Unfair opinions about Islam :(

[Deidre]

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 slaughtertor 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.

Christianity and especially Catholicism has a dark history too...of how Christianity 'grew.' Looking back in time, Gnosticism was/is thought to be the earliest form of Christianity, but many were murdered in favor of the brand of Christianity we see today. The history of the RCC is VERY violent and grim.

But, the world is more forgiving with Christianity, than with Islam. While Christians are not currently forming violent coalitions to take over various regions of the world like ISIS, Christianity still tries to oppress groups that the Bible depicts as 'sinners.' Homosexuals come to mind, albeit the tide is turning. In the RCC, women are still not permitted to become priests. Christians in the U.S. were largely supportive of slavery, once upon a time. And in some Christian sects, it's still permissible to hit one's wife. (as sanctioned by the Bible) The U.S. is a very violent country (regardless of the reasons stemming from religion), and our justice system isn't exactly humane, when we look at the male prisons, and how rape and AIDS is on the rise within them. We look at Sharia Law and think that we could never govern in such a manner....meanwhile, if someone steals here, sure his hands aren't sliced off, but instead we throw him into a prison system where he will be left to fend for himself ...and the odds of being raped and assaulted on a weekly basis, are pretty high. Is that more/less humane? The truth is, people can get used to just about anything if it is passed off as legal. And America doesn't say much.

This is a human problem, not necessarily a religious one. Humankind has a beautiful compassionate side, and yet a very dark, depraved side that seems to be obsessed with human punishment. It also seems to be focused on one group is ''above'' another group...also, not a religious thing. Now, if you live in a part of the world where you are taught that your religion can and does govern your everyday life...you might find it normal, because that is all you know. When I read about stoning of adulterers in the middle east, it is mind boggling how they can still be stuck 2000 years in the past. But, then I look at the US, and while we appear more civilized...our prison system is anything but. (in many cases, there are prison that have rehabilitative programs in place)

Yes, there are serious issues when it comes to Islam but there are issues throughout the world ...that underscore a human problem, not merely a religious one.

 

[Deidre]

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.

These are good points and I think some of that comes from indoctrination, honestly. I have a feeling more Muslims who grew up in the faith say those things, rather than converts. I could be wrong, but I remember cherry picking and turning a blind eye to the passages of the Bible that were difficult to 'explain away.'

I meant to post earlier...but fwiw...this is the nutshell version of repentance in Islam.

Repentance in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sees]

Christianity and especially Catholicism has a dark history too...of how Christianity 'grew.' Looking back in time, Gnosticism was/is thought to be the earliest form of Christianity, but many were murdered in favor of the brand of Christianity we see today. The history of the RCC is VERY violent and grim.

But, the world is more forgiving with Christianity, than with Islam. While Christians are not currently forming violent coalitions to take over various regions of the world like ISIS, Christianity still tries to oppress groups that the Bible depicts as 'sinners.' Homosexuals come to mind, albeit the tide is turning. In the RCC, women are still not permitted to become priests. Christians in the U.S. were largely supportive of slavery, once upon a time. And in some Christian sects, it's still permissible to hit one's wife. (as sanctioned by the Bible) The U.S. is a very violent country (regardless of the reasons stemming from religion), and our justice system isn't exactly humane, when we look at the male prisons, and how rape and AIDS is on the rise within them. We look at Sharia Law and think that we could never govern in such a manner....meanwhile, if someone steals here, sure his hands aren't sliced off, but instead we throw him into a prison system where he will be left to fend for himself ...and the odds of being raped and assaulted on a weekly basis, are pretty high. Is that more/less humane? The truth is, people can get used to just about anything if it is passed off as legal. And America doesn't say much.

This is a human problem, not necessarily a religious one. Humankind has a beautiful compassionate side, and yet a very dark, depraved side that seems to be obsessed with human punishment. It also seems to be focused on one group is ''above'' another group...also, not a religious thing. Now, if you live in a part of the world where you are taught that your religion can and does govern your everyday life...you might find it normal, because that is all you know. When I read about stoning of adulterers in the middle east, it is mind boggling how they can still be stuck 2000 years in the past. But, then I look at the US, and while we appear more civilized...our prison system is anything but. (in many cases, there are prison that have rehabilitative programs in place)

Yes, there are serious issues when it comes to Islam but there are issues throughout the world ...that underscore a human problem, not merely a religious one.

To me exclusivism is the problem, and it is only compounded by a religion which is beyond a philosophical, spiritual, faith system alone but a system of government at the core.

Christianity was never meant to be a political, law enforcing juggernaut. Islam is at the very core. One is perversion and one is fulfillment.

I think what you want is a spiritual Islam that represents the typical western idea of religion circa 20th-21st century. It's our beliefs about God/s, salvation, prayer, charity to others, etc. divorced from the system as a whole, a total system which is considered divine and permanent in Islam.

Of course I would prefer all Muslims wanted your version of Islam Most will consider the idea of man-made systems taking over the parts stripped out by progressives as blasphemous. Some that for it to even be suggested means mind perversion by the enemies of Allah.

 

[Deidre]

To me exclusivism is the problem, and it is only compounded by a religion which is beyond a philosophical, spiritual, faith system alone but a system of government at the core.

Christianity was never meant to be a political, law enforcing juggernaut. Islam is at the very core. One is perversion and one is fulfillment.

I think what you want is a spiritual Islam that represents the typical western idea of religion circa 20th-21st century. It's our beliefs about God/s, salvation, prayer, charity to others, etc. divorced from the system as a whole, a total system which is considered divine and permanent in Islam.

Of course I would prefer all Muslims wanted your version of Islam Most will consider the idea of man-made systems taking over the parts stripped out by progressives as blasphemous. Some that for it to even be suggested means mind perversion by the enemies of Allah.

Yes, that is what I want. lol

Do you think that Sharia Law was meant to be a permanent system, that is how Muhammad intended it, or do you think that it was meant for his time? I ask that because the laws and punishments within the OT are no longer followed in Christianity or Judaism...so...I wonder why that is.

 

[Jumi]

There are still minority communities in the Middle East such as Druze, Yezidi, Zoroastrian tha

Some of these are considered by some Muslims as people of the book.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Christianity was never meant to be a political, law enforcing juggernaut.

No .. but to propagate its falsehood, it was declared a punishable heresy by 'Rome' to believe as the Jews did [ie. that God was not a trinity] .. they achieved their aims .. they did NOT want to be surrounded by fundamentalist Jews, but wished to continue to control them!

 

[Sees]

Yes, that is what I want. lol

Do you think that Sharia Law was meant to be a permanent system, that is how Muhammad intended it, or do you think that it was meant for his time? I ask that because the laws and punishments within the OT are no longer followed in Christianity or Judaism...so...I wonder why that is.

It was meant to be the last and perfected system - and it's taken to be such by a lot of the people we collectively look down on. Why would devout Muslims think they know better than Allah or how to understand and obey Allah's rules better than Muhammad?

I don't know why Jews don't try to follow all OT government/state rules and regs or if it's possible for Islam/Muslims to follow suit...I know Christians quickly focused on "spirit of the law" instead of "letter of the law"

 

[Deidre]

It was meant to be the last and perfected system - and it's taken to be such by a lot of the people we collectively look down on. Why would devout Muslims think they know better than Allah or how to understand and obey Allah's rules better than Muhammad?

I don't know why Jews don't try to follow all OT government/state rules and regs or if it's possible for Islam/Muslims to follow suit...I know Christians quickly focused on "spirit of the law" instead of "letter of the law"

God isn't owned by anyone. lol No one has a copyright on a relationship with him. I never thought I'd bother with the Abrahamic faiths ever again after leaving Christianity (because they tend to give the impression that each one 'owns' a piece of God, or all of him/it), but I'm of the opinion that religions can serve as a guide...as a door opener into faith. They experienced faith during their time and pass down their experiences, but we too can experience it. We can read and learn about certain dogmas that were pertinent for those time frames, but to experience faith...that requires individuality.

I may never be ''accepted'' into the Muslim community with my way of thinking, but it's how I think on it.

 

[YmirGF]

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 slaughtertor 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.

Indeed. I don't understand how anyone cannot recognize the hypocritical nature of early Muslim armies. Submit to Islam, Pay us a tax to live as second class citizens or fight us to the death. How progressive is that? Meanwhile, over tea, "there is no compulsion in religon". No wonder people fought them tooth and nail.

 

[Deidre]

Indeed. I don't understand how anyone cannot recognize the hypocritical nature of early Muslim armies. Submit to Islam, Pay us a tax to live as second class citizens or fight us to the death. How progressive is that? Meanwhile, over tea, "there is no compulsion in religon". No wonder people fought them tooth and nail.

Yes, it shouldn't have been and shouldn't be a tool to govern, for once that happened...it was no longer seen as a pure religion, but rather one of political and socio-economic power where everyone was fighting for and against it.

 

[Lyndon]

Indeed. I don't understand how anyone cannot recognize the hypocritical nature of early Muslim armies. Submit to Islam, Pay us a tax to live as second class citizens or fight us to the death. How progressive is that? Meanwhile, over tea, "there is no compulsion in religon". No wonder people fought them tooth and nail.

How is this any different from the predominantly Christian invasion of the Americas, we are all to this day asked to pay a tax to the government, etc.

 

[nazz]

Violence isn't a byproduct of religion, it's a sad component of human nature.

^THIS!

Religion gave/gives violent groups in the world a scapegoat, is all.

I would say a justification. Not necessarily that the religion justifies it but that religion is used to justify it. And when you think God approves of the violence you are committing that is a very powerful force.

 

[corynski]

As always.





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.

"....actually from God"? No, please don't suggest that I believe any of this, but that's the accepted script, is it not? The Christians rejecting much of Judaism and the acceptance of a Christ Saviour, a 'Son' of God so to speak. Here's a quote from Von Grunebaum's Classical Islam, "In a verse of Muhammad's middle period God bids him speak thus: 'See, my prayers and my devotion and my life and my death belong to Allah the Lord of the worlds. He has no companion and that is why I am bidden' for I am the first of the Muslims'". Now whether these people know of what they are speaking I really don't know, but I've accepted that version.

Please enlighten me if I am wrong.....

 

[corynski]

God isn't owned by anyone. lol No one has a copyright on a relationship with him. I never thought I'd bother with the Abrahamic faiths ever again after leaving Christianity (because they tend to give the impression that each one 'owns' a piece of God, or all of him/it), but I'm of the opinion that religions can serve as a guide...as a door opener into faith. They experienced faith during their time and pass down their experiences, but we too can experience it. We can read and learn about certain dogmas that were pertinent for those time frames, but to experience faith...that requires individuality.

I may never be ''accepted'' into the Muslim community with my way of thinking, but it's how I think on it.

Yes, but please tell me what you mean by 'experiencing faith'......

charley

 

[Flankerl]

"....actually from God"? No, please don't suggest that I believe any of this, but that's the accepted script, is it not? The Christians rejecting much of Judaism and the acceptance of a Christ Saviour, a 'Son' of God so to speak. Here's a quote from Von Grunebaum's Classical Islam, "In a verse of Muhammad's middle period God bids him speak thus: 'See, my prayers and my devotion and my life and my death belong to Allah the Lord of the worlds. He has no companion and that is why I am bidden' for I am the first of the Muslims'". Now whether these people know of what they are speaking I really don't know, but I've accepted that version.

Please enlighten me if I am wrong.....

You do realise that Christianity and Islam aren't mentioned at all in the TaNaKh?

What Christianity and Islam try to be is in no way accepted among Jews.
Their message is a message of Replacement Theology which tries to usurp Judaism. Whether they claim to worship the same God has no significance for Judaism and Jews.


So yeah it most certainly is their accepted script. Not ours.

 

[Deidre]

@ charley:

Yes, but please tell me what you mean by 'experiencing faith'......

charley

Hi charley

I mean, the difference between reading and educating one's self about a particular faith vs...experiencing it. Allowing it to affect you. Or to have an effect on you. Of course, one has to be open minded to the idea of a higher power at least existing, or at least the possibility of a higher power existing. We can read about various religions passed down through the ages, and figure out how might this fit into a modern world? I'm sure every age has undergone that, and I don't wish to change sacred traditions and customs, that made prayer life in Islam what it is, and that is...very special. But, in order to find that specialness, one has to be open minded enough to experience it through Salat. Or if one is a Catholic for example, one might find such specialness in the Rosary or The Chaplet. I can learn about Muhammad's life, and I can read the Qur'an, and even then, that isn't the sum total of the story. One must experience faith in a way that becomes real for the person...no person can give that to me, no book can give to me. If you open yourself up to the idea that a god may exist...the present moment in prayer will take you places you haven't thought imaginable. Islam can be a way to express that, but there are many ways to express it.

That's what I meant. Hope that makes sense.

 

[corynski]

You do realise that Christianity and Islam aren't mentioned at all in the TaNaKh?

What Christianity and Islam try to be is in no way accepted among Jews.
Their message is a message of Replacement Theology which tries to usurp Judaism. Whether they claim to worship the same God has no significance for Judaism and Jews.


So yeah it most certainly is their accepted script. Not ours.

And does that not make you question the reality of your god? Are you saying that your perception is that the Christians and the Muslims have it all wrong, that their gods don't really exist, but that your god does exist. Am I close.....

 

[Augustus]

Some of these are considered by some Muslims as people of the book.

Basically because they treated most other religions that way, a medieval legal loophole if you like. For the most part, the rulers were pragmatists.

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.

Jizya was basically a conquered people tax, tribute. It was absolutely par for the course, standard behaviour at the time. To paint it as anything other than standard practice in late antiquity is mistaken. (Some leaders actually tried to prevent people from converting because they were more interested in revenue than expanding the faith.)

Progressive Muslims today tend to equate it to tax, the non-Muslim equivalent of Zakat. "until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." and that subdued means accepting the authority of the state. Historically though, the tax has been punitive.

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.

How Islam is treated in comparison to other things is essential in deciding if it is fair or unfair.

You made the point that "Islam had more excessive violence and intolerance towards others than basically all other well known religions", which I consider to be an incorrect and unfair assessment over 1500 years of history.

This is not to say Muslims regimes have always been wonderful, cuddly and chivalrous, just that I don't see many points in history when they can be described as being more "excessively violent and intolerant" than their contemporaries. There are times when the have been above average, other times when they have been below but I just don't see the justification for considering them historically worse.

If you view Islamic societies as having a 1400 year history of being more violent and more intolerant than other societies, then you have a huge amount of evidence to support the contention that Islam is detrimental to society. With 1400 years of evidence then it is case closed. On the other hand, if you view Islamic societies as being no better or worse than their contemporaries over the course of their histories, then you are left with more optimistic possibilities.

Some Muslims look at Islam and sees the kind deeds of Muhammed, his compassion and tolerance, the less savoury incidents are contextualised and mitigated. Others see rules, rigidity and divine anger, where the less savoury aspects are maximised at the expense of the compassion. In religion, you see what you want to see.

For outsiders looking in, if you view its history as uniquely violent, then you are going to see everything that supports this view.

Going back to the OP, people who take the compassionate Muhammed as their guide rightly get upset when people say 'your religion is bad because A,B,C'. And they say 'A,B,C play no part in my religion. But the criticising person will say 'yes they do - look at my evidence for Islam being uniquely violent and intolerant'. This is why comparison is all important.

If people say 'well historically, it has been similar to others but it can't cope with modernity...' that is a different argument. How Islam evolves to meet changes in society is an ongoing process. The West is always held up as the shining example of how society should be, but the last hundred or so years in the West have been horrendously violent.

The normative values of the West are good, but in practice there is a huge amount to be critical of. A Muslim might look at the West and see colonialism, warfare, greed, inequality and hypocrisy. When they are then lectured about how superior the West is they might think 'hold on a second...'

Maybe the West will go back to industrial scale mass murders in the not too distant future, maybe there will be a new Islamic caliphate that addresses inequality better and remains more stable. Maybe the opposite will happen. Perhaps a strong binding ideology will be a good thing, maybe it will be a bad thing. Who knows?

We can't judge things based on a very short timescale so the 'modernity' thing will play itself out in due course. Based on the longer timescale, I still don't see how Islamic societies can be judged as being more violent and intolerant.

 

[Lyndon]

Excellent comment, Augustus.

 

[Jumi]

Compared to how Christianity was spread I'd say it was about the same.