Islam - What's your view on it?

[Scaff]

Are you saying that because there are violent Christians = Islam isn't uniquely....more violent?
This doesn't disprove my point either:

You haven't proven a point objectively to be disproven, let's start with that, rather than the usual meme-fest and gish-gallop you indulge in.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You don't appear to have a point.

Is Islam a more violent ideology, more capable of inspiring violence, less agreeable with secularism and less amenable to reform (if so needed) than other religions?

Do you believe they (religions) exist on a spectrum or would e.g. Buddhism or Mormonism be classed as the same kind of harmful as Islam/Judaism/Christianity/etc?

 

[Famine]

Is Islam a more violent ideology, more capable of inspiring violence, less agreeable with secularism and less amenable to reform (if so needed) than other religions?

Do you believe they (religions) exist on a spectrum or would e.g. Buddhism or Mormonism be classed as the same kind of harmful as Islam/Judaism/Christianity/etc?

They're questions, not points.

 

[HenrySwanson]

They're questions, not points.

I believe the first, and that they exist on a spectrum. I've provided evidence for that. You showed me rednecks in Alabama.

Do you not find it a teeny bit funny that I've been called "Islamophobic", antisemitic....but not "Christophobic" ever?

For secularism, if you need more proof:

 

[Famine]

I believe the first, and that they exist on a spectrum.

That's a belief, not a point.

I've provided evidence for that. You showed me rednecks in Alabama.

Nope. To both.

You've cherry-picked the first, and my reply showing "rednecks in Alabama" was a response to @Imari.

Do you not find it a teeny bit funny that I've been called "Islamophobic", antisemitic....but not "Christophobic" ever?

Nope.

For secularism, if you need more proof:

You're... proving secularism? With a random, uncited map of secularism?

Again, not seeing any points, just this nebulous blur of vague bad-faith word fapping.

Edit: Actually, more like word edging as there's no end-product.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I believe the first, and that they exist on a spectrum. I've provided evidence for that. You showed me rednecks in Alabama.

Do you not find it a teeny bit funny that I've been called "Islamophobic", antisemitic....but not "Christophobic" ever?

For secularism, if you need more proof:

View attachment 1399269

Pretty dubious of a map showing The Islamic Republic of Iran as more secular than Turkey or Brazil

 

[Danoff]

Is Islam a more violent ideology, more capable of inspiring violence, less agreeable with secularism and less amenable to reform (if so needed) than other religions?

I believe the first

I think to go about making your belief that Islam is more violent than other religions persuasive, you need to limit your analysis to scripture - because the moment you try to use actual events and behavior as evidence you'll end up having to contend with the crusades, the spanish inquisition, the KKK, and similar behavior. For what it's worth, I think if you limit your analysis to scripture you're on pretty solid ground for Islam vs. Christianity. Less solid for Islam vs. Judaism. But then what exactly is the takeaway from that conclusion? I'm not sure.

Given the history of Christian and Jewish violence, as well as violence from other religious belief, it seems that religion is just a bad idea altogether. Sure, Islam does not appear to be a good one, but it's definitely not the only one that's violent.

 

[LeMansAid]

I think to go about making your belief that Islam is more violent than other religions persuasive, you need to limit your analysis to scripture - because the moment you try to use actual events and behavior as evidence you'll end up having to contend with the crusades, the spanish inquisition, the KKK, and similar behavior. For what it's worth, I think if you limit your analysis to scripture you're on pretty solid ground for Islam vs. Christianity. Less solid for Islam vs. Judaism. But then what exactly is the takeaway from that conclusion? I'm not sure.

Given the history of Christian and Jewish violence, as well as violence from other religious belief, it seems that religion is just a bad idea altogether. Sure, Islam does not appear to be a good one, but it's definitely not the only one that's violent.

One of my standards for all religions remains that they have a secular level of clarity, regarding their practices and goals. The Abrahamic religions, for example, clearly have ample interpretational wiggle room in the teachings of their books, to be exploited for the justification of horrendous acts. I will not accept the existence of any religion that doesn't meet that clarity standard. My minimum expectation for any devotee of a religion that doesn't meet that standard is that they support the changes that would mean that their religion ultimately does meet it. In short, the Quran, the version of The Bible with the sequel, and the version without it, all need to be changed, for the sake of clarity (if those religions actually do have the positive intent they purport to).

* Sorry, Christians - having "the sequel" is not enough.

 

[HenrySwanson]

That's a belief, not a point.

Nope. To both.

You don't believe I've provided convincing enough evidence that it is much less able to be reformed, more resistant to secularisation, and has the higher likelihood of being interpreted to prescribe violence? Is it all of those points or all 3 so I know what I'm working from.

Pretty dubious of a map showing The Islamic Republic of Iran as more secular than Turkey or Brazil

It's not perfect but it illustrates the point I hope. It's easily searchable.

I think to go about making your belief that Islam is more violent than other religions persuasive, you need to limit your analysis to scripture - because the moment you try to use actual events and behavior as evidence you'll end up having to contend with the crusades, the spanish inquisition, the KKK, and similar behavior. For what it's worth, I think if you limit your analysis to scripture you're on pretty solid ground for Islam vs. Christianity. Less solid for Islam vs. Judaism. But then what exactly is the takeaway from that conclusion? I'm not sure.

The takeaway is there has to be reform, and I'm not sure where it comes from/if it's even possible.

Given the history of Christian and Jewish violence, as well as violence from other religious belief, it seems that religion is just a bad idea altogether. Sure, Islam does not appear to be a good one, but it's definitely not the only one that's violent.

Hell no - the Abrahamic ones are all violent. They are mitigated by different things, however - Christianity by the founder (Christ's) words and action, Judaism by the push to secularisation and Islam by....well that's where I hit a roadblock.

If we take religion to be an ideology that transcends time (which, let's face it, that's what they are), we have to look at how the ideology was formed, what it preaches, and how it can be shaped.

Looking at how they were formed is the easy one:
Judaism is pretty unique in this regard so we'll leave it out (i.e. there's no mitigation).

Out of the single founder ones I've had a quick look at, Jesus, the Buddha, Guru Nanak, Zoroaster, Bahá'u'lláh, Mahavira, Confucius, Laozi, and Mani are all preaching non-violence and lived their lives non-violently (Jesus did through a tantrum once).

Joseph Smith had the Nauvoo Legion, but his life story differed greatly in terms of violence from....

Muhammad. This one is the big outlier. I won't bore you with the details as his life story is easily searchable, but he is the only one who was a warlord/military leader.

If people use the examples of their religion's founder as the bedrock of their faith and how to live a "pious" life, it's pretty easy to spot the odd one out.

Now for what they preach. This would come down to scripture, and we know how bloodthirsty/homicidal/genocidal the god and the tribes in the OT were as that's been done to death. With Islam, there's the Quran, Hadith and Sunnah (and others). The Quran is taken as the literal word of god, revealed to Muhammad by Gabriel. I believe the Hadith are Muhammad's sayings and deeds while the Sunnah are his practices (it would help to have an actual Muslim here). As Muhammad is seen as the most perfect human ever, logically his words, actions and behaviour are seen as something to aspire to. Here's the problem - he lived in the 7th Century so he's a product of that time. This excuse is used to justify his violent verses, his marriage/intercourse with a child under 10 and other things that wouldn't fly now.

As I'm only familiar at some sort of depth with Christian teachings, I have to rely on ex-Muslims found elsewhere to piece Islam together (there are communities for ex-Christians, ex-Mormons etc).

Afghanistan has just banned pictures of living things based on the Taliban's interpretation of Islamic law. Thinking this is a bit extreme even for Islam I nevertheless found this:

And:

I don't have the experience of Islam as a Muslim to counter this, and I'd say it's up to Muslims to provide evidence that it's wrong. All I can logically say is that the prophet was wrong in order to justify why that isn't a thing in other countries now - but how can that be if he's the most awesome human ever?

With Judaism, look at what the father of political Zionism thought of Eastern European Jews who were fleeing pogroms:

Herzl's Mauschel and Zionist antisemitism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This shows you how the assimilated and secular Jews of the West saw themselves: mixed in with the non-Jewish populations, embracing Enlightenment values and spouting antisemitic rhetoric and in the case of Herzl teaming up with white antisemites. It showed that their laws could be interpreted in various ways - there was no "perfect" founder - and that they continued in a tribal mentality.

Christianity? Well we've been through that over and over and it's really only the OT that prescribe such things. That's not to say there aren't sects that go by the OT, but my point is Jesus's teachings and life allowed it to secularise/reform.

I maintain that the closest founder Muhammad resembles is Joseph Smith, but their stories differed greatly. Each had funny ways of convincing their followers that they were the real deal (and it is a laugh to see ex-Muslims talk about how absurd it all is) but as Islam punishes people leaving the religion with death and discourages Muslims from actually facing up to what Muhammad did it'll take a brave group to change it.

 

[Famine]

points

 

[HenrySwanson]

"The point is that...." rather than, "I believe that"

 

[Famine]

"The point is that...." rather than, "I believe that"

You've cherry-picked

I mean, you're even quoting the Taliban at this point, with little acknowledgement that Christianity, Judaism, hell even Buddhism have violent, fascist fundamentalist organisations within them. Islam is more bad because Taliban say bad is a hell of a take when you're not coming close to doing the same for Bodu Bala Sena.