ATHEISTS ONLY: The 'problem' of Islam

[frg001]

I am (maybe unnecessarily) becoming increasingly worried about the rise in population of Islam in Europe. In France the figure is almost 10%. In my own homeland it is half that, but rising. In my current country (Sweden) it is about the same.

We have already witnessed the appeasment and relaxing of certain laws to allow for some involvement of Sharia courts.

My problem, as an atheist, and a humanist who currently enjoys a pretty decent amount of freedom of speech and of expression, is that if the Islamic population were to rise to a certain level, it would allow for the (maybe remote) possibility of an Islamic biased, or indeed Islamic based government being elected. At least it could start a rise in laws that would restrict the freedoms and protection I currently enjoy.

I can't think of a single government that is Islamic by nature and not secular, where the levels of freedoms, and of human rights, are not severely compromised.

Now, as a caring, humanitarian, and humanist I would never advocate extreme measures to combat this (if indeed it needs to be combatted), but I am genuinely worried for the future, if not mine, then my childs.

What non-violent steps are possible?
Does anyone else have this worry?

 

[Breathe]

Yes, I have this worry also.
In my city 10 years ago "Muslim" was unheard of. Now there's a very large mosque, and now the school I went to has about about 10-20% Muslims, I only left about 5 or 6 years ago!

There are at least 1,000 or 2,000 Muslims in in my city if one counts only the ones who go to the mosque by me during Ramadan - there is more than one mosque in my city, also, and there is a whole section which has been dubbed the "Muslim District", no non-Muslim goes there if they can help it.

Sad, but true.

 

[frg001]

Islam is ok , but terrorist attack as in mumbai ( india) is unacceptable .

But what about the original question?
I agree with what you say, ie I agree with religious freedom. But not when that very freedom threatens the freedoms of others. For example if I had been living in Egypt when their ludicrous ID scheme was created I would have had to specify I was muslim, xian or jewish. Since I am none, and would not have lied, then I would have had to leave. If I had been an Egyptian atheist (or in fact follower of any faith not mentioned), I would have had to lie, or else lose all my rights as a citizen starting from healthcare, banking, marriage etc. It is exactly this sort of criminal policy that I hope never rears its ugly head in Europe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We have already witnessed the appeasment and relaxing of certain laws to allow for some involvement of Sharia courts.

Mischaracterization. There's been at least one thread here that's done the topic to death, but the short version is this:

The Arbitration Act allows people in civil cases (assuming everyone agrees, of course) to take their dispute to an independent mediator and go through alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to resolve the matter instead of the courts. The law allows quite a bit of latitude in terms of how that ADR process is carried out. Most of the time, it's used to save the cost of a long and expensive trial. Conceivably, it could be used to settle disputes through an American Gladiators-style contest. Some people use it to settle disputes in accordance with principles in the Qu'ran and Hadiths. Muslims aren't getting special treatment.

My problem, as an atheist, and a humanist who currently enjoys a pretty decent amount of freedom of speech and of expression, is that if the Islamic population were to rise to a certain level, it would allow for the (maybe remote) possibility of an Islamic biased, or indeed Islamic based government being elected. At least it could start a rise in laws that would restrict the freedoms and protection I currently enjoy.

So... because you worry potential future risks to your own freedom of speech and expression, you think that these same freedoms should be curtailed for others?

Is that what you're really after? If so, the idea seems amazingly hypocritical.

 

[YmirGF]

I can't think of a single government that is Islamic by nature and not secular, where the levels of freedoms, and of human rights, are not severely compromised.

The reality is that no such government exists. A careful review of Islam throughout history suggests that Islam is a system of belief that nurtures Intolerance and prejudice against all things un-Islamic, as nothing un-Islamic is acceptable to Allah.

And whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter. (Pickthall tr)

And forsake those who take their religion for a pastime and a jest, and whom the life of the world beguileth. Remind (mankind) hereby lest a soul be destroyed by what it earneth. It hath beside Allah no protecting ally nor intercessor, and though it offer every compensation it will not be accepted from it. Those are they who perish by their own deserts. For them is drink of boiling water and a painful doom, because they disbelieved.(Pickthall tr)

94 They will make excuse to you (Muslims) when ye return unto them. Say: Make no excuse, for we shall not believe you. Allah hath told us tidings of you. Allah and His messenger will see your conduct, and then ye will be brought back unto Him Who knoweth the Invisible as well as the Visible, and He will tell you what ye used to do.
95 They will swear by Allah unto you, when ye return unto them, that ye may let them be. Let them be, for lo! they are unclean, and their abode is hell as the reward for what they used to earn.
96 They swear unto you, that ye may accept them. Though ye accept them. Allah verily accepteth not wrongdoing folk.(Pickthall tr)

O ye who believe! Be not friendly with a folk with whom Allah is wroth, (a folk) who have despaired of the Hereafter as the disbelievers despair of those who are in the graves.(Pickthall tr)

Given this is how Muslims perceive the "religion of peace", It is difficult to meet such thinking half-way, over a cup of tea. No doubt I am missing the "peace, love and beards" here.

Now, as a caring, humanitarian, and humanist I would never advocate extreme measures to combat this (if indeed it needs to be combatted), but I am genuinely worried for the future, if not mine, then my child's.

Though many Muslim's and their apologists would tell you that there is nothing to fear, when one reads the "fine print" in Islam, one may come to believe that such assurances are overly optimistic, if not patently naive and outright misleading.

What non-violent steps are possible?

I highly recommend that everyone read a few copies of the Qur'an, study the Sunna (The sayings of the Prophet) and try to grasp the completeness of the religion. Islam, quite literally, affects every area of daily life and virtually any question conceivable has been argued six ways to Sunday over the last 1400 years by Muslim scholars. It is extremely helpful to try to undertand their thinking and how they reach the conclusions they do.

So, read, read, read. Educate yourself about Islam (from reliable Islamic sources) and befriend Muslims and just talk to them. Gauge their responses to your questions accordingly, dialogue with them and try to understand the motivation for their thinking.

Does anyone else have this worry?

If it isn't a concern for people, it should be.

 

[frg001]

So... because you worry potential future risks to your own freedom of speech and expression, you think that these same freedoms should be curtailed for others?

Is that what you're really after? If so, the idea seems amazingly hypocritical.

Nope. As I said, I believe in freedom of religion as much as freedom of speech and expression. I only worry about the potential problem with losing freedoms (as happens when any government becomes non-secular).
I haven't got a problem with Muslims as such, only with the prospect of a less secular law system or government.

I am not advocating any overt action (like some nazi / right-wing organisations (BNP etc) are, I am simply asking the question.

 

[YmirGF]

So... because you worry potential future risks to your own freedom of speech and expression, you think that these same freedoms should be curtailed for others?

Is that what you're really after? If so, the idea seems amazingly hypocritical.

This to me is the most worrisome aspect of the whole discussion. It is a Catch-22. In effect, there isn't a damn thing we can "do" about it without being labelled racists, bigots, intolerant neaderthals and Neocon Islamophobes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Clearly, the only reasonable choice is to ban all such alternatives or accept all, without reservations. Personally, I don't see this as a grey area.

What do you mean by "without reservations"? I think the British Arbitration Act (i.e. the act that allows Sharia and Beth Din "courts") allows any type of arbitration you can think of, subject to only some basic rules for practicality and fairness.

 

[credance]

I have worked in the automotive industry most of my life. Due to outrageous lawsuits many dealerships require a buyer to sign an arbitration agreement before they will sell a car.
Arbitration could be a useful tool in deciding matters involving disputes of a religious nature without changing laws that could effect my life.
I want no part of the restrictions that Islam imposes on an individuals life choices.

 

[frg001]

Religion/Atheism in general is a 'problem'.
We must all accept that we are all agnostic. without certaintude.

Nope. I am a strong atheist. I believe a deity does not exist.

Also, all agnostics are in fact weak atheists anyway.

 

[frg001]

Then surely you must be against the Jewish people in Britain having their own courts, as well as laws such as the Loi Gayssot in France, which undoubtedly suits the interests of a single group?

BBC NEWS | UK | Religious courts already in use
"British Jews, particularly the orthodox, will frequently turn to their own religious courts, the Beth Din, to resolve civil disputes, covering issues as diverse as business and divorce."

Absolutely.
The only law that should prevail is the law of the land. And that law should ideally have zero influence from any of the countless number of different religions/cults that exist.
Until religion finally disappears (which I believe it will), then the only way we can have peace between them in the same land, is to have a completely secular government, and laws. The moment any minority interest group, such as jews or muslims, get any say in what should BE law, then it is simply the slippery slope to chaos.)
And I am not saying, I as an atheist should have any more rights...just that every group needs to be represented equally.
Shariah law is simply wrong. How many women are active in Shariah courts? How many homosexuals? Law making and judgement can only be passed when all sides are represented.

 

[frg001]

No, yours is a blind faith; which rests merely on your humanly opinion. however mine is the opinion that i should have no opinion on things that i know nothing about.
All atheists/theists are weak agnostics. They simply cannot resist the temptation to fulfill their desire to know; even if that means lieing to them selves.

I am sorry, but you are completely wrong. I don't spend a second of my time lying to myself. I am as certain that a deity does not exist, as I am that the kettle has just boiled and I am about to make a cup of tea. Now there are philosophical arguments that can state that that might not be true, but within the boundaries I dwell, it has, and I am.
The paranormal stories about god, muhammed etc are to me exactly the same as stories about Jack and the beanstalk, or Tom Thumb... fairy stories. They have zero basis in fact in my mind whatsoever. I am an atheist.

Either way, this is a stupid argument about semantics and not worth pursuing.
If you want to call yourself an agnostic, then fine.

 

[Panda]

*MOD POST*

This is a DIR forum, only Atheists can post here unless it is polite questions​

 

[frg001]

I am sorry, but you are completely wrong. I don't spend a second of my time lying to myself. I am as certain that a deity does not exist, as I am that the kettle has just boiled and I am about to make a cup of tea. Now there are philosophical arguments that can state that that might not be true, but within the boundaries I dwell, it has, and I am.
The paranormal stories about god, muhammed etc are to me exactly the same as stories about Jack and the beanstalk, or Tom Thumb... fairy stories. They have zero basis in fact in my mind whatsoever. I am an atheist.

Either way, this is a stupid argument about semantics and not worth pursuing.
If you want to call yourself an agnostic, then fine.

I know it's cheesy to quote yourself, but the kettle did indeed boil, and I had a cup of tea...therefore proving beyond doubt the non-existance of a deity...


But back on topic, has anyone else any ideas?

 

[Japaholic]

The 'problem' of Islam?

I dont think Islam is the problem, its peoples misinterpretation of Islam for power and gain. A Pakistani Muslim once said to me...

"Do you know why all Muslim countries are messed up? Because they don't follow Islam, they try to use it for their own gain. We are equal, the Koran teaches us that. The farther you go away from true Islamic principles the more strife God will rain down upon you."

 

[kai]

The 'problem' of Islam?

I dont think Islam is the problem, its peoples misinterpretation of Islam for power and gain. A Pakistani Muslim once said to me...

"Do you know why all Muslim countries are messed up? Because they don't follow Islam, they try to use it for their own gain. We are equal, the Koran teaches us that. The farther you go away from true Islamic principles the more strife God will rain down upon you."

Is it that easy to missinterpret then because that seems to be the norm doesnt it , the general consensus is that there are no Genuine Muslim states and there are no genuine Implementations of Sharia.

In that case the unalterable word of God in the Noble Quran seems to have failed.In that case we are getting a corruption that is indeed at best uneasy, at worst murderous.

 

[Japaholic]

In that case we are getting a corruption that is indeed at best uneasy, at worst murderous.

Thats correct my friend, it is the same for the Christian Church here in the UK. Same meat different sauce to use a rather poor analogy.

I think a person can have faith in Allah and dispair at the state of Muslim nations and the pratice called Islam carried out in his name.

By definition I am a Christian because I believe in Christ and his teachings. There is not one church that represents my view, they are all corrupt bastardisations of the true message. As much as I would like to pigeon hole myself to one group or another and share what I know to be true, my beliefs just dont fit anywhere.

The elite priest / immams twist things as they see fit to mould around their own agenda. That is the nature of the beast. The people who follow blindly are simply sheep who are derelict in their own duty to advance themselves spiritually/emotionally. They have little faith in themselves so conversely they project that into their church. If I think about a sentence in english, translate it to japanese, pass it to my mate who translates it from Japanese to punjabi, then later from punjabi back to English. It won't be the original due to the whisper effect. We are human, nothing more. We are not fully able to see Gods purpose, if we could, we wouldn't have all this hate and war in the world.

God, I wish I could project my thoughts onto this page, my fingers can't keep up. One thought killed by anticipation of the next.......

 

[Breathe]

Japaholic, I agree with you here. Especially about the English->Japanese->Punjabi->English.

 

[GURSIKH]

i agree ,its followers who are unholy . but one question is still there

why religious extremism , is higher in Islam ?

 

[kai]

i agree ,its followers who are unholy . but one question is still there

why religious extremism , is higher in Islam ?

Good question, i dont think its higher, but it certainly is the most violent.