Is Islam an evil religion?

[FireGarden]

You don't know a single thing about naskh, why it arose, who follows the doctrine, how it's applied, or even which verses are abrogated by which!

[...]

This has led scholars like Asad to reject the concept of naskh completely, saying of 2:106

Again, thanks for taking the time to make posts like that.

That is a different analogy. Better? You are looking at a different concept and thus redirecting my point to brush it aside because you don't what to address it. I think the idea that since most of the Manson family were not killers we should not think of them entirely as such is disturbing and unsettling and means something you do not want to address.

I don't understand.
Are you saying that we should think of them all as killers even if most of them were not? Because that would be a strange thing to do.

btw,
I've heard of Charles Manson but don't really know much about who killed who.

 

[A'isha]

FireGarden's post reminded me that you've completely ducked my questions regarding abrogation, Bill.

Are you going to answer them at all?

 

[JJM 777]

All religions are evil.

I don´t think you have evidence for that. Many Eastern religions are very soft and humble.

 

[Bill Thompson]

DC, to answer your question about being paranoid: Well, first of all, I notice you are quick on the draw to call people crazy when they say something you do not want to believe. Secondly, I don't see any reason why you are qualified to make a psychological diagnosis. And since the Quran really is not open to intperpretation, I would have to think I am probably not paranoid. But I know it is a quick and comforting solution to the issues I bring up. So, I think maybe we should all hope I am paranoid. There, we can all have peace-of-mind now and live in peace.

DC, the Quran is not like the bible. There are not many unambiguous verses left to the imagination and open to interpretation.


DC, ist der Koran nicht wie die Bibel. Es gibt nicht viele unambituous Verse links, um die Phantasie und offen für Interpretation.

The topic is not if muslims are evil. The topic is if Islam is evil. There is a big difference. I imagine many Muslims are given a Quran to read that is in Arabic and they do not even know Arabic. I imagine many cannot translate what the Quran REALLY says. But you can find a copy of the Quran in German. Read it for yourself.

Since the Quran is not very unambiguous it is clear what it says and does not say.

You keep insisting it is like the Bible. You are wrong.

Das Thema ist nicht, wenn die Muslime sind böse. Das Thema ist, ob der Islam ist böse. Es gibt einen großen Unterschied. Ich glaube, viele Muslime eine Koran zu lesen, dass ist in Arabisch und sie wissen nicht einmal, Arabisch gegeben sind. Ich glaube, viele können nicht übersetzen, was der Koran wirklich sagt. Aber Sie können eine Kopie des Korans in deutscher Sprache zu finden. Lesen Sie selbst.

Da der Koran ist nicht sehr eindeutig klar ist, was sie sagt und nicht sagt.

Sie halten darauf, es ist wie die Bibel. Sie haben Unrecht.

There is a common myth that Jihad in the Quran means inner struggle. It is not true. It is not just an "intpretation" to choose. In Arabic, "jihad" means struggle. In Islam, it means holy war. The Quran specifically exempts the disabled and elderly from Jihad (4:95), which would make no sense if the word is being used merely within the context of spiritual struggle.

Es ist ein weit verbreiteter Mythos, dass der Jihad im Koran inneren Kampf bedeutet. Es ist nicht wahr. Es ist nicht nur ein "intpretation" zu wählen. Im Arabischen bedeutet "Jihad" zu kämpfen. Im Islam bedeutet es, den heiligen Krieg. Der Koran ausdrücklich befreit die behinderten und älteren von Jihad (4:95), was keinen Sinn, wenn das Wort wird nur im Rahmen der geistlichen Kampf eingesetzt machen würde.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I don´t think you have evidence for that. Many Eastern religions are very soft and humble.

Read line 10 of the OP
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7474647&postcount=1

 

[A'isha]

DC, the Quran is not like the bible. There are not many unambiguous verses left to the imagination and open to interpretation.

That's so wrong it goes beyond wrong into a whole new dimension of wrongness. Just above I showed you how the ambiguous nature of the word ayah makes a clear interpretation of the so-called verses of abrogation difficult at best for scholars.

I imagine many Muslims are given a Quran to read that is in Arabic and they do not even know Arabic. I imagine many cannot translate what the Quran REALLY says. But you can find a copy of the Quran in German. Read it for yourself.

EDIT: This is why Qur'ans printed for use in countries whose official languages are something other than Arabic are usually dual-printed, with the Arabic on one side of the page and the translation on the other.

Since the Quran is not very unambiguous it is clear what it says and does not say.

The very existence and proliferation of tafsir over the centuries (often containing interpretations at odds with each other) puts the "clear and unambiguous" like to that sentence.

And that's before we even get to stuff like ta'wil, the esoteric and mystical interpretation of the Qur'an.

There is a common myth that Jihad in the Quran means inner struggle. It is not true. It is not just an "intpretation" to choose. In Arabic, "jihad" means struggle. In Islam, it means holy war. The Quran specifically exempts the disabled and elderly from Jihad (4:95), which would make no sense if the word is being used merely within the context of spiritual struggle.

Sorry, but once again you're wrong. It's called jihād an-nafs, or struggle of the soul or self. As Muhammad Asad noted:

The term mujāhid is derived from the verb jahada, which means “he struggled” or “strove hard” or “exerted himself,” namely, in a good cause and against evil. Consequently, jihād denotes “striving in the cause of God” in the widest sense of this expression: that is to say, it applies not merely to physical warfare (qitāl) but to any righteous struggle in the moral sense as well; thus, for instance, the Prophet described man’s struggle against his own passions and weaknesses (jihād an-nafs) as the “greatest jihād” (Bayhaqī, on the authority of Jābir ibn ‘Abd Allāh)

Imam al-Bayhaqī lived about 300 years after Muhammad's death, and is still known as one of the most famous experts on the Sunni hadith. Muhammad's description of the "greatest jihad" being an internal spiritual struggle is cited by al-Bayhaqī on the authority of Jabir ibn 'Abdullah, himself one of the Ṣaḥābah, or companions of Muhammad.

Now, are you gonna answer my questions about abrogation, or are you going to admit that you don't know anything about the subject?

 

[Tricky]

All religions are evil.

Religions are like guns. They're all dangerous, but the're only as evil as the person weilding them.

 

[Brian-M]

Not all Catholic priests are (can't think of a politically correct term here).

Pedophiles. When you can't find a politically correct term, use the linguistically correct term.

That does not matter. It does not matter of some muslims are good or even if most muslims are good. That has nothing really to do if Islam is good or not.

This has got me thinking. How exactly do you determine whether a religion is good or bad? If you're claiming that Islam is "not good", then you must have some way to determine this.

Possibilities that spring to mind are:

1. Behavior of the believers.
2. The content of the religious texts.
3. The teachings of the religious leaders.​

Since you've already stated that #1 is not how you determine this, then is it #2, or #3 (which often different from #2)? Or is it something I haven't thought of yet?

And I know from personal first hand experience that every calm, peace loving and seemingly meek Muslim that I have personally known also supports the idea of murdering Salmon Rushdie.

Have you actually asked their opinions on this topic? Did you bring it up in conversation, saying "Do you support the idea of murdering Salmon Rushdie"? Or are you just assuming that they hold these views? And exactly how many Muslims are we talking about? One or two? Twenty or thirty?

Not all Muslims support the murder of Salmon Rushdie. Here's an opinion piece by a Muslim, arguing that th demand for his death is "un-Islamic" (even quoting the Qur'an to support his opinion): http://www.khalidzaheer.com/essays/kzaheer/criticism/the_salman_rushdie_case.html

There's even a published book titled "For Rushdie" filled with essays by Muslims from a variety of Muslim countries supporting Rushdie's right to free speech.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/115527.For_Rushdie

So the idea that there are some peaceful law abiding Muslims does not mean anything to me from my experience with them so far. That ain't paranoia, brother.

Personal experience is not always the best way to judge things. Even if the Muslims you know support killing Salmon Rushdie, that doesn't mean all Muslims share the same view.

 

[A'isha]

It's Salman Rushdie. Salman!

EDIT: Wait, "For Rushdie" had Kevin J. Anderson as translator? Kevin "destroyer of all that is noble and good about the Dune series" J. Anderson?

That's...actually, I have no idea how to react to that. Weird.

 

[Brian-M]

It's Salman Rushdie. Salman!

Damn. That's what I get for copy-pasting the name from Bill's post instead of typing it out.

(But I wasn't actually familiar with the name, and had to use Google to find out who he was. But that's not really a good excuse.)

 

[Dessi]

Religions are like guns. They're all dangerous, but the're only as evil as the person weilding them.

+1.

Anyone can say "oh, Muslims aren't really evil because verses ABC say this" or "Islam must be evil because the verses XYZ say that".

At the end of the day, no one actually cares what the Koran says. For that matter, Christians don't care what their bible says either (hint: divorce and remarriage prohibited, women should never worship with uncovered hair, nor should men wear their hair long, usury -- lending money on interest -- was an excommunicable offense for 1500 years).

People will justify whatever political prejudice they have with the word of God. Slavery, abolition, genocide, pacifism, capitalism, socialism, individual rights, divine right of kings, animal rights, animal cruelty, women's rights, women's inferiority, war, peace, environmentalism, anti-environmentalism, anything. It doesn't matter what the prejudice is or whether it's actually justified by scripture.

Like US Christians, I think Muslims living in the US share a lot of the same values as all other Americans, and aren't particularly objectionable.

Like African and Middle Eastern Christians, I think many Muslims living in Africa and the Middle East have absolutely backward, often times malignant and hateful attitudes which are totally incompatible with human rights, and the strong belief in an afterlife undermines the severity of murder. And *that* is definitely evil.

 

[DC]

DC, to answer your question about being paranoid: Well, first of all, I notice you are quick on the draw to call people crazy when they say something you do not want to believe. Secondly, I don't see any reason why you are qualified to make a psychological diagnosis. And since the Quran really is not open to intperpretation, I would have to think I am probably not paranoid. But I know it is a quick and comforting solution to the issues I bring up. So, I think maybe we should all hope I am paranoid. There, we can all have peace-of-mind now and live in peace.

DC, the Quran is not like the bible. There are not many unambiguous verses left to the imagination and open to interpretation.


DC, ist der Koran nicht wie die Bibel. Es gibt nicht viele unambituous Verse links, um die Phantasie und offen für Interpretation.

The topic is not if muslims are evil. The topic is if Islam is evil. There is a big difference. I imagine many Muslims are given a Quran to read that is in Arabic and they do not even know Arabic. I imagine many cannot translate what the Quran REALLY says. But you can find a copy of the Quran in German. Read it for yourself.

Since the Quran is not very unambiguous it is clear what it says and does not say.

You keep insisting it is like the Bible. You are wrong.

Das Thema ist nicht, wenn die Muslime sind böse. Das Thema ist, ob der Islam ist böse. Es gibt einen großen Unterschied. Ich glaube, viele Muslime eine Koran zu lesen, dass ist in Arabisch und sie wissen nicht einmal, Arabisch gegeben sind. Ich glaube, viele können nicht übersetzen, was der Koran wirklich sagt. Aber Sie können eine Kopie des Korans in deutscher Sprache zu finden. Lesen Sie selbst.

Da der Koran ist nicht sehr eindeutig klar ist, was sie sagt und nicht sagt.

Sie halten darauf, es ist wie die Bibel. Sie haben Unrecht.

There is a common myth that Jihad in the Quran means inner struggle. It is not true. It is not just an "intpretation" to choose. In Arabic, "jihad" means struggle. In Islam, it means holy war. The Quran specifically exempts the disabled and elderly from Jihad (4:95), which would make no sense if the word is being used merely within the context of spiritual struggle.

Es ist ein weit verbreiteter Mythos, dass der Jihad im Koran inneren Kampf bedeutet. Es ist nicht wahr. Es ist nicht nur ein "intpretation" zu wählen. Im Arabischen bedeutet "Jihad" zu kämpfen. Im Islam bedeutet es, den heiligen Krieg. Der Koran ausdrücklich befreit die behinderten und älteren von Jihad (4:95), was keinen Sinn, wenn das Wort wird nur im Rahmen der geistlichen Kampf eingesetzt machen würde.

Google translator is horrible. save the time.

your claim that the koran is not open to interpretation is so wrong and has been shown to be wrong so many times now. Why do you have troubles to belief it? tell us, why are all the Muslims that have different interpretations wrong?
Why is it only YOUR interpretation that is the only correct interpretation?

You yourself admited to not be interested in the details, but then you make huge claims about the details, and even go so far as to actually claim most moslems are wrong about their own religion.

Sorry bill, what other conclusion can there be? You are creazy, your crazyness is not open to interpretation.
And i am qualified by experiance, i also had paranoid world views.

 

[bikerdruid]

DC, the Quran is not like the bible. There are not many unambiguous verses left to the imagination and open to interpretation.

bill....have you actually read the koran, or just selected passages?

 

[Sawbones79]

+1.

Anyone can say "oh, Muslims aren't really evil because verses ABC say this" or "Islam must be evil because the verses XYZ say that".

At the end of the day, no one actually cares what the Koran says. For that matter, Christians don't care what their bible says either (hint: divorce and remarriage prohibited, women should never worship with uncovered hair, nor should men wear their hair long, usury -- lending money on interest -- was an excommunicable offense for 1500 years).

People will justify whatever political prejudice they have with the word of God. Slavery, abolition, genocide, pacifism, capitalism, socialism, individual rights, divine right of kings, animal rights, animal cruelty, women's rights, women's inferiority, war, peace, environmentalism, anti-environmentalism, anything. It doesn't matter what the prejudice is or whether it's actually justified by scripture.

Like US Christians, I think Muslims living in the US share a lot of the same values as all other Americans, and aren't particularly objectionable.

Like African and Middle Eastern Christians, I think many Muslims living in Africa and the Middle East have absolutely backward, often times malignant and hateful attitudes which are totally incompatible with human rights, and the strong belief in an afterlife undermines the severity of murder. And *that* is definitely evil.

Seconded. Religions are by nature opposed to change and IMHO most theocracies seem to have a "nobility" of sorts, those who benefits the most from the religious ideals of the religion in question. In the western countries, this effect has been diluted by scinence, education and pluralism, something many middle eastern countries have lacked lately due mainly to poverty and strife.

 

[Craig B]

Yes, people adapt their religion to the environment they find themselves in. Who looks at the stuff in the Bible about beating slaves, or punishing a rapist by making him marry his victim? That barbarous environment has gone, thankfully. Same applies to the rubbish in the Koran, or mediaeval balderdash cooked up in ghettos, where perhaps it seemed to make sense.

If one religion is evil on account of its holy books, so are they all.

 

[Virus]

Religions aren't all the same. It's possible for one religion to have better moral teachings than another.

 

[Craig B]

Religions aren't all the same. It's possible for one religion to have better moral teachings than another.

Examples of what you have in mind would be helpful. But it's not exactly the point I was making. In this thread Islam is being singled out for attack, on the grounds that its holy book contains obnoxious things. These things have been declared to be the "real" Islam, so any good things or valid moral teachings in Islam are therefore dismissed as unimportant, hypocritical or even deceitful.

But this particular approach to Islam (only the horrible things are to be considered when evaluating it), if applied to Christianity or Judaism, would have exactly the same result.

That is, NONE of the better moral teachings could be taken into account in the evaluation process. If you want my favourite passage from a religious book, look at the Kalama Sutta. http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh008-p.html But in reality Buddha is here preaching a completely non-supernatural morality, and utter agnosticism and indifference to the existence of a future life. An avowed atheist, like me, could subscribe without difficulty to this doctrine. And his praise of doubt is a treasure, worth all the certainties whispered by gods to goatherds since the beginning of time.

 

[Sawbones79]

Religions aren't all the same. It's possible for one religion to have better moral teachings than another.

Definitely true. However, all of them contain teachings that put absurd taboos and regulations above human well-being. IMHO most major religions would be synonymous with oppression if they were allowed to define laws and politics, and Islam happens to be a religion that does just that in a number of countries. From that viewpoint, the conflict isn't between Islam and "the others", but between secular and religious mindsets.
(The chaplain you use as an avatar ought to be the perfect example of a representative of a horrifying albeit ficticious fascist theocracy, BTW).

 

[VanillaCone]

Ya Allah! You guys are making this whole issue seem so complicated! Maybe I'm just a simpleton, but I think the answer to the OP is quite simple. First of all nothing is "evil," because evil itself is a religious concept, and religion is a human invention. It's fiction, all of it. So, no, Islam is not evil.

But is Islam a liability to the prospect of future world peace? Yes. So is Christianity in all its various forms. However, the same cannot be said for all religions -- only those whose core principles include the conversion of all others to the religion. There are some live-and-let-live religions, such as Buddhism, which do not threaten world peace. It's really all about the religion's attitude toward OTHER religions that matters most.

 

[zooterkin]

The topic is not if muslims are evil. The topic is if Islam is evil. There is a big difference. I imagine many Muslims are given a Quran to read that is in Arabic and they do not even know Arabic. I imagine many cannot translate what the Quran REALLY says. But you can find a copy of the Quran in German. Read it for yourself.

Your imagination is clearly letting you down. How about actually finding out?