Is Islam an evil religion?

[JudeBrando]

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

No one said anything about any "entirety" or any "all" or any "every."

 

[Sawbones79]

Why?

Quite simply beacause the question "is Islam inherently evil" must by nature be answered in relation to other dominant religions, just as any ideology can only be described within the continuum of others.

 

[epepke]

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

That's what people say. I'm sure it's true, and I don't think that anybody has argued that it isn't. It's becoming extremely trite, however. We could play this game with other groups:

"Michelle Bachman isn't the entirety of the Tea Party."

"Anders Behring isn't the entirety of Norwegian Right-Wingers."

"The killers of James Chaney aren't the entirety of the Ku Klux Klan."

etc. and so on and so forth.

At what point is it acceptable to suggest that there may be something harmful with a religion or ideology or whatever?

 

[Craig B]

Why?

Because, and I repeat this for the umpteenth time: the arguments used here to prove that Islam is evil would, if applied to Judaism and Christianity, prove them evil as well. In order to show that this is so, I have referred to these other religions, as well as to Islam. Obviously, the principles of reason require me to do this.

You can't prove Islam is, or is not, anything, without looking at other similar things. That would be like saying, "Venus is the brightest planet" without having looked at any of the other planets. Utterly and completely absurd.

 

[Craig B]

That's what people say. I'm sure it's true, and I don't think that anybody has argued that it isn't. It's becoming extremely trite, however. We could play this game with other groups ... At what point is it acceptable to suggest that there may be something harmful with a religion or ideology or whatever?

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.

 

[Sawbones79]

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.

Nitpick: Even non-delusional ideologies can be quite malignant when seen as the one, exclusive acceptable ideology by a number of its followers. That's basically what extremism's all about, after all.
Though I'm merely speculating here, I believe the reason for the prevalence of extremist views amongst muslims is to be found in the relative poverty and lack of education in many predominantly muslim countries,as well as in marginalized muslim immigrant communities.

 

[Craig B]

Nitpick: Even non-delusional ideologies can be quite malignant when seen as the one, exclusive acceptable ideology by a number of its followers. That's basically what extremism's all about, after all.
Though I'm merely speculating here, I believe the reason for the prevalence of extremist views amongst muslims is to be found in the relative poverty and lack of education in many predominantly muslim countries,as well as in marginalized muslim immigrant communities.

Agreed both points. My idea was that in certain circumstances, e.g. where not imposed as dogmas (itself an irrational procedure) some ideologies might be of value. But they are in all circumstances harmful if not rational.

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.

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

 

[Sawbones79]

Agreed both points. My idea was that in certain circumstances, e.g. where not imposed as dogmas (itself an irrational procedure) some ideologies might be of value. But they are in all circumstances harmful if not rational.

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.

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

I agree that social factors are central to creating extremists, no matter what creed they adhere to.
Some more speculation: On a personal level, young men from the middle east and north africa IS a group that's generally considered troublesome when met within the framework of healthcare, where I work. These are guys that have been raised in a patriarchal culture, learning from the start to be the public face of their family and an authority within it. When ending up unemployed or in a school system they're unprepared to handle, they often turn their disappointment into disdain for a society that doesn't give them the "respect" or authority they would have had in the society where they originated, as men from a family of good standing.
This makes for prime recruiting grounds for extremist groups that can provide these embittered young men with both a sense of importance, and the perfect excuse for their faliures in the shape of "the decadent western society" or "zionist conspiracy". One similar example would be how neo-nazi groups generally draw their members from young men from broken homes and poor socio-economic situations.

Ok, that was a bit of a detour, but I think it applies to the OP as a description on how islam itself isn't the problem, but how social factors make young men from muslim backgrounds into targets for extremist recruitment.

 

[DC]

Let me ask it of them this way:

Is it possible for one religion to have better moral teachings than another?

Who says no?

yes

 

[DC]

Let's see...

• Practiced necromancy (raising the dead).
• Unnatural powers (walking on water).
• Casts curses on living things (fig tree).
• Encouraged drunkenness (turning water into wine)
• Physically assaulted people who were going about the business of worshiping God as God instructed. (Attacking the money-changers and sellers of livestock with a homemade whip. How can you sacrifice a sanctified animal as God instructed if you can't buy one? How can you buy one with holy coin if there are no money-changers to exchange your Roman currency with?)
• Pointlessly allowed demons to destroy a herd of pigs (Matthew 8:28-34, the demons asked him to let them have the pig if he cast them out of the people.)
• Instructed his followers to buy swords, even if they had to sell their clothes to get the money. (Luke 22:35-38)
• Says straight-out "Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. ". (Matthew 10:34-35)
• Berates people for not killing their disobedient children according to the laws of Moses. (Mark 7:9-13)
• Yet encourages people to ignore the crime of adultery. (Luke 7:36-50)

I'm sure that if someone really wanted to, they could put forward a convincing case for Jesus being evil.

oh LOL never thoguht about it that way, Jesus the Necromant.

 

[A'isha]

No one said anything about any "entirety" or any "all" or any "every."

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.

 

[FireGarden]

That's what people say. I'm sure it's true, and I don't think that anybody has argued that it isn't. It's becoming extremely trite, however. We could play this game with other groups:

"Michelle Bachman isn't the entirety of the Tea Party."

"Anders Behring isn't the entirety of Norwegian Right-Wingers."

"The killers of James Chaney aren't the entirety of the Ku Klux Klan."

etc. and so on and so forth.

At what point is it acceptable to suggest that there may be something harmful with a religion or ideology or whatever?

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

And, to answer 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.

 

[A'isha]

That's what people say. I'm sure it's true, and I don't think that anybody has argued that it isn't. It's becoming extremely trite, however. We could play this game with other groups:

And you should, though the comparisons you made aren't analogous. Michelle Bachmann certainly is representative of the Tea Party, for instance, but she's not representative of the Republicans nor of American conservatives as a whole.

At what point is it acceptable to suggest that there may be something harmful with a religion or ideology or whatever?

It's a meaningless statement when you're talking about literally billions of people spread among innumerable (and often opposing) sects and subsects. In order to say anything meaningful in any way, you have to look at specific ideological statements and what individual believers say about what they think, and then criticise those[/] as necessary. Otherwise you're just calling all of Christianity evil (or even all of Mormonism) because of what Warren Jeffs has said and done.

Seriously, I wrote a big giant post about this not too long ago, in a thread you even participated in.

 

[Bill Thompson]

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.

He gets it wrong. If this is where you are getting this "interpretation" nonsense, it explains a lot. When he says that "Islam is interpreted differently in different countries" what he really means is that Islamic leaders in different countries tell their people different things. You seemed to have picked up on that and have tried (ironically) to interpret it to mean that the Quran can be interpreted differently based on different "Islamic sects".

This is baloney. This is nonsense.

What the truth is and what this guy even alludes to is the fact that Islam is political. And just as Ibn Warraq would say, Islam conditions people to not think for themselves. Thus Islam makes people prey to evil and to the whims of political leaders. Islam is evil.

Robetsalaam's attempt to discredit the video "3 things you did not know about Islam" is entertaining and one of the best unintentional supporters of the validity of "3 things you did not know about Islam". At the beginning of Robert's video he insists that the 3 things video uses logically fallacies. This is amusing ironically because if Robert REALLY understood logical fallacies, it would be virtually impossible for him to be a Muslim.

Robert says that the 3 things video uses "appeal to emotion" by the fact that it has music. But the music is not dramatic or arranged in any way to make the viewer emotional. Just because someone wants to make a professional looking video that is entertaining and so people will watch, does not mean it "appeals to emotion".

Robert also insists that the 3 things video uses "argument from authority" because it first states facts and then goes into opinions. That is not what "argument from authority" means. In fact, the 3 things video does not use the argument from authority logical fallacy at all. What is interesting though -- now this is what I think is really funny -- it is Robert who uses "argument from authority" in his video to support Islam and also shows why Islam is bad. He talks about how Islam uses authority as a means of getting laws passed. Islam itself uses the logical fallacy of "argument from authority". The reason why Islam has to use this is very telling. Islam exists in many countries where people are illiterate and have to rely on Muslim authority figures. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME THING AS QURAN IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. But what this does mean is that the way Islam is set up is to depend on the lack of knowledge and understanding of Muslims in order to keep in business. Islamic "schools" insist that all knowledge comes from the Quran. But the wacky absurdity of this is that the Quran is offered in Arabic and they do not teach HOW to read or understand the Quran. Muslim schools have their students magically "read" the Quran by staring at the script and go through the emotion of reading so that its magically power can be absorbed through osmosis.

Robert also insists that the 3 things video is a pack of lies because Taqea (hor however you want to spell the Muslim practice of telling lies for the support of Islam) is not part of all islamic sects but only a minority. That is like saying a woman is only a little pregnant. That is like saying that only a fraction of the Manson family were psychotic murders. Ironically, another annalogy is the 19 hijackers on 9-11-2001. Osama bin Laden said that not all of the 9-1 hijackers knew it was a suicide mission. Only the ones that were flying the planes knew of the target and the eventual goal of the mission. So, according to Robert's logic, the 19 people who carried out 9-11 are OK because only a small minority knew the mission was about carnage and hellish evil.

If Robert really understood logical fallacies he would know that Islam is packed full of them. Instead he misuses them and misidentifies them to support Islam. He is a living example of what Ibm Warraq talked about when he said that Islam makes people loose the capacity to reaso.

Robert also seems to think that the beauty of Islam is that there are so many different sects that practice different customs. Customs. Not Religions. And by the way, if Islam has changed over time or if it was interpeted differnetly, this would be another reason why Islam is a messed up lie and evil. That is what criminals do when they are guilty. Criminals keep changing their story. The truth, on the other hand, is one. The truth is one. If it seems that the truth changes it is only because we understand the truth more and more. A lie, on the other hand changes wildly and is never the same. Islam is evil.

People have talken this difference in other countries here to mean that Islam can be interpreted differently. No, cultures are different and the politicians tell people different things. This does not mean the QUran can be interpeted differently. This means that Muslim leaders are exploiting the uneducated and illiterate masses in different ways. That does not mean the Quran means something different to one islamic scholar and it means something else to another.

I will return to this later, but the rest of this week is going to be very busy and I will not have the time necessary to devote more to this. I will return with a vengence.

Let me guess. Somone is going to insist that Christianity does the same thing as if that makes Islam good. How is that not pathetic?

 

[DC]

How is your denial of the different interpretations of Islam not pethetic?

 

[A'isha]

Just because you get all your information about Islam from YouTube videos, Bill, doesn't mean the rest of us do.

And I've already shown you where and how you're utterly wrong in your beliefs regarding how the Qur'an is read, taught, and interpreted. Really, the only thing you've gotten right in your entire post is where you mention that Islam affects the ability to reason.

It's certainly had a detrimental effect on yours.

 

[FireGarden]

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:
[qimg]http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h292/Athono/robert.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_t8xW4QuN0&feature=related

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

LOL
That's probably because you scroll past so quick that you don't see the references.

 

[Mister Agenda]

That's what people say. I'm sure it's true, and I don't think that anybody has argued that it isn't. It's becoming extremely trite, however. We could play this game with other groups:

"Michelle Bachman isn't the entirety of the Tea Party."

"Anders Behring isn't the entirety of Norwegian Right-Wingers."

"The killers of James Chaney aren't the entirety of the Ku Klux Klan."

etc. and so on and so forth.

At what point is it acceptable to suggest that there may be something harmful with a religion or ideology or whatever?

These would be more relevant analogies:

Michelle Bachman isn't the entirety of the Republican Party.

Anders Behring isn't the entirety of Norwegian Right-Wingers is actually fine the way it is.

The killers of James Chaney aren't the entirety of Christianity.

With the exception of Anders Behring, you used examples of people who are legitimately reflective of the attitudes of the group you identify them with.

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 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.

 

[DC]

we should really let out all the other religions and only talk about Islam.
his failures on that topic are really enough to show how utterly ignorant Bill is and how much he is in denial of reality.

 

[I Ratant]

Agreed both points. My idea was that in certain circumstances, e.g. where not imposed as dogmas (itself an irrational procedure) some ideologies might be of value. But they are in all circumstances harmful if not rational.

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.

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

.
If the turmoil results in a group of more-or-less secular Islamic states like Turkey, it'll be an improvement that benefits everyone.