Become a muslim in three days or die

[LuisDantas]

You think islam does not take itself seriously?

Not as a religion. As a doctrine, it takes itself far too seriously.

And has no understanding of morals and virtue?

Really?

Yes, really. The core doctrine saddles itself with a tribalist level of ethics and a forbiddance from learning better.

That is a rather serious level of self-inflicted crippling, and travested as "submission to God" no less. Which makes it also disrespectful to theism in the abstract.

Any serious religion, or even any serious religious person owes it to themselves to rise above such a base level of ethics.

Actually, most everyone does.

 

[exchemist]

One thing at a time:

Totalitarian = "total system" or "total solution". Any system that prescribes both the political and the religious is a totalitarian system, correct?

Perhaps this is where we're disagreeing, on the semantics? Because near the top of your link to the golden age, is the statement that during the golden age, Muslim societies were mostly run by caliphates, which again are totalitarian.

No. A totalitarian system is a modern political system in which a political party or party leader exercises complete power over both public and private spheres of life, enforced through fear by a secret police force and often accompanied by a cult of personality. The pre-eminent example is Stalin's USSR, though Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy and Mao Tse Tung's China are worthy contenders too. N Korea is a surviving example today. No society in earlier times exerted anything like the degree of control of these systems.

These muslim societies were not "run by" caliphates, they were caliphates. A caliphate is like a monarchy. For example, Britain is not run by a monarchy, it is a monarchy. (The Queen by the way is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.) A caliphate just means a society ruled (or reigned over) by a caliph. Historically these were not remotely totalitarian in character, any more than any Christian monarchy or empire of the time. In fact they were sometimes considerably more tolerant and pluralist in thought than their contemporary Christian equivalents.

 

[exchemist]

Not as a religion. As a doctrine, it takes itself far too seriously.


Yes, really. The core doctrine saddles itself with a tribalist level of ethics and a forbiddance from learning better.

That is a rather serious level of self-inflicted crippling, and travested as "submission to God" no less. Which makes it also disrespectful to theism in the abstract.

Any serious religion, or even any serious religious person owes it to themselves to rise above such a base level of ethics.

Actually, most everyone does.

You might care to read this: Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

The foundation of the huge growth of knowledge under Islam in the Mediaeval period was due to the importance they placed on education, which was directly inspired by the Koran.

Your remarks may apply to extreme muslim fundamentalists today, but it is perfectly clear from history that this is far from intrinsic to Islam itself.

 

[ecco]

Nope. A religion is suppose to be, you know, respectable. And to take itself with a modicum of seriousness and self-respect. And to have a working understanding of moral and virtue.

Islaam fulfills none of those conditions.

Can you name one that does fulfill those conditions?

All except Islam.

You obviously don't know very much about religions. You obviously don't know very much about Christianity. If nothing else, it fails on the morality test.

 

[ecco]

Can you name one that does fulfill those conditions?

Sure. There are at least dozens.

"At least dozens" doesn't answer the question of naming one.

 

[LuisDantas]

You might care to read this: Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

The foundation of the huge growth of knowledge under Islam in the Mediaeval period was due to the importance they placed on education, which was directly inspired by the Koran.

Your remarks may apply to extreme muslim fundamentalists today, but it is perfectly clear from history that this is far from intrinsic to Islam itself.

I have to disagree. Islaam had better achieve something in about 1400 years and billions of people and conflicts (many of them bloody and internal).

There is no good reason whatsoever to expect the history of Earth to have been better with Islaam than without it.

 

[LuisDantas]

"At least dozens" doesn't answer the question of naming one.

Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, Paganism more generally, Satanism, much of Christianity, Jainism, Shinto.

And Islaam-in-rehab, better known as the Bahai Faith.

 

[exchemist]

I have to disagree. Islaam had better achieve something in about 1400 years and billions of people and conflicts (many of them bloody and internal).

There is no good reason whatsoever to expect the history of Earth to have been better with Islaam than without it.

What a feeble and evasive reply.

The point is that muslim societies, for five hundred years, cultivated and enhanced knowledge, were tolerant of other religions (many Christian and Jewish scholars were prominent contributors) and accepted plurality of thought, e.g. Avicenna's philosophy etc.

History thus gives the lie to your ignorant and bigoted mischaracterisation.

 

[Notanumber]

You might care to read this: Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

The foundation of the huge growth of knowledge under Islam in the Mediaeval period was due to the importance they placed on education, which was directly inspired by the Koran.

Your remarks may apply to extreme muslim fundamentalists today, but it is perfectly clear from history that this is far from intrinsic to Islam itself.

The basic problem with the Golden Age is the status of the Kafirs. They were dhimmis, third class citizens without civil rights.

The Islamic ethical basis of the Golden Age was dualism—one set of ethics for Muslims and another set for Kafirs. Kafirs had to wear special clothing, were prohibited from being in positions of power, had to get permission to repair their houses of worship and could not testify in courts against a Muslim. If a Kafir killed a Muslim, he received a death sentence, but if a Muslim killed a Kafir, he paid a fine. A Kafir was inferior in every way to a Muslim. How Golden is that?

Every Kafir lived under Sharia law and Sharia law is based upon the evil of the principles of submission and duality. Sharia is oppressive and cruel.

Where did all this propaganda about the Golden Age come from? Two sets of people created the Golden Age myth—French intellectuals such as Gibbons, Voltaire, and Jewish writers such as Graetz. Both had the same motivation—hatred of the Catholic church. Building up the wonderful Islamic culture was a reaction to the hated Catholics. There were Kafirs who prospered under Islam. They submitted and served Islam and their masters rewarded them. Every occupying army can persuade some locals to act as traitors for their own personal gain. Some of these Kafirs had positions of some power, but in the end, they were still servants of Islam.

Factual Persuasion: Golden Age? - WikiIslam

 

[exchemist]

The basic problem with the Golden Age is the status of the Kafirs. They were dhimmis, third class citizens without civil rights.

The Islamic ethical basis of the Golden Age was dualism—one set of ethics for Muslims and another set for Kafirs. Kafirs had to wear special clothing, were prohibited from being in positions of power, had to get permission to repair their houses of worship and could not testify in courts against a Muslim. If a Kafir killed a Muslim, he received a death sentence, but if a Muslim killed a Kafir, he paid a fine. A Kafir was inferior in every way to a Muslim. How Golden is that?

Every Kafir lived under Sharia law and Sharia law is based upon the evil of the principles of submission and duality. Sharia is oppressive and cruel.

Where did all this propaganda about the Golden Age come from? Two sets of people created the Golden Age myth—French intellectuals such as Gibbons, Voltaire, and Jewish writers such as Graetz. Both had the same motivation—hatred of the Catholic church. Building up the wonderful Islamic culture was a reaction to the hated Catholics. There were Kafirs who prospered under Islam. They submitted and served Islam and their masters rewarded them. Every occupying army can persuade some locals to act as traitors for their own personal gain. Some of these Kafirs had positions of some power, but in the end, they were still servants of Islam.

Factual Persuasion: Golden Age? - WikiIslam

I prefer not to rely on a notorious source of anti-muslim propaganda like Wikiislam, for my interpretations of history. WikiIslam - RationalWiki
Faith Freedom International - Wikipedia

The article I quoted on the Golden Age is from the real Wikipaedia.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never recanted because I never became aRevoltifarian but I never got any free donuts on Saturday anyway.

There must be some other strange happenings going on stopping me from getting free Saturday donuts.

If you'd show up on time, they wouldn't all be gone.

 

[LuisDantas]

What a feeble and evasive reply.

Give me a bit of time and I am sure that I will have a more incisive one.

The point is that muslim societies, for five hundred years, cultivated and enhanced knowledge, were tolerant of other religions (many Christian and Jewish scholars were prominent contributors) and accepted plurality of thought, e.g. Avicenna's philosophy etc.

History thus gives the lie to your ignorant and bigoted mischaracterisation.

Does it?

Frankly, I think that you are looking at matters in a very limited, biased way.

 

[icehorse]

No. A totalitarian system is a modern political system in which a political party or party leader exercises complete power over both public and private spheres of life, enforced through fear by a secret police force and often accompanied by a cult of personality. The pre-eminent example is Stalin's USSR, though Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy and Mao Tse Tung's China are worthy contenders too. N Korea is a surviving example today. No society in earlier times exerted anything like the degree of control of these systems.

These muslim societies were not "run by" caliphates, they were caliphates. A caliphate is like a monarchy. For example, Britain is not run by a monarchy, it is a monarchy. (The Queen by the way is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.) A caliphate just means a society ruled (or reigned over) by a caliph. Historically these were not remotely totalitarian in character, any more than any Christian monarchy or empire of the time. In fact they were sometimes considerably more tolerant and pluralist in thought than their contemporary Christian equivalents.

From the wikipedia article on totalitarianism:

a totalitarian regime attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life, including the economy, education, art, science, private life and morals of citizens.

While I agree with your definition, I also think mine is appropriate. I did not mean to imply that Islamic societies have been like the USSR or Hitler's Germany. But I did mean to say that Islam prescribes a system in which Islam controls virtually all aspects of life.

 

[Notanumber]

I prefer not to rely on a notorious source of anti-muslim propaganda like Wikiislam, for my interpretations of history. WikiIslam - RationalWiki
Faith Freedom International - Wikipedia

The article I quoted on the Golden Age is from the real Wikipaedia.

Muslims often claim that Islam fostered a rich heritage of scientific discovery, “paving the way” for modern advances in technology and medicine.

On this subject, they usually cite the period between the 7th and 13th centuries, when Europe was experiencing its “Dark Ages” and the Muslim world was acquiring new populations and culture through violent conquest.

The Truth:
Although there is no arguing that the Muslim world was relatively more advanced during this Middle Age period than the Christian world, the reasons for this have absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic religion - other than its mandate for military expansion. In fact, the religion tends to discourage knowledge outside of itself (Quran 5:101-102), which is why the most prolific Muslim scholars are mostly students of religion rather than science.

[Note that the country of Spain alone translates more learning material and literature into Spanish each year than the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic since the 9th century. As the Saudi Grand Mufti bluntly put it in 2010, "The Quran with its stories and knowledge are sufficient for us... we don't need the Torah, or Gospels, or any other book"].

The many fundamentalists and other devotees who dress as Muhammad did and adopt 7th century lifestyles to some degree underscore the importance of tradition in Islam. The religion is highly conservative and resistant to change, which is viewed with suspicion. As scholar Bernard Lewis points out: in Islam, an innovation is presumed to be bad unless it can be proven to be good.

Myth: Islam and Scientific Discovery

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Careful here. I said that I tend to know more about ISLAM than the Muslims I've met in person do. And I've admitted that the Muslims I've met personally amount to a tiny, tiny sample size. That's why I don't think personal anecdotes - on their own - amount to much.

Fair enough. But often times personal anecdotes can actually demonstrate the wrongfulness of blind generalization of a specific population based on what we see in media. But yes the little tiny groups we encounter are not enough to counter the media's position regarding the population itself.

As for Muslim communities in the US, the only one I have much of an opinion on is the community around Dearborn, Mi., and I have to say I've seen some troubling, anti-secular things there.

Yes but not enough to warrant any serious attention. There are anti-secularists in the Bible belt and are seeking to rid the south of planned parenthood clinics and rid options for women.

 

[Anthem]

you suppose if god rejected islam, they'd kill it?


Allahu Akabar

They would probably kill themselves thinking it's their fault.

 

[Anthem]

Muslims often claim that Islam fostered a rich heritage of scientific discovery, “paving the way” for modern advances in technology and medicine.

On this subject, they usually cite the period between the 7th and 13th centuries, when Europe was experiencing its “Dark Ages” and the Muslim world was acquiring new populations and culture through violent conquest.

The Truth:
Although there is no arguing that the Muslim world was relatively more advanced during this Middle Age period than the Christian world, the reasons for this have absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic religion - other than its mandate for military expansion. In fact, the religion tends to discourage knowledge outside of itself (Quran 5:101-102), which is why the most prolific Muslim scholars are mostly students of religion rather than science.

[Note that the country of Spain alone translates more learning material and literature into Spanish each year than the entire Arab world has translated into Arabic since the 9th century. As the Saudi Grand Mufti bluntly put it in 2010, "The Quran with its stories and knowledge are sufficient for us... we don't need the Torah, or Gospels, or any other book"].

The many fundamentalists and other devotees who dress as Muhammad did and adopt 7th century lifestyles to some degree underscore the importance of tradition in Islam. The religion is highly conservative and resistant to change, which is viewed with suspicion. As scholar Bernard Lewis points out: in Islam, an innovation is presumed to be bad unless it can be proven to be good.

Myth: Islam and Scientific Discovery

You could use clear quotes.

 

[Anthem]

And no more Stuff for ever and ever !

It's okay. I didn't read all of it either.

 

[Anthem]

Epic Beard Man takes a whole screen to tell us that Islamic law has the death penalty for abandoning Islam. Didn't we already know that?

And why does the person who was "born a Muslim" get treated worse than the one who converted? The convert made a promise to Allah and broke it. The "born Muslim" did nothing except draw the short straw when it came to parents.

And why can't Allah punish those who defy him, rather than rely on human law courts?

It was easier to dictate one book and move on to more interesting things.

 

[Anthem]

Since you are well read why not speak to a Muslim outside the internet about their faith?

They keep talking about the greatness of their religion without managing to mention one great thing about it. Task: hopeless