Unfair opinions about Islam :(

[LuisDantas]

In my view the issue between Christianity and Islam began centuries ago...with the collapse of the Byzantine Empire through it's own high taxation of it's citizens and corrupt administration... Both the Byzantines and the Sassanids were wreaked by intense conflicts which weakened both empires.. It should be noted here that both Christian nations such as Ethiopia and the Byzantines as well as the Sassanids had spheres of influence in Arabia long before the emergence of Islam..

You are discussing matters of centuries past, of dubious relevancy.

The current issues in the middle east I think have been caused by the disintegration of civil authority and consequent internal strife... this is not necessarily due to Islam... there are examples of what we could call failed states in other parts of the world. I do believe irresponsible groups have exploited religion to their advantage... as in "hyjacking" religion for their own purposes.

That may well be true, but I personally feel that it misses the revelant matter. Namely, what is the relationship, if any, between Islam and any troubles that its adherents may suffer or cause?

You are pointing out that it is possible to conceive of other relevant factors that may or may not be relevant or more relevant than Islam, possibly to the point of Islam not being a factor at all.

That is true far as truth goes, but in effect you are asking us all to avoid answering the question or even attempting to. Maybe you can tell me why that is a good idea?

as Baha'is we have suffered a good deal from Muslim theocracies but you will never find a Baha'i attacking Islam or Prophet Muhammad...there are good values and teachings in the Quran ... Yes some have been twisted and used to justify oppressive actions..but I think to be fair and in the long run Muslims themselves will work through these issues...

So you are proposing that it is best not to consider whether Muslims may be ill served by their beliefs, not to question whether they are right on their beliefs, but just hope or trust that they will eventually find the right path?

Why don't you say that you would rather not have Islam questioned at all instead, and tell us why do you find that a good idea?

 

[Lyndon]

Yeah, and its a good idea to take care of your own problems, and let people in other parts of the world take care of theirs. Are you personally having a whole lot of problems with Muslims in your country, and no problems at all with fundamentalist Christians??

 

[Jumi]

It's not just about being "different" per se......it's about being the kind of "different" that God wants us to be...and if THAT is what makes us stand out from the mainstream, then it is a difference recognised by him, not just ourselves. How was Jesus "different"? What was the response of his fellow Jews to what he taught?

These questions presume that gods exist. I can't answer them because I don't agree with the narrative.

Persecution has been worse for other types of Christians like the Albigensis. Were they persecuted because they were correct or because they were seen as a threat?

 

[Jumi]

"This life is like a prison for a true believer, and a paradise for the disbeliever" ..

Does this apply reversely to everyone? If someone feels life is like a prison he is a true believer?

 

[Augustus]

As much as I like some of the beautiful expressions of Islam and so many Muslims themselves...tolerance doesn't extend both ways. There is a difference between religions of the Book and cultural/ancestral polytheistic traditions like mine and pretty much all from around the world. The shifting amounts of tolerance historically for Jews and Christians and for their religion, just didn't apply to pagan folks and our religions.

Is this true though? Some South East Asian and African versions of Islam have integrated many aspects of pre-Islamic beliefs into their versions of Islam. Adherents to these ancient beliefs still exist also.

There are still minority communities in the Middle East such as Druze, Yezidi, Zoroastrian that are not 'of the book'.

In a world becoming smaller and smaller, freedom to be diverse and ability to initiate change is more important than ever. How does Islam rank in those categories?

Historically, pretty well. Early Arab conquests pretty much left existing communities to look after their own affairs, as long as they paid taxes.

Many Jews and Christian sects actually saw the Arabs as preferable to the Romans.

It took maybe 400 years for Islam to become the majority faith in the 'Muslim World'. Non-Muslims frequently had positions of power.

Large empires don't last for centuries if they are rigid and inflexible.

But, the problem is...perhaps, Sharia Law, mainly. It is hard to get around that it was designed to help govern a newly forming Muslim community at one time, and it is always the thing that comes up when people learn that a non-Muslim is interested in Islam.

As to whether a complex form Sharia Law was designed to govern a newly forming Muslim community, is certainly open to debate. Much of the corpus of Islamic jurisprudence is the product of emerging needs and the governing realities of empires that came long after Muhammed.

While early Muslims certainly followed some religious rules, you might view developments in 8th century Baghdad as starting a long process of codifying a complex set of legal guidelines. As to whether these guidelines grew out of hadiths, sira and Islamic history or whether hadiths, sira and Islamic history grew out of an attempt to justify these guidelines is certainly open to debate.

Just as developments in the Roman Empire and the Church arguably changed the nature of Christianity, a similar process has impacted on the development of Islam.

And anyway, the idea that Sharia = Saudi/ISIS style governance is certainly not correct.

It's not media propaganda to say Islam had more excessive violence and intolerance towards others than basically all other well known religions - starting from the time enough numbers were amassed to begin raids and initiate battles.

I would say it is media propaganda and whatever the historical predecessor of media propaganda was, coupled with a biased interpretation of history.

If we interpret Islam to mean Islamic societies and Christianity to mean Christian societies, and pagan to mean pagan societies, what is there that makes Islam any worse than the others over the course of their histories?

It is characteristic of the Straight Path that christians, jews, atheists , apostates, and polytheists are united against Islam.

You mean like when NATO bombed the Christian Serbs to help Muslim Bosnians, or when they armed the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets, or when the Germans allied with the Ottomans, or when the Muslims and Hindus helped to kick out the British from the subcontinent, or the countless non-Muslim soldiers that helped in the Islamic conquests, or the fact that the West is allied with many Muslim countries, etc.

It is an imaginary characteristic drawn from a persecution complex that the whole world is united against Islam, either now or historically.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hi @Deidre ...
Educating yourself about any religion or belief/philosophy should be applauded.

We haven't 'spoken' much, but I've seen you make reference to a belief in separation of church and state. How would that fit with Islamic ideology?
(Not sure if that's OT to your mind, just trying to think of this more from a 'pure Islam' point of view, rather than judge based on the actions of some Muslims, if that makes sense?)

 

[Flankerl]

Fully agreed. There is no compulsion in religion.

Do tell.

Allahdad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[YmirGF]

Do tell.

Allahdad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pffftt, @Flankerl those folks obviously misunderstood Islam.

In reply to the OP, I think Diedre should be congratulated for going with her heart and against the flow, as it were. There are some nice aspects of Islam, to be sure, but there are also some very serious issues with Islam that are not compatible with the modern world. In my view, one of the biggest problems is that authentic Muslim sources often offer us a highly sugar-coated version of the events around the life of Muhammad. This is to be expected from fanatical followers.

What is troubling is the nature of many of his actions, that they saw absolutely nothing wrong with and so, chose to chronicle them for posterity. When you read these works there is never even a hint of apology or even mild embarrassment. The "prophet" did this and that is all there is to it. It's as if they were so steeped in their Islamic worldview that it never occurred to them that centuries later people would read their works and think they were all mad.

 

[corynski]

Yes, please forgive me for that sweeping generalization of a situation much more complex, as is about everything.

But my point remains, why would a 'God' create three religions that are violent towards one another, and then gives them three different 'holy' books, telling them who they may/must kill. It's been years since I read of the Muslims but I recollect that Mohamed was quite violent in securing his following, even killing those arabs who would not accept him. My understanding is that Muslims don't believe in the divinity of the Jesus, or that Mary was his mother, and if you do, you can be put to death.

Just the salient facts of these three religions makes me question how and why believers believe in 'gods'?

charley

 

[Flankerl]

Pffftt,

@Flankerl those folks obviously misunderstood Islam.

As always.

Yes, please forgive me for that sweeping generalization of a situation much more complex, as is about everything.

But my point remains, why would a 'God' create three religions that are violent towards one another, and then gives them three different 'holy' books, telling them who they may/must kill. It's been years since I read of the Muslims but I recollect that Mohamed was quite violent in securing his following, even killing those arabs who would not accept him. My understanding is that Muslims don't believe in the divinity of the Jesus, or that Mary was his mother, and if you do, you can be put to death.

Just the salient facts of these three religions makes me question how and why believers believe in 'gods'?

charley

What I don't understand is why you would believe that all three Religions(poor Bahai are always forgotten) are actually from God.

Just because people claim that their Religion is actually a continuation of a much older Religion does this mean they are actually correct.

 

[YmirGF]

Yes, please forgive me for that sweeping generalization of a situation much more complex, as is about everything.

But my point remains, why would a 'God' create three religions that are violent towards one another, and then gives them three different 'holy' books, telling them who they may/must kill. It's been years since I read of the Muslims but I recollect that Mohamed was quite violent in securing his following, even killing those arabs who would not accept him. My understanding is that Muslims don't believe in the divinity of the Jesus, or that Mary was his mother, and if you do, you can be put to death.

Just the salient facts of these three religions makes me question how and why believers believe in 'gods'?

charley

No Charley @corynski , Mary is revered in Islamic mythology as is the immaculate conception. Jesus is also #3 in the Islamic pantheon, 2nd to Muhammad who is subordinate only to the #1, Allah.

 

[YmirGF]

Just because people claim that their Religion is actually a continuation of a much older Religion does this mean they are actually correct.

What struck me, repeatedly, when reading bios on Muhammad was his need, deep need, to be accepted as a prophet, wedging himself into a line of prophets from other religions. He really was the Rodney Dangerfield of religious leaders.

So much of the problems encountered by early Muslims was due to the belief that they did not get the respect they felt they so richly deserved. Muhammad was tolerated in Mecca for about the first ten years and likely perceived as a bit of a wacky novelty. Harmless, but just plain cooky. He endlessly railed against Jews, Christians and Pagans tormenting them with his visions of the Hellfire and logically one cannot fault the Meccans for finally moving against him once he began to accrue a small following. THAT must have been worrisome. The net result is that the persecution he endured was self-created, so his "defensive" acts are not quite as noble as they might seem. Oddly, the moment he had enough people behind him he attacked those who looked dimly on his efforts. That's pretty far from a noble effort.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So much of the problems encountered by early Muslims was due to the belief that they did not get the respect they felt they so richly deserved.

You mean they were oppressed, just as Jesus, peace be with him, was

Muhammad was tolerated in Mecca for about the first ten years and likely perceived as a bit of a wacky novelty. Harmless, but just plain cooky. He endlessly railed against Jews, Christians and Pagans tormenting them with his visions of the Hellfire and logically one cannot fault the Meccans for finally moving against him once he began to accrue a small following.

Rallied against them? No! Advised them of the truth, yes..
You sound like the enemies of Jesus, peace be with him. Naturally, if a tribe/nation feels their economic provision and culture are threatened, they despise it .. truth or not!

 

[Augustus]

Pffftt, @Flankerl those folks obviously misunderstood Islam.

How many belief systems do not have atrocities linked to them? Christianity was probably the worst for forced conversions of the Jews though.

There are some nice aspects of Islam, to be sure, but there are also some very serious issues with Islam that are not compatible with the modern world. In my view, one of the biggest problems is that authentic Muslim sources often offer us a highly sugar-coated version of the events around the life of Muhammad. This is to be expected from fanatical followers... What is troubling is the nature of many of his actions, that they saw absolutely nothing wrong with and so, chose to chronicle them for posterity. When you read these works there is never even a hint of apology or even mild embarrassment. The "prophet" did this and that is all there is to it. It's as if they were so steeped in their Islamic worldview that it never occurred to them that centuries later people would read their works and think they were all mad.

There was nothing to be embarrassed about at the the they were recorded. Why would people imagine what 21st century people would think about them?

Look at great figures in Western history for how easily we still overlook peoples transgressions. Winston Churchill is widely considered the greatest Briton in history, yet ordered bombings on civilians. It is hard to say his war ethics were worse than Muhammed's.

Roosevelt, another great leader, ordered the firebombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombs. Can he be claimed to be more ethical than Muhammed?

Israel recently carried out a good old fashioned mass artillery bombardment of civilian areas, which most Western leaders found pretty hard to criticise without significant equivocating.

The wonderfully progressive secular West has an awful history in terms of violence and still considers it acceptable to invade countries that pose no threat to them. They also have the chutzpah to justify this in the name of how enlightened they are and the 'white man's burden'.

It's no problem to find awful incidents in the history of all societies. Islam certainly has its fair share, it just seems that people tend to judge these with more than a hint or double standards. 'Our' crimes are mitigated and 'theirs' are magnified.

 

[LuisDantas]

You mean they were oppressed, just as Jesus, peace be with him, was

Oppressed? How so?

Rallied against them? No! Advised them of the truth, yes..
You sound like the enemies of Jesus, peace be with him. Naturally, if a tribe/nation feels their economic provision and culture are threatened, they despise it .. truth or not!

You must have read a Quran that is different from most.

 

[YmirGF]

It's no problem to find awful incidents in the history of all societies. Islam certainly has its fair share, it just seems that people tend to judge these with more than a hint or double standards. 'Our' crimes are mitigated and 'theirs' are magnified.

I've never minimized modern atrocities thereby amplifying Islamism's horrendous past. The march of Islam doesn't need any comparison to show that there was a vast gulf between belief and practice. Muslim armies had a mighty strange way of demonstrating that there is "no compulsion in religion". It did not help things that Muhammad was personally involved in many battles or stood smugly watching the beheading of hundreds of those who opposed him and then rushed off for the obligatory prayers.

 

[Augustus]

I've never minimized modern atrocities thereby amplifying Islamism's horrendous past. The march of Islam doesn't need any comparison to show that there was a vast gulf between belief and practice. Muslim armies had a mighty strange way of demonstrating that there is "no compulsion in religion". It did not help things that Muhammad was personally involved in many battles or stood smugly watching the beheading of hundreds of those who opposed him and then rushed off for the obligatory prayers.

What about the early Islamic conquests makes you think that there was any compulsion in religion? Their opponents seem to have had very little idea about the religion of the Arabs.

If the early Muslims are seen as the best example then they seemed more concerned with extracting revenue from conquered peoples rather than forcing them into a new religion.

All leaders of that time were involved in numerous battles, its not like the 'nasty Arabs' fought a load of peaceniks, they fought other warlike people.

The losers in such battles were usually executed, unless they could be ransomed, that was par for the course. You don't release people to fight against you, and no one treated prisoners better than this for over a thousand more years. And while beheading is barbaric by modern standards, it was the most humane method of killing in that time. Certainly better than the torturous deaths meted out to some people by the Romans and Persians.

It just depends if you want to look at Muhammed's actions as an absolute standard for behaviour, or as being a product of their time, to be interpreted in regard to changing realities (as many Muslims do).

 

[LuisDantas]

So, what is that verse supposed to mean, if anything?

 

[Deidre]

People in my offline life who know me well, remember when I was a devout Christian...and then, when I abandoned that faith, and identified as an atheist. Learning of my grandmother's illness last year, it was difficult to process it, as an atheist. Faith has been something I've clung to all of my life, and not having it there for me, I felt very lost. My grandmother's death last year caused me to examine the void that had been growing, and Islam has been a religion that has intrigued me for some time. I have Muslim friends from Syria who live in the U.S., who make Islam look very appealing, and yet they don't candy-coat the difficult parts of the Qur'an, or Muhammad's life. They explain it in a way, that makes a lot of sense to me, even though...I still can't imagine what it might have been like living in such chaos and war, as did Muhammad and his companions.

Muhammad led a fascinating life, one riddled with war and violence, but also with peace and generosity. If any of us were to walk outside of our homes right this minute, could we fathom our neighbors to the left and right of us...trying to overtake us at every opportunity? That was life for Muhammad, when he began to grow in popularity. Not unlike the life of Jesus, either. Or other prophets, even. Sharia Law was devised as a way to set up some type of law system and order in a newly forming, growing Muslim community. Pre-Islam, much of those 'laws' and punishments were in place. It was a dark, brutal time, and I don't excuse Muhammad's actions, but perhaps...he too, didn't excuse them. So, I have read stories about his life, and Sharia Law...and I thought one day...I wonder if this man ever asked God for forgiveness?

In Islam, no mortal is infallible. The only One who is infallible is God. Islam teaches that all men and women are fallible, and capable of 'sin.' So, I began looking for verses that discussed repentance, and sure enough there are passages where Muhammad was asking God for forgiveness. One could say well, he did that out of only wishing to please God. But, Jesus didn't do that, or at least the story doesn't indicate that. For the story describes Jesus as sinless, and born without sin. But Muhammad asked God for forgiveness, and instructed his followers to as well. That is very meaningful to me, and is often overlooked when Muhammad's life comes up in discussions like these.

What was he repenting of? We will never know, but the fact that he did, is also what Islam is about. It is about a full relationship with God. What needs to change in Islam, is how these things are discussed. Particularly, in the middle east. This is 2015, as a global community, we don't need to live as slaves to anyone. We don't need to have laws in place that are barbaric in nature. There are options to handling crime and Sharia Law should really be a historical point of view and not something to currently govern with, now. Not unlike how Christians view the OT. They don't dismiss it, but they are not governed by it. What needs to take place in terms of change, is that Islam shouldn't be governing anyone's lives. It should be freely expressed and if people wish to not follow it, they have that right. And a Muslim should have the right to leave Islam if he/she so chooses. Unless that paradigm changes in the middle east, Islam will continue to be scrutinized and defined as a religion of violence and oppression.

 

[Sees]

What about the early Islamic conquests makes you think that there was any compulsion in religion? Their opponents seem to have had very little idea about the religion of the Arabs.

If the early Muslims are seen as the best example then they seemed more concerned with extracting revenue from conquered peoples rather than forcing them into a new religion.

All leaders of that time were involved in numerous battles, its not like the 'nasty Arabs' fought a load of peaceniks, they fought other warlike people.

The losers in such battles were usually executed, unless they could be ransomed, that was par for the course. You don't release people to fight against you, and no one treated prisoners better than this for over a thousand more years. And while beheading is barbaric by modern standards, it was the most humane method of killing in that time. Certainly better than the torturous deaths meted out to some people by the Romans and Persians.

It just depends if you want to look at Muhammed's actions as an absolute standard for behaviour, or as being a product of their time, to be interpreted in regard to changing realities (as many Muslims do).

If you rewind, do you think there was a "religion of the Arabs" without compulsion? Before Arabic lands were in the rearview mirror? After some years doing the grassroots movement thing to gain numbers, people were pressured and bullied by ultimatums that almost always had "lest you become Muslims" attached.

Homeland or foreign, convert or die wasn't always the ultimatum, you could also become a submissive second-class citizen, with more than just taxes taken (could decide all your wealth and crops needed forfeiture), or flee...if Christian or Jewish at least. You don't need slaughter or torture to punch the "this is compulsion" ticket.

The main point is what is Islam and who is confused about what Islam really is. It's redirection if we keep focusing in on other groups to make things seem not so bad. How awful or wonderful other groups have been doesn't decide what are unfair misconceptions of Islam.