Is Islam a good religion?

[Saint]

Is Islam a good religion?

Most westerners and the Oriental people understand Christianity, Buddhism etc. more than Islam, right?

So, it is more probable that we misunderstand Islam.
We always blame Islam for terrorism.
Is this unfair?

Islam could be a good religion, couldn't it?

 

[Neverfly]

I would say it's not really any different from any major religion. There are Muslims and there are Islamists.
I do not believe that it's a "bad" religion that breeds terrorists, but I do agree that hatred breeds terrorists.
There are some hadiths that are questionable.

 

[GASHOLE]

Good Religion? Oxymoron here...

 

[Read-Only]

Is Islam a good religion?

Most westerners and the Oriental people understand Christianity, Buddhism etc. more than Islam, right?

So, it is more probable that we misunderstand Islam.
We always blame Islam for terrorism.
Is this unfair?

Islam could be a good religion, couldn't it?

As far as I can tell it's the ONLY current religion that has extremists that openly advocate VIOLENCE and outright MURDER. Would you actually call that GOOD????

 

[Balerion]

As far as I can tell it's the ONLY current religion that has extremists that openly advocate VIOLENCE and outright MURDER. Would you actually call that GOOD????

That's not true. There is plenty of violence perpetrated on behalf of Christianity and Judaism.

As for the OP, no, Islam is not a "good" religion. There really is no such thing, but Islam is particularly vile.

 

[Read-Only]

That's not true. There is plenty of violence perpetrated on behalf of Christianity and Judaism.

As for the OP, no, Islam is not a "good" religion. There really is no such thing, but Islam is particularly vile.

That's a VERY bold statement! Care to provide some proof of it - or should we all simply ignore you???

 

[Neverfly]

What? Which part?

 

[Balerion]

That's a VERY bold statement! Care to provide some proof of it - or should we all simply ignore you???

I sincerely doubt you speak for anyone other than yourself, but if you feel like ignoring me, feel free.

However, you and I have already danced to this tune. There's nothing bold about citing the fact that Christianity and Judaism are responsible for plenty of violence in the world. If you want a local example, pick anyone who has murdered an OB/GYN for performing abortions. If you want a larger example, look up the violence perpetrated by Jews against Muslims in the Middle East. If you want terrorism, look up The Troubles. (Though the abortion clinic murders would also count) There is virtually no end to the list.

Some advice: If you're going to be so confrontational, it would serve you to actually know what the hell you're talking about. Typing in All-Caps and using aggressive language isn't persuasive. You need substance, and you have none.

 

[Read-Only]

I sincerely doubt you speak for anyone other than yourself, but if you feel like ignoring me, feel free.

However, you and I have already danced to this tune. There's nothing bold about citing the fact that Christianity and Judaism are responsible for plenty of violence in the world. If you want a local example, pick anyone who has murdered an OB/GYN for performing abortions. If you want a larger example, look up the violence perpetrated by Jews against Muslims in the Middle East. If you want terrorism, look up The Troubles. (Though the abortion clinic murders would also count) There is virtually no end to the list.

Some advice: If you're going to be so confrontational, it would serve you to actually know what the hell you're talking about. Typing in All-Caps and using aggressive language isn't persuasive. You need substance, and you have none.

I see that you are just as boneheaded as usual and cannot even grasp the idea of my typing a *single* word in caps to indicate emphasis.

And the rest of your assertions are also extremely weak and well beyond the fringe.

Yep, since you *are* so ignorant, ignoring you certainly is the best course of action. Bug off, jerk!

 

[Balerion]

I see that you are just as boneheaded as usual and cannot even grasp the idea of my typing a *single* word in caps to indicate emphasis.

And the rest of your assertions are also extremely weak and well beyond the fringe.

Yep, since you *are* so ignorant, ignoring you certainly is the best course of action. Bug off, jerk!

Feel free to point out the weaknesses in my argument. Failing that, I guess we can all assume this is just subterfuge to cover for your lack of a valid response.

 

[Yasin]

I would say it's not really any different from any major religion. There are Muslims and there are Islamists.

Could you elaborate more on the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist ?.

I do not believe that it's a "bad" religion that breeds terrorists, but I do agree that hatred breeds terrorists.
There are some hadiths that are questionable.

I know I would find many results if I just looked it up myself, but may I ask, which Hadiths you were referencing ?.

 

[Neverfly]

Could you elaborate more on the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist ?.


I know I would find many results if I just looked it up myself, but may I ask, which Hadiths you were referencing ?.

Both of these questions aren't my area of expertise. I'm pretty ignorant about the Muslim faith. But I'll do my best and let those more knowledgeable than I offer corrections.

The difference between the Muslim and the Islamist is that the Muslim follows the teachings of Mohammed. The Islamist is a fundamentalist of sorts, that follows a more radical interpretation, focused on a sort of purity and one that condones violence in the name of what is sacred.
The Koran is a book that Mohammed dictated to scribes whereas the Hadiths were additional tales scribed by others claiming things that they heard Mohammed say. I've heard many opinions on Hadiths- many Muslims say that the Hadiths are not a part of Islam and only the Koran is to be read and followed. Many other Muslims believe that he Hadiths are valid and to be followed religiously. I've noticed that some of this may be regional, from what I understand Pakistan follows Hadiths heavily whereas Iran has a larger population of Muslims that do not follow Hadiths.

The Koran does not promote turning the other cheek, but instead validates retaliation to violence. Defense not offense.
However, some hadiths do validate offensive violence.

Confusing, to me at least. The way I see it, Muslims, like Christians, are left to pick and choose what they like and what they don't like.
In Christianity/Judaism, the Old Testament or Torah has many validations of violence. In the history of Christianity, a certain Pope had used scripture to validate a Holy War- against Muslims. He cited that God demanded that soldiers honor God in combat.

 

[spidergoat]

Islam is worse than most religions. It encourages Muslims to conquer unbelievers and justifies the worst violence against them (as long as they resist Islamic extortion).

 

[Neverfly]

Islam is worse than most religions. It encourages Muslims to conquer unbelievers and justifies the worst violence against them (as long as they resist Islamic extortion).

Refer above. A Hadith does, I gather, say that- however the Koran does not. The Koran says to leave "infidels" in peace and only strike them if they strike you first. It's one reason why many Muslims oppose the following of Hadiths as they seem to conflict with Mohammad. However, religion has politics- those in power had created a "committee" to determine what Hadiths to be validated as "Mohammed's words" and what weren't. Here you have a case of cherry picking.

 

[spidergoat]

Refer above. A Hadith does, I gather, say that- however the Koran does not. The Koran says to leave "infidels" in peace and only strike them if they strike you first. It's one reason why many Muslims oppose the following of Hadiths as they seem to conflict with Mohammad. However, religion has politics- those in power had created a "committee" to determine what Hadiths to be validated as "Mohammed's words" and what weren't. Here you have a case of cherry picking.

I refer you to Chapter 41:


26 Those who disbelieve say: Heed not this Qur'an, and drown the hearing of it; haply ye may conquer.

27 But verily We shall cause those who disbelieve to taste an awful doom, and verily We shall requite them the worst of what they used to do.

 

[Neverfly]

I refer you to Chapter 41:


26 Those who disbelieve say: Heed not this Qur'an, and drown the hearing of it; haply ye may conquer.

27 But verily We shall cause those who disbelieve to taste an awful doom, and verily We shall requite them the worst of what they used to do.

I could be wrong, but I think the context there is defensive. Either way, the Christian bible talks of stoning sinners, bludgeoning children for swearing etc. I really don't care that much. The followers take from it what they want to believe in.

The way I see it- all the major faiths are goofy and they all say weird things. Hating one more than another - it doesn't make sense to me. Unless you're a student of it, or even a former believer, do you really know how the average believer of that faith follows it?
Such consternation is unbecoming of us supposed Critical Thinkers and Non-believers when we're so quick to show our fangs at one religion more than others. In the end, they're people just like us. It's not like they're a race of savages and we're the humans.

Kinda makes the point that humans don't need a God in order to hate...

 

[spidergoat]

Neverfly,

I don't think that's a very good defense. Yes, Christianity's holy book also contains the seeds of self-righteous religious violence, and I condemn it also. But few religions are so explicit about it, so clear, and without very many verses which contradict it as Islam. It's also true that in spite of the book, individuals and society may have a culture which follow it to a greater or lesser degree. That's why there are so-called moderates. But there is precious little material to prevent moderates from becoming extreme, and that's the danger. I don't hate Muslims in general, but I hate Islamic ideology. I do hate Muslims who identify completely with this hateful text, they are the enemies of the enlightenment and obstacles to the full flowering of both individuality and the human race.

 

[Neverfly]

Neverfly,

I don't think that's a very good defense. Yes, Christianity's holy book also contains the seeds of self-righteous religious violence, and I condemn it also. But few religions are so explicit about it, so clear, and without very many verses which contradict it as Islam. It's also true that in spite of the book, individuals and society may have a culture which follow it to a greater or lesser degree. That's why there are so-called moderates. But there is precious little material to prevent moderates from becoming extreme, and that's the danger. I don't hate Muslims in general, but I hate Islamic ideology. I do hate Muslims who identify completely with this hateful text, they are the enemies of the enlightenment and obstacles to the full flowering of both individuality and the human race.

That's fair As I said, I'm not an expert on Islam. I've been told many things. I kinda take it all with a grain of salt.

 

[Yasin]

To Neverfly,

The difference between the Muslim and the Islamist is that the Muslim follows the teachings of Mohammed. The Islamist is a fundamentalist of sorts, that follows a more radical interpretation, focused on a sort of purity and one that condones violence in the name of what is sacred.

That's still a bit hazy. However, if we establish that the Muslim follows the teachings of Muhammad, as you stated, then I have no interest in whatever else you consider the Islamist to be; so long as he is something else, he is irrelevant.

The Koran is a book that Mohammed dictated to scribes whereas the Hadiths were additional tales scribed by others claiming things that they heard Mohammed say. I've heard many opinions on Hadiths- many Muslims say that the Hadiths are not a part of Islam and only the Koran is to be read and followed. Many other Muslims believe that he Hadiths are valid and to be followed religiously. I've noticed that some of this may be regional, from what I understand Pakistan follows Hadiths heavily whereas Iran has a larger population of Muslims that do not follow Hadiths.

I mentioned this before, here, but in case you hate referrals to one's own posts as I do, I will briefly repeat it here. In the Koran, it is stated very clearly that obeying the messenger, Muhammad, is obeying Allah; that one cannot be without the other; that Muhammad is a messenger to explain Islam, not just deliver it. That's from the Koran, the book that Iranians and Pakistanis agree is the word of Allah. But I believe you when you say that Iranians mostly don't follow Hadith and even Koran. That's because they are, I'm sure you've heard, Shia's. Some of them don't believe Muhammad was a messenger, and that Ali is the true prophet of Islam; some believe Ali is Allah; some believe he was neither but still wouldn't obey direct instructions from the Koran. As you can see, this is quite complex and tangled, but it's safe to say that when you want to discuss Islam, you shouldn't take the word of those who refuse certain parts of it, entire Suras and verses, as that of Islam. Islam has two sources Koran and Hadith. You can't take parts of each and refuse others and call your self a Muslim.
You may think I want you to accept only the Islam a certain group preaches and nothing else or that a certain group's view of Islam is the correct one, which is what every group thinks, from your point of view as an outside eye, but I don't. My purpose is to convert the discussion from "this group thinks this and that group thinks that", to "this was mentioned in the Koran but this wasn't, or was mentioned in Hadith, which of them to follow ? and why? why did you choose this interpretation of this Hadith and not another ? how about this verse ? ... etc".

The Koran does not promote turning the other cheek, but instead validates retaliation to violence. Defense not offense.
However, some hadiths do validate offensive violence.

Whenever I read your "some hadiths ..." I wait for "... like this one:", but you always seem to miss it.

Confusing, to me at least. The way I see it, Muslims, like Christians, are left to pick and choose what they like and what they don't like.
In Christianity/Judaism, the Old Testament or Torah has many validations of violence. In the history of Christianity, a certain Pope had used scripture to validate a Holy War- against Muslims. He cited that God demanded that soldiers honor God in combat.

Refer above. A Hadith does, I gather, say that- however the Koran does not. The Koran says to leave "infidels" in peace and only strike them if they strike you first. It's one reason why many Muslims oppose the following of Hadiths as they seem to conflict with Mohammad. However, religion has politics- those in power had created a "committee" to determine what Hadiths to be validated as "Mohammed's words" and what weren't. Here you have a case of cherry picking.

I have no news of this committee, but I won't give it much thought if you don't wish to discuss it in the current subject.

To spidergoat,

I refer you to Chapter 41:
26 Those who disbelieve say: Heed not this Qur'an, and drown the hearing of it; haply ye may conquer.

27 But verily We shall cause those who disbelieve to taste an awful doom, and verily We shall requite them the worst of what they used to do.

You do know that "We" refers to Allah in this passage, don't you ?! And that the promised doom is that of the judgement day ?. Read from verse 19, it says so explicitly. If that's precisely what you meant, then I fail to see your point, which I thought was to prove to Neverfly that there are verses in the Koran that encourage violence.

 

[Neverfly]

To Neverfly,

That's still a bit hazy.

Not an expert.

That's because they are, I'm sure you've heard, Shia's.

This I have heard, shiites and Shia and they are like Jedi's and Sith.

I'm a bad man.
Ok, go on...

Some of them don't believe Muhammad was a messenger, and that Ali is the true prophet of Islam; some believe Ali is Allah;

That's his son, right? I mean, Mohammed (Muhammed) -his son.

some believe he was neither but still wouldn't obey direct instructions from the Koran. As you can see, this is quite complex and tangled, but it's safe to say that when you want to discuss Islam, you shouldn't take the word of those who refuse certain parts of it, entire Suras and verses, as that of Islam. Islam has two sources Koran and Hadith. You can't take parts of each and refuse others and call your self a Muslim.

I have heard this many times, yet I see many do just that. I think it's a human condition. Even Mohammed predicted that his message would be lost and in time, the followers would end following something different from what he said- a distortion.

You may think I want you to accept only the Islam a certain group preaches and nothing else or that a certain group's view of Islam is the correct one, which is what every group thinks, from your point of view as an outside eye, but I don't. My purpose is to convert the discussion from "this group thinks this and that group thinks that", to "this was mentioned in the Koran but this wasn't, or was mentioned in Hadith, which of them to follow ? and why? why did you choose this interpretation of this Hadith and not another ? how about this verse ? ... etc".

I'm beginning to think you're either Muslim, former Muslim or grew up in a primarily Muslim culture...
I don't have answers- I said, clearly, that I am ignorant about Islam. I am atheist. I lack belief in the Supernatural or divine. I do not think there are any Gods at all. I believe that some prophets were men who wanted to do some good in the world and some just wanted fame and recognition and some were crazed zealots- but all of them were just superstitious men, even if wise men. They were men, not divine interpreters. I do try to be respectful on occasion, but on these forums- a place of Science, I will admit my tolerance is low. I lose patience more easily when discussing the merits of belief.

Whenever I read your "some hadiths ..." I wait for "... like this one:", but you always seem to miss it.

My needle is stuck in the groove:
I am not an expert. It's because I do not know exactly which one and I probably couldn't pronounce it anyway.

I have no news of this committee, but I won't give it much thought if you don't wish to discuss it in the current subject.

Saints vague O.P. asks about Islam. I'd suggest covering all the bases.