to the point that you’re now resorting to citing conspiracies you’ve invented.
If you want to learn more about Mohammed, get a copy of Martin Lings’ Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources. If you want to discuss Islam, as in the religion that many people follow, we can do that.
If you want to discuss your own version of Islam, I’ll leave you to it.
Ah, so the Meccans were the bad guys for telling Mohammed to get out, but when he does it, it is okay. Got it.