islam and barbarity

[Monotheist 101]

Does islam make people cruel, or allow them to remain so, or is islam somehow attractive to people in cruel societies?

I find it amusing how your questions are directed at Scholars who have been studying Islam all their lives..and living in Muslim countries amongst Muslims..I find this thread to be a joke..Most of the opinions expressed in this thread are just that, worthless opinions..over generalizing a billion people on earth.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Jesus taught the tree is identified by the fruit it bears. (Matthew 7:17-20) I do not believe you can divorce the religion from the barbarity of those who practice Islam, any more then you can divorce the barbarity of (false) Christians from their religion. Often, it is religious teachings that motivate their adherents to barbarous acts. I believe the Bible speaks of all such religions as a symbolic evil harlot, and tells us to get out of her. (Revelation 18:4) Revelation 18:24 says: "Yes, in her was found the blood of prophets and of holy ones and of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth.”

Using your logic, it would be fair to say that those Muslims who are terrorists are not true Muslims. You cannot assert one and not the other. If all those Christians who have performed heinous and barbarous acts are not true Christians, the same can be said of those Muslims who do the same.

Now onto another point, which really has nothing to do with the OP, but since you pointed it out, I'll say this: if the verse you quoted is the criteria of a "true" religion, then what does this say of religions such as Taoism and Buddhism? Furthermore, what does it say of Judaism, in light of the OP?

 

[Looncall]

I find it amusing how your questions are directed at Scholars who have been studying Islam all their lives..and living in Muslim countries amongst Muslims..I find this thread to be a joke..Most of the opinions expressed in this thread are just that, worthless opinions..over generalizing a billion people on earth.

For which muslim-dominated societies are my observations inaccurate? I am willing to be corrected.

I have not commented about individuals, scholars or otherwise.

 

[Monotheist 101]

For which muslim-dominated societies are my observations inaccurate? I am willing to be corrected.

I have not commented about individuals, scholars or otherwise.

You fail to grasp the sarcasm..:thud:

Let me put it in simple terms..your questions need to be directed at someone who has been studying Islamic societies not randoms on the internet..

Eitherway, I reckon this discussion is flawed because it only concentrates on Muslim societies, you could have approached it better, say a study on how the definition of barbaric has changed over the last 2000 years..or on Arab and eastern societies..not Muslims, thats just too large of a group to be categorized together when determining cultural norms..Muslims are a diverse group, the only thing we share in common for certain is our belief in One God and his last messenger Muhammad..IMO religion doesnt have a part to play with barbarism, culture does..

 

[MeLtiZBleaCh]

For which muslim-dominated societies are my observations inaccurate? I am willing to be corrected.

I have not commented about individuals, scholars or otherwise.

why must you compare the beliefs of a faith to those of societies. Societies can influence their faith for there own gains. It is not neccessary that a society is representative of its faith. As far as any faith is concerned if its followers reside in developed countries they wont be barbaric. Observe this general trend and you will realise that christian societies were also barbaric during the middle ages. Let us just say that muslim societies are not civillized enough as compared to christian societies. and Atheists follow science and science requires education another privillege of the developed world.

 

[Riverwolf]

What non-muslim countries explicitly and thoroughly deny equal rights to women?

Japan.

In which ones is it common for howling mobs to commit mass murder over trifling disagreements over religion while at the same time telling us "there is no compulsion in religion"?

Didn't realize that was common anywhere. After all, if it were, I somehow doubt a country's population would sustain itself or not break out in civil war.

On the other hand, Rwanda.

It is the pervasive and often institutional nature of these evils I am interested in.

Specific evils, to be sure, but they used to be quite universal throughout the world.

Muslims claim superior morality, yet their social organization does not back this up. If islam is not the cause of the cruelty, one must still ask why islam is so ineffective in preventing it. The correlation between cruelty and islam also remains to be explained.

Does islam make people cruel, or allow them to remain so, or is islam somehow attractive to people in cruel societies?

As if Islam didn't exist outside these countries.

'Sides, we're all barbarians, because we don't speak Ancient Greek.

 

[Looncall]

Japan.

Didn't realize that was common anywhere. After all, if it were, I somehow doubt a country's population would sustain itself or not break out in civil war.

On the other hand, Rwanda.

Specific evils, to be sure, but they used to be quite universal throughout the world.

As if Islam didn't exist outside these countries.

'Sides, we're all barbarians, because we don't speak Ancient Greek.

I don't know about Japan, but will check it out.

As for the mobs, I bring to mind recent reports from Egypt, Pakistan and Syria and earlier ones from Iraq. Sectarian animosities seem to be fracturing the opposition movement in Syria. Iraq would likely have seen the Americans leave sooner had the shias and sunnis not been so busy murdering each other, as they continue to do. As for civil war, I gather that that is breaking out all over the muslim world.

Nice one about the Greeks.

 

[nameless]

What is barbarian, and what were these cultures like before Islam?

what does the cultures before islam has to do with this?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Even if one were to accept a correlation between Islamic countries and barbarism, attempts to equate Islam with barbarism run into immediate problems. How, for example, is one to explain the Golden Age of Islam against the backdrop of an often barbaric Christianity?

And this, too, is Islam.


The OP reflects nothing so much as bigoted sophistry and an invitation to hate speech.

 

[Moishe3rd]

The existence of Islam is due to Muhammad making it the supreme Tribe of Arabia.
It is, by default, a tribal culture.
The Arabs of Arabia were a raiding culture. An Arab accepting Islam became part of the Muslim tribe and could no longer raid his own people. They went forth and conquered.
As is pointed out, not so much different from the rest of the world.
Except - Islam never did form nation states as did Europe, separating religion and State.
However, the Muslim empires were no different from any other empires throughout history. Some good; some bad; some stable; some unstable...

With the dominance of Europeans in the 19th Century and the complete disintegration of the last Ottoman Empire - Islam changed.
As always, it started in Arabia. The tribe of al Saud, after two previous attempts at conquest over the previous 175 years, finally conquered and consolidated the Arabian peninsula under their new death cult version of Sunni Islam, the Wahhabi cult.
The Saud/Wahhabists were the true proponents of the non-Islamic philosophy - convert or die. However, they applied this philosophy to the otherSunni Muslims of the Arabian peninsula.
The Shia, largely due to European and American protection, were able to somewhat escape the slaughter and dominance of the Saudis in consolidating the now absolutist monarchy of the tribal "kings" of Arabia.
However, these conquests began the present Great Sectarian Civil War of the Arab world, which has affected and spilled over into all of Islam, as the Saudis have exported their death cult Wahhabist philosophy to the entire planet until it has replaced normative Sunni Islam today. All of the radical, terrorist, Islamist Sunni groups today, descend from Wahhabism.

With the modern free for all in the Arab world, other Arab "chieftains" arose, wielding the swords of European exploitation and military prowess. Nasser; Saddam; the Assad's; the Shah; Quaddafy; and others.
Both the religious fanatics and the secular fanatics were based on the same tribal ethics - the demagogic leadership of the chieftain and merciless Arab raiding tactics against their enemies.

Shia Islam attained it's own death cult with the invention of Khomeini's Vilayat al Fiqh, "Rule of the Jurist," that conquered Iran and began exporting its own terrorist philosophies throughout the world.

Islam and Arabs are locked into a death spiral with themselves. The rest of the world; "Dar al Harb;" the "Far Enemy," is incidental to the savage battle that Islam and Arabs are fighting against the "Near Enemy" in their supposed "Dar al-Islam."
Attacks against non-Muslims; non- Arabs - the "West;" Israel; America; whomever, are merely coup points and street cred for any particular faction or sect to gain more adherents and demonstrate their power over other Arab or Muslim factions and sects.

The Muslim and Arab world is not barbaric because they are murdering non-Muslims and non-Arabs - that is all just "politics."
The Muslim and Arab world is barbaric because they ripping each other's throats out - slaughtering each other in ever increasing mountains of blood.
And, yes, their spillover into the rest of the world could well destroy portions of planet Earth and massacre billions of those non Muslims and non Arabs who are merely content to watch them annihilate each other in ever increasing brutality.

As did the European secularists affect the entire planet as they ripped out each other's throats (and anyone else they could lay hands on) during WWII while those merely content to watch tried to avoid getting involved....
Remember - if the Germans and Russians (and Japanese and Chinese) and all of the rest of the players in the game of world domination would have had nuclear weapons and other yet untried weapons of mass destruction during WWII, they would have used them - as they used poison gas in WWI; as the US used the atom bomb as soon as they could...

When you add a suicide death cult philosophy to weapons of mass destruction, you create something resembling the end of the world....

 

[nameless]

Maybe it's a third world / developing world problem?

If those countries were first world, do you think they'd have the same reputations?

is this problem common in non-islamic third world nations also?

 

[McBell]

Or your unnecessary input..

Interesting how you are so quick to point out in others what you yourself are guilty of...

 

[Riverwolf]

As for the mobs, I bring to mind recent reports from Egypt, Pakistan and Syria and earlier ones from Iraq. Sectarian animosities seem to be fracturing the opposition movement in Syria. Iraq would likely have seen the Americans leave sooner had the shias and sunnis not been so busy murdering each other, as they continue to do. As for civil war, I gather that that is breaking out all over the muslim world.

Good point, I will admit. Still waking up.

Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with Islam itself, because the situation is pretty much identical to post-Industrial Europe.

 

[Riverwolf]

what does the cultures before islam has to do with this?

As I said later, if the cultures were either identical, or worse, than their current manifestations, then Islam is not the cause.

 

[Riverwolf]

Even if one were to accept a correlation between Islamic countries and barbarism, attempts to equate Islam with barbarism run into immediate problems. How, for example, is one to explain the Golden Age of Islam against the backdrop of an often barbaric Christianity?

And this, too, is Islam.


The OP reflects nothing so much as bigoted sophistry and an invitation to hate speech.

:clap

 

[Looncall]

Good point, I will admit. Still waking up.

Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with Islam itself, because the situation is pretty much identical to post-Industrial Europe.

My sympathy, I know what you mean. "Waking up is hard to do." (paraphrase of an old pop song, at risk of dating myself, I suppose)

Please expand on post-industrial Europe. I'm not aware of religious wars at that time.

 

[Looncall]

As I said later, if the cultures were either identical, or worse, than their current manifestations, then Islam is not the cause.

Yet, if the problems are evident across disparate cultures, what then?

 

[MeLtiZBleaCh]

The existence of Islam is due to Muhammad making it the supreme Tribe of Arabia.
It is, by default, a tribal culture.
The Arabs of Arabia were a raiding culture. An Arab accepting Islam became part of the Muslim tribe and could no longer raid his own people. They went forth and conquered.
As is pointed out, not so much different from the rest of the world.
Except - Islam never did form nation states as did Europe, separating religion and State.
However, the Muslim empires were no different from any other empires throughout history. Some good; some bad; some stable; some unstable...

With the dominance of Europeans in the 19th Century and the complete disintegration of the last Ottoman Empire - Islam changed.
As always, it started in Arabia. The tribe of al Saud, after two previous attempts at conquest over the previous 175 years, finally conquered and consolidated the Arabian peninsula under their new death cult version of Sunni Islam, the Wahhabi cult.
The Saud/Wahhabists were the true proponents of the non-Islamic philosophy - convert or die. However, they applied this philosophy to the otherSunni Muslims of the Arabian peninsula.
The Shia, largely due to European and American protection, were able to somewhat escape the slaughter and dominance of the Saudis in consolidating the now absolutist monarchy of the tribal "kings" of Arabia.
However, these conquests began the present Great Sectarian Civil War of the Arab world, which has affected and spilled over into all of Islam, as the Saudis have exported their death cult Wahhabist philosophy to the entire planet until it has replaced normative Sunni Islam today. All of the radical, terrorist, Islamist Sunni groups today, descend from Wahhabism.

With the modern free for all in the Arab world, other Arab "chieftains" arose, wielding the swords of European exploitation and military prowess. Nasser; Saddam; the Assad's; the Shah; Quaddafy; and others.
Both the religious fanatics and the secular fanatics were based on the same tribal ethics - the demagogic leadership of the chieftain and merciless Arab raiding tactics against their enemies.

Shia Islam attained it's own death cult with the invention of Khomeini's Vilayat al Fiqh, "Rule of the Jurist," that conquered Iran and began exporting its own terrorist philosophies throughout the world.

Islam and Arabs are locked into a death spiral with themselves. The rest of the world; "Dar al Harb;" the "Far Enemy," is incidental to the savage battle that Islam and Arabs are fighting against the "Near Enemy" in their supposed "Dar al-Islam."
Attacks against non-Muslims; non- Arabs - the "West;" Israel; America; whomever, are merely coup points and street cred for any particular faction or sect to gain more adherents and demonstrate their power over other Arab or Muslim factions and sects.

The Muslim and Arab world is not barbaric because they are murdering non-Muslims and non-Arabs - that is all just "politics."
The Muslim and Arab world is barbaric because they ripping each other's throats out - slaughtering each other in ever increasing mountains of blood.
And, yes, their spillover into the rest of the world could well destroy portions of planet Earth and massacre billions of those non Muslims and non Arabs who are merely content to watch them annihilate each other in ever increasing brutality.

As did the European secularists affect the entire planet as they ripped out each other's throats (and anyone else they could lay hands on) during WWII while those merely content to watch tried to avoid getting involved....
Remember - if the Germans and Russians (and Japanese and Chinese) and all of the rest of the players in the game of world domination would have had nuclear weapons and other yet untried weapons of mass destruction during WWII, they would have used them - as they used poison gas in WWI; as the US used the atom bomb as soon as they could...

When you add a suicide death cult philosophy to weapons of mass destruction, you create something resembling the end of the world....

As far as Muslim "rightful scholars" (The ones that dont wish to commit mass murder or anything near violence) are concerned only the first 4 Caliphs(Chieftains of The Islamic Empire) after the death Of Muhammad abided to the teachings of the religion.

I Would also like to point out that the 3rd Caliph was killed while he was protesting against CIVIL WAR between muslims and the 4th was assasinated(by a muslim) after the 1st Civil war. The whole in-fighting started after this period which was approximately 40 years or so after the death of the prophet. Since then I Dont believe there has been a single united ruling power similar to say the Vatican for the christians when it comes to the muslims.

 

[Moishe3rd]

As far as Muslim "rightful scholars" (The ones that dont wish to commit mass murder or anything near violence) are concerned only the first 4 Caliphs(Chieftains of The Islamic Empire) after the death Of Muhammad abided to the teachings of the religion.

I Would also like to point out that the 3rd Caliph was killed while he was protesting against CIVIL WAR between muslims and the 4th was assasinated(by a muslim) after the 1st Civil war. The whole in-fighting started after this period which was approximately 40 years or so after the death of the prophet. Since then I Dont believe there has been a single united ruling power similar to say the Vatican for the christians when it comes to the muslims.

I agree.
However, there was, indeed, "normative" Islam - both Shia and Sunni.
The Saud/Wahhabi corruption of Sunni Islam and the Khomeini corruption of Shia Islam, are hell bent on destroying the world.
The unrecognized facts are that this is a war of Muslims and Arabs against Muslims and Arabs.
Again, this is not so unusual - all the religions and peoples have warred against each other over time.
However - when the Jews did it 2,000 years ago, they wiped themselves out of the Kingdom of Israel and their Holy Temple.
When the Christians did it 500 years ago they wiped out tens of millions of Christians and decimated Europe.
Mecca has already been sacked and looted three times by the current Wahhabist cult in this current cycle of death and destruction.
Following those paradigms, the current fratricidal wars of Muslims and Arabs could wipe out large sections of planet Earth.

 

[dynavert2012]

As far as I am aware, all muslim-majority societies suffer certain institutionalized dysfunctions such as torture, lack of freedom of speech, religious intolerance, racism, misogyny etc. (I would be delighted to learn of any that do not.)

This is often attributed to underlying culture, yet applies across disparate cultures (Afghan vs Indonesian, for example).

Given how islam is described by its adherents (eg "religion of peace"), and how decent individual muslims living among other peoples mostly are, all this seems inexplicable. What gives?

Does islam make societies barbarous, or is islam somehow particularly attractive to barbarians?

although that i dislike the final question as it reflects too poor analysis for the situation of the Islamic states specially in the middle east, but i like the thread itself as it discusses about a too important issue in the world not only the Islamic world

the reason isn't one of the two choices you mentioned at the end of the thread nor it's due to the third world, poverty or even education, the reason that Islamic states are under occupation :yes: is it surprise? the Islamic states after the destroying of othmanic caliphate are under occupation, yes it's not the type of regular occupation we know like that tanks and air crafts attacks but it's a soft occupation and it's cheaper too.

when the west destroyed the Caliphate they ensured that it won't be established again and so before they marched off the Islamic states they left their agents in the ruling like ataturk in turkey and the family of Saud in the Arab Peninsula whom will never asking for Caliphate again and so now a secular elite are ruling a majority of Muslims who believe that it's a must to apply the law of Islam and it's a must to unite under the flag of Islam and as these majority of people are not allowed to rule as they may influence on the west's business in the middle east so always you will find troubles there, and it's not allowed for Muslims to select their leaders freely or bad things will happen like what happened in Algeria in the 90"s of last century and what happened in Egypt recently, if elections came with an Islamic leader it's a must to cancel it by the secular army leaders and the rest of reactions is known

and it would be like that till Muslims purify their belief and know that democracy will never lead to Islam

so the problem isn't in Islam, the problem in the occupation of the Islamic states by those secular agents