Islam - What's your view on it?

[UKMikey]

I think you're seeing it in the same way as like how HIV has to be present for AIDS to develop (i.e. all or nothing).

What I'm proposing is that religion is more like variants of the MAOA gene and its effects (in the MAOA case) on aggression, i.e. that it's more nuanced.

I have no idea what you're talking about as I'm not a medical expert either but would appreciate some harder evidence that the two situations are equivalent. What you seem to be saying is that Islamic people are more predisposed to be violent. I'm saying the system of government in theocracies is at fault and we should direct our intentions towards that rather than the religion itself unless we can fundamentally determine that it's the root cause, otherwise we risk doing as much harm as good if not more.

Helping people to look critically at the bloody or immoral teachings of their holy book has and does help people escape from religion. But we can't do that if we pretend that religion is perfectly fine and it's just violent people who would be exactly the same (violent) if they were different (not religious) who give religion a bad name.

I'm not saying religion is perfectly fine, nor am I saying that people should be weaned off it. I'm saying that any attempt to do so by those outside the religion is almost certain to be taken as oppression and persecution and won't work. If one proposes such a solution then I think they should be both very sure of their facts and able to demonstrate them in a way that's very hard to dispute before they set about addressing how the people who follow that religion should practise it and expecting them to listen.

If people are so capable of violence as to set up a totalitarian society in order to provide the means of perpetrating that violence, then I'm not sure how taking religion away from them would change this.

 

[Danoff]

I'm saying that any attempt to do so

Any attempt?

I keep suspecting that I mostly agree with you, but you keep leaving the door cracked for me to think maybe not. What if the attempt is just pointing out that religion, especially the one this thread is about, is full of violent and oppressive teachings, and linking it directly with the theocracies and terrorism carried out in its name? What if the attempt is just speech?

Religion does not get a free pass from me. It is a mental trap that ensnares millions and replicates oppression, violence, and misery. It should be legal to speak, but not legal to enforce.

A government that violates the rights of its people is not a legitimate government to that extent that it does so. And theocracies often violate the rights of their citizens to great extent. Forcibly oppressing people is criminal.

 

[UKMikey]

Any attempt?

I keep suspecting that I mostly agree with you, but you keep leaving the door cracked for me to think maybe not. What if the attempt is just pointing out that religion, especially the one this thread is about, is full of violent and oppressive teachings, and linking it directly with the theocracies and terrorism carried out in its name? What if the attempt is just speech?

Religion does not get a free pass from me. It is a mental trap that ensnares millions and replicates oppression, violence, and misery. It should be legal to speak, but not legal to enforce.

A government that violates the rights of its people is not a legitimate government to that extent that it does so. And theocracies often violate the rights of their citizens to great extent. Forcibly oppressing people is criminal.

I think we're arguing at cross purposes. This is what I said later in the same paragraph.

If one proposes such a solution then I think they should be both very sure of their facts and able to demonstrate them in a way that's very hard to dispute before they set about addressing how the people who follow that religion should practise it and expecting them to listen.

Of course you can do a Sam Harris and criticise Islam for encouraging violence provided you have your facts straight. You can set up a dialogue with people and attempt to convince them to change their behaviour. (Actually Harris is probably a terrible example.) Until now nobody has said exactly which practical steps we should take to deal with Islamic terrorism and how it relates to the religion itself, with concrete examples from their religious teachings that prove that it compels them to set up an Islamic state in order to practise their religion.

Any meaningful reform has to come from within though. "Not giving religion a free pass" sounds to me like telling believers "You're following the wrong religion" or, worse, "You're wrong for following a religion" and I question the practicability and effectiveness of such an approach.

 

[MonoTonouS]

:

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”

Ah yes I like where the holocaust was caused by religion and not by the prevailing and wide spread science at the time. The nazis were total zealots of religion and not of science /s

I swear atheist say some stupid **** on the regular that makes no sense.

Literally no empirical basis to justify that quote .

 

[Danoff]

Ah yes I like where the holocaust was caused by religion and not by the prevailing and wide spread science at the time. The nazis were total zealots of religion and not of science /s

Ooooohkaaaayyy...

Religion in Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"We are no theologians, no representatives of the teaching profession in this sense, put forth no theology. But we claim one thing for ourselves: that we place the great fundamental idea of Christianity in the center of our ideology [Ideenwelt] – the hero and sufferer Christ himself stands in the center.[58]

— Hans Schemm, Nazi Gauleiter"

The Nazi movement itself emulated religion in order to achieve its effect. It used a lot of the same techniques, and the wikipedia article calls it a "political religion". If it is an exception, it supports the rule.

 

[UKMikey]

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”

Ah yes I like where the holocaust was caused by religion and not by the prevailing and wide spread science at the time. The nazis were total zealots of religion and not of science /s

Are you saying the Nazis were good people doing evil? I thought they were just bad people.

 

[MonoTonouS]

Are you saying the Nazis were good people doing evil? I thought they were just bad people.

So every german was evil ? Outside of the SS most soldiers were conscripted .

Also the jewish hate was backed by bunk pseudo science that was at the time considered factual science . Jews were of an " inferior race"

Show me data that only religion makes good people do bad thing. No argument will suffice , science is science and requires cold hard empirical data to substantiate .

My main example would be communism , communist are almost exclusively atheist . Che guevara was an atheist and he killed homosexuals as were MANY communist who were also atheist.

Also the good old " I guess he was evil to begin with" is the same argument muslims make when some one does an act of evil " He was never muslim, a muslim would never do that" .

 

[Famine]

So every german was evil?

While you're busy idiotically straw-manning, you've still got an apology to make after your last profoundly uninformed post - which I notice you've been ignoring as hard as possible...


Edit: Not all Germans were Nazis, so the response "so every German was evil" to "the Nazis were evil" is indeed a strawman.

Germans were the Nazis' first victims, and around 150,000 German Jews - notably not Nazis - were murdered by the Nazis. Your response is dense beyond measure.

 

[UKMikey]

Also the good old " I guess he was evil to begin with" is the same argument muslims make when some one does an act of evil " He was never muslim, a muslim would never do that" .

I didn't ask that. I was asking whether their science caused them to do evil things or whether they chose themselves. If they did then they became bad people when they chose to do evil, not "to begin with".

The quote isn't mine, I just asked you a question based upon your interpretation of it.

As for Muslims, if some of them commit evil and some of them don't, then it doesn't make sense to me that it'd be because some of them are Muslim and some of them aren't unless Islam were the cause. If it were though, it'd make both of them do evil in the same way unless one was a bad person. It'd be like using the KKK burning people on Christian crosses as proof of the evil of Christianity when it was more about killing black people.

Evil things like the Inquisition were done in the name of the Church but I think they were more about conquest and grabbing land and resources as a primary cause, just like the Nazis.

idiotically straw-manning

Judging by every reply he's ever made to me I'd say that's pretty much his MO so far.

 

[Danoff]

Until now nobody has said exactly which practical steps we should take to deal with Islamic terrorism and how it relates to the religion itself, with concrete examples from their religious teachings that prove that it compels them to set up an Islamic state in order to practise their religion.

You mean like death sentences for adultery or lack of belief? The Quran also has some to say about martyrdom getting you into heaven - which is how Islamic terrorists are indoctrinated. The Quran, like other holy texts, lays out an attempt at a divine government. Not just sins, but sentences for sins. The creation of a state that attempts to enact these kinds of restrictions is the mandate of religion. The Jews have Israel, the Christians have had many nations that persecuted under Christian law, and there are many states today that enact Islamic Sharia law. All of these are derived specifically from the texts. I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for in this regard, but divine law represents a call to action for the believer. The Quran says you must stone adulterers to death, and so Islamic nations sentence women and girls who are victims of rape to be stoned to death for adultery. What more do you want? The holy book says it should be so, and it is carried out in the state. Done.

==================================================

This is worth noting for the earlier discussion of religion in Nazi motivations for exterminating the Jews (timed to start at the relevant section)

 

[UKMikey]

You mean like death sentences for adultery or lack of belief? The Quran also has some to say about martyrdom getting you into heaven - which is how Islamic terrorists are indoctrinated. The Quran, like other holy texts, lays out an attempt at a divine government. Not just sins, but sentences for sins. The creation of a state that attempts to enact these kinds of restrictions is the mandate of religion. The Jews have Israel, the Christians have had many nations that persecuted under Christian law, and there are many states today that enact Islamic Sharia law. All of these are derived specifically from the texts. I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for in this regard, but divine law represents a call to action for the believer. The Quran says you must stone adulterers to death, and so Islamic nations sentence women and girls who are victims of rape to be stoned to death for adultery. What more do you want? The holy book says it should be so, and it is carried out in the state. Done.

This is theocracy and you've responded to my question asking where it tells them to do it and what should be done about it simply by replying it does and that that they do it. If so, then I don't understand why all Muslim nations don't adhere to these rules that their book compels them to follow. Are they bad Muslims or is there something else going on to make them operate as secular democracies? Surely there must be instances where people follow their religion without enforcing death sentences as commanded in their book or is it a natural consequence of what they're reading? Perhaps I'm wrong and those countries don't exist because Islam forbids debate but I don't know.

SAHIH MUSLIM, BOOK 20: The Book On Government (Kitab Al-Imara)

"And those who do not make their decisions in accordance with that revealed by Allah are (in fact) the deniers of Truth" (v. 44). It thus becomes quite clear that a State established on the basis of God's sovereignty cannot enforce any law in contravention of the Qur'an and the Sunnah even if all the citizens make a demand for it.

An Islamic State is, therefore, theocratic in one aspect as it is run according to God-given laws, but it is altogether a differmt theocracy of which Europe has had the bitter experience and in which, a priestly clan is sharply marked off from the rest of the population and exercises an unchecked domination and enforces laws of its own making in the name of God, and thus imposes its own godhood upon the common people. The priest puts himself as a mediator between the masses and the unseen God. Such a system is quite un-Islamic.

The theocracy built by Islam is not ruled by a particular religious class, but by the whole community of Muslims including the rank and file. as Allah has not appointed a particular individual, group, race or class as the representative of the Real Sovereign upon the earth, but the whole community.

If I'm reading this right, the writer of this article seems to think that Islamic countries should respect the rights of all their citizens and his interpretation of the Qu'ran appears to me to support this. He calls for a government supported by all and not a minority of priests interpreting the law in a totalitarian manner. This would appear to lay open the case for reform to me.

Theocracy and totalitarianism is the cause of evil and oppression as much as it was in Christian nations which put people to death because of Biblical deaths. They stopped doing that and so should Islamic theocracies. It's possible to do this by reforming the way people observe the religion. I thought the Bible expressly stated that Church and State should be divided anyway.

The only alternative to countries run by Islam murdering people I've heard suggested by people like Sam Harris is to eradicate the religion or its followers because of what its more extreme followers who are in power do in some countries. I'm looking for a way that doesn't involve that.

 

[Danoff]

This is theocracy and you've responded to my question asking where it tells them to do it simply by replying that they do it.

You're looking for something in the Quran that says do it, and I'm saying that the Quran says stone adulterers. And then they do it (enact laws based on this) because the Quran says stone adulterers. What's missing?

I don't understand why all Muslim nations don't adhere to these rules that their book compels them to follow.

All religions have followers that opt out of certain provsision.

Are they bad Muslims or is there something else going on to make them operate as secular democracies?

"Bad" meaning they don't follow the word of the Quran closely? I don't think that's for me to judge. I'd probably call that "good". Some muslims would probably call them bad muslims.

SAHIH MUSLIM, BOOK 20: The Book On Government (Kitab Al-Imara)

If I'm reading this right, the writer of this article seems to think that Islamic countries should respect the rights of all their citizens and his interpretation of the Qu'ran appears to me to support this. He calls for a government supported by all and not a minority of priests interpreting the law in a totalitarian manner. This would appear to lay open the case for reform to me.

Your quote isn't quite making the point that you're making I think. That quote looks to me like it says that all must live according to Islamic law (sharia law) equally. There is no earthly divine leader but a heavenly divine leader. I think the point that's being made is a very technical one. Perhaps theocracy isn't the right word but an ecclesiocracy instead. I think generally people would think of a theocracy as both.

There is nothing about respecting human rights in there. It is all about enacting the word of god, in this case, stoning adulterers and infidels.

It's possible to do this by reforming the way people observe the religion.

The work is easier with Christianity than it is with Islam or Judaism. The New Testament is the least bloody and barbaric of the books. Not to say that it's not bloody or barbaric, but the least.

I thought the Bible expressly stated that Church and State should be divided anyway.

I'd be interested to see that quote.

 

[UKMikey]

You're looking for something in the Quran that says do it, and I'm saying that the Quran says stone adulterers. And then they do it (enact laws based on this) because the Quran says stone adulterers. What's missing?

The where bit. I can take your word for it but would've been interested in the quoted passages. I'm not sure why I should be the only person who has to provide citations when I wasn't the person who opened the discussion in the first place.

All religions have followers that opt out of certain provsision.

In which case, should we allow them to continue doing so or prohibit their religion? I'm saying we should prohibit their religion from making secular law so that reform can grow and flourish.

"Bad" meaning they don't follow the word of the Quran closely? I don't think that's for me to judge. I'd probably call that "good". Some muslims would probably call them bad muslims.

So would I but that doesn't really answer the question.

There is nothing about respecting human rights in there. It is all about enacting the word of god, in this case, stoning adulterers and infidels.

He says everyone should have a say and that's not the case at the moment as a dictatorial minority interpret the law for the majority. I don't think people would actively campaign for their country to stone them to death, which leads back to my unanswered question above.

The work is easier with Christianity than it is with Islam or Judaism. The New Testament is the least bloody and barbaric of the books. Not to say that it's not bloody or barbaric, but the least.

The subject of reform should at least be broached with the other religions otherwise we're back to recommending prohibition as the only option. I don't think whether it's easy or not should be a consideration to anyone who thinks that it's necessary. Do you?

I'd be interested to see that quote.

[15] Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
[16] And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
[17] Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
[18] But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
[19] Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
[20] And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
[21] They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
[22] When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

A poster in the Britain thread was insisting that to allow immigrants from Muslim countries into Western secular countries will inevitably lead to those countries becoming majority Muslim countries with the entirety of sharia law written into their constitutions. I'm still not sure that's the case as existing secular law supercedes that of the Qu'ran except in technical matters regarding religion and family law as I understand things. As pointed out earlier this is also an interpretation of sharia.

 

[Danoff]

The where bit. I can take your word for it but would've been interested in the quoted passages.

Stoning in Islam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For the stoning bit, Islamic scholars have interpreted the original quran's text to mean this through whatever their weird process is for interpreting the quran. It talks about lashes, but they've determined that stoning is good enough.

Book 17, Number 4191:

'Ubada b. as-Samit reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Receive (teaching) from me, receive (teaching) from me. Allah has ordained a way for those (women). When an unmarried male commits adultery with an unmarried female (they should receive) one hundred lashes and banishment for one year. And in case of married male committing adultery with a married female, they shall receive one hundred lashes and be stoned to death.

It's not really that hard to find these passages. Here's some death to the infidels:

Most assuredly it does. The Taqiya answers given already are without foundation as they are quoting abrogated text and ignore history.

If the Quran and ahadith aren’t sufficient, look at 14 centuries of killing. Islam didn’t spread from out of the Arabian Peninsula and cover Morocco to Indonesia with peace and love. You could ask the (conservative estimate of) 80 million Hindus killed during the conquest of India or the cultures of North Africa (remember Carthage?) utterly destroyed with the spread of Islam, but of course, they’re gone. But it’s not just ancient history, it’s happening daily to Yazidi, Christian Nigerians and more, by people following the letter of the law as dictated by the Quran. As there are far too many surahs and ahadith instructing Muslims to kill unbelievers, here is a taste.

The penultimate surah chronologically is number 9, the most violent of the surahs.

9:5

"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

Note that it says when the sacred months have passed. This means they were not under attack. If they were, the Quran commanded them to defend themselves so there would have been no waiting.

9:29

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”

Note that this abrogates any remaining verse saying Christians and Jews are safe. Just to make sure that Jews and Christians are to be included in conquest, four verses later is:

9:33

“It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it.”

A couple more samples from the second to last surah:

9:73

O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.

9:123

"O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Many, MANY more surah verses commanding violence, especially Medinan verses. Just one more Medinan verse for you, 66:9

O Prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.

Let’s not forget ahadith.

Sahih Muslim 1:30

"The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

Sahih Muslim 31:5917 describes Muhammad’s general, Ali, going off to fight but pausing and asking why these people are to be attacked. Muhammad’s response was because they are not Muslim.

“Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: Allah’s Messenger, on what issue should I fight the people? Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger”

Plenty more in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, but I leave you with what is probably the coldest and most callous utterance from Muhammad, quoted several times in both sets of the two most trusted (authentic) collections of ahadith. When informed that during an attack on unbelievers (attacked for nothing but being polytheists) that innocent women and children were killed, he responded “They are from them.”

In which case, should we allow them to continue doing so or prohibit their religion? I'm saying we should prohibit their religion from making secular law so that reform can grow and flourish.

I'm definitely not arguing for the use of force against peaceful people.

He says everyone should have a say and that's not the case at the moment as a dictatorial minority interpret the law for the majority. I don't think people would say that their country should stone them to death, which leads back to my unanswered question earlier.

He says following the god-given law. "An Islamic State is, therefore, theocratic in one aspect as it is run according to God-given laws". So you have to stone people to death for adultery. You just get to have a say in who hands down the decision.

The subject should at least be broached with the other religions otherwise we're back to prohibition. I don't think whether it's easy or not should be a consideration to anyone who thinks that it's necessary. Do you?

I'm not sure you understood my point. You keep saying that other religions have managed to go soft over the years, I'm explaining a little bit as to why they've gone soft while Islam hasn't.

Regarding "render unto Caesar", I don't see that as establishing a separation of church and state. But maybe I need to really read more into what Jesus is saying there.

 

[UKMikey]

It's not really that hard to find these passages. Here's some death to the infidels:

Somehow I knew it would come down to Taqiyya, dhimmis and "Muslims are deliberately lying to us because it's what we want to hear". But why don't Muslims who don't live in theocracies do this? Is it the theocracy or the religion which is the problem?

I'm not sure you understood my point. You keep saying that other religions have managed to go soft over the years, I'm explaining a little bit as to why they've gone soft while Islam hasn't.

I'm saying that Islam itself has gone soft over the years for those Muslims living in democracies, particularly the United States and UK. Perhaps I'm mistaken but I think stoning gays is prohibited by law over here.

 

[Danoff]

I'm saying that Islam itslef has gone soft over the years for those Muslims living in democracies, particularly the United States and UK. Perhaps I'm mistaken but I think stoning gays is prohibited by law over here.

You're still kinda missing my point. We don't have Christian examples of nations that do what Islamic nations do today. We do have an example of a pretty harsh Jewish state, but that's another matter.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm definitely not arguing for the use of force against peaceful people.

I hope you're not implying that I am.

You're still kinda missing my point. We don't have Christian examples of nations that do what Islamic nations do today. We do have an example of a pretty harsh Jewish state, but that's another matter.

If I'm not mistaken Islam is a younger religion and hasn't been through widespread reform as Christianity has. The regions in which it flourishes are arguably less developed as nations. I don't know whether that's either (a) inherently the fault of Islam as the texts have a degree of overlap or (b) merely a product of the widespread secularisation of followers of the latter. If there's no hope for Islam and it's an unreformable religion, then it sounds pretty serious and maybe holy war is inevitable. I sure hope not though and would like to find evidence for an alternative solution.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I have no idea what you're talking about as I'm not a medical expert either but would appreciate some harder evidence that the two situations are equivalent.

Sorry, was using an analogy.

If you have AIDS, you must have HIV.

If you carry a certain type of a gene, then you may be more aggressive. Although this is controversial, you can see from the wiki link that it has been used in legal defences.

My understanding is that you need religion to be an all-or-nothing thing, like HIV with AIDS for it to be blamed.

What you seem to be saying is that Islamic people are more predisposed to be violent.

No.

I'm saying faith can be a factor in causing harm. It's certainly not limited to Islam.

As was demonstrated to me earlier in the thread I'm not sure why Islamist violence is more common than other types of faith based violence, and I don't know how you figure this out.

I'm saying the system of government in theocracies is at fault and we should direct our intentions towards that rather than the religion itself unless we can fundamentally determine that it's the root cause, otherwise we risk doing as much harm as good if not more.I'm not saying religion is perfectly fine, nor am I saying that people should be weaned off it. I'm saying that any attempt to do so by those outside the religion is almost certain to be taken as oppression and persecution and won't work. If one proposes such a solution then I think they should be both very sure of their facts and able to demonstrate them in a way that's very hard to dispute before they set about addressing how the people who follow that religion should practise it and expecting them to listen.

If people are so capable of violence as to set up a totalitarian society in order to provide the means of perpetrating that violence, then I'm not sure how taking religion away from them would change this.

I don't know if memes are subject to pressure in the same way genes are, but I reckon it's worth a shot to challenge religion.

 

[Danoff]

I hope you're not implying that I am.

No.

If there's no hope for Islam and it's an unreformable religion

I think you've already made a case that it can reform, but there are excerpts from the Quran (like the other books) that will inevitably crop back up. Hopefully less and less.