Why "Islam" is a bad religion

[Lu Xun]

After meeting Ibrahim, I decided to do some research on Islam myself, on the theoretical and practical basis of the religion, as well as its history. I went into it on the assumption that I would find things to admire and to incorporate into my own practice, and I did, but I found much more to condemn.

 

The basis of Islam is not even the Five Pillars, but orthopraxy. Religions like Christianity are considered orthodox, in that they are concerned with doctrine of believers, but religions like Islam, and for that matter, Judaism, are orthopraxic, in that they are concerned with the conduct of believers. Hence, the practical, real Islam can only be loosely considered a faith; to believe that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammad is his prophet is not enough.

 

This is not particularly offensive in itself; we may have complaints about Zionists, but Jews in their small multitudes are innocuous. The problem, rather, is the nature of the Quran and the Hadiths. While Muslims may promote the Quran as the word of Allah, which perhaps it is, despite the Quran itself claiming that it is complete, Muslim orthopraxy requires the Hadiths, which are the sayings of the Prophet. Now, if the Hadiths were holy, or were well-attributed and well-collected, that might not be a problem, but the earliest Hadiths were verified 200 years after the Prophet's death. Not only that, the Muslims themselves believe that the transmission line of the Hadiths are synthetic, and consequently, in Islam, we have the word of Allah, the Quran, and the word of the Prophet, which is often of questionable veracity and there is a recorded history of politicization, i.e, real Hadiths that didn't fit individuals' political agenda were cut from the line of transmission, and fake Hadiths that were convenient to their proponents were argued into plausibility.

 

What's more, the Hadiths in an orthopraxic religion mean that to adhere to the Hadiths require that one live as though they live in an Arab society of 700 A.D; practices that are wholly outdated in modern times are retained, simply because a religious authority, with a convoluted but still questionable chain of verification, said that Mohammad said so in ancient antiquity.

 

Beyond that, the Quran itself is confused. The Quran actively contradicts itself at many points; Allah is allowed to change his mind and revise his message, but the text states that the later chronological statements in the Quran supersede the earlier chronological statements; i.e, "murdering infidels is holy!" may precede or succeed a more pacifistic line about honoring contracts with those outside your religious community. The worst part? The Quran is ordered by length, not by chronological order. Now, the German orientalist Noeldeke used linguistic analysis to establish a chronological order for the Quran, which is accepted in Western circles, and there is also an Egyptian standard more commonly accepted among Muslims for chronological order. In both these orders, the Quran is relatively sane and civilized. The problem is, why accept these chronological orders? It takes significant research and erudition to determine the practical chronological order of the Quran, and any two-bit conspiracy theorist can justify their Quran order and thus their Islam through shoddy scholarship.

 

When you combine the unverifiability of the Hadiths with the contradictory and chronological nature of the Quran, the end result is that you get a religion that can be interpreted almost any way you want, depending on your present political needs, and once you combine that with its orthopraxic nature, your interpretation du jour can now be used to control the masses of believers. It is a recipe for political disaster, which is what happened in real history.

 

===

 

Mohammad, despite various propaganda, is one of the few elements of Islam that still seem admirable upon critical analysis. Despite being a warlord and taking a child bride, he was a genuine social reformer concerned with the plight of the disenfranchised and weak, and elements of Islam (i.e, limits to polygamy, the Zakat alms requirement) reflect that. While Islam spread in part through the force of arms, Islam also spread through the force of ideas, as the downtrodden in pagan cities would naturally gravitate towards enfranchisement through Islam, and even today, many Muslims in India are the results of conversions of low-caste Hindus to escape the rigorous cruelty of the caste system.

 

Mohammad's problem, however, is that he built a broad-based coalition, and he died unpredictably. The Companions who took over almost immediately begun fighting among each other to establish spiritual authority, and beyond that, the Companions who triumphed tended to be the most conservative and regressive. The story of Ali and Shi'a Islam is a major example of the politicization and the political violence that occurred between Muslims, where the Prophet's own family was disenfranchised from the Muslim mainstream and denied the Caliphate.

 

With taking this as a political-religious tradition, the violent political tradition of Islam becomes more understandable. If you compare it to the Catholic Church, where there was a virtual continuity in religious leadership and the division of military and spiritual power, Islam has seen a series of violent overthrows of the Caliph and violent assumptions of power. The high-stakes of Islamic politics mean that often the worst (i.e, the ones most suited to raising a fanatical and brutal army) political-religious movements come to the fore.

 

====

 

Hence, why "Islam" is a bad religion. The religion is internally contradictory, orthopraxy allows religious authorities, claiming to resolve the internal contradictions of the religion, an inordinate level of control over their believers as well as the ability to chain the Ummah to a society of 700 A.D., and the violent internal politics of Islam drive Islam towards radicalization, violence, and brutality. There are of course positive aspects of the religion; Mohammad, as I mention, is worthy of admiration, and the Quran, despite its contradictory nature, has managed to take Islamophobes into its sympathy; Michel Houellebecq, who was previously on record as saying Islam is the dumbest religion of them all, recently remarked that the Quran is not bad once you actually get to reading it, and recently wrote an ambivalent satire about the Islamic conversion of France. However, the Quranist movement is a strict minority in Islam, and is considered apostate, i.e, viable for the chopping block under Sharia, by mainstream Islam.

[Redael]

There's a bible verse saying god will help you crush non-beilvers skulls, and slaves should obey there masters like god. How about how the church acted when they had real power(lied and scammed) do some reasearch on your own relgion before judging others 

[Rozalia]

Some good stuff there. Those Quranists seem interesting, but like with any force for change from the mainstream in Islam you're at risk of death.  
 

There's a bible verse saying god will help you crush non-beilvers skulls, and slaves should obey there masters like god. How about how the church acted when they had real power(lied and scammed) do some reasearch on your own relgion before judging others

 
Throwing quite the softball there that assumes a lot. I'd get some better ammo, but I doubt you could gather it. 
 

This is going to get shut down rather fast.

 
Don't see why it would. Seemed a balanced enough piece that had some effort put into it.

[Charles Bolivar]

Every religion has its fanatics who abuse its teachings.

 

When you combine the unverifiability of the Hadiths with the contradictory and chronological nature of the Quran, the end result is that you get a religion that can be interpreted almost any way you want, depending on your present political needs, and once you combine that with its orthopraxic nature, your interpretation du jour can now be used to control the masses of believers. It is a recipe for political disaster, which is what happened in real history.

 

 

 

Every religion ever.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/australian-christian-lobby-slams-safe-schools-antibullying-program-20151103-gkq6gr.html

 

Essentially, " christianity"  supporting bullying in schools. Baffles logic and belief.

 

Mohammad, despite various propaganda, is one of the few elements of Islam that still seem admirable upon critical analysis. Despite being a warlord and taking a child bride, he was a genuine social reformer concerned with the plight of the disenfranchised and weak, and elements of Islam (i.e, limits to polygamy, the Zakat alms requirement) reflect that. While Islam spread in part through the force of arms, Islam also spread through the force of ideas, as the downtrodden in pagan cities would naturally gravitate towards enfranchisement through Islam, and even today, many Muslims in India are the results of conversions of low-caste Hindus to escape the rigorous cruelty of the caste system.

 

 

Incorrect, a good example  would be that of egypt where the largely christian coptic population invited the Muslims as liberators freeing the Egyptians from religious persecution perpetrated by the eastern roman empire who were Christians themselves albeit of a different branch. The egyptians  who invited the muslims viewed the cost of a higher tax in order to practice their own beliefs as being a better alternative than active persecution.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Charles the Tyrant

[Lu Xun]

Actually, if you're familiar with Gnosticism, there is such a huge difference between the Jewish Old Testament and the Christian New Testament that Gnostics thought that they were talking of different gods, with the Christian God being the true god and the Jewish god being Demiurge, the creator, but also the Devil.

 

In any case, in Christianity the New Testament is believed to overwrite the Old Testament when they contradict; the Old Testament is for the Jews and Christianity is for the Gentiles. In practice, also, most Christians have never behaved in a very Christian fashion but that doesn't necessarily say much about Christianity as an ideology.

 

P.S.

 

The reason I use scare quotes in the post is because Islam is not necessarily Islamic depending on how you feel about the Hadiths. Quranism is so different as to almost form a separate religion; only the first Pillar of Islam is shared.

 

I do apologize for badly writing the above essay, but one of the points I felt I did not communicate is that there's a big difference between the Islam of Mohammad and the Islam of modern Sunnis, Shia, and so on. The former is likely to be closer to modern Quranism, since the Quran itself claims that it is complete and that either Mohammad or Umar banned the compilation of Hadiths. Consequently, because the system created by the Quran, the Hadiths, and the Ulamas is different than a Quran-only interpretation, it should be understood on its own practiced basis, i.e, what Muslims believe and do, as opposed to what the texts actually say and argue.

[New Scandanavia]

There is no "Bad" or "Wrong" religion I just find no evidence for religion therefor I do not believe it.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

I'm glad I inspired you to look into Islam but I really don't care to read or respond to your entire wall of text that's riddled with lies at this time.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Ibrahim

[Lu Xun]

Every religion has its fanatics who abuse its teachings.

Orthopraxy vs Orthodoxy; i.e, Islam by itself requires that you take it seriously, pray 5 times daily, and pay zakat, which can be channeled elsewhere. Taking another example, to take Aliyah in Israel as someone who is not Jewish by blood, you must be converted as an Orthodox Jew, because the Orthodox Jews fully observe Jewish orthopraxy; Reform Jews who aren't Jewish by blood may not be real Jews due to their deviation from practice (i.e, they're not fanatical enough about the religion).

 

The issue is more that when I started researching Islam, I was looking for a pure Islam, as opposed to the Islam of its followers. A pure or "Hanif" Islam doesn't necessarily exist, it's all in the hands of the Ulama, whether Sunni or Shia, and as mentioned before, the political distortion through Hadith control started almost since the beginning (if you agree with Voltaire, it started with Mohammad). The element of political and social control is greater than in other religions, meaning that when people use the Ummah for their own nefarious ends, it comes to more dangerous results than in other religions because the population iis inherently fanatical, as opposed to lukewarm.

I'm glad I inspired you to look into Islam but I really don't care to read or respond to your entire wall of text that's riddled with lies at this time.

True, Mohammad isn't admirable, the Quran is badly written, and Islam is an arbitrary appellation. Also, we're bombing your ISIS buddies into falafel this week.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Inst

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

"O you who have believed, obey Allah (Quran) and obey the Messenger (Hadith)." (Quran 4:59)

 

Since you wanted to know why Muslims don't simply stick to the Quran. 

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

As much as I dislike Islam, I am !@#$ing tired of the continuous battle, and aggressive arguments that are being spat back and forth. To the people who continue this stupid tiff should feel ashamed of themselves. It's literally driving me to the point of quitting the !@#$ing game because of this shit. I request Sheepy ban the arguments between these two sides, because it is going to chase people away.

[New Scandanavia]

As much as I dislike Islam, I am !@#$ tired of the continuous battle, and aggressive arguments that are being spat back and forth. To the people who continue this stupid tiff should feel ashamed of themselves. It's literally driving me to the point of quitting the !@#$ game because of this shit. I request Sheepy ban the arguments between these two sides, because it is going to chase people away.

 

Ikr

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

As much as I dislike Islam, I am !@#$ tired of the continuous battle, and aggressive arguments that are being spat back and forth. To the people who continue this stupid tiff should feel ashamed of themselves. It's literally driving me to the point of quitting the !@#$ game because of this shit. I request Sheepy ban the arguments between these two sides, because it is going to chase people away.

 

You can't ban people from speaking about Religion in an off topic section of the Forum. If you don't want to see it then don't visit these parts son. 

 

Seriously though, this is clearly a troll thread and should be locked. 

[Dimitri Valko]

Interesting read. However, I'd like to see your statement on other Abrahamic religions, since they, too, are contradictory and incite violence in some manner.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

I ask Inst to make his points in a very short bullet point format so I may actually respond to them. 

Edited November 16, 2015 by Ibrahim

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

You can't ban people from speaking about Religion in an off topic section of the Forum. If you don't want to see it then don't visit these parts son. 

 

Seriously though, this is clearly a troll thread and should be locked.

 

You can ban people for aggressive arguments about religion. And don't !@#$ing agree or disagree with me, you're the sole reason I'm having to wear out my fingers on this shit.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

You can ban people for aggressive arguments about religion. And don't !@#$ agree or disagree with me, you're the sole reason I'm having to wear out my fingers on this shit.

 

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, m8.

[Doktor Avalanche]

You can ban people for aggressive arguments about religion..

 

So far the only people causing a stink are those who have not contributed to the topic itself but are complaining about it remaining open. And reason for banning a religious topic makes about as much sense as banning spoons because they make people fat. No one is forcing anyone to read the posts. This is a general discussion area. Either read and/or contribute or move on.

[Lu Xun]

Actually, here we go back to Hadith verification issues again. There are also other contradictory lines of the Quran, stating its completeness, but I acknowledge that Medina surah tend to supersede Meccan surah.

 

You are also making the mistake of conflating the Hadith with the Prophet; after all, the Quran is the revealed word of Allah, but the Hadiths are the compiled folklore of the companions. It is well known that they have been distorted for political purposes, and we face the reality that Mohammad left this Earth 200 years before the first compilation of the Hadith.

 

You could point to the Quran as being Umar's compilation, but the Quran is a holy book, to begin with, which was deliberately preserved as holy, whereas the Hadith are those of the Prophet Mohammad, a Prophet, but a man.

[Spite]

"Obey the messenger" doesn't seem to equate to "Obey the Hadith".

 

If you hear him actually say "you shouldn't eat horses because they're neigh good" that's fair enough. If his mate's grandson's best friends brothers wife says "Yeh the prophet said don't eat horses" then the veracity of it is somewhat dubious. Surely if the prophet felt strongly about a topic he'd have had it written down during his lifetime.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Spite

[Placentica]

Interesting stuff in here.  Religion is an experience however, not just a sum of it's sacred text(s).

 

Quran/Bible/etc aren't *the* religion so much as one tool that someone would use to help describe who God is......to be used to enhance personal experience.  In my opinion this is good since interpretation so widely varies.

 

But it can be very frustrating to outsiders of that religion as they are constantly seeking to label a religion categorically.  It's why people can't quite seem to figure out if Islam is a violent religion or not.  Or if Christianity is a love-grace based religion or a rules-based one.

 

It's like trying to stereotype a race or type of person.  It doesn't work (very well).  It doesn't make a religion any less true however.  i.e. An Asian person isn't any less Asian just because he/she dislikes rice.  Excuse my horrible stereotype.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Placentica

[Spite]

Interesting stuff in here. Religion is an experience however, not just a sum of it's sacred text(s).

 

Quran/Bible/etc aren't *the* religion so much as one tool that someone would use to help describe who God is......to be used to enhance personal experience. In my opinion this is good since interpretation so widely varies.

 

But it can be very frustrating to outsiders of that religion as they are constantly seeking to label a religion categorically. It's why people can't quite seem to figure out if Islam is a violent religion or not. Or if Christianity is a love-grace based religion or a rules-based one.

 

It's like trying to stereotype a race or type of person. It doesn't work (very well). It doesn't make a religion any less true however. i.e. An Asian person isn't any less Asian just because he/she dislikes rice.

This is very variable. In Christianity the whole protestant movement was founded on the principle of sola scriptura, in other words that the Bible is the supreme authority and everything else should be disregarded. Whereas the Catholic Church rests on the three pillars of scripture, dogma and the magisterium, and so exhibits a much greater capacity for change (albeit it doesn't always appear that way).

[Lu Xun]

One last problem with Islam; even if we go straight to a Quran-only interpretation, we have the problem with the rule of abrogation (Allah can revise the Quran as he wills, the most recent verses of the Quran take precedence) and Surah 9, Al-Taubah.

 

https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=9

 

The problem with Surah 9 is that it's the second to last Surah in the Quran by chronological order, and it's a war speech of the Arab host. It states conduct for the coming battle, but unfortunately also compels the believer to fight against the unbeliever, and kill them if they will not convert.

 

That is what it literally means, even though contextually it's setting the standards for an upcoming battle. With interpretation, this can be reduced to merely the speech of a battle (some argue it is actually part of a preceding Surah; helping with the contextualization), but it easily devolves, depending on the mood of the reader, into conducting holy war against the unclean, which essentially means the rest of the world.

 

Charles the Tyrant said that you could make these criticisms of any religion, but a murderous Christian, Jew (less so in this case), or Buddhist is usually a hypocrite, because they are violating the commandments of their religions. A murderous Muslim, however, can simply be said to be favoring a violent interpretation, because there is enough in the religion to justify violent action, even against other believers (just declare them apostate).

 

With my posting on the other thread, of course I had to flinch from the notion of claiming that France deserved the Paris attacks, even though the rest of the post clearly led up to that point, especially after researching Hollande's role in setting up the FSA. Here, I also have to flinch from the notion that not only "Islam", i.e, the Islam of fundamentalists, radicals, and terrorists, is a bad religion, but that Islam itself, in both text and practice, is inherently bad. As someone who was raised in a multicultural environment, while I have the spine to criticize the outside of the religion (i.e, the practice and the practitioners), to criticize the core is beyond my own tolerance.

 

About Ibrahim, we were talking about how it would be extremely inconvenient here if Ibrahim were to manage to radicalize other users on this forum. To speak his mind is one thing, to talk others into extremism is another. Yet, I myself feel like Ibrahim has radicalized me-- despite the Sufis, Avicenna, Rumi, Averroes, and the glories of Islamic Civilization, I now have a distinct distaste for it. I wish one of his more moderate co-religionists would speak in its defense.

[Placentica]

This is very variable. In Christianity the whole protestant movement was founded on the principle of sola scriptura, in other words that the Bible is the supreme authority and everything else should be disregarded. Whereas the Catholic Church rests on the three pillars of scripture, dogma and the magisterium, and so exhibits a much greater capacity for change (albeit it doesn't always appear that way).

Again, when you label it as "protestant movement" you are mass-labeling something that defies those labels as each experience is unique.  Jeez, even inside the reformation you had wide variations in Biblical interpretations (Anabaptists).  Sure there are a lot of common qualities, but religion is a living/breathing idea based on experience combined with many other factors.  Sola Scriptura or tradition/Tradition isn't what I'm talking about.  Plus it's all about interpretation and degree to which someone thinks whatever section of Scripture is literal or allegorical along with proper context.  Nearly every Christian will tell you they believe in the Bible or Muslim/Quran.  That's not the point.  Nor is the degree of Bible/Quran/etc weighs when factoring your faith.  It's that it's not going to amount to much to use any religions sacred text to in a "gotcha" sort of way.

 

The truth is that our direct relationship with God is the primary driver of our spiritual actions/ideas.  A person that feels God telling them to talk to this person or move here, or change their job - I'm not so much consulting his Bible/Quran/etc - as he is experiencing God.  This is precisely why we have Christians in the military when Jesus explicitly says to love your enemy and do good to those who hate you.  I italicize that b/c what I find 100% clear, others disagree with, lol.  Or why the Quran can say many things about violence or peace and people will interpret it the way they experience it.  Case in point - Christians usually pray before studying the Bible, for God to reveal who God is to them.  It would be silly to read the Bible then tell God who he is based on what we read, lol. The experience > the text.

 

I'd love if everyone came to the exact same conclusion about who God is based on proper interpretation of say...the Bible, but it's not going to happen in this world.  Religion is no the problem however, experience is.  And experience is a real bummer sometimes.  The child who is molested by a evil monster (who happens to also be a priest) is more likely to hate God/religion.  I can show the child that "it's written" that God is love, but it won't matter.  Basically having an experience with people or God > any sacred text.  Whether that's good or bad.  I knew a friend who's sister was a devout Catholic who had a stillborn child that walked away from God.  Likewise, no amount of Quran teachings are going to likely change the mind of a terrorist who's family was blown up airstrikes.

[Peace and War]

I really dislike most religions in general, most try to say they are the best, everyone else is wrong, do this or you burn, blah blah blah. Now the truth is, most people follow the religion of their parents or the one the grew up with, not alot of people research all the religions and pick their favorite.

 

So, establishing that I don't really like most religions in general. I dislike Islam the most and for what reason? Because of basic human rights violations, specifically against women. Have you seen Saudi Arabia? Those poor women by law have to wear burqas in public because men feel as though women lead to "temptation" what kind of sickness is that? I believe Islam is the most backwards religion of all the major religions.

 

Now I know most religions can't really prove they are the true religion besides a "trust me I'm right" approach. This is not a coincidence. Now what I really find troubling about Islam is that the prophet Muhammad said that an Angel came down and spoke to him the words that would become the Quran. Have you heard of Mormonism? The founder, Joseph Smith said he found golden plates on September 22, 1823, at a hill near his home in Manchester, New York, after the angel Moroni directed him to a buried stone box. The plates where translated and became the sacred text known as, The Book of Mormon.

 

Doesn't this sound very similar to how Islam was founded? And yet, almost everyone I know would say that Mormonism is a silly religion invented by a guy in the 1800's. So tell me why a billion people follow a religion that was founded in a similar way? I think I know what a Muslim would say something like, well he copied from Islam or he's an infidel or he's a false prophet and Muhammad was the true prophet. Though there is no way to back those claims whatsoever. Yet there's no denying the heresay involved with the founding of these two religions, and others.

 

So overall, I think most religions are bad, but Islam is the worst. And none of them are true.

[Spite]

Again, when you label it as "protestant movement" you are mass-labeling something that defies those labels as each experience is unique. Jeez, even inside the reformation you had wide variations in Biblical interpretations (Anabaptists). Sure there are a lot of common qualities, but religion is a living/breathing idea based on experience combined with many other factors. Sola Scriptura or tradition/Tradition isn't what I'm talking about. Plus it's all about interpretation and degree to which someone thinks whatever section of Scripture is literal or allegorical along with proper context. Nearly every Christian will tell you they believe in the Bible or Muslim/Quran. That's not the point. Nor is the degree of Bible/Quran/etc weighs when factoring your faith. It's that it's not going to amount to much to use any religions sacred text to in a "gotcha" sort of way.

 

The truth is that our direct relationship with God is the primary driver of our spiritual actions/ideas. A person that feels God telling them to talk to this person or move here, or change their job - I'm not so much consulting his Bible/Quran/etc - as he is experiencing God. This is precisely why we have Christians in the military when Jesus explicitly says to love your enemy and do good to those who hate you. I italicize that b/c what I find 100% clear, others disagree with, lol. Or why the Quran can say many things about violence or peace and people will interpret it the way they experience it. Case in point - Christians usually pray before studying the Bible, for God to reveal who God is to them. It would be silly to read the Bible then tell God who he is based on what we read, lol. The experience > the text.

 

I'd love if everyone came to the exact same conclusion about who God is based on proper interpretation of say...the Bible, but it's not going to happen in this world. Religion is no the problem however, experience is. And experience is a real bummer sometimes. The child who is molested by a evil monster (who happens to also be a priest) is more likely to hate God/religion. I can show the child that "it's written" that God is love, but it won't matter. Basically having an experience with people or God > any sacred text. Whether that's good or bad. I knew a friend who's sister was a devout Catholic who had a stillborn child that walked away from God. Likewise, no amount of Quran teachings are going to likely change the mind of a terrorist who's family was blown up airstrikes.

Sola Scriptura was one of the fundamentals of protestantism. So was Sola Fide which you also mention. Neither of these are particularly relevant to catholics or orthodox Christians, which together make up 2/3 of the global Christian population.

 

My point was that to most protestants, with the possible exception of prima Scriptura protestants like methodists, the Bible is the ultimate authority.

 

For catholics, reason and historical debate (magisterium and dogma) are the other pillars of belief.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Spite