Is Islam an evil religion?

[A'isha]

This is not done with Islam when the right is spinning it. With Islam it isn't 'an Arabian Wahhabist mufti's ruling on child marriage shows that Wahhabism (or even Salafism) is primitive, barbaric, and corrupt' or 'Arabia is one of the most repressive and backward countries in the world'. It's 'Islam promotes child rape'. That's an unfair overgeneralization that paints over a billion people with a brush from the palette of an example from a country that is oppressive by Middle Eastern standards (and incidentally, a regime that is propped up by the US military). 'Islam promotes child rape' in reaction to the aibove situation in Saudi is like saying 'Christianity promotes the sexual enslavement of women and children' in reaction to the many crimes of Joseph Cony's Lord's Resistance Army or 'Christians are racists' because of the Christian Nation movement.

I'm not against generalizing. I'm against over-generalizing. The reason Islam gets defended by skeptics more than Christianity does is because there aren't as many people making those kinds of generalizations about Christianity as a whole. We may complain about pedophile priests, not pedophile Christians, or even pedophile Catholics. That's the difference. And yes, the line between fair generalization and over-generalization is blurry, but I know what side I prefer to err on if I have to err.

This is pretty much exactly what I was trying to say in my own reply above, only you said it far, far better than I did.

 

[Mister Agenda]

This is pretty much exactly what I was trying to say in my own reply above, only you said it far, far better than I did.

It's a red-letter day for me if I say something better than you did.

 

[Crossbow]

... snipped for relevance ...

The Quran is very specific and not open to interpretation. There is no special magic way to interpret the evil and cruel demands in the Quran. You can find them for yourself.

... snipped for relevance ...

I just have to respond to this one bit!

Bill Thompson you do not know what you are talking about.

If the Quran was so very specific and if the Quran is so not open to interpretation, then there would not be Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Black Muslims, and and other Muslim sects.

Also, then there would not be the thousands and thousands of Imans about who are constantly issuing Fatwahs and such which are their interpretation of the Quran.

By having such a wide, diverse, and terrribly obvious structure such as this completely disproves your contention that the Quran is so very specific and the Quran is so not open to interpretation.

Do yourself a favor and get a clue.

 

[Leumas]

I just have to respond to this one bit!

The Quran is very specific and not open to interpretation. There is no special magic way to interpret the evil and cruel demands in the Quran. You can find them for yourself.

If the Quran was so very specific and if the Quran is so not open to interpretation, then there would not be Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Black Muslims, and and other Muslim sects.

Also, then there would not be the thousands and thousands of Imans about who are constantly issuing Fatwahs and such which are their interpretation of the Quran.

By having such a wide, diverse, and terrribly obvious structure such as this completely disproves your contention that the Quran is so very specific and the Quran is so not open to interpretation.

Besides...he does not realize that by stating that statement he is admitting to a very big possibility that the quran is a Holy Book or at least is Holier than the Bible or any other religious book that exists.

Not a single scripture on earth has been "very specific and not open to interpretation". Otherwise they won't have sects or be a sect from the main sect.

In fact one of the prerequisite properties that would go a long way to proving the possible "Godly" authorship of the book is that it be "very specific and not open to interpretation".

So is Bill stating that the Quran satisfies a major prerequisite to being a Holy book...one that the Bible cannot even begin to approach?

 

[epepke]

Why are you using the term "something harmful with" when the topic uses the term "is evil"?

Probably because I still have this fantasy that there exist moderate, non-histrionic people in the world who can pull a rational discussion out of something even when the principals present statements in extreme, histrionic terms. It may be difficult, and in fact it may be the case that there is nobody like this, but hope springs eternal.

However, just for fun, let's take the question "Is Islam an evil religion."

First, please note that the word is an, not the only. Pointing out that other religions are evil is mere sophistry, since the original claim is not that it is the only one.

Second, if I were to assert that Catholicism is evil, on the basis of the covering-up of child rape, I don't think there would be massive outrage on this forum. Few people would be saying "but not all Catholics rape children!" Few would consider that even a plausible argument. (Well, maybe they might, but I have yet to see anything like this.)

 

[A'isha]

Second, if I were to assert that Catholicism is evil, on the basis of the covering-up of child rape, I don't think there would be massive outrage on this forum. Few people would be saying "but not all Catholics rape children!" Few would consider that even a plausible argument. (Well, maybe they might, but I have yet to see anything like this.)

I'd definitely take exception to that. "The ecclesiastical hierarchy of the RCC is evil on the basis of the covering-up child rape" I'd possibly agree with, but "Catholicism as a religion and an ideology is evil on the basis of the covering-up of child rape," on the other hand, is just as false and overreaching and invalid a generalization as "Islam as a religion and an ideology is evil because of Salafists/Al-Qaeda/these cherrypicked quotations from the Qur'an/etc."

 

[Cleon]

I'd definitely take exception to that. "The ecclesiastical hierarchy of the RCC is evil on the basis of the covering-up child rape" I'd possibly agree with, but "Catholicism as a religion and an ideology is evil on the basis of the covering-up of child rape," on the other hand, is just as false and overreaching and invalid a generalization as "Islam as a religion and an ideology is evil because of Salafists/Al-Qaeda/these cherrypicked quotations from the Qur'an/etc."

I agree completely.

 

[Minoosh]

Does Islam not offend, deny and oppose your every claimed value?

"Islam believes in mutual satisfaction ... elucidated in a hadith which advises husbands to engage in acts that enable a woman to achieve orgasm first. "

Islam also encourages foreplay:

http://godlas.myweb.uga.edu/sexuality.html

Doesn't oppose all my claimed values!

 

[JudeBrando]

Epepke, I agree. And I also agree that ALL religions or (irrational) ideologies are harmful. But that is not what is being argued here. What is being argued is that Islam, or indeed Muslims, are specially evil in some way that the other religions are not. I am NOT denying - very far from it! - that there is evil in all of them.

Craig B,

Do you say that Jesus Christ is evil?

 

[DC]

we didnt hear anything new from Jesus Christ in recent time.
so how could we know how he is today?
After Episode I, I would never have thought Anakin Skywalker would be evil

 

[Bill Thompson]

Bill



It took me about 30 seconds on wiki to find "details as to why" (I already knew, of course)

As to the Jewish community, it the Ottomans are the Turks who in 1492 admitted the Spanish Jews in the circumstances already described by me in this thread. Unlike the Christians, they tolerated the Jews. But the Jewish communities were almost annihilated during the German occupation of 1941 to 1945. The Germans were Christians.

In fact, some 97% of Greeks are Eastern Orthodox.

Let us summarise. Greece is almost entirely Christian because Greek Christians threw out the Muslims (while Turkish secular nationalists were throwing out the Christians). Other Christians annihilated the Jews. During the period of Islamic dominance, Jews, Christians and Muslims all lived in both countries. The Ottoman Turkish Empire was a despotic place, with a decrepit regime - but it was famous for its religious tolerance, remarkable by the standards displayed in Europe at that time.

Fun facts.

What is your point?

Cut to the chase.

1. Is your point "Christianity is more Evil"? If so, so what?
2. Is your point "We should be more concerned about Christianity handing out official, church-approved and church-sanctioned death threats to people who use free speech than we are about Islam doing similar things?"
3. Or maybe your point is "look at me! I am hi-jacking this discussion to show how bad all organized religion is in support of atheism because converting the world to atheism is plausable!"?

 

[JudeBrando]

The Muslim lands imperatively need political, religious and economic reformation. This will do more to tame extremist Muslims than all the sectarian ravings of right-wing evangelicals and racists.

Off the top of your head, some examples of your "ravings of right-wing evangelicals and racists" please?

Can we see hope in the so-called "Arab Spring"? Perhaps.

Hope for what? What is it you reasonably hope for and expect?

 

[JudeBrando]

Then what was your point in quoting the Brotherhood? Bill was claiming that there's only one type of jihad in "Islam" (he called it a "myth" that a concept of jihad as something other than violent holy war even existed). He was wrong.

That Salafist groups focus on and promote the other type (almost, though not entirely, to the exclusion of the other type) does not change the fact that all those many, many non-Salafists don't, making your post pretty much irrelevant to the point I was making to Bill.

You were, in effect, saying, "You're wrong, because this one group of Muslims here believes something bad!" Which is the entire problem with threads like these and posters like you and Bill.

Allahu akhbar.

 

[A'isha]

Off the top of your head, some examples of your "ravings of right-wing evangelicals

http://fstdt.com/QuoteArchives.aspx?Archive=1

and racists" please?

http://fstdt.com/QuoteArchives.aspx?Archive=3

Hope for what? What is it you reasonably hope for and expect?

"If it is true that the Muslim religion is an obstacle to the development of sciences, can one affirm that this obstacle will not disappear someday? How does the Muslim religion differ on this point from other religions? All religions are intolerant, each one in its way. The Christian religion, I mean the society that follows its inspirations and its teachings and is formed in its image, has emerged from the first period to which I have just alluded; thenceforth free and independent, it seems to advance rapidly on the road of progress and science, whereas Muslim society has not yet freed itself from the tutelage of religion. Realizing, however, that the Christian religion preceded the Muslim religion in the world by many centuries, I cannot keep from hoping that Muhammadan society will succeed someday in breaking its bonds and marching resolutely in the path of civilization after the manner of Western society…No I cannot admit that this hope be denied to Islam.”

Jamal-al-Din al-Afghani (1838-1897)

 

[A'isha]

allahu akhbar.

ا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله

 

[JudeBrando]

Then what was your point in quoting the Brotherhood? Bill was claiming that there's only one type of jihad in "Islam" (he called it a "myth" that a concept of jihad as something other than violent holy war even existed). He was wrong.

That Salafist groups focus on and promote the other type (almost, though not entirely, to the exclusion of the other type) does not change the fact that all those many, many non-Salafists don't, making your post pretty much irrelevant to the point I was making to Bill.

You were, in effect, saying, "You're wrong, because this one group of Muslims here believes something bad!" Which is the entire problem with threads like these and posters like you and Bill.

Allahu akhbar.

ANTPogo, what percentage of Muslims would you consider to be of the "extremist" "Muslim Brotherhood" persuasion"

And why did you answer something specifically addressed to someone else? I wanted his answer to his point without your "assistance."

 

[DC]

Allahu akhbar.

I suspected already that you are one of those YHWH worshippers

 

[A'isha]

Allahu akhbar.

ANTPogo, what percentage of Muslims would you consider to be of the "extremist" "Muslim Brotherhood" persuasion"

Actual members of the Brotherhood in Egypt and its associated organizations, people who subscribe to the philosophies of Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al-Banna, Islamists (ie, believers in "political Islam"), or Salafists in general?

And if the latter, do you mean people like Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh, or people like Abdul Wahhab and Sayyid Abul A'ala Maududi and ?

And why did you answer something specifically addressed to someone else? I wanted his answer to his point without your "assistance."

Then perhaps you should have sent a PM.

 

[JudeBrando]

Actual members of the Brotherhood in Egypt and its associated organizations, people who subscribe to the philosophies of Sayyid Qutb and Hassan al-Banna, or Islamists/Salafists in general?

And if the latter, do you mean people like Jamal al-Din al-Afghani and Muhammad Abduh, or people like Sayyid Abul A'ala Maududi?

I mean people like Muhammad.

 

[A'isha]

I mean people like Muhammad.

You mean Muhammad ibn Abdullah Muhammad? That Muhammad?

There's no one like him today.