Why is Islam so dangerous?

[charlie sc]

Yes. I believe that in their original form that most religions had the potentiality to become universal and unite the world.

Then, which religions are the ones to unite the world?

In the Bayán the Báb says that every religion of the past was fit to become universal. The only reason why they failed to attain that mark was the incompetence of their followers. (Shoghi Effendi)

How do you know if your faith is competent?

Not all the laws came from the Quran but were devised for the needs of that time and may not be all suitable for this age. But in its time it united the warring tribes into one nation so it took humanity into the nation building era and many of its ideas were spread to Europe through Spain.

Here, you seem to be saying that Sharia law is not useful, because it derived from a warring age. Hence, if this is the case, you have shown that the wrong interpretation of the Quran/Hafiths, which happens in many Islamic sates, is dangerous. Therefore, Islam is dangerous. You have proven the Op's point, unless you want to refute this?

One thing I need to ask: you seem to think, in the Quran, Hell is state of misery. Does that mean if someone has no religion and is good then they're in heaven?
Therefore, Heaven and Hell, for you, are states of being in the world. Why would we need religion if we can achieve this without religion?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Then, which religions are the ones to unite the world?


How do you know if your faith is competent?


Here, you seem to be saying that Sharia law is not useful, because it derived from a warring age. Hence, if this is the case, you have shown that the wrong interpretation of the Quran/Hafiths, which happens in many Islamic sates, is dangerous. Therefore, Islam is dangerous. You have proven the Op's point, unless you want to refute this?

One thing I need to ask: you seem to think, in the Quran, Hell is state of misery. Does that mean if someone has no religion and is good then they're in heaven?
Therefore, Heaven and Hell, for you, are states of being in the world. Why would we need religion if we can achieve this without religion?

These are all great questions.

As far as which religions will unite the world. My understanding is that peace and unity is something that is up to everyone not just religion. If we can all accept our common humanity and establish a world civilisation based upon humanitarian principles and human rights then it would be a great step forward. I think all people can establish this if they really want to.

I’m only guessing but I think that the time will arrive when we all accept each other’s religions spiritually, except that laws such as human rights will govern society. People will still have freedom of worship but will even visit and pray and meditate at each other’s churches and temples. There will be a recognition and acknowledgment that exclusivism and superiority ideals are destructive to our unity and will be abandoned voluntarily.

Different illness we require different medicine. Today we need tolerance, open mindedness and unconditional acceptance of all people their different races, religions and nationalities are a part of our beautiful human diversity. There are evil forces such as arms dealers who gain from creating conflict and so we need not to give anyone trying to promote hatred a platform if we seek peace.

Regarding hell. Yes I believe that any person religious or not can be in a state of heaven or hell just as I believe an atheist may be truly religious while a religious person may be irreligious because I believe our deeds not what we call ourselves defines who we really are.

I can never claim or even say I am saved or such things and you are not because you may be the better person between you and I and I may just not be nearly as good as you no matter what I believe in.

I think it’s time though that all of us people began to think about reaching out to others, talking about how to create better understanding between us, healing the rifts between east and west and trying to learn to see us not as ‘us and them’ but see all humanity as one human family.

I believe when we can accept more readily each other then we will move closer to peace. Imagine when the huge military budgets are no longer invested in war but education, Medicare, jobs and improving the standard of living.

The only thing is to start talking about it until it becomes the wish of all people then I believe it will come true when we all want it to happen not before then.

 

[charlie sc]

These are all great questions.

As far as which religions will unite the world. My understanding is that peace and unity is something that is up to everyone not just religion. If we can all accept our common humanity and establish a world civilisation based upon humanitarian principles and human rights then it would be a great step forward. I think all people can establish this if they really want to.

I’m only guessing but I think that the time will arrive when we all accept each other’s religions spiritually, except that laws such as human rights will govern society. People will still have freedom of worship but will even visit and pray and meditate at each other’s churches and temples. There will be a recognition and acknowledgment that exclusivism and superiority ideals are destructive to our unity and will be abandoned voluntarily.

Different illness we require different medicine. Today we need tolerance, open mindedness and unconditional acceptance of all people their different races, religions and nationalities are a part of our beautiful human diversity. There are evil forces such as arms dealers who gain from creating conflict and so we need not to give anyone trying to promote hatred a platform if we seek peace.

Regarding hell. Yes I believe that any person religious or not can be in a state of heaven or hell just as I believe an atheist may be truly religious while a religious person may be irreligious because I believe our deeds not what we call ourselves defines who we really are.

I can never claim or even say I am saved or such things and you are not because you may be the better person between you and I and I may just not be nearly as good as you no matter what I believe in.

I think it’s time though that all of us people began to think about reaching out to others, talking about how to create better understanding between us, healing the rifts between east and west and trying to learn to see us not as ‘us and them’ but see all humanity as one human family.

I believe when we can accept more readily each other then we will move closer to peace. Imagine when the huge military budgets are no longer invested in war but education, Medicare, jobs and improving the standard of living.

The only thing is to start talking about it until it becomes the wish of all people then I believe it will come true when we all want it to happen not before then.

Your post is very optimistic. However, I don't think the majority of Muslims think like this. Have you ever thought having words like evil, sin and hell/hheaven conflate religious interpretation and, most importantly, some inherent badness? Therefore, if someone thinks in these narrow and judgemental views it's more likely they'll judge other people prematurely and harshly. Why would we need these words and concepts if they only make things worse?

For instance, punitive incarceration has been the prevalent treatment of criminals for the majority recorded history. However, recent research and examples of restorative/rehabilitation justice has shown to be more effect. Norways' treatment of prisons is humane to the extreme and is effective. Nonetheless, the majority of people who think this kind of justice(restorative/rehabilitation) is wrong are those that are religious. They believe those that have done wrong deserve punishment. Therefore, it seems religious ideology is causing problems, not solving them. A similar example would be how some religious ideologies treat homosexuality. Perhaps, then, religions are not the answer.

 

[FragrantGrace]

Of course I uphold the Quran as I’ve read it and understand it’s message to be from God and that it only supports good actions and condemns all evils.

I believe we’ve had enough wars and now is the time to act maturely and reach out to each other in peace and reconciliation. It’s time, I believe we tried to understand and appreciate our differences.

The world needs to come together and reconcile it’s differences so we can all live in peace.

Today the greatest need i believe is for people of goodwill and intention from both east and west to try and create understanding and friendship between us all.

There is nothing more precious to me than the brotherhood of all mankind.

Interesting. Bahai hold the Kitáb-i-Aqdas as their high holy book of laws. Not the Qur'an.

This is the At-Tawba. Pay attention to verse 5 known as the sword verse.

Surah At-Tawbah [9:1-11]
5. And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Your post is very optimistic. However, I don't think the majority of Muslims think like this. Have you ever thought having words like evil, sin and hell/hheaven conflate religious interpretation and, most importantly, some inherent badness? Therefore, if someone thinks in these narrow and judgemental views it's more likely they'll judge other people prematurely and harshly. Why would we need these words and concepts if they only make things worse?

For instance, punitive incarceration has been the prevalent treatment of criminals for the majority recorded history. However, recent research and examples of restorative/rehabilitation justice has shown to be more effect. Norways' treatment of prisons is humane to the extreme and is effective. Nonetheless, the majority of people who think this kind of justice(restorative/rehabilitation) is wrong are those that are religious. They believe those that have done wrong deserve punishment. Therefore, it seems religious ideology is causing problems, not solving them. A similar example would be how some religious ideologies treat homosexuality. Perhaps, then, religions are not the answer.

It’s a matter then of a new positive language with a promise of peace and goodwill that needs to be looked at. I think I agree that negative languages may have worked in past ages but in this modern age we need as much encouragement as possible to bring together the diverse elements of human society.

I would say that if anything we need a new world minded attitude. The ideologies of the past worked for their time but in this age we have a different illness and so need a medicine for this age.

So i think we need a universal world embracing ethic and outlook that encompasses all religions and none that accepts all humanity as equals.

I think that due to technological advances made in this age only a universal all embracing attitude could ever work and it must be all inclusive as all races, nations and religions are now coming into direct contact with each other so we need to have an outlook that is accepting and welcoming of all.

 

[charlie sc]

It’s a matter then of a new positive language with a promise of peace and goodwill that needs to be looked at. I think I agree that negative languages may have worked in past ages but in this modern age we need as much encouragement as possible to bring together the diverse elements of human society.

I would say that if anything we need a new world minded attitude. The ideologies of the past worked for their time but in this age we have a different illness and so need a medicine for this age.

So i think we need a universal world embracing ethic and outlook that encompasses all religions and none that accepts all humanity as equals.

I think that due to technological advances made in this age only a universal all embracing attitude could ever work and it must be all inclusive as all races, nations and religions are now coming into direct contact with each other so we need to have an outlook that is accepting and welcoming of all.

This is a wonderful way to look at things, but this is not response I get from people following the monotheistic religions. I would expect this from Buddhism, maybe Taoism and Confucianism. What we really need is evidential belief, not faith based belief. In this forum alone, I had a discussion based on deserved punishment where two Baha believers thought people deserved punishment(punitive). She would continuously quote bahai scripture to prove her point(from post 247 but there's some before). No matter how much evidence I provided it would be ignored for faith. I had a similar discussion where someone, who is Jewish, said prisoners and psychopaths deserved punishment based on literature from their faith(post 185).

Atheism and agnosticism is based on evidential claims and no atheist on these forums has argued against my claim that prisoners need humane treatment(based on evidence), not punishment. How am I or anyone able to argue against a disturbing interpretation or correct interpretation of faith based literature? I argue you can't and these sorts of people are closed minded. Even today, your (peaceful?) religion is namely and harshly persecuted by islamic states. The front page on the Bahá’í International Community website is someone of the Baha faith being sentenced to death because of religious motivation. Therefore, I have to respectfully decline that religion is the answer to ills, especially Islam.

It's not ok to criticise people but it is ok to criticise ideologies. People are not born with ideologies; we're either made to or choose to believe in them. If we cannot criticise an ideology then it's perfect fine to accept the Nazi interpretation of reality and their disturbing ideology. However, we do, because it's deeply disturbing and because there are negative, real life, consequences to people believing certain things. I do agree that inclusion and an embracing attitude is important, but I don't agree religions, especially certain religions, are the answer.

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is a wonderful way to look at things, but this is not response I get from people following the monotheistic religions. I would expect this from Buddhism, maybe Taoism and Confucianism. What we really need is evidential belief, not faith based belief. In this forum alone, I had a discussion based on deserved punishment where two Baha believers thought people deserved punishment(punitive). She would continuously quote bahai scripture to prove her point(from post 247 but there's some before). No matter how much evidence I provided it would be ignored for faith. I had a similar discussion where someone, who is Jewish, said prisoners and psychopaths deserved punishment based on literature from their faith(post 185).

Atheism and agnosticism is based on evidential claims and no atheist on these forums has argued against my claim that prisoners need humane treatment(based on evidence), not punishment. How am I or anyone able to argue against a disturbing interpretation or correct interpretation of faith based literature? I argue you can't and these sorts of people are closed minded. Even today, your (peaceful?) religion is namely and harshly persecuted by islamic states. The front page on the Bahá’í International Community website is someone of the Baha faith being sentenced to death because of religious motivation. Therefore, I have to respectfully decline that religion is the answer to ills, especially Islam.

It's not ok to criticise people but it is ok to criticise ideologies. People are not born with ideologies; we're either made to or chose to believe in them. If we cannot criticise an ideology then it's perfect fine to accept the Nazi interpretation of reality and their disturbing ideology. However, we do, because it's deeply disturbing and because there are negative, real life, consequences to people believing certain things. I do agree that inclusion and an embracing attitude is important, but I don't agree religions, especially certain religions, are the answer.

We believe also that the Quran is from God but we are taught by it to accept all other religions and seek peace and brotherhood.

Persecution of religious minorities is strictly against the teachings of the Quran that state that there is to be ‘no compulsion in religion’.

The Bible also says ‘Thou shalt not kill’ but some people do not obey it.

It is disobedience to the laws of God such as love thy neighbour and not to kill that brings things like war and violence upon us.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

We believe also that the Quran is from God but we are taught by it to accept all other religions and seek peace and brotherhood.

Persecution of religious minorities is strictly against the teachings of the Quran that state that there is to be ‘no compulsion in religion’.

You're taking the 'no compulsion in religion' quote out of context. It was for a specific time & place. Unless you want to try saying it's universal in context in which case there's no reason to not say the 'sword verse' isn't universal except it doesn't conform to Bahai confirmation bias.

 

[charlie sc]

Persecution of religious minorities is strictly against the teachings of the Quran that state that there is to be ‘no compulsion in religion’.

There is more context than this in Islam and Islamic scholars/people have interpreted this particular verse in numerous ways.

The Bible also says ‘Thou shalt not kill’ but some people do not obey it.

Ineed, don't kill, but god kills, in mass, indiscriminately and judges people harshly with prejudice. God will also tell people to kill. There are numerous contradictory passages in Islam and Christianity, but people still have to decide what they want to believe and how they want to interpret it.

It is disobedience to the laws of God such as love thy neighbour and not to kill that brings things like war and violence upon us.

Indeed, love thy neighbour but then again there are slave laws and how you treat slaves in comparison to other people.

What you are really asking is for people to interpret convoluted text your way and to ignore others. Really, this is a hopeless position on your part, because you are doing exactly what other denominations/sects are doing. You're stuck in the same cycle.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Interesting. Bahai hold the Kitáb-i-Aqdas as their high holy book of laws. Not the Qur'an.

This is the At-Tawba. Pay attention to verse 5 known as the sword verse.

Surah At-Tawbah [9:1-11]
5. And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

The law of the Quran regarding fighting depends on being attacked FIRST.

Different translations here so it’s clear about the defensive laws. Aggression and offensive warfare is forbidden in the Quran.

2: 190 And fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight against you; but transgress not by attacking them first, for GOD loveth not the transgressors.

George Sale

2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:

J M Rodwell

2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.

N J Dawood

2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.


Marmaduke Pickthall

2:190 AND FIGHT in God’s cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression –for, verily, God does not love aggressors.


Muhammad Assad

[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.


Rashad Khalifa

The Quran forbids premeditated murder

 

[loverofhumanity]

You're taking the 'no compulsion in religion' quote out of context. It was for a specific time & place. Unless you want to try saying it's universal in context in which case there's no reason to not say the 'sword verse' isn't universal except it doesn't conform to Bahai confirmation bias.

Firstly in the Quran it is forbidden to attack first as quoted in Sura 2:190 this is the condition upon which Muslims can enter into any battle. That is not abrogated as is that there is to be no compulsion in religion.

2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:

J M Rodwell

And other religions are told that their religion is accepted by God and rewarded for good deeds.

2:62

Verily, they who believe (Muslims), and they who follow the Jewish religion, and the Christians, and the Sabeites–whoever of these believeth in God and the last day, and doeth that which is right, shall have their reward with their Lord: fear shall not come upon them, neither shall they be grieved.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Firstly in the Quran it is forbidden to attack first as quoted in Sura 2:190 this is the condition upon which Muslims can enter into any battle. That is not abrogated as is that there is to be no compulsion in religion.

2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:

J M Rodwell

And other religions are told that their religion is accepted by God and rewarded for good deeds.

2:62

Verily, they who believe (Muslims), and they who follow the Jewish religion, and the Christians, and the Sabeites–whoever of these believeth in God and the last day, and doeth that which is right, shall have their reward with their Lord: fear shall not come upon them, neither shall they be grieved.

And yet the Muslims launched the first attacks in their war against the Meccans by striking Meccan caravans.

The purpose of 'counter-attacking' against the non-Muslims is to convert them to Islam. Because the verse I mentioned says to fight them until they surrender and convert.

Which was why Muhammad launched a military offensive against the settlement of Ta'if. Muhammad went against his own instructions and Allah did not punish him. Strange...

 

[loverofhumanity]

There is more context than this in Islam and Islamic scholars/people have interpreted this particular verse in numerous ways.


Ineed, don't kill, but god kills, in mass, indiscriminately and judges people harshly with prejudice. God will also tell people to kill. There are numerous contradictory passages in Islam and Christianity, but people still have to decide what they want to believe and how they want to interpret it.


Indeed, love thy neighbour but then again there are slave laws and how you treat slaves in comparison to other people.

What you are really asking is for people to interpret convoluted text your way and to ignore others. Really, this is a hopeless position on your part, because you are doing exactly what other denominations/sects are doing. You're stuck in the same cycle.

God only teaches that which is beneficial to us.

Scholars and leaders have been the cause of wars and bloodshed for political purposes and divided religions.

Slavery was not introduced by the Bible or any Holy Book but is an ancient practice which the Bible sought to regulate as did the Quran. Baha’u’llah has officially abolished slavery in His Holy Book.

Today we have the chance for world peace and to focus on reconciling our differences is productive & the most noble and worthy goal of man. We all agree that violence and war have been detrimental to human progress so we should all be striving for a better understanding of one another and to establish a permanent peace between east and west.

Let’s focus on how we can contribute towards the peace and reconciliation of people. That is the calling of this generation, to bring humanity together.

 

[paarsurrey]

And yet the Muslims launched the first attacks in their war against the Meccans by striking Meccan caravans.

The purpose of 'counter-attacking' against the non-Muslims is to convert them to Islam. Because the verse I mentioned says to fight them until they surrender and convert.

Which was why Muhammad launched a military offensive against the settlement of Ta'if. Muhammad went against his own instructions and Allah did not punish him. Strange...

For understanding peaceful Quran/Islam/Muhammad one has to start from the events happened in Mecca, the dealings done by Meccans with Muhammad and his followers in his first 13 years after his proclamation of being a Messenger/Prophet of G-d. Should I mention from the start, if you don't mind, please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[loverofhumanity]

And yet the Muslims launched the first attacks in their war against the Meccans by striking Meccan caravans.

The purpose of 'counter-attacking' against the non-Muslims is to convert them to Islam. Because the verse I mentioned says to fight them until they surrender and convert.

Which was why Muhammad launched a military offensive against the settlement of Ta'if. Muhammad went against his own instructions and Allah did not punish him. Strange...

The Muslims were first attacked, persecuted, their businesses plundered and livelihood destroyed and some killed during 13 years of persecution in Mecca after which they fled to Abyssinia as refugees and given refuge by the Christian King Negus. The Meccans pursued them to Abyssinia intending to exterminate and commit genocide against the Muslim community. An assassination attempt was also made against Prophet Muhammad but failed.

Then they fled to Medina where the Medinians accepted Muhammad. After 13 years of being pursued and hunted down God revealed Sura 2:190 to defend only if attacked.

So the very first attacks and murders and the beginning of the war was started by the Meccans who would not permit freedom of religion to the Muslims as well as plundered all their possessions and exiled them homeless and penniless.

8:26

Call to mind how He gave you shelter when you were few in number and were oppressed in the land, fearing that the enemy would kidnap you. But He provided you a safe asylum,

In a war the Meccans started with intent to exterminate the entire Muslim community attacks on caravans became a war tactic to disrupt flow of goods and supplies which were to be used to attack Muslims.

 

[Audie]

The law of the Quran regarding fighting depends on being attacked FIRST.

Different translations here so it’s clear about the defensive laws. Aggression and offensive warfare is forbidden in the Quran.

2: 190 And fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight against you; but transgress not by attacking them first, for GOD loveth not the transgressors.

George Sale

2:190 And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice:

J M Rodwell

2:190 Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.

N J Dawood

2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.


Marmaduke Pickthall

2:190 AND FIGHT in God’s cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression –for, verily, God does not love aggressors.


Muhammad Assad

[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.


Rashad Khalifa

The Quran forbids premeditated murder

What quote defines what constitutes an attack,
or murder?

 

[Audie]

The Muslims were first attacked, persecuted, their businesses plundered and livelihood destroyed and some killed during 13 years of persecution in Mecca after which they fled to Abyssinia as refugees and given refuge by the Christian King Negus. The Meccans pursued them to Abyssinia intending to exterminate and commit genocide against the Muslim community. An assassination attempt was also made against Prophet Muhammad but failed.

Then they fled to Medina where the Medinians accepted Muhammad. After 13 years of being pursued and hunted down God revealed Sura 2:190 to defend only if attacked.

So the very first attacks and murders and the beginning of the war was started by the Meccans who would not permit freedom of religion to the Muslims as well as plundered all their possessions and exiled them homeless and penniless.

8:26

Call to mind how He gave you shelter when you were few in number and were oppressed in the land, fearing that the enemy would kidnap you. But He provided you a safe asylum,

In a war the Meccans started with intent to exterminate the entire Muslim community attacks on caravans became a war tactic to disrupt flow of goods and supplies which were to be used to attack Muslims.

So, premeditsted attacks on innocents
whose mistake was to attempt to continue
to try to make a difficult living via caravans
was ok.

How did they know which ones carried
goods and supplies used to make war?

 

[loverofhumanity]

And yet the Muslims launched the first attacks in their war against the Meccans by striking Meccan caravans.

The purpose of 'counter-attacking' against the non-Muslims is to convert them to Islam. Because the verse I mentioned says to fight them until they surrender and convert.

Which was why Muhammad launched a military offensive against the settlement of Ta'if. Muhammad went against his own instructions and Allah did not punish him. Strange...

For some 13 years both Muhammad and His followers endured the most intense persecution by the Meccans.Their businesses were plundered, they were evicted from their homes, beaten, tortured and some killed.

The Meccans sole aim was genocide and when the Muslims fled homeless and penniless the Meccans pursued them to Abyssinia and Medina with intent to exterminate them.

Today we don’t accept genocide yet it appears that some are saying genocide against Muslims was ok and that they should have just lay down and accepted being massacred.

I don’t think so. I can never support genocide not now and certainly not then when the Meccans were intent on wiping out all Muslims just for their belief in God.

 

[loverofhumanity]

What quote defines what constitutes an attack,
or murder?

Then it was with the sword. But only if attacked so by other combatants.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So, premeditsted attacks on innocents
whose mistake was to attempt to continue
to try to make a difficult living via caravans
was ok.

How did they know which ones carried
goods and supplies used to make war?

The early Muslims lived in Mecca and had their own businesses.