Educated Opinions On: Islam in the West

[Iota]

But as has already been explained and repeatedly pointed out to you, there is no single monolithic unidimensional version of Islam in the modern world. It differs in incredibly significant ways across regions and across individuals.

 

Well then we simply disagree here. It is plain to me that there are many vile teachings in the Quran, which are plain and are widely practiced, which I will hold Islam account for. Nothing is absolute or unidimensional, but that doesn't mean that because it isn't, we can't stretch or imaginations slightly, and quietly acknowledge that fact- and discuss the matter. If you want to be that incredibly anal, then fine, obviously the discussion will not be able to stand in that environment. But I don't see that any form of open discussion and sharing of opinions can exist, when individuals like yourself are incapable of the tiniest stretch of imagination or leniency- for the sake of argument- in order to do so.

Even when we step back and look directly at the texts of the holy book we find different people justifiably coming to different conclusions and having different interpretations of the exact same passages.

 

Yes, religion is baseless, none of it is proven, it all contradicts itself. So what? That's the nature of religion. I'm encompassing all of that when I say Islam, for the sake of argument, in order to discuss the bigger picture; to discuss the topic. Anyone can point out what you're doing, but whether that's a valid reason to therefore stop the discussion and dismiss the discussion on that basis, I find rather questionable, and almost deplorable.

You also start with several a priori assumptions and premises that have been directly challenged, and it's been pointed out to you that most of the things you describe as adverse effects are likely better attributed to other factors such as isolation, poverty, poor education, and lack of access to resources.

 

I addressed that point, I won't repeat myself again and again and again.

 

Finally, you're conflating Islam with extremism, and while there are clearly extremist elements within the population, they are by any measure the minority and not representative of the broader population. You would be similarly challenged if you tried to suggest that the Westboro Baptist Church was representative of Christianity as a whole, and asked us if "Christianity" could ever be "watered down" and "westernized" enough to allow for peaceful coexistence.

 

Your comparison fails. I didn't do anything comparable to what you described above here. And this I do find deplorable. Don't accuse me of things I haven't done, I won't have it.

 

If you're frustrated that people are not understanding you accurately, then stop getting pissed off and lashing out at the reader and start communicating and articulating your thoughts more clearly as the author.

 

Pissed off? Lashing out? No, iNow, for an open discussion of opinions, I'm not going to attempt to conform to your ridiculous, impossibly high standards which involve everything being absolute, everything being non-open to interpretation in anyway, nor will I accommodate for your deliberate lack of common sense regarding this debate, your deliberate no stretch of imagination and your deliberate non-leniency. You're being as though I'm trying to put forward a scientific theory, as opposed to what I'm actually doing, trying to start an open discussion, of opinions. You're being ridiculous and I won't concede otherwise.

 

It's clear this discussion can't go on any further; other than what I've said there's nothing else for me to say. As I said before, I politely retire from this topic. Not angrily or lashing out as iNow sees it.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Iota

[CharonY]

Demanding context-free discussions pretty much precludes the educated and emphasizes the opinion part.

[Irbis]

I think this article (written by a former Muslim) is a good summary.

 

Since, thanks to Islamic terrorism the interest to know Islam has peaked and Islam has come under scrutiny, the westerners began asking, where are the moderate Muslims. Well, there is none. The concept is absurd. Muslims view this issue differently. You are either a ‘good’ practicing Muslim or a bad wishy-washy Muslim. It’s the latter group that the westerners have misnamed moderate Muslims. As far as Muslims are concerned they are ‘hypocrites.’ Not surprisingly, the ‘moderates’ also confess being hypocrites. They will tell you they believe in Islam but they are not good Muslims. In the back of their minds however, they plan to become ‘good’ Muslims once they have done all the ‘sins’ and enjoyed life enough.

The Illusion of Reforming Islam

Can Islam be reformed? All other religions have reformed; why not Islam?

The problem with Islam is that it is rotten from its core. The evil is in its holy book. Many Muslims realize that there is something wrong with their religion. Unable to understand that the problem is the religion itself and unwilling to accept the truth, they pretend to reform Islam. The truth is that every Muslim knows that Islam cannot be reformed, but the idea has its appeal for the non-Muslims. When there is a demand for something there will be someone who will rise to satisfy that demand.

Let us consider the etymology and meaning of the word “re-form.” It derives from Latin refōrmāre, which means to redeem, to reclaim, to renew. All these imply restoring something to its original shape. Let us first take a look at reform in Christianity.

 

The Christian Reformation

The Christian Reformation began as an attempt to reform, not the religion, but the Catholic Church. Many believers were troubled by the Church and its practices, such as the sale of indulgences (tickets to paradise) and simony (buying and selling church positions). They considered these as false doctrines and malpractices within the Church.

Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and other reformers protested these and other practices and beliefs of the Church such as Purgatory, devotion to Mary (Marina veneration), the intercession of and devotion to the saints, most of the sacraments, the mandatory celibacy for the clergy (including monasticism), and the authority of the Pope.

None of these are doctrines of Christianity. These were practices of the Church. The reformers protested against the Church. They did not defy the authority of the Bible. They suggested that the Bible should be read literally. They rejected the allegorical interpretations of the Scriptures and took the texts of the Old and the New Testaments as something like statute law. The words meant what they said; any difficulty, contradiction, or obscure meaning was the fault of the reader and not the text.

Anything not contained explicitly and literally in the scriptures was to be rejected, and anything that is contained explicitly and literally in the scriptures was to be followed unwaveringly. [1]

This is the essence of Protestant Reformation

 

The Islamic Reformation

An analogous reformation also took place in Islam. It is called Salafism.

Many westerners erroneously believe that Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, (1703–1792) was the founder of Salafism, an extremist sect of Islam. This is not true. Abdul Wahhab did not found a new sect. He was a reformer of Islam in the same sense that Luther was of Christianity.

The core of Abdul Wahhab’s thinking is that Islam is perfect and complete and its decline is the result of religious innovations (bid‘ah), and that an Islamic revival will result by purging the religion from foreign influences and by emulating Muhammad and his companions.

The concept that Islam was perfect in its early stages is asserted in the Quran. “Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion.” (Q.5:3)

Abdul Wahhab proposed that Muslims should refrain from introducing any innovation and follow the examples of the salaf, (predecessors or early generations) hence the name Salafi.

This definition is not an invention of Abdul Wahhab, but is based on a hadith that reports Muhammad saying, “The people of my generation are the best, then those who follow them, and then those who follow the latter (i.e. the first three generations of Muslims).[2]

It is important to note that ibn Taymiyyah (1263 – 1328) was also a Salafi. He opposed the celebration of Muhammad’s birthday and the construction of shrines around the tombs of Sufi ‘saints,’ saying, “Many of them [Muslims] do not even know of the Christian [Catholic] origins of these practices. Accursed be Christianity and its adherents.”

There is a hadith where Muhammad says, “I am the best Salaf for you.” [3]

The desire to reform Islam and go back to its original pristine state is actually an old thought. Abdul Wahhab, however, succeeded to give shape to this concept, which took ground thanks to the Saudi kings who are his descendants through one of his daughters.

 

The Similarities between Christian Reformation and Islamic Reformation

There are many similarities between Protestantism and Salafism. The former rejects devotion to Mary and saints and their intercession. The latter rejects devotion to Muhammad, his intercession and the intercession of Islamic holy men (such as practiced in Shiism). Both these reform movements want to take their respective faiths to their original purity and eschew the innovations that have been added to the religion after the death of their founders.

Dr. Ingrid Mattson, the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), when asked whether Wahhabism is an extreme right wing sect of Islam, responded, “No it’s not true to characterize ‘Wahhabism’ that way. This is not a sect. It is the name of a reform movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islamic societies of cultural practices and rigid interpretation that had acquired over the centuries. It really was analogous to the European protestant reformation.”[4]

 

The Outcome of Reform in Christianity

Although Christian Reformation and Islamic Reformation are almost identical in their scope, their outcomes have been very different. The literal reading of the Bible became the underpinning of the social theories and organization of Protestant societies and the foundation of social organization of the English colonies in America.

These reformers literally transformed the philosophical, political, religious, and social landscape of Europe. We still live in a society dominated by protestant theory of social organization.

American political discourse is essentially Calvinistic. In other words its social organization is based on the literal meaning of Christian scriptures.

According to Calvin and Zwingli, not only should all religious belief be founded on the literal reading of Scriptures, but Church organization, political organization, and society itself should be founded on this literal reading.

Luther wrote a letter to Pope Leo, (which resulted in his excommunication from the Church) in which he explained the substance of his ideas. The letter is entitled “On the Freedom of the Christian.” This letter explains the core of Luther’s thinking. According to Luther, the essence of Christianity is “freedom,” or “liberty.”

It is this concept that eventually gave rise to the notion of individual freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom.

Most of the European Enlightenment revolves around freedom and the project of “liberating” people: liberating them from false beliefs, false religion, arbitrary authority, etc.–this is, what is called “liberation discourse.” Westerners still participate in this Enlightenment project today.

That is why America invaded Iraq, to prevent a dictator taking control of most of the world’s oil reserves and to liberate Kuwaitis, and a decade later, to liberate the Iraqis. That is why America has fought nearly forty wars abroad, from Japan to Germany, to Italy, to Panama to Nicaragua, to Kosovo, to Vietnam, to Korea, to Angola, to Somalia, to Afghanistan. Whether these wars were right or wrong, the nation’s motivation has been always the same, to liberate people, to stop dictators, to export democracy and freedom. This idea of “liberating” people, so entrenched in America’s international politics, comes out of Luther’s idea of “freedom.”

Other factors have also played a role in these wars, such as protecting the economic and political interests of America. However, the underlying denominator has generally been liberating people from tyranny. Liberating people and defending American interest are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

There have been exceptions where America has acted purely out of self-interest or perhaps out of ignorance, such as when in 1953 the government of Dr. Mossadeq, the Prime Minister of Iran was overthrown.

 

The Outcome of Reform in Islam

What is the essence of the reformation in Islam? The essence of the Wahhabi belief is that man is a slave of Allah. People are ibad (slaves).

This is diametrically a different discourse from the discourse of Protestantism, and here lies the essential difference between Christianity and Islam.

On the surface, there are many similarities between Christianity and Islam. Both believe in a god; both rely on an intermediary between man and God; both faiths are eschatological – have a hell, a heaven and an afterlife, etc. However, in their core, they are very different, in fact opposite to one another. The reformation of both faiths took the same road, but going back to their roots, they went to opposite directions. Islam is not a continuation of Christianity, as Muhammad and Muhammadans claim. It is an anti-Christian belief. Christianity advocates freedom of man, Islam, his slavery. One brings the message of liberation, the other, of submission.

 

The discourse of freedom, so essential to Christianity is contrary to what Islam stands for. When Muslims carry placards that read “democracy is hypocrisy,” and “freedom go to hell,” during their laud demonstrations, they are expressing the true message of Islam, which is anti-freedom, anti-democracy, pro slavery and pro subjugation.

Muslims are not free to choose. They should obey Allah and His Messenger. “And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying.” (Q. 33:36)

It is not up to Muslims to decide what is good for them. This decision is already made for them and all they have to do is to obey, even when they don’t like it. “Fighting is ordained for you, even though it be hateful to you; but it may well be that you hate a thing the while it is good for you, and it may well be that you love a thing the while it is bad for you: and God knows, whereas you do not know.”(Q. 2:216)

Islam can be distilled in its name: ‘Submission.’ Allah knows best. Therefore man must accept his command, blindly and unwaiveringly.

 

Democracy means the government of people by the people. In Democracy men make the law. In Islam the law comes from God. Man must obey even if those laws appear contrary to reason and are oppressive.

This is the reason why “moderate” Muslims cannot abrogate stoning, killing the apostates or other abuses of their fellow practicing Muslims, and that is why their protests don’t go beyond a lip service, and that too is only for the consumption of the western media.

Both Christianity and Islam underwent reformation. They took similar paths, but they ended up in two opposite poles. While Christian reformation brought freedom, Enlightenment and democracy, Islamic reformation bore oppression, dictatorship and terrorism.

Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhab were reformers of Islam. Among the contemporary Islamic reformers we can name Maududi (1903 – 1979) who wrote an interpretation of the Quran and Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), the leading intellectual of Muslim Brotherhood in 1950s and 1960s, who was the inspiration to all Muslim terrorists including Ayatollah Khomeini and Bin Laden.

 

Reformation vs. Transformation

What today’s so called Islamic reformers are proposing is not reformation, but transformation of Islam. Unlike the above mentioned reformers, these new reformer wannabes don’t want to go to the origin of Islam. They want to eschew a part of the Quran and the entire Sharia and invent a different religion, still calling it Islam.

This is delusional thinking and impractical, both logically and logistically. It is also strictly prohibited in the Quran.

These neoreformers want to change Islam and bring bid’a. Is that possible? Can believers have an opinion contrary to what the Quran says? We already saw that the Quran 33:36 prohibits the believers to have any choice in their OWN matter when Allah and his Messenger have made their choice. How can they decide what is good for the RELIGION?

When the Quran says, “Fighting is ordained for you, even if you don’t like it,” the message is clear. This is God speaking. So how can you dispute with God? Once you accept the Quran as the word of God you cannot pick and choose and discard what you don’t like. This is strictly prohibited, not once, but repeatedly.

“Do you, then, believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the truth of other parts? What, then, could be the reward of those among you who do such things but ignominy in the life of this world and, on the Day of Resurrection, they will be consigned to most grievous suffering? For God is not unmindful of what you do.” (Q.2:85)

“Am I, then, to look unto anyone but God for judgment [as to what is right and wrong], when it is He who has bestowed upon you from on high this divine writ, clearly spelling out the truth?”(Q.6:114)

"Wert thou to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead thee away from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but guess." (Q. 6:116)

"Verily, as for those who suppress aught of the revelation which God has bestowed from on high, and barter it away for a trifling gain – they but fill their bellies with fire. And God will not speak unto them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He cleanse them [of their sins]; and grievous suffering awaits them." (Q. 2:174)

See also 16:89 and 39:23,

"Such as We send down for those who make division, Those who break the Quran into parts. Therefore, by the Lord, We will, of a surety, call them to account"(Q.15: 90-92)

"There is none that can alter the words of Allah." (Q. Q. 6:34 )

"There is no changing the Words of Allah that is the Supreme Triumph." (Q.10:64)

"And recite that which hath been revealed unto you of the scripture of your Lord. There is none who can change His words, and you will find no refuge beside Him." (Q. 18:27)

How can one claim to believe in the Quran and disregard all these warnings?

The so called reformers of Islam are misguided at best and deceptive at worst. Their efforts should not be welcomed. Whatever their intention, whether genuine or disingenuous, they are pulling wool over the eyes of non-Muslims and as the result giving legitimacy to a very dangerous creed.

 

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly:

Muslims can be classified in three categories, the good, the bad and the ugly.

The good Muslims are those who follow the Quran and the examples set by Muhammad and become terrorists.

 

The bad Muslims are those wishy-washy Muslims who don’t practice Islam completely, don’t read the Quran, don’t pray and rarely, if ever, go to mosque. Their knowledge of Islam is deficient even though their faith may not be necessarily weak. However, because of their lack of understanding of Islam they don’t harbor ill feelings towards non-Muslims, although they are often suspicious of them. They strive to improve their lives and live like others.

Many of these bad Muslims will admit that they are not good Muslims and hope that eventually they will summon enough faith to become good Muslims. These are the majority.

 

The ugly Muslims are those who know the truth about Islam but lie about it. They try their best to portray Islam in a good light. They even agree with you that the good Muslims are bad, and claim that Islam has been hijacked by the good Muslims.

 

By sugarcoating Islam you cannot change its nature. You can purify filthy water and drink it. You can even purify urine into drinking water. But can you purify gasoline enough to make it drinkable? The essence of Islam is evil. It is not a contaminated good faith. You cannot reform it enough to make it a humane faith. Can you reform Nazism? This whole notion is misguided and absurd.

 

What is the point of reforming a religion founded by a mentally deranged man who committed so much evil on Earth, lied, deceived, raped, tortured, raided, looted, massacred and committed the most despicable crimes? Why keep his cult alive and his memory honored? He deserves scorn, not recognition?

 

Reforming Islam is impossible. It is either a dilution or a ruse. Jihad is based on two pillars, war and deception. I don’t want anyone to be fooled by the soothing promises of Muslim reformers. Moderate Islam does not exist. It’s a myth.

I do not trust Muslims who are against Sharia. I do not understand them. What they say does not add up. I don’t know what they are up to. I do not trust people who say, I am a follower of Muhammad, but I do not follow Muhammad. There is something fishy, something dishonest and hypocritical about their claim.

If you are a Muslims, be a Muslim. I don’t agree with you but at least I know where you stand and where I should stand to be safe from you. But if you are a Muslim and against Islam and the Sharia, I don’t trust you. You are either a fool or a crook. “You are neither hot nor cold. I will spit you out.”

Some of these so called reformers hide their identity and face claiming to ‘fear Muslims.’ Why should they? They are not saying anything that CAIR does not say when it wants to Con Americans with Islamic Ruse. This is all sham.

 

Reforming Islam is impossible, but to transform it you need divine authority. Only God can change his words. Where is that divine authority? If you are allowed to pick and choose from the Quran, why Osama Bin Laden should not have the same right? Which Islam is the right Islam? Wouldn’t this lead to more division and fight among Muslims?

 

The only serious reformer of Islam was Baha’u’llah. He realized Islam cannot be reformed. So he founded a new religion and announced that he was vested with authority from God to annul all His previous mandates in the Quran.

He told Muslims, whereas before you were told to slay the unbelievers, now God wants you to love all the people irrespective of their faiths. Whereas before He told you women are deficient in intelligence, beat them if you fear they may disobey you, now He says men and women are equal and give preference to the education of your daughters, because they will be the mothers and the primary educators of future generations. Whereas in the previous dispensation God told you all non-believers will go to hell, now He says it’s your deeds that matter and your faith without good deeds is worthless and that He is not going to discriminate against anyone because of his belief. It’s the purity of heart that matters not what you profess with your tongues. Whereas before He had built a huge rotisserie to burn humans for disbelief, He has actually shut it down. He wants you to obey him for the love of Him alone and not because you fear him. Just act as mature people. There is no threat. Whereas before He said, ”fighting is good for you,” now He is tired of all the fighting and says fighting behoove the ferocious beasts and choiced deeds behooves humans. Whereas before you were promised virgins, there are no virgins. Your body will rot here. The rewards are all spiritual in nature, like joy and love. There is no hanky-panky in paradise. Also there is no punishment, except the regret that you’d feel for losing the chance to develop spiritual limbs in this world.

That requires courage. Now this was in 19th century in the middle of Shiite Persia. Of course Baha’u’llah was put in a dungeon and spent the rest of his life in exile. Many of his followers were executed. However, there is logic in that argument. The logic is that only God has the authority to abrogate His laws. This logic remains valid, until you ask, what was God smoking when he sent Muhammad? Baha’u’llah is the only credible transformer of Islam. But again, Baha’i Faith is not Islam. It’s entirely a different religion.

 

Reforming Islam is like chasing a mirage.

You cannot reform Islam and you cannot transform it. All you can and should do, is dump it. Please, let us stop this charade. Either be a Muslim and do as Muhammad said or leave Islam and don’t become a shield for the terrorists. Don’t muddy the waters. Don’t mix among the enemy and pose as a friend. This is the same tactic that Palestinians use in war. They mix among civilians and innocent children to make it difficult for their enemy to target them. You are causing confusion. You provide a protective shield for the enemy. I am not writing this for you. I know you are not going to change. You are a deceiver. I am writing this for the non-Muslims so they do not fall into your trap and don’t provide for you free podium to deceive them.

Islam cannot be reformed. They tried it in every imaginable way. The Mu’tazelis tired it, the Sufis tried it, hundreds of old and new schools tried it and they all failed. If you cannot stomach the Sharia, why do you want to keep Islam at all? Islam belongs to the toilet of history. Dump it and flush. Get rid of it and don’t fool yourself with this nonsense. Accept the truth. Yes truth matters. Islam is a lie. Muhammad was a mentally sick conman. Get over with it and stop this ridiculous farce of reformation.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Irbis

[swansont]

Sure enough there are those trying to impose Christian law, but Christian law isn't by default or without question the system in place in the US. Nor has that ever been the case in the US, thanks to your Bill of Rights. Whereas in UAE and Dubai the opposite is the case.

 

Ever been the case? Oh, please.

 

 

Fair enough, however; 'by how many generations the US is more advanced or enlightened in comparison' wasn't my point. It's comparing each country as it is today, with particular focus on the key variable of this discussion; Islam, which was my point.

 

The legal system is always going to be unjust, in any country, but I'm obviously talking about the Islam's part to play in that; my point being that if our legal systems jump back to the current Islam-style courts of justice, seen in these Islamic countries, it'd be a jump back, not forward.

You're trying to make the case that it is because of Islam that these countries are the way they are, rather than because they are several generations behind the west in terms of development. There's correlation here, but I haven't seen any evidence of causation. Mainly because you don't have to go far back to find Western countries behaving just as badly. It looks different when you compare based on when the country in question decided to embrace a (more) democratic form of governance.

 

I think it's a maturity issue, not a religious issue.

[Irbis]

People seem to think that because Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity, it looks like Christianity 600 years ago. In fact the differemnce we see now is a reflection of the differences between Jesus and Muhammad. Now in the Middle Ages Christianity got more radical because of political influence fo the Roman Empire on popes and Islam became slighty more moderate thanks to the influence of Greek philosophy (which soon faded). But the Middle Ages passed and the two faiths began diverging again, each in it's own direction.

 

Given that Muhammad was a ruthless thug and every 12th verse of the Quran either orders Muslims to slaughter non-Muslims or spews hatred about how wicked they are, it's a miracle that Islamic terrorism isn't more common. These verses can't be discarded and they cannot be reinrerpreted. There is a limit of how a religious book can be reinrerpreted without falling into absurd.

[swansont]

 

Given that Muhammad was a ruthless thug and every 12th verse of the Quran either orders Muslims to slaughter non-Muslims or spews hatred about how wicked they are, it's a miracle that Islamic terrorism isn't more common. These verses can't be discarded and they cannot be reinrerpreted. There is a limit of how a religious book can be reinrerpreted without falling into absurd.

 

I just read a random section of about 20 verses and couldn't find such a passage. In fact, it sounded a whole lot like the Bible. Foods you can eat, cleansing rituals, and stuff like that. So, I call BS on this. Without specific references, this is just invective.

[Irbis]

 

I just read a random section of about 20 verses and couldn't find such a passage. In fact, it sounded a whole lot like the Bible. Foods you can eat, cleansing rituals, and stuff like that. So, I call BS on this. Without specific references, this is just invective.

I think we have to clarify a few things.

 

All chapters of the Qur'an belong to one of two periods - they are either Meccan or Medinan. In the Quran, however, the chapters are not ordered in chronological order but from the longest to the shortest - so the first chapter "revealed" is sura 96 while the last one is sura 9.

 

There is a sharp difference between verses of the Qur'an written in Mecca and those written in Medina. All peaceful verses in the Qur'an were written earlier. The reason behind their peacefulness is simple - while in Mecca, Muhammad had only a handful of followers. It was impossible for thse 70 or 80 Muslims to wage war against thousands of pagan so he made his Allah portray him as a mere warner, a humble messanger with no earthy powers. During this period he sounded almost like Christ

 

These are examples of verses Muhammad wrote in Mecca:

1. Be patient with what they say, and part from them courteously. (Q.73:10)

2. To you be your religion, and to me my religion. (Q. 109:6)

3. Therefore be patient with what they say, and celebrate (constantly) the praises of

your Lord. (Q.20:103)

4. Speak well to men. (Q.2:83)

5. We well know what the infidels say: but you are not to compel them. (Q.50:45)

6. Hold to forgiveness; command what is right; but turn away from the ignorant.

(Q.7:119)

7. Pardon thou, with a gracious pardoning. (Q.15:85)

8. Tell those who believe, to forgive those who do not look forward to the Days of

Allâh. (Q.45:14)

9. Those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians - any who believe in

Allâh and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their

Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (Q.2:62)

10. And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best. (Q.29:46)

However, when he migrated to Medina and gained more followers, his thirst for power grew and he bacame more pround and violent, starting with raiding merchant caravans and assassinating his critics (including a mother of five who was stabbed to death on the eyes of her child) and ending with the conquest of whole Arabia. During this period, no more was Allah telling his prophet to be a mere warner and instead, he started telling him more savory things - which abrogated (nullified) earlier peaceful verses.

These are examples of verses written in Medina:

1. Oh you who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers who are close to you and let them feel your harshness. (Q.9:123)

2. I will cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite above their necks and

smite all their finger-tips off. (Q.8:12)

3. No religion other than Islam will be accepted of anyone. (Q.3:85)

4. Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. (Q.9:5)

5. Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove

you out. (Q.2:191)

6. Fight them on until there is no more dissension and religion becomes that of Allâh.

(Q.9:193)

7. Fight them, and Allâh will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame.

(Q.9:14)

8. Make no excuses: you have rejected Faith after you had accepted it. If we pardon

some of you, we will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin. (Q.9:66)

9. You who believe! Verily, the disbelievers are filthy. So let

them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (the grand mosque at Mecca) after this

year. (Q.9:28)

10. Fight those who do not believe in Allâh and the last day... and fight People of the

Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand and feel themselves subdued. (Q.9:29)

11. Muhammad is a messanger of Allah and those who are with him are harsh against disbelievers but merciful to each other. (Q.48:29).

 

It's hardly believable how rabidly obsessed that man was with disbelievers, fighting and subduing them. In fact, varous variants of the word "disbelief" (represented by Arabic root K-F-R) are the 5th theme most common in the Quran (repeated 525 times)

 

It's precisely these and other similar verses that are used (together with examples from Muhammad's life) by Muslim terrorists to justify their acts of terror. They are also used to deny rights to non-Muslims, to persecute apostates and critics of Islam, in other words - all things we westerners hold as fundamental.

 

If you want to learn more about Muhammad, read "The Sealed Nectar" by Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri. It's the most detailed, most authoritative biography of Muhammad ever written. Moreover, it's available for free in a PDF format on various Islamic websites. PM me and I will send you a link if you're interested.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Irbis

[swansont]

So is this an admission that "every 12th verse of the Quran either orders Muslims to slaughter non-Muslims or spews hatred about how wicked they are" is hyperbolic BS?

 

No religion other than Islam will be accepted of anyone. (Q.3:85) Hmm. I can find at least a dozen passages in the Bible that say "You shall have no other gods before me" or similar.

 

Killing people who aren't believers? Deuteronomy 17:12, 2 Chronicles 15:12-13. Hell, Deuteronomy 13 command followers to destroy a while town if there is one follower of a different god.

 

I'm not seeing any substantive differences here. Just someone spouting invective, which has no place here.

[Irbis]

I have such a list of verses which counts more than 500 verses of hatred in the Quran. Unfortunately the website is in Polish so it isn't of much interest to people here. There is a list of more than 100 verses advocating direct fight agaisnt infidels. See for example here

 

Regarding the violence in the Bible - there is no need to beat a dead horse. There are several articles in thw web dealing with the issue of BIblical vs Quranic violence, the conclusion of them is the same - that violence in the BIble is descriptive while violence in the Quran is prescriptive. The Bible is not a direct word of God (unlike the Quran) but an account of historical events written by men, and these violent verses are very well mitigated by historical context contained within the text itself - which is why no one uses these verses as advocating present day violence.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Irbis

[swansont]

There are several articles in thw web dealing with the issue of BIblical vs Quranic violence, the conclusion of them is the same - that violence in the BIble is descriptive while violence in the Quran is prescriptive.

 

 

Oh, well, that settles it then. The internet is never wrong about anything. It's not like random people can't write whatever the hell they want or anything.

[Irbis]

I find them credible. Here you have one such longish article http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788

And another one http://www.answering-islam.org/Terrorism/violence.html

Even Pope Urban did not cite these biblical verses when he wanted to start a crusade - while at thes aame time Islamic terrorists cite Quranic verses non-stop. Every single document written by Islamic terrorists is replete with quotations from the Quran.

 

 

Here you have articles about obligation of holy war in Islam, three of them written by Muslims themselves:

1. http://www.2600.com/news/mirrors/harkatmujahideen/www.harkatulmujahideen.org/jihad/o-jihad.htm

2. http://abdurrahman.org/seerah/riyad/11/chap234.htm

3. http://islamqa.info/en/20214

4. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Jihad_is_Compulsory_(Fard)

 

You may also read "Religious and moral doctrine of Jihad" by Ibn Taymiyya (also available online)

other resources on jihad http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Jihad_Literature

 

Even the most bigoted Evangelical Christians do not say that Christians are permitted to kill nonbelievers over their faith... which is attested by a surprisinly low number of terrorist attacks in the name of Christ as compared to the number of terrorist attacks in the name of Allah.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Irbis

[swansont]

 

Even the most bigoted Evangelical Christians do not say that Christians are permitted to kill nonbelievers over their faith... which is attested by a surprisinly low number of terrorist attacks in the name of Christ as compared to the number of terrorist attacks in the name of Allah.

 

Oh, sure. "Kill them all. God will know his own."

[Irbis]

/-_-' That was about 800 years ago. I don't know why it should concern us now, considering that Christians have long since renounced violence in the name of their religion

Edited August 21, 2014 by Irbis

[s1eep]

It paves the way for civil war in western countries. I will never accept Islam...

[Iota]

You're trying to make the case that it is because of Islam that these countries are the way they are, rather than because they are several generations behind the west in terms of development. There's correlation here, but I haven't seen any evidence of causation. Mainly because you don't have to go far back to find Western countries behaving just as badly. It looks different when you compare based on when the country in question decided to embrace a (more) democratic form of governance.

I think it's a maturity issue, not a religious issue.

 

Nope, I'm trying to explore the effect Islam has had in those countries, to do with the way they are. It's different.

[swansont]

/-_-' That was about 800 years ago.

 

Why does the maturity of the religion matter for Christianity but not Islam?

[Irbis]

For simple reason - the New Testament does not contain even 1% as many hateful verses as the Quran does and violent verses of the Old Testament are confined to specific place and time - unlike their Quranic counterparts. Jesus, as depicted in the Bible, was an embodiment of goodness while Muhammad wasn't. The history of Islam, written by Musllims themselves, does not portray Muhammad as a holy man but rather as a cruel, unforgiving criminal. There is strong evidence that he was a narcissist. As Muslims have an obligation to emulate the examples of their prophet, their thoughts and feelings come to resemble his mind. They too become violent narcissists to the degree that they follow examples set by him.

 

Islam has barely changed since the time of Muhammad. It is incapable of reforming itself, because it was purposedly designed in such a way to make any future attempt of reform futile. See the article posted by me today.

 

To reform Islam into a more humane religion you would need a mandate from God. Baha'ullah claimed to have it but his faith cannot be called "reformed Islam".

Edited August 21, 2014 by Irbis

[physica]

The problem isn't just with islam, it's religion generally. In the past there has been many people killed in the name of christianity and other religions. in this day and age the majority of christian countries have democracy, free speech and free trade where as the muslim countries usually don't. You could argue that this is because christianity is more forgiving but development of a country is much more complex than one variable. Europe's democracy was a mixture of civil war and scientific revolutions. Haley's commet prediction shattered mysticism and showed europeans that not everything was down to the gods.

 

the problem now is that we are forced due to political correctness to relentlessly respect religion in turn forcing a double standard on society. When Obama said that he was against gay marriage he was asked why. His response was that he was a christian, as a result people didn't question him further. He pushed is opinion on law that affects peoples' lives and made a judgement on peoples' actions and didn't have to justify it as he waved the flag of religion. If he was non-religious he would have to give reasons as to why gay marriage was wrong. This double standard goes right through all the way to the most extreme cases. If a person kills a group of people because aliens gave him signs to do it society would classify him as mentally ill. However, if someone kills a group of people in the name of religion (even though there has been no proof that god exists) we tread on eggshells and ask questions on if they misinterpreted something. We spend money of strategies on engaging with them and trying to find middle ground. Both cases the person is killing others because of something despite the fact that no evidence exists.

 

Any religion that takes hold in a country where the majority are not educated and are not familiar with the scientific method will do horrible things as the few at the top of the religion have too much power. This is augmented by the west's relentless respect for religion even though it wouldn't give the same respect to people outside the religion bracket with the same reasoning. You will find extreme christians who get support in countries where the majority of people are not educated like in sections of Africa and India. Below is a wikipedia link of christian terrorism. Which ever religion has the most access to uneducated masses has the biggest capability of terrorism.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

 

In Uganda the Lord's Resistance Army (a christian terrorist group) committed mass slaughters, used child soldiers, were a big fan of torture and rape and this was in 2005.

Edited August 21, 2014 by physica

[swansont]

 

Islam has barely changed since the time of Muhammad. It is incapable of reforming itself, because it was purposedly designed in such a way to make any future attempt of reform futile.

 

And yet most Muslims are not terrorists.

[Iota]

The problem isn't just with islam, it's religion generally. In the past there has been many people killed in the name of christianity and other religions. in this day and age the majority of christian countries have democracy, free speech and free trade where as the muslim countries usually don't.

 

Quite, and I agree completely. The problem is far from just Islam, and far from just religion. The reason I wanted to discuss Islam is because at present Islam is as radical as Christianity was generations ago. So I'm looking to discuss how it will integrate with modern Western society.

 

 

As for the rest of what you've said, I completely agree also.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Iota

[timo]

 

And yet most Muslims are not terrorists.

Non-terrorist muslims are probably not supposed to count as real muslims in the context of this discussion . Asking if Islam can be watered down under the premise that watered-down Koran readings do not count as Islam seems a bit mood to me. But apparently it still has enough volume for three pages of conversation.

Edited August 21, 2014 by timo

[Irbis]

 

And yet most Muslims are not terrorists.

Most Muslims are ignorant of their religion, often projecting their own worldview on Islam, creating a faith that exists only in their mind. I do believe that once the truth about Islam reaches the masses, most of them will abandon it altogether, millions already have.

 

However, sometimes it does not take much for a moderate, secularized Muslim to becoma a radical Islamist. Most suicide bombers actually come from middle class, non religious families. Doku Umarov (Chechen Islamist leader killed this year) was not religious at all until his 30s.

 

Muslims who follow a watered down version of Islam really shouldn't count as Muslims - precisely because the contract between man and Allah includes a clause saying that man must obey everything Allah says, without the possibility of cherrypicking, with any breech of agreement resulting in the dissolution ot the contract. Muslims simply can't choose the verses they like and ignore those they don't like. Such behavior counts as apostasy.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Irbis

[Iota]

Non-terrorist muslims are probably not supposed to count as real muslims in the context of this discussion . Asking if Islam can be watered down under the premise that watered-down Koran readings do not count as Islam seems a bit mood to me. But apparently it still has enough volume for three pages of conversation.

 

Absolutely correct. You caught me, please keep this discussion as Islamophobic as possible and let's hope you geniuses don't catch on.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Iota

[swansont]

Most Muslims are ignorant of their religion, often projecting their own worldview on Islam, creating a faith that exists only in their mind. I do believe that once the truth about Islam reaches the masses, most of them will abandon it altogether, millions already have.

 

However, sometimes it does not take much for a moderate, secularized Muslim to becoma a radical Islamist. Most suicide bombers actually come from middle class, non religious families. Doku Umarov (Chechen Islamist leader killed this year) was not religious at all until his 30s.

 

Muslims who follow a watered down version of Islam really shouldn't count as Muslims - precisely because the contract between man and Allah includes a clause saying that man must obey everything Allah says, without the possibility of cherrypicking, with any breech of agreement resulting in the dissolution ot the contract. Muslims simply can't choose the verses they like and ignore those they don't like. Such behavior counts as apostasy.

 

And how does this differ from supposed Christians who don't actually follow the teachings of Christ? Still not seeing a difference so much as a huge double-standard and No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

This reminds me of SlavicWolf.

[Irbis]

I am SlavicWolf... I simply forgot passsword to my old account so I had to create a new one after a not posting for a long time.

 

I would say there is no difference between non-practicing Christians and non-practicing Muslims except in one thing - Christians are peaceful to the degree that they follow the teachings of Christ. Muslims are peaceful to the degree that they disregard the teachings of Muhammad.

 

My argument would be fallacious if Muslims were allowed to pick & choose bits of their religion according to their personal taste - but the contract between man and Allah does not permit such a thing. In fact, it makes it illegal. It's like law - you can't enslave other people, at the same time claiming that you are a follower of US Constitution as it conflicts with both the Consitiution (13th amendment anyone?) and other legal documents that are in accordance with it.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Irbis