Unfair opinions about Islam :(

[Deidre]

Just because the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany killed millions of people, doesn't mean that all Russians or Germans are brutal people. It doesn't even mean all Nazis or Politburo members were bad people.

yes, agree.

It's the ideology, not the people. And especially an ideology that will not ever change since it's built on the belief that it is the final, literal, 100% eternal true word of God

I understand your point, but let me ask...does this mean that the vast majority of non-violent/peaceful Muslims are under the impression that the history of Muhammad is inaccurate and/or they ignore it and/or they justify it and/or...they don't entirely believe that the Qur'an is the eternal word of God?

Because in essence, that's what many here are suggesting as it relates to modern day, devout peaceful Muslims. Am I way off base...or?

 

[MD]

yes, agree.

I understand your point, but let me ask...does this mean that the vast majority of non-violent/peaceful Muslims are under the impression that the history of Muhammad is inaccurate and/or they ignore it and/or they justify it and/or...they don't entirely believe that the Qur'an is the eternal word of God?

Because in essence, that's what many here are suggesting as it relates to modern day, devout peaceful Muslims. Am I way off base...or?

I know you really want to believe that Islam is this perfect religion and are trying to justify to yourself, but there are psychological mechanisms human beings use to justify almost anything. SS Guards used to say 'they were only following orders' and many Germans would say that 'they just thought it was a factory' even though there was ash and the trains would go in full and come out empty from the concentration camps. There are a whole slew of mechanisms human beings use to deal with things, and Freud actually outlined them so well that it's even taught today in Medical Schools and PhD programs.

Your friends are ignoring the bad parts and are heavily influenced by secular enlightened values in picking and choosing. 'Oh it's the context' or 'Oh it's of the time'. If the book is the eternal word of God, then it is the eternal word for the rest of time. This is why ISIS is so brutal, they actually follow the Quran to the tee. This is why Iran stones women regularly, Islam clearly says stone the adulterer, and I've seen a stoning and it's mostly women. Maybe if you actually sat and watched a stoning you would realize that it's not this beautiful religion you think it is. I think you should to open your eyes. Saudi Arabia regularly beheads people, many of them screaming their innocence. The Taliban would regularly stone and shoot women in stadiums. These are just a few examples. I think in many ways ISIS, Taliban and Saudi Arabia follow the true Islam more than other cultures, whose prior pre Islamic beliefs have tamed what came out of Saudi Arabia.

(Christianity and Judaism have both share a lot of the same brutal sayings but don't follow them, so it's not applicable to them anymore)

 

[Sees]

yes, agree.

I understand your point, but let me ask...does this mean that the vast majority of non-violent/peaceful Muslims are under the impression that the history of Muhammad is inaccurate and/or they ignore it and/or they justify it and/or...they don't entirely believe that the Qur'an is the eternal word of God?

Because in essence, that's what many here are suggesting as it relates to modern day, devout peaceful Muslims. Am I way off base...or?

I think the focus is heavily shifted, especially as some want to move into a more Western type of society. After my own heart, a lot of early Islam was characterized by those who fought and died having the best reward in the Hereafter... per Muhammad's words on multiple occasions. Fits the Valhalla theme The best of Muslims were the ones who "gave life and property in the way of Allah" when asked between them and peaceful Muslims who live a quiet life - who was closer to Allah's way?

Progressive Muslims and nonbelievers would all rather the other side stays in the past. There will always be clerics and other people hungry for blood though, hungry for a Golden Age, who dig up the more warmongering side and get disenfranchised youths to become new martyrs hoping for great reward in the Hereafter.

Muhammad had visions Islam would rule from the furthest West to the furthest East, and that still most people would not be Muslim. Nowadays people are torn over whether Islam really is for Islamic rule worldwide. I don't think it was ever about tons of new converts but more so a victory flag in the name of Allah and His religion.

In the end for people who doubt the "fight only for defense" stuff being false, the easiest way to check is looking for how many references there are to promoting war booty for those who will fight, hadith references to warriors recruited before even accepting Islam, etc. - even after taking Mecca.

The nature of it is very hard to take with complete objectiveness.

In regards to how pious most are...it's all over the place and there are many who know little about the traditions as a whole. Enough to consider Muslim sourced material as Islamaphobic nonsense - which is pretty bad.

Since so much of the questionable or universally detestable is in Hadith accounts and historians accounts, I think the Quranist/Qur'an only segment will continue to grow big time. Leaving questionable Qur'anic verses to have a more loose and flexible interpretation and better relations with nonbelievers.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..he dispatched groups of hundreds to grab other areas of the Arabian peninsula, even resending them at times to finish the job..

No, you are just biased ..
Can you imagine how surrounding areas were feeling when they saw what was happening in the Arabian peninsula? .. ie. Islam was becoming established

Naturally, they felt threatened .. even more than when Jesus, peace be with him, was becoming well-known ~500 years before. The Muslims knew that if they didn't act, they would be slaughtered..

After Muhammad, peace be with him, passed away, that's a different matter .. the Muslims were even killing each other. Not with Almighty God's blessing obviously!

 

[Augustus]

But Deidre, virtually all sources we have about Muhammad are citations from his fanatical followers. There is very little written about him, by contemporaries, outside of the Arabian peninsula. The point is that those who chronicled his antics chose to report what they did as if there was nothing, even slightly, wrong with what he did. To this day, he is seen as the "perfect" example for all to follow, well by his fanatical followers, at least.

Almost all of the things written by Muhammed's (nearish) contemporaries are from people from outside the Islamic tradition. Written Muslim history starts about 200 years later. Pretty much all of Islamic history outside the Quran is very late and based on earlier oral histories (which makes its accuracy open to significant debate).

'Robert Hoyland -Seeing Islam as others saw' it is by far the best text that outlines the earliest writings about Islam (it's not cheap, but well worth the price if you are interested in history - Kindle version is the most affordable).

He has a new book about the Arab conquests which I haven't read yet but will definitely be well worth a look too.

If you apply the same standards as you would to every other historical period ever, early Islamic history is a very grey area.

 

[Augustus]

Islam clearly says stone the adulterer

The Quran says to flog them. Stoning is from the hadiths.

For this reason it is controversial, rather than 'clear'.

 

[Lyndon]

If we were to judge religions by how peaceably their religion started, we'd all be Buddhists, however I've heard of atrocities by the early Buddhist leader Ashoka who expanded Buddhism to most of modern day India. So maybe its better to just better just to have your own personal religion or relation to "God" and leave following this or that prophet to the fanatics.

 

[Lyndon]

The Quran says to flog them. Stoning is from the hadiths.

For this reason it is controversial, rather than 'clear'.

Seems clear to me, the Hadiths are not inspired, also the misogynist traits in Islamic countries have more to do with human nature than directions in the Koran, for its time, 650AD, the Koran gave women a lot more rights than they previously had, so you could hardly call the Koran sexist by 650AD standards

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah depression sucks, I hear you. :/

Though about the rest, can you find what you like about Catholicism elsewhere? Not nessesairily another organised religion... But just a thought. Though I'm guessing that's maybe what you're doing from your religion under your username?

I'm trying to piece my life together with things which I appreciate without going against my ethics and so on. Kind of hard being a seeker sometimes but it's taking me somewhere that I finally like and have no problems with.

Well, I know I can find stories of deities suffering for humanity in other religions. Of course, the most obvious example would be Prometheus suffering punishment from Zeus after giving humanity Divine Fire from Olympus. This is echoed in the stories of Lucifer in His guise of the Serpent in the Garden. Those stories probably are better for someone like me since they make more logical sense than the idea of Jesus as a human sacrifice where he supposedly "takes on" our sin in some unexplained way. Basically, Prometheus/Lucifer/the Serpent were punished for helping "the little guy" be liberated from a tyranny.

I think the best solution is just to have my own beliefs. I seem to get into trouble when I try to live up to someone else's standards of belief and conduct. What I find beautiful about Catholicism, I can still enjoy. I can even still go to Mass and enjoy it if I want, even if I turn to Satanism. I can have my cake and eat it, too.

 

[YmirGF]

Almost all of the things written by Muhammed's (nearish) contemporaries are from people from outside the Islamic tradition.

Which fits nicely onto the side of a box of Corn Flakes. Even those writings are few and far between.

Written Muslim history starts about 200 years later. Pretty much all of Islamic history outside the Quran is very late and based on earlier oral histories (which makes its accuracy open to significant debate).

That is pretty much my point. Thanks.

Robert Hoyland -Seeing Islam as others saw' it is by far the best text that outlines the earliest writings about Islam (it's not cheap, but well worth the price if you are interested in history - Kindle version is the most affordable).

He has a new book about the Arab conquests which I haven't read yet but will definitely be well worth a look too.

Sounds good, I'll look him up. To date, one of my favorite authors has been the world renowned, Professor Bernard Lewis, with his encyclopedic knowledge of Islam and the Middle East.

If you apply the same standards as you would to every other historical period ever, early Islamic history is a very grey area.

I know, but try telling that to some of our more enthusiastic Muslim apologists on RF.

 

[Augustus]

If we were to judge religions by how peaceably their religion started, we'd all be Buddhists, however I've heard of atrocities by the early Buddhist leader Ashoka who expanded Buddhism to most of modern day India. So maybe its better to just better just to have your own personal religion or relation to "God" and leave following this or that prophet to the fanatics.

This is a short video containing a certain perspective about abrogation and the punishment for adultery if anyone is interested.

 

[Jumi]

No, you are just biased ..
Can you imagine how surrounding areas were feeling when they saw what was happening in the Arabian peninsula? .. ie. Islam was becoming established

I think they might have been angry and sad when their holy things were destroyed.

If we were to judge religions by how peaceably their religion started, we'd all be Buddhists

Not Buddhism.

 

[LuisDantas]

For the statement to have credibility in modern times, it would mean the vast majority of Muslims would need to be supportive of war-like methods in gaining new 'recruits' to Islam, and/or be willing to wage war themselves against non-Muslims who don't convert. Do you honestly see the vast majority of those who identify themselves as Muslims, as falling into one of those two categories?

No, not at that level.

It does however remain noticeably closer to that level than most any other religion of these days, even Evangelical Christianity.

And it has to spend a huge amount of effort to distance itself from its own scripture's demands to even remain there.

So, sorry, I still feel I have plenty reason enough to stand by what I said.

 

[Lyndon]

Except that the islamophobia movement is propelling us towards a much larger conflict and possible world wide war with 1.4 billion Muslims. Every support you give to islamophobia brings us one step closer to utter destruction and anarchy, I am not in the habit of defending the Muslim religion, I am defending the right of 1.4 billion people to make their own decisions how they want to live, and not have some Ahole Western military telling them how to live at the end of a submachine gun or cruise missile, doesn't matter how their religion makes them live, its their business, unless you are trying to be the next dictator of western imperialism.

 

[YmirGF]

Except that the islamophobia movement is propelling us towards a much larger conflict and possible world wide war with 1.4 billion Muslims. Every support you give to islamophobia brings us one step closer to utter destruction and anarchy, I am not in the habit of defending the Muslim religion, I am defending the right of 1.4 billion people to make their own decisions how they want to live, and not have some Ahole Western military telling them how to live at the end of a submachine gun or cruise missile, doesn't matter how their religion makes them live, its their business, unless you are trying to be the next dictator of western imperialism.

So, should we just rope them off and cut off all interactions with them? Leave them to their own devices?

 

[Augustus]

To date, one of my favorite authors has been the world renowned, Professor Bernard Lewis, with his encyclopedic knowledge of Islam and the Middle East.

He's actually more of an expert on Ottoman studies, rather than early Islam.

But, yeah I agree, most people don't treat Biblical history uncritically, but plenty fail to apply the same standards to Islamic history.

It is certainly not anti-Islam to treat it in the same way as you would any other part of human history.

 

[Lyndon]

So, should we just rope them off and cut off all interactions with them? Leave them to their own devices?

Ditto, after all that's exactly what we are demanding they do.

 

[YmirGF]

Ditto, after all that's exactly what we are demanding they do.

Que?

 

[Lyndon]

You don't read english? this is an english language forum, I wrote in plain english.

 

[LuisDantas]

I understand your point, but let me ask...does this mean that the vast majority of non-violent/peaceful Muslims are under the impression that the history of Muhammad is inaccurate and/or they ignore it and/or they justify it and/or...they don't entirely believe that the Qur'an is the eternal word of God?

A combination of those, far as I can tell. From what I have seen:

1. There is a measure of creative emphasis and reassuring assumptions going around. "There is no compulsion in religion" is supposed to trump more violent verses, and those must be justified by the supposedly unreasonable oppression of their neighbors.

In other words, it is taken for granted that Islam / the Quran / Muhammad must be always holy and fully justified, accurate and true, and any appearances to the contrary can only be ever met due to dishonest representation, corruption of the texts (and this one is not even applicable to the Quran except when translated) or unreasonable pressure from malicious "outsiders". There is even considerable, consistent recurrence of suggestions that badly behaving Muslims must be secretly blasphemous atheists or something else just as unholy.

2. Many Muslims end up hiding behind scripture. It is not at all unusual for whole passages of the Quran to be presented in lieu of actual personal statements. At times it is difficult to avoid the impression that the Quran becomes an actual shield against the unconfortable duty of justifying one's stances. Particularly when Al-Baqara 256 is raised, often very much at odds with whatever else the devotee says.

3. I wonder how many Muslims even seriously question whether the Quran is or could possibly be literally true and immutable. The cultural taboo against questioning it seems to be very deep indeed. I don't doubt that many Muslims simply find the idea of truly questioning it too odd to pursue, and too scandalous to seriously consider.

My sincere impression is that the completeness and infalibility of the Quran has at this point become a social icebreaker of sorts, a safe subject to mention in most any situation among Muslims to cause a reassuring sense of agreement when such reassurance is needed. But whether it actually means anything, or how often, is not at all clear. Many may simply find it far too much trouble to raise the question and end up reproducing the attitude out of rote learning and the need for clear social roles.

That would also explain a lot of their relutance to actually deal at any length with stinking non-Muslim kaffirs that keep raising inconvenient subject matters and failing to pursue the many opportunities of demonstrating proper etiquette and submission towards the lifeblood of their way of seeing the world.