Islam - What's your view on it?

[UKMikey]

That still leaves 40% (or 27% if I grant you the +13%)

You mean 34% or 21% if you include the other people who condemn stoning. If this is one of the polls you referred to, then it doesn't agree with your 40% figure.

 

[Dobermann92]

You mean 34% or 21% if you include the other people who condemn stoning. If this is one of the polls you referred to, then it doesn't agree with your 40% figure.

Yeah, I was tired last night so I miscalculated it, so 34%, but there are other polls (I know a 44% one and one with 41%), I'll search for them now and update the post.

The point is, it is way higher than some people present it in the media. This is an issue worth talking about.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The point is, it is way higher than some people present it in the media. This is an issue worth talking about.

I wonder what a survey of a similar number of people in the Bible Belt would turn up? I'd be willing to bet that you could get similar numbers with a fair wind. Extreme believers are generally very intolerant of anything outside the literal word of their chosen instructions.

 

[UKMikey]

Extreme believers are generally very intolerant of anything outside the literal word of their chosen instructions.

In support of your point but at the possible risk of being accused of "wahhaboutism" I'd like to highlight this report about LGBT people in the Eastern Caribbean.

https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/03/...ry-laws-against-lgbt-people-eastern-caribbean

 

[Dobermann92]

I wonder what a survey of a similar number of people in the Bible Belt would turn up? I'd be willing to bet that you could get similar numbers with a fair wind. Extreme believers are generally very intolerant of anything outside the literal word of their chosen instructions.

The point is most of them do not want to stone homosexuals or apostates. (I'm sure youn can find some who want, like the NIFB, who advocates for killing LGBT+ folks, but they have 250 members or so).


What about this poll:
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/index.html

The Muslim Group said that this is not representative of them, but why? Did ICM ask the wrong muslim people? How can you know? Polling poor regions skews the result according to the Council, which is nonsense, because every muslim person counts.

I also don't like when people say: I'm not an extremist, and my folk think the same, so they can't be extremist either. No, it isn't how the world works.

 

[UKMikey]

The point is most of them do not want to stone homosexuals or apostates.

But this is the case for Muslims in the UK as well, even if you add the 21% of poll respondents who refuse to condemn it in any way to the 12% who condemn it conditionally. This is supposed to be some massive danger sign with Islam but it's not the only religion whose followers encourage homophobic violence. Perhaps the religion is not the main problem after all but people who follow it uncritically in societies which elevate it to the rule of law.

 

[Dobermann92]

But this is the case for Muslims in the UK as well, even if you talk up the 21% that refuse to condemn it in any way to 33% who condemn it. This is supposed to be some massive danger sign with Islam but it's not the only religion whose followers encourage homophobic violence. Perhaps the religion is not the main problem after all but people who follow it uncritically in societies which elevate it to the rule of law.

You are half right, religion is not only the problem, but it is at the base of it. Christianity had similar issues, but as a prominent atheist, Aron Ra said Jesus was a peaceful man, who advocated for forgiveness while Mohamed was a warlord.
This is the first main difference between the religions, even though in islam Jesus counts as a prophet, Mohamed is much more prominent.

The the Enlightment came and Montesquieu said that the state and the church must be seperated, which also made a huge difference. Nowadays in most of the muslim countries there is a state religion and religious leaders have a lot of power, sometimes more than the ruling king or prime minister.

 

[Imari]

But this is the case for Muslims in the UK as well, even if you talk up the 21% that refuse to condemn it in any way to 33% who condemn it. This is supposed to be some massive danger sign with Islam but it's not the only religion whose followers encourage homophobic violence. Perhaps the religion is not the main problem after all but people who follow it uncritically in societies which elevate it to the rule of law.

That would certainly fit with the evidence posed by things like the general trend of LGBT rights in African countries.

Jesus was a peaceful man...

Jesus ain't that peaceful by modern standards.

Nowadays in most of the muslim countries there is a state religion and religious leaders have a lot of power, sometimes more than the ruling king or prime minister.

This is true. On the other hand, if you look at Western "democracies", you see that an awful lot of power is still wielded by religious groups. Also by wealthy groups and individuals, and I suspect that being rich is even less qualifying to rule than holding strong moral views.

 

[UKMikey]

You are half right, religion is not only the problem, but it is at the base of it. Christianity had similar issues, but as a prominent atheist, Aron Ra said Jesus was a peaceful man, who advocated for forgiveness while Mohamed was a warlord.
This is the first main difference between the religions, even though in islam Jesus counts as a prophet, Mohamed is much more prominent.

The the Enlightment came and Montesquieu said that the state and the church must be seperated, which also made a huge difference. Nowadays in most of the muslim countries there is a state religion and religious leaders have a lot of power, sometimes more than the ruling king or prime minister.

If the religion was the problem then it'd be a problem everywhere. Religious control of the state is the problem, just like in US states which outlaw abortion on religious grounds.

Jesus ain't that peaceful by modern standards.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

 

[Dobermann92]

That would certainly fit with the evidence posed by things like the general trend of LGBT rights in African countries.



Jesus ain't that peaceful by modern standards.



This is true. On the other hand, if you look at Western "democracies", you see that an awful lot of power is still wielded by religious groups. Also by wealthy groups and individuals, and I suspect that being rich is even less qualifying to rule than holding strong moral views.

Of course he isn't peaceful by modern standards, but at that time he (if he really lived) preached some nice thing (and some bad ones, like you should not wash your hands), which wasn't the standard in that area in that time period.

Religion has a lot of power, too much mind you. But the separation of church and states works fine in Europe. Irreligiousity is growing here and while white nationalism is on the rise, most of the people are immune to it.

If the religion was the problem then it'd be a problem everywhere. Religious control of the state is the problem, just like in US states which outlaw abortion on religious grounds.

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

Yes, he (allegedly) did say that, but never expanded upon it. But he also (allegedly) said this:

"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42)

 

[Dotini]

The problem with Islam, like many religions, is that despite believing in One God, they also believe in the final and absolute written word of God exclusively revealed in their bespoke texts set in stone. This is a common and divisive malpractice which vitiates actualizing the experience of One God. Believers would be better off working toward commonalities rather than differences.

 

[UKMikey]

Yes, he (allegedly) did say that, but never expanded upon it. But he also (allegedly) said this:

The following sayings have been attributed to Muhammad:

“The best among you is the one who doesn’t harm others with his tongue and hands.”
“A good man treats women with honour.”
“There is reward for kindness to every living thing.”

Talk is cheap but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Nowadays in most of the muslim countries there is a state religion and religious leaders have a lot of power, sometimes more than the ruling king or prime minister.

This sounds like kind of a truism. They wouldn't be Muslim countries if they didn't have a state religion. But the same is true of other countries which have adopted a state religion.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

 

[Dobermann92]

The following sayings have been attributed to Muhammad:

“The best among you is the one who doesn’t harm others with his tongue and hands.”
“A good man treats women with honour.”
“There is reward for kindness to every living thing.”

Talk is cheap but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

This sounds like kind of a truism. They wouldn't be Muslim countries if they didn't have a state religion. But the same is true of other countries which have adopted a state religion.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

Jesus didn't massacre a town full of people and kept only the woman children to themselves, Muhammad and his people did. There are great videos on it, comparing Jesus and Muhammad. Even as an atheist I can say that Jesus was a much more humble person than Muhammad.

But the judicial systems are free in those other countries (at least in the European ones I know). They do not use ancient christian punishments from the middle ages. No stoning, no burning at the stakes, no cutting of body parts. Even in the USA where the death penalty is legal they do it with injections. Why is there a difference, explain that to me then please.

 

[ItWasntMe]

It's mental.

Like all organised religion.

 

[UKMikey]

Even as an atheist I can say that Jesus was a much more humble person than Muhammad.

As an atheist I'm not even sure whether he existed.

But the judicial systems are free in those other countries (at least in the European ones I know). They do not use ancient christian punishments from the middle ages. No stoning, no burning at the stakes, no cutting of body parts. Even in the USA where the death penalty is legal they do it with injections. Why is there a difference, explain that to me then please.

Because the state is not separated from the religion enough.

 

[Dobermann92]

As an atheist I'm not even sure whether he existed.

Jesus may or may not existed, but I think there was a real person behind his image. Muhammad was most likely a real person. It isn't really relevant for this issue though.

Because the state is not separated from the religion enough.

Ba dum tsss. I said the same thing several posts ago. The important question is that why is this still a thing. Is it a regional thing like PocketZeven suggested (feel free to correct me if I misrepresent your argument Pocket) or is it a religious thing like I suggested? Because there is something underlying that, that is sure.

 

[UKMikey]

Jesus may or may not existed, but I think there was a real person behind his image. Muhammad was most likely a real person. It isn't really relevant for this issue though.

It is though otherwise we're just discussing competing stories. Fiction is difficult to corroborate.

Ba dum tsss. I said the same thing several posts ago.

You also said the religion was the base of the problem, not separation of church and state. Either it's one or the other.

Is it a regional thing like PocketZeven suggested (feel free to correct me if I misrepresent your argument Pocket) or is it a religious thing like I suggested? Because there is something underlying that, that is sure.

The countries with Islam as their state religion are in green.

 

[Imari]

Of course he isn't peaceful by modern standards, but at that time he (if he really lived) preached some nice thing (and some bad ones, like you should not wash your hands), which wasn't the standard in that area in that time period.

I'm pretty sure the golden rule existed before Jesus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_ancient_Rome

Roman religion was practical and contractual, based on the principle of do ut des, "I give that you might give".

Yes, he (allegedly) did say that, but never expanded upon it. But he also (allegedly) said this:

"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42)

It turns out that both religions (in fact, pretty much all religions) preach both tolerance and violence. Go figure.

Jesus didn't massacre a town full of people and kept only the woman children to themselves, Muhammad and his people did. There are great videos on it, comparing Jesus and Muhammad.

The thing is though, Jesus is but a part of the holy trinity. So Jesus is also God, God's actions are Jesus' actions. God has committed any number of atrocities up to and including wiping out almost all of humanity.

As far as I know, Muhammad doesn't claim to be God. He's just a dude, albeit a special dude that God talks to. His atrocities are his own.

If you want a religion that only uses the New Testament, and sticks to only the best parts of it, you might have to found that religion yourself. But it's not Christianity.

But the judicial systems are free in those other countries (at least in the European ones I know). They do not use ancient christian punishments from the middle ages. No stoning, no burning at the stakes, no cutting of body parts.

Any particular reason why you find those punishments objectionable? Not into physical violence?

IMO, judicial systems can use what punishments they like as long as they're consistent about it. I have my own preferences for what punishments are appropriate for various crimes, but stuff like losing a hand for theft it has a certain poetic ring to it.

Pain and bodily damage is also probably the most universal and egalitarian punishment available. A whipping hurts the same no matter how rich or powerful you are, and while some day you may be able to buy a legitimate replacement for a finger, we're not there yet. I'd suggest that it's very much to the benefit of those with wealth and power that there not be physical punishments, as those are the the ones that they'd struggle to buy their way out of.

It concerns me far more when judicial systems are corrupt and laws are applied injustly than when they use punishments that happen to be squicky.

Even in the USA where the death penalty is legal they do it with injections. Why is there a difference, explain that to me then!

The funny thing about those injections, they're basically cruel and unusual torture.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...ethal-injections-horrifying-and-unpredictable

I suggest you watch the actual Last Week Tonight episode itself if you can. It makes the electric chair look humane.

 

[Dobermann92]

It is though otherwise we're just discussing competing stories. Fiction is difficult to corroborate.

People who believe it think that they were real people, so neither mine nor your opinion of their existence means anything.

You also said the religion was the base of the problem, not separation of church and state. Either it's one or the other.

I just explained one posts before that while the lack of separation of church and state is a serious issue, the cause of it is religion.

The countries with Islam as their state religion are in green.
View attachment 829663

So?

Edit: To Imari:

You can bring up arguments that christianity isn't really better and you can find quotes for it. I'm an atheist, I won't defend the harmful things christians said or did in the past. I just asked a question which none of you answered.

 

[UKMikey]

People who believe it think that they were real people, so neither mine nor your opinion of their existence means anything.

This sounds like a dead end argument. My opinion means a lot to me. Other people's opinions mean a lot to them. But saying Christianity is a better religion because Jesus was a nicer person in a book is subjective at best.

I just explained one posts before that while the lack of separation of church and state is a serious issue, the cause of it is religion.

How can religion be the cause of a separation between church and state? How can a religion be the root cause of worldwide violence when it has peaceful followers?

So?

So they're all situated in a contiguous geographical region.

Edit: To Imari:

You can bring up arguments that christianity isn't really better and you can find quotes for it. I'm an atheist, I won't defend the harmful things christians said or did in the past. I just asked a question which none of you answered.

"Which possibly fictional person was nicer?"

 

[Imari]

You can bring up arguments that christianity isn't really better and you can find quotes for it. I'm an atheist, I won't defend the harmful things christians said or did in the past. I just asked a question which none of you answered.

The question of what the proscribed punishments were for various crimes under Islamic law? You answered it yourself in the next sentence. I took your word for it that your answer was correct. I didn't think that me parroting you added anything to the conversation, and assumed that implicit acceptance of your rhetorical question and supplied answer was sufficient.

Or was there another question in there somewhere that you wanted answered?

 

[Danoff]

I'm pretty sure the golden rule existed before Jesus.

Confucius

I got a like from you on that post.

 

[HenrySwanson]

What about this poll:
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/index.html

There was a poll that found 100% of British Muslims surveyed found homosexual acts to be morally unacceptable:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality

What I don't understand is why Tim Farron (ex-Lib Dem leader and Christian) and Theresa May (leader of Conservative party, PM and Christian) were asked (in Farron's case repeatedly) if they thought homosexual sex was a sin and Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London has never been asked the same question, despite them having similar, pro LGBT voting records in Parliament.

I also wonder why discussion always turns into comparisons with Christianity, as if both (all?) religions were equally bad/good. So just for fun how about another comparison:

If we look at the recently released global peace index for 2019, out of the top twenty countries ranked Christianity is the majority religion in over 80% of them.

Looking at the bottom twenty Islam is the majority in 60%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

 

[UKMikey]

What I don't understand is why Tim Farron (ex-Lib Dem leader and Christian) and Theresa May (leader of Conservative party, PM and Christian) were asked (in Farron's case repeatedly) if they thought homosexual sex was a sin and Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London has never been asked the same question, despite them having similar, pro LGBT voting records in Parliament.

I wonder how many times Farron or May have hosted or even attended the LGBT Pride event.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...atchell-parade-antidote-sadness-a7824006.html

I also wonder why discussion always turns into comparisons with Christianity, as if both (all?) religions were equally bad/good.

But your entire post consists of Islam vs Christian comparisons. Are they only acceptable if they make Christianity look better by comparison?

If we look at the recently released global peace index for 2019, out of the top twenty countries ranked Christianity is the majority religion in over 80% of them.

Looking at the bottom twenty Islam is the majority in 60%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

If Christianity is the religion of peace and Islam the religion of war then I don't understand why there are Islamic countries in the top twenty and Christian countries in the bottom twenty. Surely those numbers should be zero if it's an absolute truth? I had a read of this analysis but couldn't find the part that proved that Islam is the cause of world conflict and should be outlawed immediately even in peaceful countries.

http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Peace-and-Religion-Report.pdf

 

[PocketZeven]

There was a poll that found 100% of British Muslims surveyed found homosexual acts to be morally unacceptable:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality

What I don't understand is why Tim Farron (ex-Lib Dem leader and Christian) and Theresa May (leader of Conservative party, PM and Christian) were asked (in Farron's case repeatedly) if they thought homosexual sex was a sin and Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London has never been asked the same question, despite them having similar, pro LGBT voting records in Parliament.

I also wonder why discussion always turns into comparisons with Christianity, as if both (all?) religions were equally bad/good. So just for fun how about another comparison:

If we look at the recently released global peace index for 2019, out of the top twenty countries ranked Christianity is the majority religion in over 80% of them.

Looking at the bottom twenty Islam is the majority in 60%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

100%? Which part references that in your link?

Edit: Clicked the wrong link. But it only says about 500 interviewed. also it was a survey.

Being anti LGBTQ is certainly not exclusive to islam.

edit 2: directly from the bible Leviticus: ‘If two men sleep with each other they will both have to be killed.'



If you look at the peace index it probably has more to with socio economic standing then religion. I dont see how you make the connection based on the global peace index?

 

[Dobermann92]

I had a read of this analysis but couldn't find the part that proved that Islam is the cause of world conflict and should be outlawed immediately even in peaceful countries.

Maybe you can start by not using the straw man. Nobody said that islam should be outlawed.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London has never been asked the same question

Source for that never happening, or do you just think that's the case?

 

[Dobermann92]

Source for that never happening, or do you just think that's the case?

That is not how the burden of proof works.

 

[UKMikey]

Maybe you can start by not using the straw man. Nobody said that islam should be outlawed.

OK, now how about the remainder of the post? Nitpicking half a sentence and ignoring the rest isn't a good start either.

That is not how the burden of proof works.

If somebody says something and someone else asks them to back it up, they shouldn't have to find the truth themselves. That's exactly how the burden of proof works.

Meanwhile if Khan thinks homosexuality is abhorrent he's going a funny way about showing it.

https://5pillarsuk.com/2019/04/16/l...same-sex-and-lgbt-lessons-in-primary-schools/

 

[TenEightyOne]

That is not how the burden of proof works.

Oh it is. The claim is that Sadiq Khan has never been asked that question. It's not up to me to prove it's true... and so I'm asking how the claimant knows that it's true. Thanks though.