Is Islam an evil religion?

[DOC]

DOC posting a link that boils down to "Look at all the crazy and backwards stuff that the scripture of this Middle Eastern religion teaches!" has got to deserve some sort of special award for Outstanding Achievements in the Field of Irony and Hypocrisy.

I am just putting information out there and people can make their own decisions.

 

[Akhenaten]

I am just putting information out there and people can make there own decisions.

Decisions about what, DOC? In what way does the 'information' you're putting out there relate to the question asked in the thread topic?

 

[DC]

http://www.islamreview.com/articles/incredibleteachings.shtml

interesting, do you have also a link that shows the crazy stuff from your religion?

 

[Leumas]

interesting, do you have also a link that shows the crazy stuff from your religion?

I do...here it is http://www.biblica.com/bibles/

or even better...this one http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

 

[A'isha]

I am just putting information out there and people can make their own decisions.

No, you're not. Because if you were, you wouldn't have posted a link to a website containing a handful of quotes from the hadith and commentary that amounts to "Check out the stupid/offensive/bizarre things that Muslims believe!"

Instead, if you truly wanted to give people information that they could read and make their own decisions about, you'd have posted a link to someplace like this University of Southern California website, which has Sahih Bukhari in its entirety, Sahih Muslim in its entirety, Malik's Muwatta in its entirety, and parts of Sunan Abu-Dawud, as well as three separate translations of the Qur'an displayed in side-by-side format along with an index.

 

[FireGarden]

http://www.islamreview.com/articles/incredibleteachings.shtml

"Bandwidth Limit Exceeded"

Could you summarise some of their points, please, DOC?

 

[FireGarden]

I do...here it is http://www.biblica.com/bibles/

or even better...this one http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

The first simply has online Bibles, so I guess that was a joke.

The second is the same site Bill linked earlier. I made this observation,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7484970&postcount=188
which didn't exactly fill me with confidence.

 

[A'isha]

The first simply has online Bibles, so I guess that was a joke.

The second is the same site Bill linked earlier. I made this observation,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7484970&postcount=188
which didn't exactly fill me with confidence.

Leumas actually linked to the Bible page, not the Qur'an page that Bill linked to.

He's attempting to respond to DC asking DOC about the "crazy stuff" in DOC's own religion.

 

[FireGarden]

Leumas actually linked to the Bible page, not the Qur'an page that Bill linked to.

He's attempting to respond to DC asking DOC about the "crazy stuff" in DOC's own religion.

Yes, I realise that. But the site is the same, and written/maintained by the same writer. I don't expect the quality of one will be all that different to the other.

 

[DC]

Leumas actually linked to the Bible page, not the Qur'an page that Bill linked to.

He's attempting to respond to DC asking DOC about the "crazy stuff" in DOC's own religion.

what do you mean with "crazy stuff", it is just crazy stuff, not "crazy stuff"

 

[Leumas]

The first simply has online Bibles, so I guess that was a joke.

The second is the same site Bill linked earlier. I made this observation,
which didn't exactly fill me with confidence.

Leumas actually linked to the Bible page, not the Qur'an page that Bill linked to.

He's attempting to respond to DC asking DOC about the "crazy stuff" in DOC's own religion.

As ANTPogo said..... the second link is to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible web site which points out all the crazy stuff in the Bible and it also does so for the Quran and the book of Mormon.

The link I gave is to the Bible....the one Bill gave was to a particular Sura in the Quran.

The gist is as you got it first time and as ANTPogo pointed out, to respond to DC's request for a link to the crazy stuff in DOC's religion....which is the Bible.

 

[A'isha]

what do you mean with "crazy stuff", it is just crazy stuff, not "crazy stuff"

As DOC so eloquently shows us in this very thread, what counts as "crazy stuff" is relative. But aside from that, calling what members of a particular religion believe and/or say "crazy" doesn't really help or add to the discussion - it's enough for me that I simply don't believe any of it myself. This is why I generally prefer to stick to just a straight description of whatever particular beliefs are the current topic of discussion, though the fact that I read a lot of academic works about the subject probably influences the way I think and write about it myself.

 

[Leumas]

Yes, I realise that. But the site is the same, and written/maintained by the same writer. I don't expect the quality of one will be all that different to the other.

OK...if you insist...here is the laugh track...

 

[epepke]

Furthermore, your argument does nothing to further your cause.

You are quite confused. I don't actually have a cause, except to point out what I observe are peculiarities in the discussion. In fact, your idea that I have a cause may be one such peculiarity.

All that would happen, if your suspicions are correct, is that you would show there was a double standard among the JREF community.

That is correct. If I could merely get people to think about even the possibility that there is a double standard, then I'd be quite happy.

It would not indicate why that double standard exists, nor how that double standard should best be leveled.

That's also correct, but it perhaps has a nonzero chance of starting a discussion. I have some hypotheses.

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?

No, you infer. I don't really care which, honestly.

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.

I'm not really sure which generalization I'm supposed to make, nor at this point what you would view it as.

 

[tsig]

The Muslim Brotherhood and their Islamist/Salafist philosophy isn't the entirety of the Muslim world, either historically or currently.

So they're not true Muslims?

No, I said they're not all Muslims.

The Muslim Brotherhood isn't Muslim?

 

[A'isha]

I'm not really sure which generalization I'm supposed to make, nor at this point what you would view it as.

How about the one you made back in post 265, which both I and Chaos reacted to?

 

[A'isha]

The Muslim Brotherhood isn't Muslim?

Psst! Hey, tsig!

I just know that this is going to be interpreted as "Some of the Muslim Brotherhood aren't Muslims".

You win, FireGarden.

 

[pipelineaudio]

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

It does not seem to fit here.

It fits...right from the start there were people saying "yeah islam is bad...but [brand x] does this and that" which is the typical tu quoque apologist tactic

 

[tsig]

As an aside, if anyone is truly interested in the issue of the age of Ai'sha at her marriage and what it means for Islam and Muslims, I highly recommend Muslim feminist writer and scholar Dr. Kecia Ali's Sexual Ethics and Islam: Feminist Reflections on Qur'an, Hadith and Jurisprudence. She devotes an entire chapter to the subject, and while she briefly touches on the historical sources, her main focus is on contemporary Muslims and how they address it, from Ahmadiyya who reject all hadith and the Bukhari story with them, to Muslims who reject the validity of that specific tradition (especially Shia, who have long been villified by Sunni writers for doubting the reliability of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim), to those who trust the Bukhari story but are troubled by its implications in a modern world, all the way to those who see the controversy as just another way for the Christian West to attack Islam.

As an added bonus, the book also has a chapter on same-sex intimacy in Muslim thought.

Nice subtle implication that if I don't read and agree with your references I'm not interested in the truth.

 

[A'isha]

It fits...right from the start there were people saying "yeah islam is bad...but [brand x] does this and that" which is the typical tu quoque apologist tactic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque#Legitimate_use