Is Islam nothing but an international religious mafia?

[firedragon]

I find the rules of the religion impossible to make sense:
1. Death Penalty for blasphemy and apostasy.
2. Playing victim after committing a crime
3. Blurring the lines between defense and violence, good and bad?
4. Being both a religion and a state.

Lots of Muslims are wonderful people just like people of many other religions are humanitarian despite the religious teachings themselves. But the core of their beliefs is extraordinarily medieval and completely unamenable to reforms. Anyone else who is wondering the same?

This would depend on your source of knowledge.

Where did you learn about Islam?

 

[firedragon]

Death for apostate and blasphemy is intrinsic to Islam

Thats actually false.

Think about it. Lets say I watch you say this, and decide that Hinduism is al about making things up about Islam, do you think that would be right? I just judged the book by the cover. I judged Hinduism by watching you.

What you say?

 

[firedragon]

I don't consider Islam significantly different from Christianity on paper.

Christians and Muslims each revere a Semitic desert god, Yahweh and Allah, that is an angry, vengeful, jealous, judgmental, sadistic, prudish, strongman that requires worship and submission.

Believers of both attend temples (Mosques or churches) and obey paternalistic, misogynisitic clergy.

Both religions embrace magical thinking, mythology, dogma, the supernatural, and ritual.

Each feature demons angels, prayer, an afterlife, a judgment, and a system of reward and punishment after death.

Each has its now centuries old holy book of internal contradictions, failed prophecies, and errors of history and science. I'm not as sure about the Qur'an, but it likely also contain vengeance, hatred, tribalism, violence, and failed morals that endorse slavery, rape, infanticide, and incest.

They each think they have the right to determine who should be allowed to diddle whom how, who should be able to marry whom, and what women must do regarding their bodies.

Both are patriarchal, authoritarian, misogynistic, sexually repressive, anhedonisitic, atheophobic, homophobic, antiscientiific, use psychological terrorism on their children, have violent histories featuring torture, genocide and terrorism, and demand obedience and submission.

Each consider faith a virtue and reason a problem.

Each has a history of opposing human rights and science.

Each advocates theocracy over democracy.

With all of these similarities - and that is a lot of parallels, most not found elsewhere - why should these two appear so differently in the regions where they predominate? The differences are in the rendering, which reflects the history and the culture of the areas in which each has flourished over the last few centuries. The Christian West has been under the influence of the secular democracies that emerged from the rise of Enlightenment values and secular humanism and has been dramatically influenced by its rational ethics. Hence, Christians no longer execute people for homosexuality, adultery, witchcraft, fornication, apostasy, impiety, blasphemy, and other crimes against Yahweh, whereas Muslims are still free to kill such people. They have largely accepted democracy, human rights, individual freedom, and secular government, all of which lags behind in the Middle East.

If you extract Christianity and Islam from their surrounding cultures, they appear very similar, as outlined above. If you traded the ideologies out, and put Christianity in Saudi Arabia and Islam in America, the results would be the same: Christian Arabs still relatively sheltered from the influences of secular humanism would still be cutting off hands and heads, pushing homosexuals off of Towers, doing honor killings, genital mutilation, suicide bombings, and flying buildings into airplanes.

And Americans would still be going door to door asking if you know Mohammed rather than Jesus. America would still be a secular state with a Muslim majority forced to tolerate "infidels" thanks to humanist values, and Saudi Arabia and Iran would still be a brutal, intolerant theocracies, but Christian ones instead. You might be blown up for drawing a picture of Jesus, or have a fatwa placed on you for speaking ill of St. Paul.

If you consider Christianity less brutal, less medieval than Islam, thank those that led us from the Age of Faith into the Age of Reason - the scientists and philosophers of the Enlightenment, and those who implemented their ideas.

I think you should study this subject a tad.

 

[firedragon]

Because no one can publicly criticize Islam beheaded without getting beheaded/physically attacked and many Islamic countries explicitly ban conversion from Islam.Example.Saudi Arabia converted from Pagan religion to Islam and converted back to Pagan religion is banned, Iran and parts of Afghanistan converted from Zoroastrian religion to Islam but converting back to Zoroastrian faith is banned. Pakistan and Malaysia converted from Hinduism to Islam and converted back to hinduism. There is the informal death penalty for blasphemy (from Islam) in India but the blame is on Hindu nationalists. There is the context of this in the early days of Islam itself.

Christianity,Hinduism,Buddhism and Judaism all have progressed to a point of coexistence without much violence.

Some so called HIndu Nationalists recently lynched and killed a young Muslim guy. That is just muslims blaming Hindus for blasphemy? Not hinduism or Hindus at fault right?

 

[Clara Tea]

I find the rules of the religion impossible to make sense:
1. Death Penalty for blasphemy and apostasy.
2. Playing victim after committing a crime
3. Blurring the lines between defense and violence, good and bad?
4. Being both a religion and a state.

Lots of Muslims are wonderful people just like people of many other religions are humanitarian despite the religious teachings themselves. But the core of their beliefs is extraordinarily medieval and completely unamenable to reforms. Anyone else who is wondering the same?

Same definition of many religions?

 

[Clara Tea]

Because no one can publicly criticize Islam beheaded without getting beheaded/physically attacked and many Islamic countries explicitly ban conversion from Islam.Example.Saudi Arabia converted from Pagan religion to Islam and converted back to Pagan religion is banned, Iran and parts of Afghanistan converted from Zoroastrian religion to Islam but converting back to Zoroastrian faith is banned. Pakistan and Malaysia converted from Hinduism to Islam and converted back to hinduism. There is the informal death penalty for blasphemy (from Islam) in India but the blame is on Hindu nationalists. There is the context of this in the early days of Islam itself.

Christianity,Hinduism,Buddhism and Judaism all have progressed to a point of coexistence without much violence.

Israel....the land of peace. I think that the problem is that they are surrounded by those who would do them harm. They must build fences to block terrorists. They must restrict movements and make kerfews. This means that there is a time of day for would-be enemies to shop and a time when they cannot. So, their enemies are not free to get the best prices or merchandise. They can't give up land or their enemies will be too close. If they don't give up land, they will rile their enemies. Land for peace doesn't work (gave land, got no peace).

Christianity....coexistence without much violence...."fightin' evil"....."fightin' the Axis of Evil".....fightin' Niger because Christians blamed them for selling yellow-cake Uranium to Iraq. Torture camp at Guantanamo. Etc.

 

[Clara Tea]

This would depend on your source of knowledge.

Where did you learn about Islam?

It is hard to find knowledge that has not been skewed. The CIA rewrote wikipedia's article on W. Bush. Now it says that W. Bush dealt with complaints about torture. I wonder if they will rewrite Hitler that way as well?

 

[Spirit of Light]

You just described individual people, not Islam as defined by its teachings.

I described sufism, a part of Islam

 

[firedragon]

It is hard to find knowledge that has not been skewed. The CIA rewrote wikipedia's article on W. Bush. Now it says that W. Bush dealt with complaints about torture. I wonder if they will rewrite Hitler that way as well?

That is to do with warfare. But when studying theology, there are study materials. Direct sources. One just has to have an open mind and will.

 

[stevecanuck]

I find the rules of the religion impossible to make sense:
1. Death Penalty for blasphemy and apostasy.
2. Playing victim after committing a crime
3. Blurring the lines between defense and violence, good and bad?
4. Being both a religion and a state.

Lots of Muslims are wonderful people just like people of many other religions are humanitarian despite the religious teachings themselves. But the core of their beliefs is extraordinarily medieval and completely unamenable to reforms. Anyone else who is wondering the same?

To answer the question in the thread title, just consider verse 9:29 - "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.".

The underlined part is the very definition of 'the protection racket', so that would be a "yes".

 

[stevecanuck]

I described sufism, a part of Islam

Please quote the verses that define sufism. Thank you in advance.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Please quote the verses that define sufism. Thank you in advance.

It doesn't, I spoke from my personal understanding of sufism as a sufi my self.

 

[Spirit of Light]

And if your Lord had willed, He could have made [all] mankind one community; but they will not cease to differ. (Q.11:118)

And had your God willed, those on earth would have believed all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers? (Q. 10:99).

O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you into diverse nations and tribes so that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you (Q. 49:13).

Looking at these verses one can see that God in fact wills mankind to be diverse including differences in beliefs.

But for you guys who look for contradiction to these verses in the Quran, yes you can find them too.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Some so called HIndu Nationalists recently lynched and killed a young Muslim guy. That is just Muslims blaming Hindus for blasphemy? Not hinduism or Hindus at fault right?

Hindu Nationalism is a reactionary political movement because there is no rule of law in India - it is just a chaotic society. Hindu nationalists in India and Buddhist nationalist in Myanmar is basically using tactics that Islam has done ever since it came to South Asia ..because Muslims in India deliberately break local laws of the infidel( as long as they follow Sharia-their coreligionists don't seem to care). Cow killing and beef consumption are illegal in several parts of India-but Muslims who live by their own civil sharia code don't seem to care and neither does the law enforcement(they can't book the entire society) - so Hindu nationalists in their own idiotic way are taking revenge on law-breaking Muslims. Again, there are many law-abiding Muslims as well who can be affected during riots or clashes.

 

[Metempsychosis]

To answer the question in the thread title, just consider verse 9:29 - "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.".

The underlined part is the very definition of 'the protection racket', so that would be a "yes".

True, especially the Medinan verses do point in that direction.

 

[Metempsychosis]

And if your Lord had willed, He could have made [all] mankind one community; but they will not cease to differ. (Q.11:118)

And had your God willed, those on earth would have believed all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers? (Q. 10:99).

O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you into diverse nations and tribes so that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you (Q. 49:13).

Looking at these verses one can see that God in fact wills mankind to be diverse including differences in beliefs.

But for you guys who look for contradiction to these verses in the Quran, yes you can find them too.

Are they meccan verses?Most verses in the Initial non-political stage of Islam is peaceful.

Look at it this way,when Meccan Pagans were in majority in Arabia, Jews, Christians, and Muslims(though persecuted as per their claim) were allowed to stay in Arabia but as soon as Muslims came to power with the majority all these religions were converted or killed. Let’s not forget it was Muslims who claimed all the pagans were wrong and need to be converted which led to their persecution. Now, Here is a religion that claims itself to be persecuted while banning all other religions. We need to understand what counts as persecution of Muslims - traditionally, a simple cartoon or a critical poem can be an act of blasphemy and be worthy to be killed. And once a region becomes 100% Muslim, apostasy is criminalized with death, and blasphemy is also severely punished -lest these older religions come back. This is the reason why when this religion from Saudi Arabia goes to Thailand and Kashmir it claims persecuted while at the same time cleansing the region of other native religions.

 

[stevecanuck]

With all of these similarities - and that is a lot of parallels, most not found elsewhere - why should these two appear so differently in the regions where they predominate? The differences are in the rendering, which reflects the history and the culture of the areas in which each has flourished over the last few centuries. The Christian West has been under the influence of the secular democracies that emerged from the rise of Enlightenment values and secular humanism and has been dramatically influenced by its rational ethics. Hence, Christians no longer execute people for homosexuality, adultery, witchcraft, fornication, apostasy, impiety, blasphemy, and other crimes against Yahweh, whereas Muslims are still free to kill such people. They have largely accepted democracy, human rights, individual freedom, and secular government, all of which lags behind in the Middle East.

If you extract Christianity and Islam from their surrounding cultures, they appear very similar, as outlined above. If you traded the ideologies out, and put Christianity in Saudi Arabia and Islam in America, the results would be the same: Christian Arabs still relatively sheltered from the influences of secular humanism would still be cutting off hands and heads, pushing homosexuals off of Towers, doing honor killings, genital mutilation, suicide bombings, and flying buildings into airplanes.

And Americans would still be going door to door asking if you know Mohammed rather than Jesus. America would still be a secular state with a Muslim majority forced to tolerate "infidels" thanks to humanist values, and Saudi Arabia and Iran would still be a brutal, intolerant theocracies, but Christian ones instead. You might be blown up for drawing a picture of Jesus, or have a fatwa placed on you for speaking ill of St. Paul.

If you consider Christianity less brutal, less medieval than Islam, thank those that led us from the Age of Faith into the Age of Reason - the scientists and philosophers of the Enlightenment, and those who implemented their ideas.

Loosely stated, both the bible and the Qur'an are comprised of two quite different 'books'. The bible's divisions are obvious - O.T. and N.T., whereas the Qur'an is divided into Meccan surahs (first 12 years) and Medinan surahs (last 10 years). The casual observer wouldn't know this because the Qur'an is not compiled in chronological order. Surahs from both periods have been shuffled together like a deck of cards.

Once you know this, the difference in tone and content between the two periods becomes as clear as it is unsettling. The bible started with the vengeful god who destroyed people and places, and then turned to the love and forgiveness of the mythical character known as Jesus. In counterpoint, the Meccan verses were little more than warmed over O.T. stories, and then in Medina it got worse. Instead of God his own self raining down terror and destruction, He required Mohamed and his followers to pick up the sword and act as His henchmen. And they did. Now the ones that we call terrorists are trying to pick up where Mohamed left off.

 

[Kooky]

Death for apostate and blasphemy is intrinsic to Islam

And Christianity. And most pre-Christian religions.

Even many ostensibly secular European countries still have blasphemy laws on the books, or at the very least used to have them until the tail end of the 20th century.

 

[Kooky]

Now the ones that we call terrorists are trying to pick up where Mohamed left off.

Wow, I did not know the IRA, ETA, and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Nadu were all inspired by Mohamed!

Could you perhaps elaborate how these secular nationalist terrorist groups are connected to the Quran?

 

[Metempsychosis]

Loosely stated, both the bible and the Qur'an are comprised of two quite different 'books'. The bible's divisions are obvious - O.T. and N.T., whereas the Qur'an is divided into Meccan surahs (first 12 years) and Medinan surahs (last 10 years). The casual observer wouldn't know this because the Qur'an is not compiled in chronological order. Surahs from both periods have been shuffled together like a deck of cards.

Once you know this, the difference in tone and content between the two periods becomes as clear as it is unsettling. The bible started with the vengeful god who destroyed people and places, and then turned to the love and forgiveness of the mythical character known as Jesus. In counterpoint, the Meccan verses were little more than warmed over O.T. stories, and then in Medina it got worse. Instead of God his own self raining down terror and destruction, He required Mohamed and his followers to pick up the sword and act as His henchmen. And they did. Now the ones that we call terrorists are trying to pick up where Mohamed left off.

Yes I do know what you are saying. Also, the Meccan section is when the early Muslims were in a powerless position and in minority. Medinan part is when he was a political successful ruler.