Is Islam an evil religion?

[Mister Agenda]

I think Epepke is trying to say that although he concludes that Minchin's point is that anyone who supports the Catholic church bears some responsibilitiy for the actions of pedophilic priests, he does not espouse that conclusion him/herself.

My apologies to Epepke for taking the liberty.

 

[Lowpro]

You may disagree with his point. But he did make a point.





(I do wonder which side of the argument you think I'm endorsing. Or if you think I'm genuinely neutral.)

What I'm trying to get across is that it doesn't matter if you make a point or not, you don't win an argument by making points unless they're VALID points. Trying to link child rapes by priests to the Pope (as if he himself is to blame, or Catholicism is to blame) is invalid and I would hope everyone with half a brain could actually see that. However that's not the case as this thread shows.

Trying to condemn Islam for the actions that particular sects take doesn't translate to the fault of Islam, or Muslims. But that's what I keep reading here, and I'm wondering why some people who I know are smarter than that will forgo critical thinking for such a stupid conclusion.

 

[I Ratant]

But it.. the violence.. is the fault of Islam, in its lack of structure and direction.
Anyone can interpret it any way they wish, no matter how brilliant or retarded they may be, and be correct, in their interpretation.
Islam desperately needs someone with authority (another thing it lacks) to make it a sensible life style.
When the stricture against Muslim killing Muslim is violated every day, with all sincerity, something is seriously wrong!

 

[Lowpro]

But it.. the violence.. is the fault of Islam, in its lack of structure and direction.
Anyone can interpret it any way they wish, no matter how brilliant or retarded they may be, and be correct, in their interpretation.
Islam desperately needs someone with authority (another thing it lacks) to make it a sensible life style.
When the stricture against Muslim killing Muslim is violated every day, with all sincerity, something is seriously wrong!

Yea it obviously isn't because there are many people who identify themselves as Muslims who don't feel compelled to commit violence against their brothers and neighbors.. Sorry but that is not a connection you get to use because it's a poor connection.

If you want to blame something, try blaming the cultural strife rather than superstitious nonsense like Islam.

 

[I Ratant]

Yea it obviously isn't because there are many people who identify themselves as Muslims who don't feel compelled to commit violence against their brothers and neighbors.. Sorry but that is not a connection you get to use because it's a poor connection.

If you want to blame something, try blaming the cultural strife rather than superstitious nonsense like Islam.

.
The cultural strife is there all over. Mostly low achievers fighting other low achievers for a (preferrably free) slice of life's benefits.
Islam lets the strife find a religious justification that masks the economic/social problem.
So far as I'm aware, the Islamic population here in the Antelope Valley is quite stress/violence free.
I believe it's because they as a group have no quarrels with the society, many of them operating successful businesses, with the perks that gives them.
Live where they want, go where they want, life in an atheistic democracy.
Paradise, as it were.

 

[tsig]

Well, if you're not willing to even read an actual scholarly work on the subject and instead to prefer to rely on pages like the ones Bill has cited, I'd indeed be less than convinced about your interest in the truth.
Though I'm more than a little confused by your "agree with" comment. Dr. Ali provides an overview, with reference citations, of the variety of positions contemporary Muslims hold regarding the "standard" view (as transmitted in Sahih Bukhari) of the age of Ai'sha at the time of her marriage. There's nothing to "agree with" or "disagree with", unless you think that Muslims don't actually hold the different views she describes and she's making the whole thing up.

EDIT: Are you worried, based on the title and my description of the author, that this is some kind of wishy-washy liberal Muslim apologetic piece? Because it's not...Dr. Ali pulls no punches when it comes to describing the entire range of beliefs and theology and jurisprudence in the Muslim world, both historically and today, regarding sexuality in Islam. She does draw her own conclusions and poses her own questions, but she is also very careful to separate her own analyses and criticisms from her descriptions of the views held by both classical and modern Islamic jurists. Her book is an overview and critical examination (in the academic sense of the word) of the history and application and modern theologic implications of the Qur'an and the hadith regarding both male and female sexual mores in Islamic jurisprudence; it is not, nor is it intended to be, a polemic or apologetic of any sort.

So unless I immerse myself in Islamic scholarship and read the books you have read I am unqualified to to express myself on what I see happening in the world around me?

 

[tsig]

What, was "none of them are [...] representative of all Muslims everywhere" not clear enough?

What's not clear to me is if you think acts are representative of beliefs. You seem willing to handwave away suicide bombing and attacks as "not representative" of Muslim beliefs yet history is full of Muslims attacking unbelievers simply because they are unbelievers.

 

[A'isha]

So unless I immerse myself in Islamic scholarship and read the books you have read I am unqualified to to express myself on what I see happening in the world around me?

Aside from the "same books" thing, yes, if you aren't interested in learning about a topic, you're free to talk about it all you want, but you're going to have trouble engaging seriously on that topic with people who have bothered to learn about it. Just like someone who never studied biology and evolution is free to expound on what they see around them and what they think that means in relation to those subjects, but anyone who has seriously studied those subjects will have a hard time taking their arguments seriously.

What's not clear to me is if you think acts are representative of beliefs.

They're only representative of those who hold those beliefs.

You seem willing to handwave away suicide bombing and attacks as "not representative" of Muslim beliefs yet history is full of Muslims attacking unbelievers simply because they are unbelievers.

True. It's also full of Muslims who didn't, as well as a very large number of Christians who both have and have not done the same. And don't get me started on Hinduism and Shinto.

Now, the question is, what does any of that have to do with what each of those religions really teach, or who gets to speak in the name of their co-religionists, or what you can say about the beliefs of any given group saying they're members of that religion, just because they're members.

For instance, Ahmadis are Muslims. Without looking them up can you describe their beliefs?

 

[Toontown]

Why the injunction against looking up the Ahmadis' beliefs? Is it necessary to have been born with this knowledge of Ahmadi beliefs?

For how long must one have known about Ahmadi beliefs before one is deemed worthy to express an opinion about them? At some point in our lives, the knowledge of Ahmadi beliefs must be obtained from some source, if we are ever to know about Ahmadi beliefs. So, when must this knowledge have been obtained? A year ago? Two years? What if we've forgotten some details in the intervening years? What if I just looked it up 10 minutes ago? Wouldn't the knowledge at least be fresh, if it's only 10 minutes old?

I don't understand this injunction against recently obtained knowledge. It seems arbitrary and pointless to me.

 

[FireGarden]

Why the injunction against looking up the Ahmadis' beliefs? Is it necessary to have been born with this knowledge of Ahmadi beliefs?

For how long must one have known about Ahmadi beliefs before one is deemed worthy to express an opinion about them? At some point in our lives, the knowledge of Ahmadi beliefs must be obtained from some source, if we are ever to know about Ahmadi beliefs. So, when must this knowledge have been obtained? A year ago? Two years? What if we've forgotten some details in the intervening years? What if I just looked it up 10 minutes ago? Wouldn't the knowledge at least be fresh, if it's only 10 minutes old?

I don't understand this injunction against recently obtained knowledge. It seems arbitrary and pointless to me.

Luckily, there is no injunction against looking up those beliefs.

What did you think of the part of the post which said "if you aren't interested in learning about a topic, you're free to talk about it all you want, but you're going to have trouble engaging seriously on that topic with people who have bothered to learn about it."

So, really, all you have to do is answer the question: "Ahmadis are Muslims. Without looking them up can you describe their beliefs?"

I suspect the answer is "not in much detail".
I also suspect you'll exercise your freedom to talk about their beliefs.

 

[A'isha]

Why the injunction against looking up the Ahmadis' beliefs? Is it necessary to have been born with this knowledge of Ahmadi beliefs?

For how long must one have known about Ahmadi beliefs before one is deemed worthy to express an opinion about them? At some point in our lives, the knowledge of Ahmadi beliefs must be obtained from some source, if we are ever to know about Ahmadi beliefs. So, when must this knowledge have been obtained? A year ago? Two years? What if we've forgotten some details in the intervening years? What if I just looked it up 10 minutes ago? Wouldn't the knowledge at least be fresh, if it's only 10 minutes old?

I don't understand this injunction against recently obtained knowledge. It seems arbitrary and pointless to me.

It's to show the fallacy of thinking you can know what Muslim Group X believes because of what Muslim Group Y believes. Because if that were possible, you wouldn't need to look up the tenets of Ahmadiyya.

 

[Toontown]

Luckily, there is no injunction against looking up those beliefs.

What did you think of the part of the post which said "if you aren't interested in learning about a topic, you're free to talk about it all you want, but you're going to have trouble engaging seriously on that topic with people who have bothered to learn about it."

I'm certain I would also have trouble engaging seriously with a witch doctor expert about the relative merits of various witch doctors. But that hardly means I can't comfortably dismiss the lot of them as candidates to become my personal physician.

Sometimes you really don't need to know that much.

 

[Toontown]

It's to show the fallacy of thinking you can know what Muslim Group X believes because of what Muslim Group Y believes. Because if that were possible, you wouldn't need to look up the tenets of Ahmadiyya.

No, what you would need to do is look up all the tenets of all the various groups T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z. And probably discover that all their conflicting tenets sum to zero. Which gives rise to the question, why are they all called Muslims? What makes a Muslim a Muslim, if not his beliefs? And if those beliefs vary broadly from sect to sect, as you say, such that one cannot infer from the beliefs of one sect what another sect believes, then do Muslims really exist? And if Muslims do exist, who are the True Muslims?

 

[A'isha]

Sometimes you really don't need to know that much.

I, on the other hand, want to know everything.

 

[Lowpro]

No, what you would need to do is look up all the tenets of all the various groups T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z. And probably discover that all their conflicting tenets sum to zero. Which gives rise to the question, why are they all called Muslims? What makes a Muslim a Muslim, if not his beliefs? And if those beliefs vary broadly from sect to sect, as you say, such that one cannot infer from the beliefs of one sect what another sect believes, then do Muslims really exist? And if Muslims do exist, who are the True Muslims Scotsmans?

It made me laugh.

Also that argument can be turned just the other way towards Christians; who are "true" Christians? Calvinists would LOVE to hear that question.

Maybe it's completely subjective to the superstitions and pride...

 

[bikerdruid]

I, on the other hand, want to know everything.

ditto.
for the search knowledge has always been my driving force.

 

[Toontown]

I, on the other hand, want to know everything.

Then you will want to be aware of the impossibility of knowing everything. Which naturally leads to thoughts of time and neuron rationing.

For example, I'm currently plodding through a book titled "Quantum Reality", the purpose of which, the author says, "is to examine several tentative images of the world proposed by quantum physicists." And wouldn't you know it - one of the first things I learned was the insistence of one of the founders of quantum theory, Niels Bohr, that "There is no deep reality." Fortunately, others disagree, so reading about "quantum reality" may not be a complete wash. Or at least I may come to understand exactly what "no deep reality" means.

I've already decided I won't live long enough to know anywhere near everything about the universe. I am dead certain I could learn much more about the various tenets of Islam if I were to apply myself. However, to put it bluntly, I would rather understand one single facet of the universe than know everything there is to know about Islam. I already know enough about Islam. More than I ever wanted to know, frankly. A lot of useless information that completely failed to fire my imagination. And I didn't get no satisfaction.

 

[A'isha]

No, what you would need to do is look up all the tenets of all the various groups T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z. And probably discover that all their conflicting tenets sum to zero. Which gives rise to the question, why are they all called Muslims? What makes a Muslim a Muslim, if not his beliefs? And if those beliefs vary broadly from sect to sect, as you say, such that one cannot infer from the beliefs of one sect what another sect believes, then do Muslims really exist? And if Muslims do exist, who are the True Muslims?

Gee, it's almost eerily like this is an incredibly complex issue that can't be boiled down to simple, black-and-white trite soundbite explanations.

 

[Toontown]

It made me laugh.

Also that argument can be turned just the other way towards Christians; you are "true" Christians. Calvinists would LOVE to hear that question.

Maybe it's completely subjective to the superstitions and pride...

I don't give a rat's ass what you turn just the other way towards Christians. That is completely irrelevant to me.

How did you ever get the screwy idea that I'm a Christian, or care in the least what you say about their beliefs?

 

[JudeBrando]

I, on the other hand, want to know everything.

ditto.
for the search knowledge has always been my driving force.

Isaiah 45

I've already decided I won't live long enough to know anywhere near everything about the universe. I am dead certain I could learn much more about the various tenets of Islam if I were to apply myself. However, to put it bluntly, I would rather understand one single facet of the universe than know everything there is to know about Islam. I already know enough about Islam. More than I ever wanted to know, frankly. A lot of useless information that completely failed to fire my imagination. And I didn't get no satisfaction.

Hey, hey, hey!