Anyone studied Islam?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I know I have seen a thread here about Islam, but can't find it tonight.  So I'll post here.

In the 1980s, in the process of de-conversion I read a little about Muslims/Islam, but hadn't thought much more about it until recently.  Got to thinking about why some people think the religion is so dangerous.  I thought they surely are overreacting.  Found my old reference book from the 1980s, but it was very brief.  Googled some info, and ordered the book, "Nothing To Do With Islam", by Peter Townsend.  After just the 1st 3 chapters, I realized why people are concerned.  

 

If we ex-christians think the Bible is convoluted, it is simple compared with Islam "scripture".   Their loyalty is fierce, they evidently do not have a universal "golden rule" as in Christianity and other major religions, and they have a clause that allows deception if it benefits the religion.  And world wide they use government to protect their religion when possible.  I am quickly seeing why there is concern about them entering the country and grabbing government positions.  As history shows, there is nothing more destructive than fierce religion mixed with government.  If you haven't done so, look into the situation.

[LogicalFallacy]

Islamic doctrine is probably simpler than Christianity. No 3 God's in 1 blanoey.  However they are also far more old testament.... and we all know what that's like. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 2/24/2019 at 9:55 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

Islamic doctrine is probably simpler than Christianity. No 3 God's in 1 blanoey.  However they are also far more old testament.... and we all know what that's like. 

 

Maybe convoluted wasn't the best term to use.  To my understanding they have not canonized their scripture like Christians have, thus disagree on which traditions to follow.  And like most Christians, it is my understanding that most of them have not read the Quran.  They take the leaders interpretation of which ever group they are following.  It is a sorry, dangerous religion when they go around killing each other.  That's what happens when you have the power of religion and government combined.

 

 I need to finish the book.  Got busy after the original post and haven't got back to it.  Where is the long thread about Islam?

[Lefty]

What the Imams(preachers) say goes. They run the religion. In order to get a grasp of Islam, you need to get an idea of how Judaism works. They believe in many of the same Old Testament prophets. But they follow the "law" just like Jews do. "Eye for an eye" mentality, which is where the violence comes from. They are also commanded in the Koran to spread the faith, literally, to stamp out the infidels and institute a world caliphate. People really need to understand that. They won't stop because it is at the very core of that religions motivation.

[disillusioned]

Can't say I've studied Islam,  but I've had a lot of Muslim students over the past few years, mostly refugees. I think it's true that the Imams basically run the religion. This is in no small part because many Muslims have not read the Quran or the Hadith, and in many cases this is because they can't read. Obviously not all cases are like this,  but a somewhat surprising number.

[Wertbag]

I've watched a YouTube video on the subject so I consider myself an expert now.  I think the mega-thread you were thinking of is "How Islam infects" which is pinned at the top of the Rants section.

One stat I saw which highlighted the issue to me was that there are 44 armed conflicts (being any conflict which had claimed more than 100 lives in the last 12 months) going on in the world, of those 42 involve Muslims on one or both sides.  The only two anomalies were the Columbian and Mexican drug wars.

You don't get Christian suicide bombers, you don't get Buddhists throwing gays off buildings and you don't get scientologists stoning people to death. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

The weather was so bad a few days ago I couldn't get out to do anything, so I spent about 3 hours spot reading the Quran.   What i got from those readings was basically repeat, after repeat, after repeat, of (1) fear Allah, (2) obey Allah, (3) don't question Allah, (4) don't trust non-believers.  It is definitely a religion based on fear.

 

I've almost finished the book and think he has a good handle on the situation.  Makes me even more committed to complete separation of church and state. 

[RealityCheck]

I don't have much time or patience to read yet another desert religion book these days, but if you want to get a feel for Islamic scriptures in a nutshell than this place has you covered.  https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 hours ago, Wertbag said:

You don't get Christian suicide bombers, you don't get Buddhists throwing gays off buildings and you don't get scientologists stoning people to death.

I wonder how much of that is situational, though.  I can easily foresee christians committing atrocities here in America if they ever gain the kind of political power that Islam has in certain Mid-Eastern nations.  Same with Scientology, if Leah Remini is to be believed.  Buddhists might be an exception, given that the first precept is against harming living things.

[Lefty]

There were countless "Christian" soldiers that killed their fellow countrymen in the Civil War. Tons of praying going on before they pulled the trigger. Also, consider the vast majority of people who visit a church every Sunday are not even true believers according to their own books standards. Dare we mention the "missionary" work of the RCC in South America at the hands of the Spanish? Go ask a Mayan about that. ALL of the major religions are guilty, period. And why is that? Because none of those organizations are run by a god, just "god-fearing men".

 

If you want to know Islam, look into the history of how it has spread across the planet. By the same methods as Catholicism; the point of a sword.

 

Seriously, people need to wake the fuck up! It's going down as we speak and the masses can't even see it.

[Wertbag]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

wonder how much of that is situational, though.  I can easily foresee christians committing atrocities here in America if they ever gain the kind of political power that Islam has in certain Mid-Eastern nations. 

Christianity is heavily westernised now, I couldn't see a time that we would ever see a Christian ISIS. The bloody history of the church is predominantly from centuries ago; inquisition, crusades, witch trials, conquistadors etc. There are Christian hate groups but they are a minority that most people, from all walks of life, oppose. 

Compare that to Islam where the current day atrocities commited by ISIS are doctrinal. Their hate groups are worldwide, well funded and supported with indoctrination saying murder is good. 

It won't be broken until the wealthy countries in the middle east fall. Remove the oil dependancy and the world becomes a safer place. 

[LogicalFallacy]

@Wertbag What about Ireland not so long ago? There was horrific violence and bombings and that was Christian on Christian. 

[TABA]

18 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

@Wertbag What about Ireland not so long ago? There was horrific violence and bombings and that was Christian on Christian. 

 

Having grown up in Ireland, I suggest that the conflict was not primarily religious.  You had two tribes - Republican and Loyalist - who did indeed identify strongly as Catholic and Protestant respectively.  But they were fighting for their tribes, not in the name of religion.  Members of the terrorist groups were not known to be devout.  Of course the religious divide contributed to the problem for sure.  Likewise in the former Yugoslavia (where I served in the NATO peacekeeping mission): the Croats, Serbs and Bosnians had different religions but I don’t think it was religious violence per se. Not the way Al Qaeda and ISIS conquer and kill entirely in the name of their god. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Wertbag said:

Christianity is heavily westernised now, I couldn't see a time that we would ever see a Christian ISIS. The bloody history of the church is predominantly from centuries ago; inquisition, crusades, witch trials, conquistadors etc. There are Christian hate groups but they are a minority that most people, from all walks of life, oppose. 

Compare that to Islam where the current day atrocities commited by ISIS are doctrinal. Their hate groups are worldwide, well funded and supported with indoctrination saying murder is good. 

It won't be broken until the wealthy countries in the middle east fall. Remove the oil dependancy and the world becomes a safer place. 

Bosnia during the 90s was not a good place for non-christians; and I've heard christians from my former church (including my own dear mother) stating that atheists should not be allowed citizenship in America.  Given the right circumstances here in America, I could see us being only a generation or two away from atrocity.  You have to remember that what happened in Bosnia, was not the work of extremists or fringe groups (nor was the holocaust, for that matter); it was done by average people who just happened to be in the right set of circumstances to be manipulated.

[LogicalFallacy]

1 hour ago, TABA said:

 

Having grown up in Ireland, I suggest that the conflict was not primarily religious.  You had two tribes - Republican and Loyalist - who did indeed identify strongly as Catholic and Protestant respectively.  But they were fighting for their tribes, not in the name of religion.  Members of the terrorist groups were not known to be devout.  Of course the religious divide contributed to the problem for sure.  Likewise in the former Yugoslavia (where I served in the NATO peacekeeping mission): the Croats, Serbs and Bosnians had different religions but I don’t think it was religious violence per se. Not the way Al Qaeda and ISIS conquer and kill entirely in the name of their god. 

 

I did not know that. I've always been told it was the Catholics and protestants having a go at each other.

 

It's an interesting point because a number of commentators think that many 'Muslim' conflicts are not religious but situational, tribal, or culture based. Terrorism seems to be mainly religious based however.

[LogicalFallacy]

45 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Bosnia during the 90s was not a good place for non-christians; and I've heard christians from my former church (including my own dear mother) stating that atheists should not be allowed citizenship in America.  Given the right circumstances here in America, I could see us being only a generation or two away from atrocity.  You have to remember that what happened in Bosnia, was not the work of extremists or fringe groups (nor was the holocaust, for that matter); it was done by average people who just happened to be in the right set of circumstances to be manipulated.

 

Well I think (And I'll have to check) but you have people in public office who have documents essentially stating what to do with atheists… and its not healthy for the dear atheist.

 

300 Years ago you could be hanged for denying the trinity.

[Tsathoggua9]

Mainstream Christianity (not the fundamentalists) had to deal with the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. Islam has not had to contend with those forces at a comparable level. I think that is the main difference, here. That being said, I have known a number of "Muslims" on a personal level that are basically reasonable people; they don't take religion that seriously, it is just their cultural background.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, TABA said:

Having grown up in Ireland, I suggest that the conflict was not primarily religious.  You had two tribes - Republican and Loyalist - who did indeed identify strongly as Catholic and Protestant respectively.  But they were fighting for their tribes, not in the name of religion.

If you go back in history, though, you can see how easily politicians were able to manipulate the religious divide between the Protestants and Catholics, from William of Orange, Cromwell, "Home Rule is Rome Rule", to Randolph Churchill playing the Orange Card.  The "Troubles" may have been political from the perspective of those who used them to their own advantage; but the atrocities that defined said "Troubles" were committed along religious lines.  When I lived in Northern Ireland, during the late 90s-early 00s, people still tended to frame differences in religious, rather than political terms.

 

Then there were the Free Presbyterians,  who were just kind of in a world of their own.

 

Having grown up there, though, you probably have a deeper understanding than I do.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Well I think (And I'll have to check) but you have people in public office who have documents essentially stating what to do with atheists… and its not healthy for the dear atheist.

 

300 Years ago you could be hanged for denying the trinity.

Bush Sr. said he didn't feel that atheists should be recognized as citizens.  I've heard far more ambitious plans from lay-people on the streets.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 minutes ago, Tsathoggua9 said:

Mainstream Christianity (not the fundamentalists) had to deal with the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. Islam has not had to contend with those forces at a comparable level. I think that is the main difference, here. 

I wonder if the Muslim world not experiencing a "Dark Ages" on the level Europe did might have had something to do with that.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

13 hours ago, RealityCheck said:

I don't have much time or patience to read yet another desert religion book these days, but if you want to get a feel for Islamic scriptures in a nutshell than this place has you covered.  https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm

 

Thanks for the link.  That one is better than the one I was using.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

7 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Well I think (And I'll have to check) but you have people in public office who have documents essentially stating what to do with atheists… and its not healthy for the dear atheist.

 

 

It would be interesting to see what they have. 

[Wertbag]

While Bosnia was horrific, it was not a Christian army but the Serbian army that committed the atrocities. They were violent due to ethnicity, location and civil war over the breakup of Yugoslavia. Serbia is not a theocracy and they didn't justify their violence by the bible. So when I say I couldn't imagine a Christian ISIS, I mean a religiously led military force using its holy book to justify its brutality. Christianity certainly did this in the past but I can't imagine that occuring again. Facist dictatorships will certainly exist, but those aren't usually a theocracy.

[Christforums]

On 3/6/2019 at 10:58 AM, TABA said:

 

Having grown up in Ireland, I suggest that the conflict was not primarily religious.  You had two tribes - Republican and Loyalist - who did indeed identify strongly as Catholic and Protestant respectively.  But they were fighting for their tribes, not in the name of religion.  Members of the terrorist groups were not known to be devout.  Of course the religious divide contributed to the problem for sure.  Likewise in the former Yugoslavia (where I served in the NATO peacekeeping mission): the Croats, Serbs and Bosnians had different religions but I don’t think it was religious violence per se. Not the way Al Qaeda and ISIS conquer and kill entirely in the name of their god. 

 

Read today an article which stated that the IRA claimed responsibility for letter bombs sent to London and Glasgow University.

[Christforums]

On 2/23/2019 at 6:53 PM, Weezer said:

I know I have seen a thread here about Islam, but can't find it tonight.  So I'll post here.

In the 1980s, in the process of de-conversion I read a little about Muslims/Islam, but hadn't thought much more about it until recently.  Got to thinking about why some people think the religion is so dangerous.  I thought they surely are overreacting.  Found my old reference book from the 1980s, but it was very brief.  Googled some info, and ordered the book, "Nothing To Do With Islam", by Peter Townsend.  After just the 1st 3 chapters, I realized why people are concerned.  

 

If we ex-christians think the Bible is convoluted, it is simple compared with Islam "scripture".   Their loyalty is fierce, they evidently do not have a universal "golden rule" as in Christianity and other major religions, and they have a clause that allows deception if it benefits the religion.  And world wide they use government to protect their religion when possible.  I am quickly seeing why there is concern about them entering the country and grabbing government positions.  As history shows, there is nothing more destructive than fierce religion mixed with government.  If you haven't done so, look into the situation.

 

I've read the Qur'an. To be blunt I found things difficult to understand from lack of context. Also the Qur'an appeared to me as written by a young person.

 

I know that Muhammad claimed that the angel Gabriel revealed the Qur'an to him. The difference between Moses and Muhammad for example is that Moses was well educated and literate. Muhammad wrote authored the Qur'an some hundreds of years later after the OT was already in circulation and within a thousand miles from the OT epicenter.

 

I couldn't help but consider what is most plausibly the explanation of the similarity to the Christian OT? That Muhammad heard the teaching of the OT or that an angel revealed to an illiterate which relied on someone else to write?