Is Islam an evil religion?

[Craig B]

Bill REALLY worries me. See this, #99

Me: Following the war of 1920, unleashed by a Greek invasion of Turkey, Christians were expelled from Turkey, and Muslims from Greece. The Greek city of Smyrna, with its Churches, was destroyed. Turkey was by then under secular rule. The caliphate was abolished just at that time. These were wartime nationalist atrocities. How many old mosqes survive in Greece, or Spain, or Sicily?
Bill: I would hope none.

Bill again: The muslims invaded. They were kicked out. Why should there be a memory of them in Greece?

May we see in this an unwitting precursor to a repeat of the Srebrenica massacres of 1995, performed by Serb, and probably Greek, Orthodox Christians. And no Bill, that doesn't make Eastern Christianity an evil religion.

 

[Craig B]

Bill

Please stop pasting thousands upon thousands of words from Ali Sina's library of bad things about Islam. A page reference will do, with a short abstract if necessary. We can look up the Sturmer - whoops - I mean Faith Freedom International ourselves if we want. I've been watching its development for several years. It's horrific.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Bill REALLY worries me. See this, #99


Bill again: The muslims invaded. They were kicked out. Why should there be a memory of them in Greece?

Craig, today if you go to Central America and to the location of the Jonestown massacre, you will not find anything. No buildings are there at all today. The bodies have all been taken away. I think I remember there is one abandoned rusty tractor part but even that is gone. There is no plaque. There is no statue. There is nothing to remind people of the history that went on there.


So why should there be a masque or a plaque in Greece or the other countries.


You are suggesting that the people of Greece should show some respect for the Muslim occupation?


What if they are regarded as something to forget like we would love to foget Jonestown?


Maybe you are seeing the world on its head. The fact that there are few memories of Muslim occupation in the places they once were is a good and healthy thing. And this reflects badly on Islam.

Am I wrong or does it seem that you are suggesting that Muslim culture is honorable. Is it just because it is big and has lots of people and has been around a long time? That is not good enough. Should Greeks be appreciative of the modern gifts Islam has brought to their culture? Exactly what would they be?

May we see in this an unwitting precursor to a repeat of the Srebrenica massacres of 1995, performed by Serb, and probably Greek, Orthodox Christians. And no Bill, that doesn't make Eastern Christianity an evil religion.

That is nuts.

Where do you get one thing from another?

That is non sequitur.

Do you know what that means?

I asked you if these were religious wars or political or geographic wars. I don't know if you answered. I doubt there are specific commands in the bible to kill Muslims BECAUSE ISLAM STARTED IN 600 AD, Man !!!

 

[Bill Thompson]

Bill

Please stop pasting thousands upon thousands of words from Ali Sina's library of bad things about Islam. A page reference will do, with a short abstract if necessary. We can look up the Sturmer - whoops - I mean Faith Freedom International ourselves if we want. I've been watching its development for several years. It's horrific.

why is it horrific? so if someone says something that might be true but we do not like it, they are racist nazis or something? Oh, I did not kow that that is how the game is played. Tell me, is that how the game is played?

Ever hear of attacking the arguer instead of the argument? It is a logical fallacy.

Antpogo was not clicking on links.

And as I said before they were forum pages, not op ed pieces.

So Islam is good? Is that what you are saying?

Have you asked a Muslim -- any Muslim-- what he or she thinks of Salmon Rushdie and what should be done about him and why?

 

[Brian-M]

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.

It's also awkward putting something cumbersome like "Do the tenets of Islamic faith result disproportionately more harm than those of other mainstream religions?" into a thread title. But that's probably the actual question we should be arguing.

I did not know what all this talk about "interpretation" has been about and why people keep insisting that Muslims "interpret" Islam differently until I saw this video on youtube:

I think this must be where you are getting this nonsense.

I didn't bother to read the rest of that post because I've never seen that video before in my life. Believe it or not, some of us are capable of forming our own opinions without having them spoon-fed to us by YouTube videos.

What I truly don't understand is why you posted a screenshot of the video, instead of a direct link. It's easier than taking a screenshot, cropping it, uploading it to photobucket then linking to the photobucket image, which is what you seem to have done.


I haven't watched it yet, and don't intend to. This thread is wasting far too much of my everyone's time as it is. If you want to criticize our arguments, then criticize our arguments, not the arguments of someone you think has arguments similar to ours.

Islam is evil if you choose to believe in the Universal Declaration of Human rights. The following articles are contrary to Islam and the two cannot coexist:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't define what is or isn't "evil". Or are you defining "evil" as "conflicting with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"?

 

[Leumas]

It's also awkward putting something cumbersome like "Do the tenets of Islamic faith result disproportionately more harm than those of other mainstream religions?" into a thread title. But that's probably the actual question we should be arguing.

I didn't bother to read the rest of that post because I've never seen that video before in my life. Believe it or not, some of us are capable of forming our own opinions without having them spoon-fed to us by YouTube videos.

What I truly don't understand is why you posted a screenshot of the video, instead of a direct link. It's easier than taking a screenshot, cropping it, uploading it to photobucket then linking to the photobucket image, which is what you seem to have done.

I haven't watched it yet, and don't intend to. This thread is wasting far too much of my everyone's time as it is. If you want to criticize our arguments, then criticize our arguments, not the arguments of someone you think has arguments similar to ours.


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't define what is or isn't "evil". Or are you defining "evil" as "conflicting with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights"?

Thanks Brian for posting the video..... I have just finished watching it.

I think it is worth the 12 minutes.....it is a direct rebuttal of the Three Points About Islam (TPAI) video posted in the OP.

It is a very well articulated retort and has some good references to make the point directly from the quran that negate the assertions of the TPAI.

The fact that Bill just waves his hands and says that it is a just an opinion is a testament to Bill's mindset and is invalid. It is also negated in the video by the fact that the guy gives a verse reference from the quran to show how the quran admits to being open to interpretation (fodder for a different debate some other day).

The guy is pretty good and what he had to say is worth listening to as a DIRECT rebuttal of the OP listed points and has a direct bearing on the OP title.

I enjoyed watching it. In fact if Bill had posted the link to it and said nothing else, I would have thought that he is changing his mind about islam....but it is IRONIC how Bill uses the video to bolster a point which it actually disproves.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Craig, what is your point? You seem to be listing random historic events here. You seem to be getting at something. What is it? Is there something you are trying to tell me?

The americans, as I remember, supported the muslims in the battle in Bosnia.

There is another bit of history. I guess it is related to what you are talking about.

The problem is that I don't know what you are getting at.

You have kind of jumped into a discussion I was having where I think I was getting to something interesting. So I don't know what your point is or why it is interesting.

 

[Bill Thompson]

The fact that Bill just waves his hands and says that it is a just an opinion is a testament to Bill's mindset and is invalid.

Really. What do you think my mindset is?

Each time you have guessed you have guessed wrong.

I would LOVE to hear what you think my mindset is.

 

[Bill Thompson]

The guy is pretty good and what he had to say is worth listening to as a DIRECT rebuttal of the OP listed points and has a direct bearing on the OP title.

That is, in fact, wrong.

Robert, who made the video claims that the 3 things video says things that it does not.

For example, Roger insists that Shuria law is not written down and that this proves that the "3 things" video. But the deal is this. I don't think that the video claims that Shuria law is written down.

So that is a strawman argument.

Another thing that Roger says is that Islam is split mainly into two groups and the smaller group is the only one that practices this whole "lieing for the sake of promiting islam". To Roger, that is important. I hear this a lot. Most of Islam is not bad. Most of Islam thinks that lieing as a religious practice is bad.

So does this mean that islam is good to you?

Osama bin Laden said in that video that the Marines recoverd in Afghanistan after 9-11 that MOST of the 19 hijackers of 9-11 did not know what the targests were. They were told that it was a mission that was necessary for the spread of Islam and that they MIGHT loose their life in the mission. They were not told how raiging loony the missioni was and that the pilots were going to fly into buildings and kill all the passengers on the jets which included children.

For the 9-11 attacks to work, only the Al Qaeda members flyig the plain had to be evil and crazy enough carry the mission.

Most of the 19 9-11 hi-jackers were not bad. So, using your logic. 9-11 was not so bad.

I mean, if most of the Muslims in the world are not wacky terrorsts and that means Islam is not bad, using that logic, 9-11 was not bad either because most of the terrorists, it turns out, were all that bad either.

 

[DC]

You do that all the time.

Is it intentional?

no actually not, i am confused by your debating style.

 

[Bill Thompson]

"Evil" is a word that you first used and I am trying to adopt it. I would have used a different term.

Maybe "ideolgoy whose time has passed" wouild be better.

It is not a BAD think that a religon gets phased out. I mean, we look back at what people believed 3 thousand years ago and we think that they were pretty strange and misdirected. So it is logical that 3 thousand years from now, people will look back at today and think the same thing.

The following articles are contrary to Islam and the two cannot coexist:

Article 18
Article 19
Article 20
Article 21.3
Article 26

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Apparently I have to post them here because people do not how a mouse works.

Article 18.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

That is not allowed in Islam. In fact, people have approaced the Marrines in some countries and asked to be taken out of a muslim country because they want to leave Islam and join some other religion.

Article 19.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Hell no, that is not alllowed in Islam. People are jailed all the time in Pakistan for blasphme.

Article 20.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
• (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Ever hear in the news when there is a suicide bomber how many "Muslim Children" were killed. Do you thnk those kids have any choice in deciding what assoation to belong to? Ramadan starts pretty early in some Muslims life, I thnk too.

Do you think a Muslim wife Egypt as the right to decide to become a Christian or another religion without any harm happening to her? That is not what I have heard and read.

http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Persecution_of_Ex-Muslims_(Egypt)

Christian convert committed into a mental hospital by parents. Beaten, whipped and given potentially fatal injections, doctors say he will remain there unless he returns to Islam

There are many examples on that website. Can you click and read or is that asking too much?

Convert to Christianity and his wife and child go into hiding after Muslim scholars issue fatwas calling for his death. Wife threatened with death because she married a convert

Article 21.

• (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

This is against islam as well

Article 26.

• (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
• (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
• (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Islam is not big about letting girls get a fair education. So this is also against Islam



Here is direct proof that Islam cannot coexist with universal human nrights. I would love to hear your response because I am pretty confident I am right and I have lots more proof to back this up.

 

[DC]

The following articles are contrary to Islam and the two cannot coexist

they can coexist and do in fact coexist.

look its those strange claim you make from time to time that totally confuse me.
Islam can coexist as long its members stick to our laws. and they do.


I think you make an excellent point here, that based on the Human rights articles and when a religion is promoting contrary values, one can rationaly and even rightfully label this religion evil.

i think this is actually a good definition.

on the other hand the Himan Rights articles need to be refined (not only a man and a woman should have the right to get married, all grown up people should have that right, no matter their sex, and be protected as family)

But its a good start.

i just don't agree that they cannot coexist, they currently do.

 

[A'isha]

Your own links prove my point, Bill. There are conflicts in the sources regarding Ai'sha's age. Some Muslims favor the interpretation that she was younger, others that she was older, for reasons historical and political that I've already described.

Your source has a vested interest in the former interpretation, because it makes Muslims look bad. As a result, it spends time trying to "debunk" the interpretations of actual other Muslims who don't accept that site's preferred version of Islam, because they desperately want to paint Islam and Muslims as particularly bad. And if there is a Muslim tradition that Ai'sha was not a child at the time of her marriage (which, of course, there is), then their (and your) whole thesis starts to fall apart.

 

[FireGarden]

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.

Well, thanks for that condescending explanation.
And for ignoring my answer to your question: people can suggest things at any time. I've quoted, for Bill Thompson, examples of people on this forum criticising Islam. Including ANTPogo. No-one shunned them for this. So please don't go the same way as Bill. It is the likes of Bill Thompson who single out Islam for special treatment -- not those who try to correct him.

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.

Where have I said that any religion is evil?

And others have mentioned Christianity so they can give it as another example of how over-generalising is a problem:

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 above 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.

I've not debated you as if you share Bill Thompson's opinions, so please debate me on the claims I have made and supported from other people.

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.)

Well, try it and see what happens.

And I'm not sure 'massive outrage on the forum' is a good description of the reaction to Bill Thompson. He's been taken to task on some very particular claims he has made, eg: on abrogation and taqqiya. If this kind of debate is somehow a problem to you, then how should we react when someone claims something they cannot back up?

Furthermore, your argument does nothing to further your cause. All that would happen, if your suspicions are correct, is that you would show there was a double standard among the JREF community. It would not indicate why that double standard exists, nor how that double standard should best be leveled. You imply, "people are willing to overgeneralise against Catholicism, why can't they do the same for Islam?" But why not extend the attitude of taking things on a case by case basis for Catholicism?

Plus, you've already had two pledges of disagreement to your generalistion. I'd also disagree with your generalisation -- if you actually went ahead and made it.

 

[A'isha]

In fact, the stance of the people at your links is extremely telling, Bill. When faced with Muslims who don't believe Ai'sha was a child at marriage, their response was not "Well, we're not attacking you, but instead attacking those Muslims who do believe in Ai'sha's young age, and even worse use that to support and promote child marriages today."

No, their reaction was "No! You're doing it wrong! You have to believe that Ai'sha was nine when she was married, because That's What Muslims Believe, and if you think otherwise then you're totally doing Islam wrong, because That's What Muslims Believe!"

Like some twisted reversal of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Bill Thompson]

they can coexist and do in fact coexist.

look its those strange claim you make from time to time that totally confuse me.
Islam can coexist as long its members stick to our laws. and they do.

"Can"? This is how you think everything is ok in the Muslim world?
How often do you think they do? Where do you think they do?

 

[Craig B]

Bill

If you don't know what I'm getting at, it is this. Here are selections from your FaithFreedom Ali Sina whose collection of material you cite so copiously, which I noted nearly 10 years ago. This equates all Muslims with terrorism, and demands their expulsion. It is hate speech. The full text is at http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina60901.htm :

Muslims want to have their cake and eat it too. ... You can’t come to our country to take advantage of all the blessings that we provide for you and at the same time hate us, despise us, equate us to feces, urine, dogs and pigs, call us the vilest animal and use our democracy to destroy it. If you come here, leave Islam back home.

A Muslim can’t have his allegiance to Islam and to America at the same time. It is either one or the other. They must choose and we must make them choose. It they can’t we must show them the door. We can’t fool ourselves anymore. We can’t harbor our own enemies among us.

If masses of so called moderate Muslims start leaving Islam, the terrorists will be completely disheartened and the Islamic terrorism will end. That is why it is so important that good people leave Islam. By calling themselves Muslims they are accomplices of the terrorists.

In many democratic countries Nazism is banned. The nature of Nazism is such that it should not be tolerated. Freedom of faith does not mean freedom to promote hate. Islam is far more dangerous than Nazism.

It is time that we come to our senses and recognize that Islam is evil to its core, that it has no place in our society and demand Muslims to choose between democracy and their cult of hate. It’s time to tell the truth. It’s time to call the spade a spade. The problem will not go away if we bury our heads in the sand. The house is on fire. It’s time to wake up and do something about it.

Islam is not a religion. It is a dangerous cult that must be eradicated or we will have to prepare ourselves for the Armageddon.

You can’t expect Muslims to be reasonable. They are brainwashed.

If we do not confront Islam soon, we will have to prepare ourselves to wage a global war against Muslims, kill them by millions and get killed by them. This is a war that can be avoided. Kill Islam before Islam kill mankind.

These disgusting words are not about terrorists only, but are an attack particularly on moderate Muslims, and are intended to make people hate their Muslim friends, neighbours and fellow citizens.

Later I will show how Ali Sina and his collaborators tell infamous lies about the history of religion in Europe and elsewhere, intended to incite hostility against Muslims. We already know what Bill thinks about European Muslims. Invaders; throw them all out, demolish their mosques. He gets this from Sina too.

Here's a real gem.

Muslims who truly believe in Islam will stab you in the back even if you are their best friend. They are the enemy within. They are the fifth-column among us. An American Muslim soldier sees America as his enemy and will shoot first his fellow soldiers. It is not politically correct to say it, but do not trust your best Muslim friend if he loves Islam. You do that at your own peril.

 

[Bill Thompson]

In thact, the stance of the people at your links is extremely telling, Bill. When faced with Muslims who don't believe Ai'sha was a child at marriage, their response was not "Well, we're not attacking you, but instead attacking those Muslims who do believe in Ai'sha's young age, and even worse use that to support and promote child marriages today."

No, their reaction was "No! You're doing it wrong! You have to believe that Ai'sha was nine when she was married, because That's What Muslims Believe, and if you think otherwise then you're totally doing Islam wrong, because That's What Muslims Believe!"

Like some twisted reversal of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Your position is anti-muslim. In fact, it is regarded as a new creation and attempt to mold Islam into a western style acceptable faith and is regarded my most Muslim to be offensive.

Most of the muslim world know she was 9 and they have for hundreds of years. It is only when Islam has come into western laws has there been a push to fabricate this new age dilusion that she was not 9.

Do you now of Occam's razor? It is an important tool in science and logic. When faced with two choices, you study both completely and go with the one that is most likely.

When I left christianity, for a time I was studing Islam. A knowledgable friend from work who was raised a Muslim was helping me and bought me a Quran.

That is when I came across this 9 year old bride issue. I learned about it from within Islam, not as an anti-islamic outsider and none of my new muslim friends denied it. They explained it this way. They said it was a different time back then and you cannot judge by Western values.

So according to Occam's razor, which do YOU think I think is most likely? There are two choices.

1. You are right evenghough the references you cite have been debunked BY MUSLIM SCOLARS and somehow it has magically come to light the Mohammed did not have sex with a 9 year old girl just as islam has been impaced more closely by western cluture and for some reason my muslim friends who were close to me and were helping and wanting me to convert lied to me for some reason
2. it is just as the preponderance of evidence points to and, just as my friends said, it was a different world back then.

 

[A'isha]

"Can"? This is how you think everything is ok in the Muslim world?
How often do you think they do? Where do you think they do?

The Muslim community here in Birmingham seems to be doing rather well. They even have an annual tradition of holding an Open House during Ramadan, for the express purpose of having non-Muslims visit and ask question, even tough questions about women in Muslim societies.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Bill

If you don't know what I'm getting at, it is this. Here are selections from your FaithFreedom Ali Sina whose collection of material you cite so copiously, which I noted nearly 10 years ago. This equates all Muslims with terrorism, and demands their expulsion. It is hate speech. The full text is

No, that is not what you were getting at. You were talking about Bosnia. Are you changing the subject now? I don't understand.

ANd like I said, the links were also to Muslim Apolgist web sites, not to anti-muslim sites. The post I was copying was from a forum not an op-ed piece that you relishly posted here.

So what is your point, man? What is the bottom line? I don't get it. What is all this talk about Bosnia. What are you getting at? What was tall that talk about Bosnia about? Do I need to repeat it agin? I will if you need me to.

You also skipped over all my other questions. Why did you do that?