The thing that gets missed in these arguments is that it doesn't matter what the texts say. Yes, Islam's fundamental texts support violence and hatred, but even if they didn't people would still commit such acts in its name. Any worldview that purports to be the one truth path to eternal life has raised the stakes to a point where anything is excusable by its practitioners. That's why religion is dangerous.
Is Islam a good religion?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
Erm .. how old fashioned would I sound if I said I don't know who these are ?. Of course now that I have consulted Google, I managed to know that Jedis are the good guys and Sith are their counterparts in Star Wars. I'm beginning to see how you see Islam.This I have heard, shiites and Shia and they are like Jedi's and Sith.
I'm a bad man.
Ok, go on...
Cousin*.
I appreciate your respectfulness about the subject. Somehow I get the feeling, it's mostly not the OP that discusses his ideas with other members, it's members discussing, and dissecting, each others opinions while he watches eating popcorn. On a side note, since this is a science forum and since most of its members believe this has nothing to do with religion, why is there a comparative religion forum in the first place ?! It all comes down to two sides anyway, atheists and theists, then it's an endless loop of arguments and counter-arguments completely out of the scope of the thread.
And here, I say, it isn't that simple. Religion can be an influence and it can promote certain negatives along with positives, but non-believers commit atrocities, too. It's more human nature than religious- after all, religion was invented by humans. It's only a reflection of ourselves. Religion can influence, but is not absolute.
Take away religion and we still have our base selves. While some hate crimes may be reduced, it won't fix human nature to take away a reflection of it. The nature remains.
No, it was pure political humor and that was why I said, "I'm a bad man."
Ah- thanks.
In order to promote critical thinking and analyzing the psychology of superstition. It helps many lurkers, non-posting members and guests all observe the many arguments and discussions and watch how it gets hashed out. For some, it can really help them to reflect on their own beliefs and analyze them.
One thing about science- Ask Questions.
Asking questions doesn't mean beat a dead horse- but you get the idea...
Last edited:
You're attributing to me a position I have not taken, which is that without religion, we'd all be hunky-dorey. I never said that, never implied it, do not believe it. My contention is not that religion is the root cause of human aggression, rather that it is an agitator of that aggression. It is also a weapon. You're essentially saying the religious version of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," but that isn't even true for guns. Columbine couldn't have happened if not for guns, just as the Crusades couldn't have happened without Jesus. Neither of those statements follows with "And no violence is possible without guns or God." I haven't made that case, it's just something you seem to be attributing to me. A straw man, in other words.
All I'm saying is that religion is perhaps the key cause of violence and oppression in this world. I mean, obviously that's not an inconsequential statement, but it's far less than the position you've insisted I take.
Is your contention that "conquering" people for disbelief isn't religious violence? That Allah doesn't set the example here?
Chill.
In one argument we had, it did appear as though you were thinking that way. You have clarified that now.
I'm willing to bet that you were thinking I was advocating the position that if religion just vanished, that nothing would change and all crime rates would remain the same- Which I was not saying, nor implying nor do I believe that.
I agree mostly... but a nitpick. It's true a gun is used to kill, it's not the only thing. Those that don't have access to guns easily, use explosives. Which is a key point on the Columbine example- the Columbine Tragedy was primarily an detonated explosive attack. They only had the firearms to pick off stragglers. Fortunately, their explosives did not go off as they planned. But their intent was actually to kill the most people possible in one event. Tragedy is they killed many, but the upshot is that they failed in their plan to kill the most people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm
What?
Then you haven't expressed yourself clearly. For example, if you weren't advocating that position, then what was the purpose of this:
I have trouble believing that you weren't attempting to frame my position as one of "World sans religion equals peace." If you weren't, please explain to me how I have it wrong. Otherwise, you're just talking.
Are you finished? Do you have anything to say about the point I actually made, or are you satisfied with obfuscation?
Chill is slang for "relax."
And you quote the bit where I said it would be reduced but our base nature would remain the same. Which is pretty much what you just said.
Considering that I noted that I had apparently misunderstood you
Attempting to frame? I said in response: "In one argument we had, it did appear as though you were thinking that way. You have clarified that now." I wasn't framing you but if you're going to go off on some paranoid fit- be my guest, dude.
It was not obfuscation- at all. I did say my point. And the next thing I knew, you went insane. Boggled my mind- I really didn't see that one coming.
Neverfly:
Balerion:
If you think the statement: "And no violence is possible without guns or God" is incorrect, why did you say the Crusades wouldn't have happened without Jesus ?!. How much is this influence for violence and oppression you think religion has ? How do you quantify it ? Why is it a key influence and not, say, a minor one ?.
spidergoat:
The question wasn't what is to be considered religious violence. Remember, all religions promise the faithful paradise, and the sinners hell; your references do not prove how Islam encourages Muslims to be violent.
I know, I meant that you see Islam as I see Star Wars; an incomprehensible maze that would take ages to understand so I wouldn't really try.
Maybe so, but, in comparison, I would say this forum has a lot of dead horse beatings.
Balerion:
If you think the statement: "And no violence is possible without guns or God" is incorrect, why did you say the Crusades wouldn't have happened without Jesus ?!. How much is this influence for violence and oppression you think religion has ? How do you quantify it ? Why is it a key influence and not, say, a minor one ?.
spidergoat:
The question wasn't what is to be considered religious violence. Remember, all religions promise the faithful paradise, and the sinners hell; your references do not prove how Islam encourages Muslims to be violent.
Ah- yes. Now this is accurate. Unless I was a fundamental believer in Islam, I could not understand it. I cannot be a fundamental believer in Islam because of the very premise that makes me lack belief in the divine, supernatural etc (Yes, there's a reason and it can be found in the Reasons Not To Believe thread.)
So, I have no illusions about that topic, I may try to have a general understanding so that I don't judge it unfairly. Because I know that I will judge it.
Most likely all forums on any topic can say that. But what comes up in google hits is what gets their attention and you never know when a Google hit on a thread will yield a new thought or idea or way of looking at things a reader simply had not encountered or considered before. It's happened many times on repeated threads here, to me.
Non-sequitur. The Crusades were several examples of violence caused by religious influence. Saying that they would not have been possible without Jesus does not contradict the idea that violence is possible without religion.
It's not just what I think, it's an observable fact. Take a look at the Middle East and tell me how much of the violence there isn't influenced by religion.
Easily. What were the roadblocks in Northern Ireland meant to check, your nationality or your religion? Whose picture was taped to the rifle butts of IRA soldiers? What did it mean to be "put to the question?"
Because religion is not a minor thing.
I understand, I was incorrect. My understanding was, if violence is possible without god, why should you be sure the Crusades wouldn't have been.
Much. I wish you would tell me which violence in the Middle East is influenced by religion. In fact, if religion had the influence you claim it has in the Middle East, most of the conflicts would have been long resolved by now.
But We will certainly give the Unbelievers a taste of a severe Penalty, and We will requite them for the worst of their deeds.
Pickthal 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.
Arberry So We shall let the unbelievers taste a terrible chastisement, and shall recompense them with the worst of what they were working.
Shakir Therefore We will most certainly make those who disbelieve taste a severe punishment, and We will most certainly reward them for the evil deeds they used to do.
Sarwar We shall certainly make the unbelievers suffer severe torment and will punish them far worse than what they deserve for their deeds.
Khalifa We will certainly afflict these disbelievers with a severe retribution. We will certainly requite them for their evil works.
Hilali/Khan But surely, We shall cause those who disbelieve to taste a severe torment, and certainly, We shall requite them the worst of what they used to do.
H/K/Saheeh But We will surely cause those who disbelieve to taste a severe punishment, and We will surely recompense them for the worst of what they had been doing.
Malik We will certainly punish the disbelievers and requite them for the worst of their misdeeds.[27]
QXP But We shall certainly make these deniers taste an awful suffering, and verily, We shall requite them for the worst of their deeds.
Maulana Ali So We shall certainly make those who disbelieve taste a severe chastisement, and We shall certainly requite them for the worst of what they did.
Free Minds We will let those who have rejected taste a severe retribution. And We will recompense them for the evil that they used to do.
Qaribullah We will let the unbelievers taste a terrible punishment, and recompense them with the worst of what they were doing.
These different translations of 41:27 all say rather bluntly that outspoken unbelievers are fair game for whatever terrible thing you can do to them.
But they don't. They say what Allah will do to them, not any Muslim. Let's not discuss the validity of the translations, I have no objections to them, but you used it, the verse, out of context, to imply that it advises Muslims to use violence, which it doesn't, end of story.
No, it says "Ye may conquer", in at least one translation, not Allah will conquer.
A secondary point is that Allah sets the example. If Allah aims to burn these people alive for disbelief, do you think a Muslim would have any more respect for them? You would be foolish to think so.
A secondary point is that Allah sets the example. If Allah aims to burn these people alive for disbelief, do you think a Muslim would have any more respect for them? You would be foolish to think so.
Dude, that's exactly what the Christian bible says.
This is kinda the point you're not getting and it's really hard to get people on this forum to see that--- it's no more violent than Judaism or Christianity. It really isn't.
I'm an atheist non-muslim and I'm saying this. It's not like I'm defending my beliefs here. In fact, some could argue that the Koran promote more peace than the Judaic faiths do.
In this regard I guess we could look at the statistics involving the world's several billion muslims to see who is making foolish comments ....
Islam should not be blamed for terrorism , but some imams use Islam for their own political purpose as do many Christians and other
The poor slab Muslim as Christian who does not read the teaching but follows some of the imams commits the terrorism
Because the Crusades were religious events. If you want to speculate other violence in its stead, have fun, but we're talking about what actually happened.
You say "much," yet you put the onus on me to prove you wrong. How absurd. Support your claims.
As for which violence in the Middle East is influenced by religion, I again ask: Which isn't? The conflict between the Jews and the Palestinians is entirely based on religious claims. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were spurned by religious violence by Muslims against the US. It's all religiously inspired. How about the attacks on mosques by Jews, and vice-versa? You mean to say that the sides are coincidentally drawn between faiths? Please.
How so?
What you are is an admitted non-expert on Islam, basing your opinion on your wife's rather optimistic understanding of the faith. You don't actually know that it isn't more violent than Christianity--to make such a claim in today's environment is absurd, borderline insane--you just say so because seagypsy says so.