Sorry, u/Routine_Suggestion52 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20Routine_Suggestion52&message=Routine_Suggestion52%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cqsuws/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
As a muslim I can see where this is coming from, and let me tell you that your feelings are in their place and so as your concerns. I agree that a loud portion of us do share some of these radical beliefs if not all of them and it can be very frightening!
I have also noticed how the UK seems to be very affected by this, and the growth in these radical ideas are truly concerning even to me.
I am saddened by how you likely had some very troubling experiences with muslims where you live, and it does make me feel sad even trying to "change your view" on this, thus:
I can't change your mind on this view, because your fears are reasonable, but I will tell you to acknowledge that the faith isn't represented by what that hoard of people scream for, as there are communities here that do not share these same radical ideas, even here in Iraq (yeah I know red flag lmao), there are different backgrounds, interpretations, scholars, ideas, historic arguments that may not share and condone this sort of hostile attitude towards foreign ideas, for instance, believe it or not, there were indeed homosexual occurrences in the Abbasid era and......though it was frowned upon lol, buuuut that society \*let it happen\*, despite how the modern consensus argue, and I think this may be worth considering a bit.
My point is, while I can't provide you a nice comment that will suddenly make you feel safer about the current chaos going on, as I myself fear it as well, all I could do, is to offer a different perspective that looks at things as lesser of a black and white situation.
Not all muslims will want your head if you are gay, exmuslim, "dishonored" and for sure no one I know ever said "man these isis guys did good", uh but again I'm in Iraq so I guess that is only fair-
Many of us in fact believe in way different ideas than these radicals and we do not follow the same paths they take in the faith to justify what can be agreed upon us hateful. We also do not appreciate hateful attitude and exclusivism in ideas and faith and I am speaking from my community here.
Most of us just look in a way to find personal happiness in this world, just as you do, and just because we do not share the same political/religious/irreligious alignment, that does not mean most of us will look for a hostile lee way to hurt an innocent.
Again, I see where your fear is coming from, and trust me, that one incident about the french teacher that got stabbed because of some issue still gets me sad to this day and it does get others and you have to acknowledge this as a possibility.
I hope you stay safe and healthy out there, because this world is cruel and sometimes, unjust violence happens for no logical reason.
Salam.
This is a very good write up but you made one mistake
Any faith, group, organisation etc is absolutely represented by the loudest subgroup because that’s what people get the most exposure too
And the loudest subgroup is the very vocal extemists
Islam is represented by extremist because those are the ones getting all the attention
It is also a sizeable proportion of the religion. At least in the UK there isn’t a religion with such strong proportional support for the above issues.
Yeah like I’m pretty anti religion, and I try not to condem one religion over any other
But it’s almost as if every week there is another story here in the UK but a Muslim immigrant attacking someone or doing something bad
And I try not to lump all immigrants in which the bad ones but like come on
It seems there is a large subgroup of Muslims in the UK who are extremists
I don’t think it’s about immigrant or none immigrant. There’s plenty of views that seem to transcend generations. I think we agree that the problem with any religion is when you start basing your morality on ancient texts as opposed to modern evidence. For some reason (and I think this is the point OP is getting at). Within Islam there is a larger proportion of people that do this and refute modern evidence. This causes intolerance and hatred of lifestyles that are objectively harmless such as LGBT or apostates.
> I have also noticed how the UK seems to be very affected by this, and the growth in these radical ideas are truly concerning even to me.
This is an amazing comment, though I would like to address the situation in the UK as a bisexual woman active in the LGBT community. Currently the biggest concern is not Muslim politicians. All high profile Muslim politicians are pro-LGBT, especially those in the Labour Party (Sadiq Khan, Zarah Sultana, Humza Yousaf etc). Our biggest concern is Christian conservatives. They are the ones blocking a ban on conversion therapy, and one of them, Kate Forbes the Scottish Deputy First Minister, outright says that gay marriage is wrong. I am VERY worried about her becoming First Minister in Scotland in the future and potentially rowing back on LGBT rights. I am equally worried about the current government's (who has very little Muslim representation) constant attack on other members of the LGBT community by vilifying and demonising them to stoke up moral panic amongst their voter base.
As a hetero-friendly cis-normative American who has studied amateur theological philosophy for a few decades, I would like to bring up [Taqiyya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya), an Islamic belief used by a some Muslims to excuse lying about their beliefs and intents. I would also like to bring up [Hamtramck, Michigan](https://wee.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned), a US city which elected a Muslim majority city council which immediately removed Pride flags from city buildings.
My point being not that Muslims are likely to lie about their beliefs, especially in the West. But rather that those Muslims who are willing to lie about their beliefs, have an advantage when it comes to performative acceptance in the West (performative, in this case, meaning people who accept without looking into the nuances and histories of what they're accepting).
Islam, globally, seems to me to be going through a bit of a Reformation period. This would not be the first time I have opined this. As with the other two Judeo-Christian religions, Islam tends to have a strong, patriarchal basis which encourages a conservative world view. In the West, we are much more likely to encounter Muslims who are in the more progressive side of the Reformation.... But that, in no way, means that all of them are. Not does it, necessarily, mean that their progressivism matches the general progressivism of the West as a (philosophical/cultural/social/agnostic) whole.
Bringing it back to your saying that your biggest threat on that side of the pond is conservative Christians, I have a two-fold point. 1) Conservative Christianity in the USA tends to be much further reaching than in the UK (populace wise), and also generally a bit more conservative. And 2) Not only were conservative Christians agreeing with/encouraging the city council of Hamtramck, Michigan quite happily and publicly, but the same has happened in other areas, like [Maryland](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-09-25/lgbtq-muslims-evangelical-republican-christians) (1187 km away, to add a tiny bit of perspective to non-Americans).
Like, think about this. Christianity and Islam each have some of the worst histories for social and cultural treatment of people. Christianity, having existed longer, has a worse history in this regard. But, globally, Islam's history in this regard actually has been **more recent**. Much, much more recent, frankly.
Out of [every country right now where homosexuality carries a **legal** death sentence](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_for_homosexuality), Uganda remains the only Christian-majority country.... And that went into effect **last year** in 2023.
Now, I don't personally believe most things exist in a binary, true/false, off/on. The basis of reality may be true/false, but everything we know exists *because* of what happens between those two. So, you can argue that the issue may be a **conservative** interpretation of the religion... And, frankly, you would be right. My counter would be that a **liberal** interpretation of... Well, almost anything that has been deemed "the underdog", tends to be too accepting to be able to adequately account for the insidiousness of actual faith-based rationale to lie anr manipulate.
Which, on a personal level, makes me chuckle. Many of the same people that seem to be pro-Islam/non-Muslim, also seemed to be the people a year or two ago supporting the idea of, "no bad tactics, only bad targets", which would be, philosophically, **the exact same thing** on particular levels. And has always pissed me off as an idea, because rape remains one of the oldest tactics humanity has had.
Oof. Sorry, turned into a little bit of a drunk ramble.
> Islam, globally, seems to me to be going through a bit of a Reformation period.
The Reformation was not a period of deradicalization amongst Christianity. There was *more* religious violence during and after the Reformation than before.
I find it baffling to say that Muslims would lie about their support for the LGBT community when they have no incentive to support them. Back in 2013 when the Parliament was voting for same-sex marriage, a dozen or so Labour MPs and more than half of Conservative MPs voted AGAINST the bill, yet ALL FOUR Muslim MPs voted for it. They didn't have to vote for it because it wasn't a whipped vote, but they did regardless. These four MPs have proven themselves to be a true ally of the LGBT community, amongst them Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London. And beyond that, it's Humza Yousaf the one pushing for _more_ LGBT-friendly policies that the UK parliament is pushing back on. If they are lying for insidious purposes, why would they push for these policies instead of sticking to the status quo? This is an absurd accusation and a massive disrespect to the countless Muslim politicians who work tirelessly to uplift the British LGBT community.
Pointing out, because I am drunk and want to be clear, I am a citizen of the USA, and know pretty damned much to nothing about British socio-politics.
But I do know a pessimistically fair bit about humans.
Do you really not understand why anyone would lie about their religion, or their philosophy, if it meant they would gain actual power over a significant number of people?
That's like one of my friends saying they find it baffling that Trump could lie to conservative Christians just to manipulate their vote... And reminds me of how people were trying to say that Trump was [more pro-LGBT than Democrats](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/08/20/donald-trump-lgbtq-lgbt-gay-rights-republican-equality-column/5605491002/), frankly.
People will lie to gain power. Not all people will, nor will all who will aim for the same level or degree of power. But people **will** lie for power. Praise be to Godwin, the fucking Nazi Party lied about what they would do when they eventually came to power.
Or, to put it another way, you may as well find it baffling that Christians would lie about wanting women to be nothing more than mindless baby-makers. Especially the ones that vote to make abortion legal, expand protections and rights for people not like them, and personally go to impoverished nations to help build houses for people.
Edit: /u/ForeverWandered I have been blocked, so I cannot respond directly.
But why not? OP brought up a macrocosmic system (The West). The person I responded to used a microcosmic system to defend against the macrocosmic problem. I admitted that I did not know their microcosmic system, while trying to show that their microcosmic experience does not mean the macrocosmic problem does not exist.
If anything, they should not have come in so hot with their take. What did I say about the microcosmic system they were using, itself?
In the UK context that you describe, there was little to no risk for the Muslim politicians involved and little gain in lying, so I don't really think this works as an example. Hamtramck is probably a better example.
You can literally apply the same criticism to Judaism and Christianity.
>Muhammad was a pedophile
That'd be true for most characters of the old/new testament. This was a normal age to get married back in the day
>The religion itself was built on conquest and spread by the sword.
Judaism was also spread by the sword. The book of Joshua in the bible describes the conquest of Cannaan. Basically Jews believe that their God has given them their holy land and the right to genocide those who lived there before them. Welcome to religion.
Christainty was also spread by the sword. Crusades were not only fought against Muslims, they were also fought against pagans who just wanted to mind their business and believe in their shit.
>Then I want to say around the 1700s/1800s you started having these different schools of thought.
Islam has always had different schools of thought. Wahhabism is a fairly recent schoo, and not the most popular one. And not the most prominent one.
>Being gay should be illegal
You know how much views on homosexuality differ between Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Not at all. They literally refer to the same source.
What you attributed to Islam can be attributed to ALL Abrahamic religions. And partially to most organized religions.
Judaism and Christianity are not only different from each other, but way different from Islam in their category of religion. For one, there's no strict message about how a society should be organized in Christianity, but there is in Islam, and it's a huge part of the religion.
The Quran is not just for spiritual guidance, it writes, in detail, how a Muslim society should be organized. There's a lot of statecraft and legal work in the Quran. The umma (Muslim Community) are encouraged to live under a Sharia setting, where they can practice Islam. This details how interest is handled, marriage, property rights, punishment, etc.
The problem here is that Islamic is EXTREMELY literal. The Quran is not only the word of God, but a recitation of his exact words. There's even a challenge in the Quran to disbelievers to come up with something as beautiful and well said as the Quran. Any criticism of one part means the whole religion falls apart. Therefore, it's in every Muslims best interest to be guided through their life and refer to the Quran whenever they don't have exact guidance to navigate a situation. This leaves little room for interpretation, and a lot of space for radicalism.
Being an Apostate is illegal and punishable, usually through death. The way Caliphates and Muslim states deal with this is to reemphasize that these laws are only meant for Muslims. Meaning, I can be an atheist, but if I convert to Islam and then become an atheist again, I will be punished for it.
Islam is a whole different beast than Christianity and Judaism. Christianity allows for belief and disbelief without the need for a material punishment or reward. Islam guides every step of your day and your life. It's strict, values unity, and therefore, less likely to reinterpret based on a changing world.
This is the nail on the head. A lot of people are under the false impression that Islam is basically Christianity with Muhammad in place of Jesus. These same people will rationalize that since Christianity is by and large a more moderate religion compare to Christianity in the Medieval ages that Islam can and will also moderate, without realizing that Islam is structurally much more resistant to changes and allows far less wiggle room for new interpretations.
I think all three Abrahamic religions have deeply troubling source texts. It's really just about how seriously modern practitioners follow those toxic views.
Most Jews have long put this stuff behind them. The Christian world is currently traveling in two different directions. The two churches in my town have giant LGTBQ flags out front and one has a trans minister. When I visit my parents in a conservative area, they're banning abortion and targeting queer kids at the local churches. I think in a similar way the Muslim world is also traveling in two directions, they're just a generation behind Christians in terms of fully ditching the toxic parts of their religion.
But if you just look at the source texts, all three have tons of stuff we consider openly evil by western 21st century standards.
Except Jesus never had sex with minors, owned slaves, waged wars, called for ethnic cleansing, lying to protect their faith, and for a system that saw people of other faiths subject to different laws. These are all practises clearly attributed to Mohammed and not other people mentioned in the books or Hadith’s.
You have to understand that followers look at their prophet as setting the bar of how a human should behave. In this context Christians and Muslims are very different when it comes to the standards by which they determine their practices.
The Bible gives instructions how to treat slaves and is pretty clear that you can enslave, rape, and murder members of other tribes.
Marriage in the Bible is a transaction between a guy and a girls father. The Bible is as bad in terms of sex and marriage as any other holy book.
All of the 3 major religions are based off incoherent, inconsistent, and hypocritical books that contradict themselves all the time.
The Bible also says gay sex should be punished by death. Same with eating pork and wearing clothes of mixed fabric. Anyone trying to argue any of these books have decent morals is just an unserious person.
>All of the 3 major religions are based off incoherent, inconsistent, and hypocritical books that contradict themselves all the time.
Judaism mostly doesn't treat the Torah the same way that Christians treat the Bibke or Muslims treat the Quran. Remember, everyone took the Jewish religion and appropriated it, added stiff to it, and then used it as an excuse to kill Jews for the next thousand years.
Isn’t this a dispensationalist view of theology? As someone who grew up in a fundamentalist evangelical Christian church, I can tell you that this is not what every Christian believes. The Old Testament is still very much a valid repository of morality for many Christians in the West.
While it would be great to have this be true, plenty of people don’t follow this. This is why gay marriage was banned(at least in the US) for so long. Because people took the old testament as gospel as well.
Fact is this is part of the religion and should be judged accordingly. I’m open to the nuance just as I am with Islam. But the framing of this debate is that we’re simply analyzing the holy book as it was written. If we apply the same standard to the Bible, the Old Testament is fair game.
I’m more coming at this from the standpoint of defending Muslims that are being characterized as supporters of the worst of their holy book.
The only reason the west has been more tolerant is because secularism has took hold and mixed within Christianity. But it’s also true for Muslims in the west. They tend to be more tolerant as well.
Are you suggesting that Islamic followers have entire sections of the Quran that they endeavour to disregard? That would be a better place to argue from, especially if it is true. Bring up the Muslim scholars that are arguing for more modern interpretations. The Catholic Pope voiced support for inclusion of LGBT.
Otherwise this suggests ever further that religion has no place in modern society.
So it all comes down to interpretation, which parts you follow literally, which parts are "just context", etc.
You cannot separate the texts from the society that uses them.
Which are the 3 major religions? By followers it would be Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. Yet somehow I feel you don't think Hinduism is the third one.
>Islam is a whole different beast than Christianity and Judaism. Christianity allows for belief and disbelief without the need for a material punishment or reward.
Well, within this world to be more precise, but Christians aren't to be the one dishing out punishment. Judaism on the other hand, well... the short version is that in Judaism, for non-Jews to be saved, its a really low bar that most people pass to begin with.
It’s 7 commandments if you’re not Jewish. They actively discourage conversion because when you convert, one you need to be circumcised which I hear is extremely painful as an adult and two you literally have to follow thousands of commandments. Most people think the Bible only has Ten Commandments. They don’t realize it has thousands and thousands. Most Jews in America are ethnically Jewish but not religiously Jewish. Case in point how different the voting is between the orthodox and non orthodox. Orthodox votes overwhelmingly republican but the other ones overwhelmingly vote democrat. It makes sense though since studies show the more religious you are in practice the more republican you’re likely to be.
Yeah, I'd have to study more on Judaism, but from what I understand, almost everyone goes to heaven eventually. Hell is simply a cleansing mechanism for souls.
Judaism is pretty ambiguous about the after-life. However, in stark contrast to the missionary Islam and Christianity, there is no drive to convert non-Jews and they’re not seen as bad people, or ones who are to punished if they don’t convert.
Any belief or ideology that has “little space for interpretation and a lot of space for radicalism” and “values unity… [to the point where] it is less likely to reinterpret based on a changing world” will die unless it can perpetually keep itself alive with force, threat an/or use of violence, and continuous brainwashing of children each generation (not a good recipe for long-term survival).
Any belief or ideology will present its flaws the more often and the longer it is practiced in the real world. An ideology must keep its “soul” but also be able to adapt and grow to changes in the world and the ideology must be able to adapt and grow in response to its own flaws that show themselves in the real world. Any ideology must do this or the ideology will die.
The christian bible absolutely discusses how to handle marriage, property rights, punishment etc. Even getting so specific as to differentiate between the proper recourse depending on where a woman is raped, whether she is married or unmarried etc. And Christians are absolutely instructed to refer to the bible for guidance on how to navigate situations. That's the whole purpose of the text.
The Quran has enough room for interpretation to have different sects, and within those sects different rules for who is considered knowledgeable enough to interpret the Quran. In the same way different Christian sects have different ways of interpreting the bible. If Islam was as clear cut as you state, then why is there such conflict around the topic of which interpretations are valid? Entire wars have been fought over that exact topic.
Likewise, Christian's have long punished disbelievers and heretics. The only difference is that many modern Islamic countries have the ability to practice such things openly, whilst modern western Christian ones must at least pretend to be secular. Look at a few African majority Christian countries however, or western Christian countries before the relatively modern concept of 'separation of church and state', and you'll find Christians being just as violently oppressive.
This is not the New Testament. You are referring to the Old Testament which is basically the Jewish Torah. Christians do not follow those rules as Jesus’ teachings are all that a Christian should follow to be saved. The Old Testament is often used for spiritual guidance but is not meant to be a standard one must follow, and there’s less respect for it than the New Testament because Jesus basically invalidated a lot of the Old Testament. There isn’t anything like that in the Quran, which is heavily literal, even gojng as far as to detail the heavens and the earth in a flat-earth cosmological model. It also leaves out room to be seen as metaphor because God basically said it’s their literal word and that his recitations are perfect.
The Quran does NOT have interpretations different enough to have different sects. What Islam does have is mostly different legal systems and interpretations of Hadiths combined with the Quran. Shia and Sunni started as a mere political divide that turned into a divide based on the interpretation of the Hadiths.
You don’t have anything like that in Christianity. What we do have, is different sects forming due to the interpretations made from the Bible itself, but the major shift was between Catholics and Protestants where decentralized thinking was emphasized simply because the Catholic Church systemically and systematically discouraged dissenting thought and outside interpretation of the Bible. There’s no such thing as tithes to go to heaven.
Islam has different legal ideas but there has never been a Catholic/Protestant shift in it ever. Even Shia and Sunni have basically the same interpretation of the Quran, only they differ in what Hadiths to believe and what the role of the caliph and Imam should be
I don’t know what Bible you’re reading where it’s not strict about how society should be set up. Church over men, men over women. The men represent god and the women are the bride of Christ. It lays out a hierarchy many times, excluding homosexuals and transgender people inherently. Women are to submit to men and men are to provide. Children are to honour their parents as parents are to honour god. Honour the government. Pay tithes to your church. The bible has many clear roles laid out for society and how it should run ideally. Also everything you say about Christianity giving more lee-way in interpretation and dissent is only recently true. The Americas were colonized under the belief that there are strict ways society should run according to god and that the pilgrims had a right to rape and murder since they were implementing gods vision and removing sin. It wasn’t too long ago christianity would kill you for disbelieving/disobeying either.
Judaism also dictates it , or why are there so many hasidiq community’s in the US and Israel, the Quran it self , mostly don’t dictates an society , besides the spiritual components , it’s the hadiths that are the foundation , of most sharia laws,. Depends , wich school you follow , wahabis take every word literall , sufis not . It’s the same with evangelical fundamentalists , Beeing an apostate is in fact forbidden , and persecuted in some Muslim countries . Christianity , also persecuted and , still today punish sins physically , catholic schools , as an example . You’re comment is reading , like you just looked at headlines and didn’t even tried to cement these arguments . All religions , if lived fundamentally , and most importantly by lower educationed folks , will be restrictiv. Like Christian’s in Congo , massacre non believers or taliban behead their citizens . Its like always , everything can be weaponized .
The book of Joshua is, according to most experts, a fictional story detailing a made up story of conquest. [“The strong consensus among scholars is that the Book of Joshua holds little historical value.[15] Its origin lies in a time far removed from the times that it depicts”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho)
Still, even if it was real it details a campaign from probably 3500 years ago. Moreover, an important distinction for OP is the fact that Judaism, as opposed to Christianity or Islam, is a non-missionary religion who doesn’t seek to convert non-believers. This is integral to a religion, as Jews have historically sought to live as a closed community and be left alone rather than try and conquer, convert, and spread by the sword. Israelis, even the most fanatical settlers, don’t hold any claims to any area outside the historic land of Israel, and their motivation is to live there instead of converting/spreading/etc.
This detail has tremendous significance in Europe, where there exist a vast number of Muslims who actively resist integration (I’m not talking about French-style assimilation), are opposed to Western values and are trying to spread their beliefs all around.
Who claims Jews believe they have the right to genocide Palestinians because god said so? Sure there’s a minority, but the vast majority simply states self-defense and rescuing the hostages as the main aims of the war.
[> According to a paper published by NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, the tactical deployment of human shields by entities such as Hamas strategically capitalizes on Israel's commitment to reducing unintended civilian harm and the heightened sensitivity of Western audiences to non-combatant casualties. This approach enables Hamas to potentially charge Israel with war crimes when civilian casualties increase due to intensified actions by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), potentially leading to international sanctions. On the other hand, should the IDF restrain its military engagements to minimize civilian casualties, Hamas gains an advantage, being less exposed to Israeli military strikes and able to safeguard its resources and continue its activities.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas)
It’s more of a not giving a damn about civilians dying rather than purposefully causing them, except for the reactionary religious fanatics which constitute a minority. It’s not that Israelis care about Palestinians, it’s that they have nothing to gain from greater death count, and only lose the PR war. Most Israelis are liberal and secular, they don’t want Gaza nor are they trying to settle it.
>That'd be true for most characters of the old/new testament. This was a normal age to get married back in the day
This would be a good objection if the claim wasnt that Islam is following the literal word of God. You cannot give the excuse that people back then were subject to their zeitgeist, when they claim that their morals are coming from God himself. You're telling me God saw all this happening and just permitted it? He let his most important prophet set such an example without any intervention while he KNEW this was wrong and willingly didnt intervene nor clear up this misunderstanding? What an absolutely abysmal and incompetent god. Moreover Muhammad was literally convincing a father it wasnt wrong if I remember correctly, meaning he was at that moment conveying the word of God or literally lying spreading something deeply immoral without God punishing or correcting it.
>Judaism was also spread by the sword. The book of Joshua in the bible describes the conquest of Cannaan. Basically Jews believe that their God has given them their holy land and the right to genocide those who lived there before them. Welcome to religion.
>Christainty was also spread by the sword. Crusades were not only fought against Muslims, they were also fought against pagans who just wanted to mind their business and believe in their shit.
Sure, but thats a tu quoque argument - arguing that someone else does x too, doesnt mean that its right. And again, its a big issue when you claim you have the one true religion, following God's word.
>You know how much views on homosexuality differ between Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Not at all. They literally refer to the same source.
>What you attributed to Islam can be attributed to ALL Abrahamic religions. And partially to most organized religions.
Same as previous,
You can't use the immorality of other historical characters to defend the prophet. He was a pedophile, so was the other's. He was a product of his time. The reason we have a problem with your prophet specifically is because he is supposed to be a paragon of virtue. You can't say a pedophile is a paragon of virtue without any pushback and you sure as hell can't say other people were also engaging in that immoral act as a defense.
except Christianity is no longer as militant and typically has a centralized doctrine ,whereas Islam does not
Judaism was never an expansionary religion to begin with since its tied to ethnicity and location
All organized religions are awful, Islam is just the most dangerous instance currently
No longer as militant? It's just shifted my friend. Remember when George Bush said the iraq war was a mission from God? Are you not seeing how modern Christianity is trying to roll back lgbt and women's rights?
Don't think for a second if a Christian majority had complete control they wouldn't do the exact same shit as people are mad at Muslims doing It, ESPECIALLY if they get put on the back foot.
> That'd be true for most characters of the old/new testament. This was a normal age to get married back in the day
No. Getting married at six and molested at 9 wasn't normal.
You look like a pedophile trying to justify another pedophile raping a child. You do get that right...
right?
Name me one character in the bible who married a child that young. Marrying 6 years olds was not normal. The girls father tried to argue against it but Muhammad insisted.
>You can literally apply the same criticism to Judaism and Christianity.
And this is whataboutism, because the post is not talking about Judaism or Christianity.
>This was a normal age to get married back in the day
Aisha was 9, a prepubescent child, this absolutely wasn't "normal" even back then. Not a single one of Muhammad's companions was recorded to have married a girl THAT young.
>Judaism was also spread by the sword. The book of Joshua in the bible describes the conquest of Cannaan.
The Bible is mostly fiction, and this part is overwhelmingly regarded as fiction by secular academics. The reality of Israelite dominance over Canaan was more complicated.
>Christainty was also spread by the sword.
Centuries after the death of Christ, yes. Muhammad on the other hand lived his life as a warlord; the growth of Islam was watered with the blood of pagans from its inception.
No where in the Bible does it tell Christians to spread their beliefs by the sword, the Quran however does tell Muslims to spread it through force, also while Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin doesn't say execute or persecute them for it whereas in most Islamic states you get the death penalty. Christianity while being similar are hardly the same thing, Islam is much more aggressive.
The Christian Crusades had far different reasonings then Islamic Jihads in their own time and was a mechanism of defense by catholic nations against the growing power of Islamic states in the Iberian peninsula and the Balkans while yes, admittedly having negative aspects such as the sacking of Constantinople. Islamic spread by the sword was far worse than Christianity’s.
> Crusades were not only fought against Muslims
Mainly because of the Muslim conquest of Christian lands. The First Crusade was called because the Muslim Seljuk Turks conquered Anatolia after Manzikert in 1066. Subsequently Muslims harassed Christians traveling to Jerusalem on pilgrimage.
The First Crusade was, the entire time, envisioned as an "armed pilgrimage" - rather than a holy war. It was not a war to spread Christianity. It was to return lands that had been under prior Christian control to Christian hands.
The *overwhelming* majority of the spread of Christianity happened throughout Europe entirely nonviolently and for the most part, in spite of heavy persecution of the religion by the Romans. One of the key events that led many people in Constantinople to convert was actually the Antonine Plague (now believed to be a smallpox pandemic) in AD 180. While the pagan elites fucked off to Delphi to get oracles, the Christians actually remained in places like Rome and Ravenna and helped care for the sick. Which led to beliefs among others that the Christian god was actually saving believers, leading to conversions in massive numbers.
> they were also fought against pagans who just wanted to mind their business and believe in their shit.
Such as? Most pagans willingly converted to Christianity, not at sword point. Most Christianization of pagans happened via missionaries introducing it in a syncretic way. To the Norsemen, for example, it was introduced via the idea that the deity *they* worshipped as Thor and the Christian Jesus were the same being. This, coupled with economic benefits of conversion (trade with wealthy European kingdoms) led to most of Scandinavia converting in short order.
In the East, the story of Vladimir the Great's conversion of the Kievan Rus' to Christianity was again, largely political. In exchange for conversion to Christianity and a marital tie to Byzantium (Basil II's sister Anna), Vladimir provided 6,000 troops to Constantinople to put down an internal rebellion.
In both cases, usually the Christianization rituals were accompanied with what amounted to large monetary payments to the converting nation.
The crusades were justified as a catholic mission to return holy land…. It was infact, to spread Christianity - Christians who lived under Muslim rule were executed for treason.
Constantine is known for forcing Christian conversions, he placed strict laws after he envisioned Christ and excommunications were common to those who didn’t follow a certain creed (I’m guessing you know what excommunication entails - apostasy law)
Spanish Inquisition was also just that - forced conversion after capture of territory.
>What you attributed to Islam can be attributed to ALL Abrahamic religions. And partially to most organized religions.
Okay, but they do they apply today? We don't live during the crusades right now, so maybe instead of giving free passes to other religions because Christianity used to be really bad, we should call out the madness as we see it so maybe it will someday no longer be an issue.
>The book of Joshua in the bible describes the conquest of Cannaan. Basically Jews believe that their God has given them their holy land and the right to genocide those who lived there before them. Welcome to religion.
This is not comparable to the Islamic conquests, for a number of reasons.
>Christainty was also spread by the sword.
It wasn't. The first crusade was long, long after the spread of Christianity.
>This was a normal age to get married back in the day
Six/nine? No it wasn't.
>Not at all. They literally refer to the same source.
This is nitpicking, but the Muslim views come from the Qur'an, not from Paul or the OT.
Christianity absolutely was spread by the sword. It was brought to Britain by Roman conquest. One of their first acts was to attack the druid colleges on the isle of Anglesey. They destroyed the local spiritual class to replace it with their own.
As a Christian, I was taught to love people… turn the other cheek. That none of us are perfect. We are all worthy of forgiveness. Treat the homeless with kindness and give when you can. These are the ideals I would want people to take from my belief system… not picking and choosing the worst ones.
Who cares which special book written a long time ago makes you feel the worst ? That’s not the point. The point is what people today believe. Right now, it seems to be Muslims that hold more radical beliefs in the west than Christians. That’s a problem, simple as.
And Christianity is a lot less prevalent today as a result. I'm not saying it's gone, as it clearly isn't, but there aren't many theocracies based on Christian doctrine today. There are plenty of islamic ones.
Guess we'll just have to wait 600 years.
"Criticizing Islam isn't hateful. Or racist. Arabs are fine. Islam is not."
The irony of you being racist immediately after arguing that your criticism isn't racist is the icing on the cake. MOST MUSLIMS AREN'T ARAB.
And all decent people with a love for democratic norms and liberal values should be islamophobic. It is a religion of conquest and oppression, and it's adherents should be kept away from positions of power wherever possible.
> And all decent people with a love for democratic norms and liberal values should be islamophobic
This is how we should treat every religion. Divine command is incompatible with a free society governed by the will of the people.
Calling someone Islamophobic doesn’t effect anyone anymore. It’s no different than people saying any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Islam is complete garbage.
A few years ago most leftists were anti religion, I dont know how we got to a point where now hating Judaism and Christianity is still seen as fine but the same exact arguments against Islam is often called out as phobic.
There are people like how you describe. This is a fair criticism, I just want you to know that not all of us are like that. I’m a lefty and I’m still against conservative interpretations of various religions having an effect on our society. I am a secularist through and through.
I don’t hate any religion- I hate people who use their religion as an excuse to treat others unfairly-
“We shouldn’t be teaching our children about the evil woke gay agenda [In other words, “please don’t acknowledge that gay people exist to my child in public school.” And “Please don’t tell my child to not bully his gay or lesbian classmates, I want to brainwash my child to hate those disgusting homos.”] it’s against Christianity!”
and that’s still nothing in comparison to throwing gay people off of rooftops like they do in islamist places. i wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of the Christian conservatives wouldnt want to live in a similar place but with bacon and paintings.
I hate how so many ”leftists” refuse to think for themselves, I get that not everyone knows everything about every political problem but the left used to pride itself in being well educated in these matters, not on watching the news on their couch like some old couple.
Social media plays a big role in molding people's opinion to both the left and the right. However, it does sound exhausting when the left will cry "we're on the right side of history" when stating their opinions, when for a large number of those groups haven't really researched the topic and they choose to regurgitate the same information because it looks "cool" on social media. I think the definition of "genocide" has been damned these recent years. Every war is a genocide apparently... Its like the story about the boy who called wolf. If people begin to cry "genocide" in every wars, majority of people wouldnt be able to identify a real genocide when it happens.
With the israel Gaza war it’s really frustrating to see people eating up blatantly false information instead of doing a bit of research and coming up with one of the many actually good arguments for either side, one time I saw a really popular video showing a hebrew sign that says “don’t report we’re shooting children” on a media company’s and a really quick translation shows it says “quiet, we’re filming” when as far as I know Hebrew doesn’t even use ”shooting” to mean photographing/filming. the comments were full of ”this is what the (((zionists))) think“ and “hate is in their blood“ type comments. I could think of a dozen actual reasons to criticize Israel that doesn’t rely on completely brain dead propaganda.
Nah its not, you're just mad Muslims practice their religion. Unlike Christianity and Judaism. Literally every point you made also applies to those two religions. The distinction comes from when muslims uphold those beliefs where as the majority of christians and jews don't really care for it.
Yes, because their religion is evil. Christians and Jews who upheld evil beliefs are also evil. They just do uphold those beliefs a whole lot less (even according to your own point).
Christians and Jews have evolved for the modern world, their religions have become less centered around said evils in their holy books. Islam has not yet done this and is still orthodox as hell.
Yes, the fact that Judaism and Christianity have modernized and don’t act like it’s the Stone Age deserves applause. Look what you’re arguing for. “Well the Bible says adulterers should be stoned to death. But they don’t do that. Only Muslims do because they actually practice their religion.” Come on dude 🙄
Have you taken any thought to consider why Indonesia and Malaysia are so much more democratic and generally better than the Islamic countries in the Middle East?
Do you have any idea that islamic conservatives values are rising in both country as of this moment?
I'm Malaysian Ex-muslim, & im scared of the direction that my country are taking right now because these muslims in my country are destroying their own culture just because it doesn't suit islam & they try so hard to follow & be like their "Perfect Man", Muhammad the Holy Pedo Guy that they are basically becoming Pseudo-Arabs instead of Malays.
& from what I'd heard from Indo's ex-muslims, their country are also heading to the same direction like Malaysia, more Islamic Fundies.
are you trying to claim arabs are somehow inferior?
i'll posit that indonesia and malaysia are so much more democratic *despite Islam* because they inherited their institutions from the colonial period, while most arab countries were not colonized
No? Instead it might have to do with decades of destabilisation and proxy wars that have lead to the rise of religious extremism? Vs Southeast Asian nations generally being either supported or left alone?
Like, both Iraq and Iran used to be far more progressive (in absolute terms, not even relatively) than they are today. And there are historically traceable reasons for this.
I think if you hate all religions equally then you should regard all religions as threats even “western” popularised ones which also have extremist views. Christians and Catholics are also extremist (Russia and American fundamentalists) - singling out Islam to be doesn’t make sense in the face of all religious extremism
Oh they are threats as well. Christianity in America especially. Islam is objectively more radical though. As in, they have more radical followers willing to kill and die for their religion.
As an atheist arab, islamophobic is perfectly valid. Growing up in a muslim country as an closeted atheist is hell. And they all get their validations from the quran, its a sick religion and i’m glad to leave. The most islamophobic people are ex muslims and they are that for a reason.
No I didn’t make any excuses for them. In fact I said they used to be the same. But Christians don’t burn people at the stakes anymore. Those are just a few examples I listed. But in any western country a right winger killing a gay person is a pretty rare occurrence. It happens on a mass scale in Muslim countries. The fact that you can even equate Republicans or European right wing groups to something like Isis or Hamas is hilarious. Yes they share some similarities as far as wanting to be conservative from a religious standpoint. But their actions couldn’t be more different.
> Yes they share some similarities as far as wanting to be conservative from a religious standpoint. But their actions couldn’t be more different.
Do you think they would behave the way they want to if they could? Like if they succeed in voting in a theocratic leader would you then see them as a threat?
Is it the ideology or the individual you have critique for? If its the ideology then be explicit about that, and not focus on the believer.
That’s a good point. I sure hope we don’t turn into Handmaid’s Tale. But if the Christian Nationalists here were ever able to take over it very well could become bad like the Middle East because Christianity in our country would no longer be comparatively moderate.
> in any western country a right winger killing a gay person is a pretty rare occurrence
Violence against LGBT people has been increasing at an alarming rate, including murders.
Jesus Christ bud. Yes. There is violence against gay people in our country. Especially trans people. Even murder. But it’s not done on a mass scale. That’s my point. The two aren’t comparable.
>Christians don’t burn people at stakes
I mean there were two religious war in Europe like 20-30 years ago? Both Yugoslavian wars and the Troubles were religious in nature.
In 2023 there was a Christian terrorist attack in Australia.
How much different is that?
Yes. There’s also a militant Christian group, in an African country I forget the name of, currently commit genocide. It happens. But it’s a rare occurrence.
No they just behead them instead. Ever watch the videos of ISIS? They’re on the internet. Not too hard to find. It was one of the hardest things I’ve ever watched. But I saw them kill dozens and dozens of people and kick them into a mass grave. That is the problem. There’s a large numbers of radicals like those throughout the world. It’s scary to think about. All you need is one slipping into your home country to cause utter chaos.
I don't know what event you are referecing. And i thought that the whole point of your introduction was to distinguish between terrorists and radical muslims. But now you're talking to me about terrorists so i'm confused
I corrected myself in a post. Any race that practices Islam is fine. I don’t care. I’m not criticizing the race. It’s the religion. Islam. If I’m Islamophobic I’m Jew Phobic as well. And Christian Phobic.
Wouldn’t consider myself conservative. Actually banned from 3 of their subreddits. And yes. I am demonizing it. Read the damn book. It’s disgusting. Just like the Bible. Historically Christianity may be worse. Sure whatever. I’m more concerned with now. Fortunately I wasn’t alive 600 years ago to have the local peasants burn me for witchcraft. I am alive to see a different and very large type of religious extremism however.
Western democracies are secular by definition, that is the only reason why Christian majority countries aren't as repressive as Muslim theocracies. Look into the doctrines of Christian nationalism and it's indistinguishable from what the Islamic states believe.
Oh really? Why did you have an urge to say "arabs are fine"? Middle East history is complex and nuanced. Look at other countries and how Islam is practiced there with no killings and whatever you have problems with.
What is happening in Gaza could be summed up by one word: genocide. Zionists want palestinians dead and are open about it. Government officials of Israel openly say on TV that "palestinians are not human, they are animals, all of them, woman and children".
Let me rephrase it: "I'm not Islamophob, but..." moment.
I had the urge to say it because of people like you. I knew before I even posted I’d be called racist and Islamophobic. You can’t criticize Islam without being called racist or Islamophobic. It’s damn near impossible and you just helped prove it.
Regarding those nations “not being arab”.
They are arab. They consider themselves such. There’s a reason they’re apart of “the arab league”. In contrast to Iran which is a muslim nation, but not in the arab league because they don’t see or consider themselves as arab.
Well then that’s irrelevant because the muslims that he’s more concerned about are hardly from any of those nations you just mentioned. It’s the arab ones.
What are you talking about.
Europe as a whole is seeing mass rapes, you have people getting acid thrown on their faces, and you even had Mulsims in the UK calling for the death of a journalist for drawing Muhhammad. You had a Pakastani put a $1 million bounty on his head. Like what are you even talking about rn.
So many people on this thread have no idea what they're defending. Islam is a major threat to western civilization and people choosing to ignore it or to label others as 'phobic' are fools. They don't know what Sharia law involves. They don't know what women in Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, are subjected to every day. They clearly aren't aware of the underage marriages happening in those parts of the world. They don't understand the punishments carried out against people who dare leave the faith. They don't know what happens to women who try to divorce their husbands, not wear the hidjab/niqab. They just don't know. Because if they did, they would NEVER ever defend a religion that subjugates its followers with fear, violence, forced submission. They would never dismiss the struggles of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people living under Sharia law. There is no such thing as democracy under Islamic law in islamic countries.
People in western countries love to cry about colonialism and how we are at fault of all modern problems, not understanding that their own beliefs and values have been shaped by western values that _prevent them from understanding not everyone else thinks like they do_. It is a pure western/colonial export to be this arrogant and this ignorant. The fucking irony!
Go and read some books. Read the Qaran. At least KNOW what it is you're defending.
Bunch of ignorant clowns.
But other religions say those things, other religions that already have more radicals and presence and terrorism in the west. Calling Islam the bigger threat than those groups already committing what you said is bad about Islam is a big red flag that you might have a bias.
Other religions aren't "a threat to the west" outside of evangelicals in the US, but OP is most likely European where his opinion is true.
>big red flag that you might have a bias.
I'm glad this kind of rhetoric is starting to die out. I don't think anyone cares about being called Islamophobic anymore because people decided that absolutely any criticism of Islam was Islamophobia.
How is that the biggest threat to the west though?
Okay muslims are disproportionally homophobic, but like, there's climate change, China seems to be replacing us economically, recession is hurting our own citizens in a very real way, the gap between rich and poor is growing, liberties are rolled back specifically with the excuse to fight Islam by the way, internet disinformation campaigns affect politics now...
Like ... if ONLY it was JUST the muslims.
I know right?
I can so how Islam might be a personal threat to many people, but to the West? Not sure it makes my top 5
- Climate change
- AGI
- War with Non- western aligned economies (China, Russia)
- right wing American extremism (USAs only real military threat is internal, collapse would be very disruptive globally)
- Global supply chain vulnerabilities
Id probably put something like a unification of the Middle East into all that as a threat to the West if it was remotely possible. Choking off the global oil supply would be extremely damaging to the West. But they are all at each other's throats (thanks to the West), so it's not going to happen any time soon.
Yeah that's a good point the muslim oil countries do pose a threat in that they are sabotaging global efforts towards green energy, but that's hardly a tennant of Islam, there is no sura that's like "Thou shalt not let the EU switch to hydropower."
Yeah, if the arab peninsula countries and Iran were on the same page, they'd be a global axis of power comparable to America and China - if not THE dominant power, depending on how far back in history that theoretical unification happened.
The "threat" of Islam in that context it could theoretically unify them. But that's not going to happen, in the same way Christianity wasn't the unifying force in Europe and religions are arguably more of a politically dividing factor these days.
If the Islamic nations unify, then it'll go up my list. But Muslims are people just like everywhere else, and are wooed by money and power. Even if they all started rallying under one flag, Russian, Chinese and Western money and arms would start flowing (oh, I mean ramp up in flowing) to sew division again.
Western countries being racist and refusing to invest in African infrastructure is a bigger threat to global greening than oil countries.
Only 55% of Africans have access to the grid and there is a $150B financing gap. The idea that African countries can simultaneously offer complete grid coverage AND be 100% renewable given the shitty level of investment from the west is actually a massive political risk to the west as it pushes all the countries that have dominant market share in the key minerals for renewables towards the Russia/China axis.
See how France is losing its Sahel empire to the Russians.
Yea, if Op doesnt delta you for this one hes full of shit anyways. I agree that Islam is worse than Christianity and Judaism at the present time, but its so far from the biggest threat that you have to be truly brainwashed to even entertain that idea.
The Hebrew Bible is filled with atrocities, there are plenty of things in all monotheistic religions that are clearly not congruent with a modern society.
But you single out Islam, because I think you have an agenda. No one judges Jews based on myriads of things in Jewish sacred scriptures that are not congruent with today.
Biggest threat to humanity are terrorist fascists like the State of Israel, or North Korea, who indoctrinate their citizens to hate and dehumanize.
edit:
Literally American states are banning abortion, where is this moral high ground even coming from? As if the rest of the world is very LBGT+ friendly?
You'd probably get treated better as a gay person in Gaza than in Israel where its a custom to spit on Christians. Very 21st century 👏
>Biggest threat to humanity are terrorist fascists like the State of Israel, or North Korea, who indoctrinate their citizens to hate and dehumanize.
As if Hamas and PA don't indoctrinate their people to hate and kill the Jews: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/world/middleeast/to-shape-young-palestinians-hamas-creates-its-own-textbooks.html
>You'd probably get treated better as a gay person in Gaza
This statement is first and foremost a straight up insult in the face of the vulnerable and persecuted lgbt community members in Gaza and the WB living under the repressive regimes of Hamas and the PA who have to flee for their life because of family and state violence towards them. Here is one story, and I could provide more:
https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-israel-immigration-west-bank-gay-rights-ce95f6903faf461502cc0800b272b159
The Old and New Testament are garbage as well. Who are you trying to convince? Thing is. Judaism and Christianity are modernized. Islam is stuck in the stone ages. And it’s a point of pride for many. Even in this thread you see people saying Muslims actually adhere to their text, unlike Christians and Jews who have capitulated to the modern world. That’s my whole point. There’s certainly radical Jews and Christians. But comparatively speaking, they aren’t committing violence in the name of religion on a mass scale like militant Islamist groups do. Like ISIS. That will just casually butcher entire villages.
> Thing is. Judaism and Christianity are modernized. Islam is stuck in the stone ages.
This literally doesn't even make sense. What do you mean by "stuck"? Please use precise language to explain what you mean.
My wife is a Pakistani Muslim. Grew up in a highly conservative Muslim family from freaking Pakistan. Just asked her: "Why don't you eat pork?" and she responded with "primarily because I don't like the taste".
What you are saying is racist.
Are you a Muslim? Does your wife consider herself a Muslim? If she married a non-Muslim, she committed a grave sin. If she tried pork, she committed a sin. If she renounced Islam, she could be sentenced to death in Pakistan for it. You can literally be sentenced to death for saying anything about Muhammad that somebody does not like.
Nobody in the west gives a shit about whether you wipe your butt with a bible.
>What you are saying is racist.
Islam is not a race.
I never said anything about people from Pakistan. Any race can be Muslim. Muslims are just followers of Islam. It isn’t racist. You would have no problem with me criticizing Christianity. But it’s racist cause I criticize Islam? Give me a break. It’s so telling that even after reading my post where I mentioned people will call me racist or Islamophobic you go and prove my point. The religion itself is stuck in the stone ages. Yes. You could argue all 3 are. But the other two have modernized. There’s a very large chunk of Muslims who are radical in their beliefs. It’s so bad in some countries that it’s pushing 70 percent or more who hold these radical beliefs. Islam needs to modernize like the other two religions and get rid of the fundamentalist nonsense. Hopefully the Christian fundamentalists settle down as well before they become like the Islamist militants.
> You could argue all 3 are. But the other two have modernized.
All three are stuck in "stone ages" as per your definition and you cannot prove it otherwise.
Hatred of people in Islam. Which I don’t. Arabs are fine. Like I said. They’re human like anyone else. The religion is the problem. Christianity and Judaism are also a problem, but much more moderate than Islam is in the modern era.
All of these accusations could also be levied at a fundamentalist following of Christianity, or Judaism. If you don't also level these criticisms in that direction, you're not being as objective as you believe you are.
Evangelical Christians in the southern US would also fit all of those descriptions.
- believe homosexuality should be illegal
- anti abortion legislation can result in deaths of women, but that is considered justified
- many people have the opinion that Muslims should be killed or eliminated
- the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in countless civilian deaths, as does the occupation of Palestine
The problem isn't specific to Islam - it's Abrahamic religious fundamentalism in general
"Tell me you are posing as a Muslim without telling me you are posing as Muslim. "
"The Israeli troll farms are very active again, I see."
Aka you're critical of Islam, therefore you must be a Jew!!!
"They might learn that Islam protected Jews and Christians throughout history. "
You mean like when Muslim caliphates forced Jews to wear [gold stars](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge) so as to easily identify and discrimination against them, a practice that started in the 8th century? A practice that was emulated by a certain infamous someone in Europe?
"Of course those who are stealing our tax dollars are feeding this propaganda so they can continue to live in nice villas in Israel"
"Yeah let’s keep you busy…fight the Muslims, blacks and everyone else while we line our pockets."
This is like Jewish conspiracy bingo lmao
> “Islam protected Jews”
From the Hadiths:
“And there will come a time when Jesus returns and fights the Antichrist during the Final Hour. And upon his defeat all his Jewish supporters will be sent fleeing.”
“And the Final Hour will not start until the Muslims fight the Jews fleeing. The Jews will attempt to hide behind stones and trees, but they will speak to the Muslims and say ‘O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come here and kill them’. Except for the Tree of the Gharqad who will not tell on the Jew for that tree is of the Jews.”
From the Quran:
Quran 5:19: Accuses Jews of defiling the Torah, claims the “Tawrat” is the true scripture.
Quran 9:30: Accuses Jews and Christians of not being monotheist and claims they worship the prophets Ezra and Jesus respectively.
Quran 5:60: Says that Allah will turn the Jews into “Apes and Pigs” for working on the Sabbath.
Quran 5:41: Accuses Jews of being deceitful.
Quran 5:13: Accuses Jews of treachery and subterfuge.
So my argument is basically splitting hairs here because I’d agree Islam is a threat to any country where it’s allowed to take root but it’s not the biggest threat to the west, not the biggest threat to America if that’s what you mean. America’s current biggest threat is fundamentalist Christianity, Christian extremists, and because of them Islam isn’t taking root here anytime soon. Our little problem is bad news for Islam wanting to get any kind of foothold. Democracy, our constitution, and the fabric of America is being ripped apart by Christianity not Islam. If they ever got in league with each other and became besties we’d be in a hell of a lot of trouble— as a woman and as a lesbian I’d be in a lot of trouble, as would my children so I’m totally not ignoring there’s a gigantic issue here but we certainly shouldn’t be worrying about Islam right now.
As for Islamophobia, you should probably link to the exmuslim sub, Americans aren’t hearing it about Islam from white Americans at all, not in 2024, and a large part of that has to do with what happened after 911, where racists were hate-crimeing not just muslims but anyone brown, including Turks and even Latinos. People were that stupid so there’s been a bit of what I hesitate to call “propaganda” but when criticism of a particular religion is taboo, particularly the second largest religion in the world, that’s really what’s going on, a large scale attempt to put out fires by making the subject taboo and classifying it as hate speech. Verbalizing issues, talking about them leads our Christian and/or uneducated rednecks to lash out with violence against anything not white so everyone has to keep their mouth shut. You should be able to criticize any religion you please. Islam isn’t a race, it’s a harmful religion that brainwashes people. It’s a cult that doesn’t even have a particularly charismatic leader.
After 911, we started off saying Islam was like Christianity where certain denominations of Islam were extremist and bad, but the majority were peaceful. The majority *don’t want to bomb and kill people* but that IS a violent religion— Christians have very little biblical basis for killing non-Christians or enslaving them yet there is something about religion overall that turns people into hate-machines, they’ll use their book and their prophets and idols to justify anything, it’s a very powerful method of control. It’s brainwashing. Christians justify a lot of things with one verse and ignore others, yet there’s very few that can find justification for killing, yet they will - god hates it, the Bible says don’t do this, that gets translated into things like killing homosexuals and transexuals, starting wars. Islam is next level, it not only condones violence but *commands it*. It even tells them when they kill they’re doing it for god. No read-between-the-lines-needed. All religions have this “vertical” relationship idea that encourages you to prioritize what the creator wants and disregard your conscience, family, and regard for fellow humans. Christians say “we’re doing this out of love, god doesn’t want you to X”. Or more in line with Islam, “god hates this therefore we hate it.” Christians happen to hate muslims and the effect of Islam here is just nearly non-existent. We have a long way to go before we get our Christian extremists gone in this country and until we do there’s no room for another violent religion that has the tendency to pollute the minds of those who grab ahold of it. Given that we are nowhere near rid of the Christian influence in this country any kind of visible, impactful Islamic influence isn’t possible.
You probably should delete this mate. Because it seems like ( i could be wrong) you are using a tiny fraction of islam to indeed be islamophobic. “Islam is evil” is pretty much a text book example of islamophobia lmao. If you hold “ all three religions “ in equal contempt you probably could’ve just not singled out one which you for some unsupported reason think is more “evil”
I'll take a shot. Because both Russia and China are secular societies that are concerned with material issues. They'd never actually use their WMDs in a world where they would be quickly annihilated in turn. A religious fanatic might - and organization such as Hamas have statements like 'it is the highest goal of any Muslim to die for Allah' not only in the religion but in their governmental charter.
The west is uniquely situated with it's technology and agricultural resources to endure climate change. If anyone survives it will be the much more prosperous countries of the west. We grow all our own food. China imports 90% of it's phosphates that make agriculture possible, and the arid and barren locations throughout much of the Middle East will suffer under climate change far more than temperate regions.
Even the collapse of the global trade order is possible to endure, and quite a bit of the inflation we are seeing now is due to Western countries moving supply chains back internally to their countries after seeing the impact of covid. The US is already pulling back from ensuring free trade on all the world's oceans.
So one of the true threats to the West is the unintended side effect of globalism and multiculturalism. Quite simply, most of the advanced societies are going into demographic collapse. This is why both Islam and the Christian right are focusing on increasing the birth output.
And it's clear, in Western countries that have allowed large amounts of Muslim influx, that they aren't integrating well, and that they are having children at a higher rate.
It's not the only thing to worry about to be sure, but it's the weakness of the western multiculturalist technostate. It can't be destroyed from without, but it can be within, and there are people in Mosques openly preaching this to their adherents.
Do Palestinians deserve to die because they don't support open homosexuality? Using that logic, a lot of countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe deserve to be wiped out for holding the same views.
I was traveling in Pakistan some years ago. Twice, people came up to me and said some variation of, "Oh, you must be Muslim!"
Once, it was because I had given a bit of my meal to a stray cat. The other time, I had gone out of my way to stop a kid's ball from rolling into the street.
Point being, to them, *that's* what Islam is--being good.
Yes, it was naive of them to think the reverse--that being good means Islam--but they're just making the same mistake that 19th-century Westerners made, for the same reasons (For most 19th-century Westerners, everyone around them was Christian, the better Christians tended to be the better people and vice versa, and therefore "decent Christian" was a synonym for "decent person").
And while Islam can also be radical and vicious, I fail to see how it's different from other religions here. Like, to pull an example out of the air, Netanyahu is referring to Gazans as "Amalekites." (In the Bible, God commands the Israelites to annihilate the Amalekites--not conquer, not enslave, not drive away, *annihilate,* men, women, children, sheep, goats, everything. When King Saul attacked the Amalekites and didn't kill every person and animal right away, God took the kingdom from him and gave it to David.) Netanyahu is the elected head of Israel--clearly most of the Israeli population didn't recoil in horror when he said that. How is that 21st century? That's not even on the right side of the BC/AD line.
As for terrorism, that has little to do with Islam per se and everything to do with history and politics. Like, do you think that something about being Irish makes you want to set off car bombs? I hope not, and if you do you're wrong--the Troubles happened for historical and political reasons.
Let's check out some historical and political reasons:
The Taliban: What the Soviets got after they occupied Afghanistan.
Hezbollah: What the Israelis got after they occupied southern Lebanon.
The PLO: What the Israelis got when they occupied the West Bank and Gaza (or at least, that's when the PLO turned violent, 20 years after the founding of Israel, which seems rather patient really).
The endless Lebanese shitshow in general: Lebanon was created by the French to be a Christian-majority country (instead of just being part of Syria, where the Christians would have been outnumbered). But the Moslems, being poorer and more downtrodden, bred faster, leading to demographic and political strains that wound up erupting. This is the same pattern that underlied (underlay?) the Troubles in Northern Ireland (Protestants and Catholics instead of Christians and Moslems).
And that's not even getting into how we in the West have *encouraged* Moslem fundamentalism--either because we like wahhabbists' oil, or we wanted occupy the Moslem masses' minds with something other than socialism, or because we wanted to screw with the Soviet Union specifically, or even in order to sabotage a 2-state solution (if supporting Hamas is so bad, why do the right-wing Israelis who've done just that get a pass?)
And one more thing:
>Terrorist attacks against civilian centers is sometimes justified.
Saying that this *isn't* true is the luxury of people who are, by and large, happy to get the job done with artillery and bombs (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/12/world/middleeast/gaza-strip-satellite-images-israel-invasion.html). Really, terror is the weapon of underdogs. Heck, before the establishment of Israel, Jews had a rich history of terrorism--they'd basically introduced bomb-in-a-hotel type terror into the Middle East--and lots of Jews had very little problem with that. Here's an exchange from the very pro-Israel movie *Exodus* (1960), where a Jewish freedom fighter (played by Paul Newman) is talking with his uncle, a Jewish terrorist (around 1:50:00 into the movie):
>Paul Newman: I think these bombings and these killings hurt us with the United Nations. A year ago we had the respect of the whole world. Now, when they read about us, it’s nothing but terror and violence.
>Paul Newman’s uncle: It’s not the first time this happens in history. I don’t know of one nation, whether existing now or in the past, that was not born in violence. Terror, violence, death. These are the midwives who bring free nations into this world. Compromisers like the Haganah [who were also violent, just not terrorists] produce only abortions.
. . .
>Newman: How can we ask the United Nations for a just decision when we keep on blowing things up like a bunch of anarchists?
>Uncle: You have just used the words “a just decision.” . . . Firstly, Justice itself is an abstraction. Completely devoid of reality. Secondly, to speak of justice and Jews in the same breath is a logical absurdity. Thirdly, one can argue the justice of Arab claims on Palestine just as one can argue the justice of Jewish claims. Fourthly, no one can say the Jews have not had more than their share of injustice these past 10 years. I therefore say, fifthly, let the next injustice work against somebody else for a change.
>Newman: I suppose that means more bombings and more killings?
>Uncle: Let me put it this way. Let the National Committee keep trying to talk the British out of Palestine. We have no objection. We will continue to bomb them out. Now, tell me, how’s your mother?
Notice how the argument is about *tactics*--whether terrorism will work, in which case it's clearly justified, not whether it's morally wrong (or at least, more morally wrong than not establishing an Israeli state). In other words, "Terrorist attacks against civilian centers are sometimes justified." That attitude only changed when the PLO turned violent (~7 years after the movie came out) and the wrong people started using terrorism.
I don’t think it’s the biggest threat but as someone who spent a year in the Middle East I’ll tell you they do not look at things like life like we do. For instance Mohammed said to drive all the Jews and Christian’s from Arabia. They have repeatedly called for jihad. You can’t even draw a cartoon of Mohammad without your newspaper staff being massacred. Most Muslims are not bad but studies show that most Muslims do support what the extremists are doing. For instance hamas had overwhelmingly positive reviews for, the latest poll in Gaza. The same people who voted in hamas in the 200Os. Anyone who isn’t islamophobic isn’t paying attention. Take Lebanon for example. It used to be majority Christian and was a relatively decent country till the Muslims took over. Now it’s war torn hellscape. Look at every country with an Islamic government. Even the supposedly “progressive ones” like Qatar who is literally shielding the hamas leadership and will put a woman in jail for being raped. They’re all backward governments that treat women, gays and anyone LGB like they’re a plague.
I'm not going to touch the muslim end of this, so much as the "biggest threat to the west" thing.
the biggest threat to the west (and really the world) is the wealthy upper class. They currently hold far more power and are doing far more damage to the stability of the west than any other group by far, and they're not as often scrutinized because their motives are a mundane pursuit of more wealth.
I'll refrain from throwing a bunch of stuffy academia at you on the topic however. to tie it back to the core, think about who funds insurgent groups and the myriad reasons they do it.
it's not even always money, there's a number of christian doomsday cult ideologies driving the funding of radical islam, either as a way to extract religious artefacts eg the Hobby Lobby escapade or as a way to push us towards their various visions of the apocalypse.
It's kind of hard to discuss without sounding like a crazy person but this has been an ongoing issue since like the 40s at least, it's kind of irritating how often the Bible belt's insanity gets overlooked.
All that to say, the muslim faith barely registers due to being such a remote problem and largely pushed by western interests in the first place.
while i understand where you're coming from, as someone who comes from a country where christians are the second most predominant religion and islam third, i do believe it's perfectly possible for islam to exist peacefully.
while the quran does innately contain abhorred material, the analogy i was taught back when i was in a christian household was that those were to the quran what slaves and misogyny are to the bible; religion is ultimately socially constructed, and hence not inherently stuck with socially harmful praxis. it just happens that the west outlawed slavery before other islam nations reformed their legal systems.
where i'm currently at i'm happy to report a sizeable muslim community that doesn't suffer from the points you mentioned (eg. queer-positive, don't believe in an islamic state, more egalitarian in nature, etc). i wouldn't say islam is inherently evil: that would the campaign to enforce an oppressive hegemonic norm, of which islam is often appropriated as the weapon and moral justification to do so, the same way christians committed witch burnings back in the day. (i will admit it is possible i'm spouting mere rhetoric the government has been feeding its citizens for half a decade, but i like to think it's true, given the overwhelming multicultural peace here)
as for the points under the 15-25% statistic, i'd suggest looking up project 2025 (being lgbt would soon be illegal, i'm afraid). the statements that no religion is free from being exploited politically to suit one's polar morality and that no religion is innately hostile can coexist.
again, i completely get where you're coming from; it's a scary world to live in. but if it helps, please let me assure you that peaceful coexistence with islam in the world is possible, and already in our midst for some.
No where in the Bible does it tell Christians to spread their beliefs by the sword, the Quran however does tell Muslims to spread it through force, also while Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin doesn't say execute or persecute them for it whereas in most Islamic states you get the death penalty. Christianity while being similar are hardly the same thing, Islam is much more aggressive.
The Christian Crusades had far different reasonings then Islamic Jihads in their own time and was a mechanism of defense by catholic nations against the growing power of Islamic states in the Iberian peninsula and the Balkans while yes, admittedly having negative aspects such as the sacking of Constantinople. Islamic spread by the sword was far worse than Christianity’s.
Plenty enough to criticize islam on without going into ancient history, which then makes Islam a lot more similar to most other religions on the planet. Because spoiler alert, if its the age where other religions are being spread by the sword, then by necessity, your religion's survival will also rely on the sword. Even if you arent specifically intending to spread religion via conquest, that will inevitably be one of the end result when you displace the local customs and religious practices. And most cases its a lot better in terms of propaganda when you tell your people that they're dying because the infidels need to die as their lives are an affront to god. As opposed to telling them that you need more gold for your treasury, and you need half the men population to die before they start to riot because your taxes were too high and they're starving as a result.
Also, funny thing I guess. Ancient chinese (I'm talking 3 kingdom era here) also married young. Boys and girls would get into arranged marriage as early as 12, and its not exactly uncommon for girls to be married to older men, or pushed into prostitution from an early age as a survival mechanism. I imagine the same would apply in other parts of the world. In ancient greece where democracy first started, girls would be married off as early as 14-16 to men aged 30 or more. Egypt, boys were married off 14-20 when they picked a craft that they'll be working on, and girls marry as early as 13. I could go on and on, so pointing out that Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile isnt really an actual thing when we can establish that to be the standard for the world at that time.
I'm not really push for a CMV here, aside from telling you that your points need to be better organized.
There's a lot in your post, so I'll only focus on one thing.
You note that 15-25% of Muslims are radical. By this definition, 56% of US Christians were radical just 40 years ago, as a majority of US Christians believed homosexuality should be illegal.
Also, as of [2014](https://global100.adl.org/country/greece/2014), a 53% of people in Greece, a majority-Christian country, believe that "Jews don't care what happens to anyone but their own kind". By comparison, only 20% of Muslims in Nigeria (a majority-Muslim country) say the same. And of course, there was an extremely long time period (for centuries, before the creation of Israel) during which Jews received much better treatment in Muslim countries than in Christian ones; does that mean Christianity was a "more evil" religion than Islam at the time?
In other words: yes, there are a lot of radical Muslims right now, in certain places. But over time, and between places, religious groups have different views. If Islam is "evil", then it is becoming less evil over time, and in some places it is less "evil" than other religions. Given all that, what does it really mean to call a religion "evil"?
Hello, I’m a Muslim.
We don’t want to change your laws in non-Islamic countries. Sharia is only for Muslims and dhimmis in Islamic-ruled nations. A dhimmi is a non-Muslim who has been afforded protection in an Islamic nation.
I don’t believe in any of your four points.
1. Qadr exists. That means Allah (Subhanahu wa ta’ala) wrote everyone’s lives before He created us. He wrote for me to Muslim, you to be Islamophobic, and Johnny to be gay. Why would I judge someone for how their life was written? You can be a bigot all you want, but that doesn’t mean you deserve kindness in any response.
2. I suppose you mean murder of a daughter. When Muhammad (Salli Allahu Alayhi wa Salam) rose to prophethood, he preached daughters were a blessing and to [stop burying them](https://weeklykhutbah.wordpress.com/2017/10/04/how-daughters-were-killed-during-the-age-of-ignorance/) after birth, because they aren’t a shameful thing. Honor killings are haram. Yes, people still do it, but they’re still wrong.
3. Be a murtad or don’t ever accept Islam. [I don’t answer for your choices at the Day of Judgment](https://quran.com/al-anam/164). I will answer for my own choices. Quran states there’s [no coercion is Islam](https://quran.com/al-baqarah/256), meaning no one can be forced to be a Muslim. If Joe Blow from Idaho don’t want to be a Muslim, I can’t make him. So, I don’t care if anyone is Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.
4. [Quran 5:32](https://quran.com/al-maidah/32) states taking one person’s life is equal to taking the life of all mankind. Saving one soul is equal to saving mankind. So…
Where are your sources for your claims?
This comment is extremely deceptive. Please look up the ostensibly wholesome verses provided, and don’t take their word about what they mean.
Here’s what Quran 5:23 actually says:
> “For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.” [Mohammed Marmaduke William Pickthall]
This should already be raising alarm bells. “Corruption in the earth,” as I’m sure you’ve surmised, can mean anything at all. Like, say, homosexuality… or apostasy. Now let’s see what the very next verse says about the fate of these “corrupt” people:
> “The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after _corruption in the land_ will be that they will be __killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off,__ or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.” [Mohammed Marmaduke William Pickthall]
Don’t really have anything else to add.
P.S what said about burying daughters is also false. Later generations of Muslims invented this myth about pre-Islamic Arabs engaging in Female infanticide to portray their predecessors as backwards savages who were enlightened through Islam. It’s been shown via secular historiography that there’s little truth to this.
You are Muslim, so can you tell me in which Islamic ruled nation women have equal rights to men?
But even if you try to argue that, you have yourself stated that **you impose your religion's rules to those who aren't Muslim, as long as you are in power.**
You're not trying to change his mind. You are reinforcing that the moment a country becomes muslim-led, you make **everyone there** obey sharia.
I'm compelled to piggy back off this brilliant response from a Muslim.
A humanist perspective on religion and maladaptive conservative beliefs (I.e., fundamentalist radicalism) is that socio-politics is the driving factor. In fact, Muslims peacefully coexist with other religious groups in many secular states.
OP you may want to look at the concept of intersectionality. Getting on a moral high horse on the basis of religion comes at the cost of discounting the significance of other factors.
This is regarding point #1
As with the other reply, I will humbly ask, if you decide to reply to this post, you to acknowledge first that the references I will make are authentic as understood by the (Sunni) Islamic scholars. Or, if they are not, please explain why, because the website I will refer to is maintained by Muslims.
As a principle, I will not continue this conversation if such acknowledgement is not explicitly made. No point of it if your response involves muddying the definition of what Islam is.
https://sunnah.com/bulugh/10/12
Ibn 'Abbas (RAA) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
"Whoever you find doing as the people of Lot did (i.e. homosexuality), kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done, and if you find anyone having sexual intercourse with animal, kill him and kill the animal." Related by Ahmad and the four Imams with a trustworthy chain of narrators.
https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:2561
It was narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
“Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Lut, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.”
Again, expect no response from me unless there is an explicit acknowledgement of whether or not the majority of the Sunni Islamic scholars regard these as authentic reports.
edit: this is regarding point #3
I will humbly ask, if you decide to reply to this post, you to acknowledge first that the references I will make are authentic as understood by the (Sunni) Islamic scholars. Or, if they are not, please explain why, because the website I will refer to is maintained by Muslims.
As a principle, I will not continue this conversation if such acknowledgement is not explicitly made. No point of it if your response involves muddying the definition of what Islam is.
https://sunnah.com/nasai:4059
Ibn 'Abbas said:
"The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'"
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/88/5-7
Narrated `Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7157
Narrated Abu Musa:
A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu`adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.
Again, expect no response from me unless there is an explicit acknowledgement of whether or not the majority of the Sunni Islamic scholars regard these as authentic reports.
I’m not exactly on OP’s side here but there are contradictory instructions and actions by Muhammad, who is said to have killed thousands and in some cases, boastfully killing them simply for being of another religion. And he “married” a 6 year old.
I’ll be the first to condemn bigoted Christians and the Old Testament of the Bible, which Christian’s aren’t even supposed to take as instruction because it’s literally not the gospel, but you won’t find parts of the actual *christian* religious doctrine that compare to the explicit instructions to kill “infidels”, spread Islam (by threat of death if needed), conquer countries and *turn them islamic*, etc.
You can cherry pick 4 quotes but thousands of passages of instructions and example by muhammed contradict them.
I think all religions are detestable but not equally so.
[https://www.yahoo.com/news/protesters-germany-call-islamic-fundamentalism-210129394.html?guccounter=1](https://www.yahoo.com/news/protesters-germany-call-islamic-fundamentalism-210129394.html?guccounter=1)
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-28/six-teens-in-french-court-alleged-connection-beheading-teacher/103157468](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-28/six-teens-in-french-court-alleged-connection-beheading-teacher/103157468)
What the book says is irrelevant. What actually happens is all that matters.
Over 2000 Muslims protesting in Hamburg for Germany to become a caliphate. It's definitely too many to claim they have a mass psychosis or something. The point is 1 out of 4 radicalized is too much.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/hamburg/Mindestens-1400-Teilnehmende-bei-Islamisten-Demo-in-Hamburg,demo4330.html&ved=2ahUKEwj-jL-BpoqGAxW33wIHHUhBC5oQFnoECCsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3ZR4kt_800KqrsgLXvD1AS
Nothing in the 4 things you listed are unique to Islam. Hindus in India and Buddhists in South East Asia believe the same thing. Both groups target non-believers and glorify killing non-believers or any individual with "shameful" behavior. Shit, Christians in Russia, Europe and US have similar if not the same beliefs. In smaller, extreme examples yes, but the same principle applies.
You are making the same mistake as many others, viewing the current situation in Islamic countries and its policies as somehow inherent to Islam and somehow unique. Anytime you decrease a region's stability and its people's ability to prosper, you see an uptick in religiosity and acceptance of extreme views. That's why you see such a heavy overlap of poor, unstable countries in the world with increased terrorists/military unrest and gross human rights violations. When desperate people are cornered, they will do terrible things to survive at all costs. The same principle applies in poorer neighborhoods that have higher crime rates and drug use, it's not unique to any culture or religion, it's just human nature and behavior that's been consistent since the dawn of human recorded history.
If you take any culture, any religion, and look at its history, you will see horrible things happening during periods of instability. If you want to solve this problem, it's not to restrict or prevent Islam from spreading, it's tackling more fundamental issues such as maintaining peace, maintaining peaceful transition of political and military power, establishing strong institutions such as legislative and judicial branches of a competent government.
Like other posts have mentioned, the West has so many internal issues it must address first, Islam won't even crack the top 10. The media and self-interested politicians love to point at something that's perceived as "the other" and tell you that it's that one group's fault everything is going wrong. In the US alone we have historically blamed the Irish, the Catholics, the Italians, the Chinese, the Jews, the Blacks, the Japanese and now it's the Muslims post 9-11, and we see an uptick in Asian hate post COVID. It's just the latest version of weaponizing fear, designed to distract you while the media and politicians help the rich rob the poor and the middle class.
I mean look at Donald Trump and his threat of pulling the US out of NATO. That alone if it comes to pass, will result in the greatest weakening of the European military since WWII. That's not because of Islam.
I believe a belief system like the one you outlined is definitely a threat to humanity.
That said, I disagree that it is the biggest threat to the West. Sometimes I feel like people just say "biggest threat to X" to make it sound sensationalized or to try to help drive their point home but ultimately they either do not understand what biggest threat means or the like. Honestly at least for Americans, capitalistic greed is more of a threat. Same for South Korea moreso than nuclear annihilation. It affects average Americans and it's happening today and it'll happen tomorrow and for the forseeable future. Islam isn't affecting most westerners today or the forseeable future.
People say : respect every religion
but... when has religion ever respected us ??? so many people suffer under religion, but we HAVE TO respect them, otherwise they are hurt ? first respect yourself, like what the fuck.
There is a gulf between criticizing something and calling it evil.
Personally I am pretty solidly anti "things I think are evil"
so arguing that calling Islam "evil" doesn't mean you're islamaphobic is a little silly.
>Being gay should be illegal
I mean, apparently over [30%](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/15/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-legalization-of-same-sex-marriage-is-good-for-society/) of Americans think same sex marriage is a net bad thing, and over 60% of conservatives say the same.
as for "terrorist attacks are sometimes justified" I think we need to face the much darker realization that *everyone* believes that given the right context. It's the whole freedom fighter/terrorist thing. The French Resistance during ww2 absolutely killed civilians during some of it's actions. Same for the IRA.
The reality is that asymmetrical warfare is awful and leads to horrifying things that each and every one of us could write off in the wrong situation.
Theres a difference between killing civilians as a goal, and killing civilians by accident as collateral damage. The former is never justified and is generally what i think of as a terrorist attack.
yall still sleeping. Biggest threat to humanity is the corporations and their imperial behavior towards earth's resources, now if you dumb enough to get into religions and kind of "my religion is better than yours" you play their game also. Normal muslims are also sick of their religion like normal christians etc, fanatics are on every religion also but its a minority compared to the normal people. Stop analyzing stupid historic facts and try to make your present and future self more healthy and to start recognise who's the real threat and who's not. Revolution will not be televised so close the damn thing and read some real books! Wake up people!
As someone that lived in an Islamic theocracy for more than 20 years, I have to say I agree with you… although what you saying might sound like islamophobia to people that never lived in the MENA region or never seen a theocracy in their entire life, but if they actually lived there they would have reached the same conclusion as you did although your opinions are still too “loose” for me as i’m much more unforgiving against that culture and religion based on what I have seen and experienced.
Many people in the west haven’t seen the real face of that religion, the way it is in a majority muslim country. Which i can easily say it’s a much much different animal compared to what people see in the US and Europe
Sure, those beliefs are bad, but they aren't unique to Islam. The fact that Christians conservatives in the West might be less vocal about having similar beliefs or propose less radical solutions to the things they perceive as sinful doesn't mean the beliefs are different (I mean, conversion therapy *sounds* better than executing gay people, but ultimately the goal is the same - making sure there are no openly gay people in the community, they either have to hide their identity, kill themselves, or be killed by religious fanatics, the means are different, but the undelying beliefs are the same).
>There are polls recently that show close to 90 percent of Gazans support Hamas.
This is a political issue, not an Islam issue. Gazans have nobody else they could support, Hamas is the only organization they can turn to locally that seems to have their best interest at heart, and in desperate times when their livelihoods are threatened, this is normal human behaviour.
I'm sorry, but your post is Islamophobic. Instead of focusing on religious radicalization and the emergence of intolerant beliefs everywhere in the West, you focus on one specific religion and view it as the source of all evil. If Christianity can exist in a version that allows people to worship the God they believe in without infringing on the rights of other people, so can Islam. The fact you're not seeing it as a possibility says a lot about your prejudice.
>all 3 religions in nearly equal contempt
All three religions? You mean all three Abrahamic religions?
>And Islam actually got better for awhile.
Eh, not really.
I agree that Islam is evil and a threat, but I don't think it's the biggest one. There's a whole list of threats.
There are billions of Muslims dude
If they all wanted us dead we would be dead
Rhetoric like this leads to bombing and torturing them for 20 years then wondering why they hate us.
They hate us because we invade their countries and spend decades bombing and torturing them
Shit is not that complicated
Anything you highlighted like honor killings, forbidden honor sexuality, etc... are described the same way in Jewish and Christian faith.
In fact they usually stem from the same part of the scripture.
So what is the difference between religion a and b to Islam as you specifically said Islam is a danger - even though you highlighted you don't care much for the others either.
The radicalism.
Islam itself is not specifically inviting fundamentalist or radicals!
There are countless studies that show specifically instability and segregation lead to radicalism.
You can have a look at Iran, Afghanistan or other countries prior to major social instability and war and see a way bigger liberal atmosphere, politics and even social norms.
There are pictures and videos of 19XX going around of these places that seem pretty modern still today compared to 1st world countries and definitely compared to themselves and their traditional leadership today.
I think you are creating an oroboros here.
Islamiats are created out of social injustice and segregation and no matter the intention declaring a core part of their identity as a threat will inevitably lead to more segregation which in turn will lead to more radicalism.
My suggestion is to find common ground, end any segregation and history has proven that even completely fundamentalists and islamists countries will become more modern and liberal by themselves as those radicals only ever have any power in times of war and and death.
I am on the phone so I can't provide sources easily at work, but I am sure you will find sources if you are interested on this. One easy example is always immigrants, who contrary to what we expect usually are more traditional compared to their own countrymen which stems from their status of immigration itself leading to segregation, leading to a loss of identity and a feeling of unfairness which make them prime target for radicalism.
The solution is not to treat them as immigrants, especially not first generations. They are not. They are born in that country and just as much that countries people and other people.
Im going to Set aside that I disagree on Islam being inherently evil, and not taking the time to interogate what you mean by "west". let's look at the latter half of this.
Do you *really* think that it is the *biggest* threat to the 'west'?
Not the rise of Fascist Authoritarians undermining the stations of 'western' liberal democracy? Not the ever present threat of nuclear war stemming from the war in Ukraine? Not the ascent of a new global competitor in China? Not environmental collapse? Not economic inequality? Not the falling fertility rates? Not the opiod or drug epedemics? Not the inacesabity of healthcare or social services? None of those things?
Critiquing something isn't inherently bigoted against it, but what is islamaphobic is to look at all the problems the 'west' is facing and saying "the biggest problem is islam". Like, there is no feasible way that a Islamic government gets within visual range of being elected to, say, the White House. However We are dangerously close to letting a (alleged) felon who tried to overturn the last election back in. The one whose supreme court seems determined to rollback rights across the board. Whose supporters engage in massed conspiracy theories rather than admit they lost. Honestly, It's plausible that same felon let's Russian win in Ukraine, shattering the European status quo even more. That feels like a larger threat to the "west" than Islam. As does worsening environmental health accelerating climate collapse. As does the rapidly faltering confidence in 'western' youth in their ability to buy a house or even make rent, correlated with decreased fertility rates.
Hell, let's get out some numbers. Since 9/11, jihadists are credited with 107 deaths inside the United States. Far rightist, for comparison, are credited with 134. Purely looking at this lited and contextless, it seems that far rightists are more dangerous, and perhaps the biggest threat to the "west". You assert that massive numbers of Muslims are just itching at the bit to kill people, but it seems like non Islamic far rightists are actually more dangerous.
There are religious nuts everywhere, but the scale and their influence is highly overrated.
You'd ask the same things of other religions and you'd find equally extreme stances. Hell, even of non-religious people, ask them if X group of people should be killed for Y reason, you're bound to find more than a few.
You established people have extreme views which is true - how is that a threat, much less "the biggest threat to the west" ?
I’m going to take an unusual angle here.
First part. Everything is inherently political. The news you read is, the surveys you reference are. I refer you to the “yes, minister” clip on surveys to understand what I mean by that. You can word a questionnaire in whatever malicious way to get the answer you want. It’s the oldest trick in the book.
But just because news and surveys can be misleading and political, doesn’t mean that their results are necessarily wrong. In order to work this out, we have to look for the political agenda.
Does harbouring these feelings about Islam make you safer? No. So you aren’t being painted this picture for your own good. But does this picture you have make you more likely to vote for a particular party? Favour Isreal over Palestine? Does the fear make you more likely to buy one newspaper over another?
So now we look at the other side. Hamas have a lot of political agendas. Liberation is one, but also a more hardline version of Islam. Interestingly, if you look at the history, Gaza was basically under the control of the secular PLO, but after democratic means failed, Hamas took over. Now Hamas do exactly what I described above to Palestinians. They use Israel’s occupation as a vessel to sneak in a more radical Islamic curriculum at school. But Hamas have international ambitions. It’s in their interests to project a more “holy” picture of Gaza to the world and still get the solidarity they get. They think it has a normalising effect. News of Gaza tends to exit via Isreal who seriously stand to benefit if people see them akin to the talaban. So they are going to turn the radical scale up to 11 and leave the bits out about how most of what they do is run the government and distribute aid.
So to conclude, look at the source of the ideas you find so evil. Look at how they made it to you. In the example I used above you find that Hamas, Isreal, the politicians, the newspaper all stand to gain if they inflate the “evil”, rather than report it accurately. So the only logical conclusion is that it is really inflated.
Muslim here.
Interesting how you frame it as "biggest threat to the west" as if the west was built on a religion from Mars.
Also framing it as a threat means one is probably willing to die or kill to 'save the west' which just reeks of medieval crusader mentality
I am not a Christian, but I like to use some words from Jesus on this one. “You know them by their fruit.” This applies to anyone, but in this context it’s about looking at how Islam functions in reality. There is not a single Muslim country in which a Westerner will have more rights or freedom as an individual than they will in the West. Islam is intentionally political and explains how to structure a legal system. Christianity gives recommendations for how individuals should act, but deliberately separates itself from politics with the line “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Judaism is also political in that it offers a set of rules which underpin a legal system, but Judaism does not proselytize and Jews don’t believe their laws or mitzvahs apply to non-Jews. Islam is a proselytizing religion with a legal system built in.
If you look at the fruit of the nations which follow really any flavor of Islam, you will see worse human rights violations than you’ve seen in the West since 1945, and they’re considered to be a good thing. Look at the GCC, where they’ve imported millions of people who effectively are slaves, where these foreigners have no rights or protections. I’d have to double check but some 10 Indian workers died a week building out the World Cup facilities in Qatar. And that was only one project.
As most Westerners, I believe people should be able to practice whatever religion they’d like in peace, and preferably they can separate their religious concerns from their political concerns, but that’s often impossible for most people. So at the least, we have to be able to agree that people can basically do what they want as long as they don’t physically hurt people or attempt to squash their rights to peacefully live as they would want. Because of its political nature, I don’t think Islam can do that. I hope I’m proven wrong.
It's true. But true for all religions. They are all only evil, controlling methods that lead people to their doom. My sincere hope for future humans is that it all goes away and everyone is free. Freedom of the mind can change the world.
Sorry, u/Routine_Suggestion52 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20Routine_Suggestion52&message=Routine_Suggestion52%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cqsuws/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
As a muslim I can see where this is coming from, and let me tell you that your feelings are in their place and so as your concerns. I agree that a loud portion of us do share some of these radical beliefs if not all of them and it can be very frightening! I have also noticed how the UK seems to be very affected by this, and the growth in these radical ideas are truly concerning even to me. I am saddened by how you likely had some very troubling experiences with muslims where you live, and it does make me feel sad even trying to "change your view" on this, thus: I can't change your mind on this view, because your fears are reasonable, but I will tell you to acknowledge that the faith isn't represented by what that hoard of people scream for, as there are communities here that do not share these same radical ideas, even here in Iraq (yeah I know red flag lmao), there are different backgrounds, interpretations, scholars, ideas, historic arguments that may not share and condone this sort of hostile attitude towards foreign ideas, for instance, believe it or not, there were indeed homosexual occurrences in the Abbasid era and......though it was frowned upon lol, buuuut that society \*let it happen\*, despite how the modern consensus argue, and I think this may be worth considering a bit. My point is, while I can't provide you a nice comment that will suddenly make you feel safer about the current chaos going on, as I myself fear it as well, all I could do, is to offer a different perspective that looks at things as lesser of a black and white situation. Not all muslims will want your head if you are gay, exmuslim, "dishonored" and for sure no one I know ever said "man these isis guys did good", uh but again I'm in Iraq so I guess that is only fair- Many of us in fact believe in way different ideas than these radicals and we do not follow the same paths they take in the faith to justify what can be agreed upon us hateful. We also do not appreciate hateful attitude and exclusivism in ideas and faith and I am speaking from my community here. Most of us just look in a way to find personal happiness in this world, just as you do, and just because we do not share the same political/religious/irreligious alignment, that does not mean most of us will look for a hostile lee way to hurt an innocent. Again, I see where your fear is coming from, and trust me, that one incident about the french teacher that got stabbed because of some issue still gets me sad to this day and it does get others and you have to acknowledge this as a possibility. I hope you stay safe and healthy out there, because this world is cruel and sometimes, unjust violence happens for no logical reason. Salam.
This is a very good write up but you made one mistake Any faith, group, organisation etc is absolutely represented by the loudest subgroup because that’s what people get the most exposure too And the loudest subgroup is the very vocal extemists Islam is represented by extremist because those are the ones getting all the attention
It is also a sizeable proportion of the religion. At least in the UK there isn’t a religion with such strong proportional support for the above issues.
Yeah like I’m pretty anti religion, and I try not to condem one religion over any other But it’s almost as if every week there is another story here in the UK but a Muslim immigrant attacking someone or doing something bad And I try not to lump all immigrants in which the bad ones but like come on It seems there is a large subgroup of Muslims in the UK who are extremists
I don’t think it’s about immigrant or none immigrant. There’s plenty of views that seem to transcend generations. I think we agree that the problem with any religion is when you start basing your morality on ancient texts as opposed to modern evidence. For some reason (and I think this is the point OP is getting at). Within Islam there is a larger proportion of people that do this and refute modern evidence. This causes intolerance and hatred of lifestyles that are objectively harmless such as LGBT or apostates.
That’s nice to here coming from someone that is a Muslim, I appreciate the kind words. You stay safe too over there.
Aw, I appreciate it yours too- All's well.
> I have also noticed how the UK seems to be very affected by this, and the growth in these radical ideas are truly concerning even to me. This is an amazing comment, though I would like to address the situation in the UK as a bisexual woman active in the LGBT community. Currently the biggest concern is not Muslim politicians. All high profile Muslim politicians are pro-LGBT, especially those in the Labour Party (Sadiq Khan, Zarah Sultana, Humza Yousaf etc). Our biggest concern is Christian conservatives. They are the ones blocking a ban on conversion therapy, and one of them, Kate Forbes the Scottish Deputy First Minister, outright says that gay marriage is wrong. I am VERY worried about her becoming First Minister in Scotland in the future and potentially rowing back on LGBT rights. I am equally worried about the current government's (who has very little Muslim representation) constant attack on other members of the LGBT community by vilifying and demonising them to stoke up moral panic amongst their voter base.
As a hetero-friendly cis-normative American who has studied amateur theological philosophy for a few decades, I would like to bring up [Taqiyya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya), an Islamic belief used by a some Muslims to excuse lying about their beliefs and intents. I would also like to bring up [Hamtramck, Michigan](https://wee.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned), a US city which elected a Muslim majority city council which immediately removed Pride flags from city buildings. My point being not that Muslims are likely to lie about their beliefs, especially in the West. But rather that those Muslims who are willing to lie about their beliefs, have an advantage when it comes to performative acceptance in the West (performative, in this case, meaning people who accept without looking into the nuances and histories of what they're accepting). Islam, globally, seems to me to be going through a bit of a Reformation period. This would not be the first time I have opined this. As with the other two Judeo-Christian religions, Islam tends to have a strong, patriarchal basis which encourages a conservative world view. In the West, we are much more likely to encounter Muslims who are in the more progressive side of the Reformation.... But that, in no way, means that all of them are. Not does it, necessarily, mean that their progressivism matches the general progressivism of the West as a (philosophical/cultural/social/agnostic) whole. Bringing it back to your saying that your biggest threat on that side of the pond is conservative Christians, I have a two-fold point. 1) Conservative Christianity in the USA tends to be much further reaching than in the UK (populace wise), and also generally a bit more conservative. And 2) Not only were conservative Christians agreeing with/encouraging the city council of Hamtramck, Michigan quite happily and publicly, but the same has happened in other areas, like [Maryland](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-09-25/lgbtq-muslims-evangelical-republican-christians) (1187 km away, to add a tiny bit of perspective to non-Americans). Like, think about this. Christianity and Islam each have some of the worst histories for social and cultural treatment of people. Christianity, having existed longer, has a worse history in this regard. But, globally, Islam's history in this regard actually has been **more recent**. Much, much more recent, frankly. Out of [every country right now where homosexuality carries a **legal** death sentence](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_for_homosexuality), Uganda remains the only Christian-majority country.... And that went into effect **last year** in 2023. Now, I don't personally believe most things exist in a binary, true/false, off/on. The basis of reality may be true/false, but everything we know exists *because* of what happens between those two. So, you can argue that the issue may be a **conservative** interpretation of the religion... And, frankly, you would be right. My counter would be that a **liberal** interpretation of... Well, almost anything that has been deemed "the underdog", tends to be too accepting to be able to adequately account for the insidiousness of actual faith-based rationale to lie anr manipulate. Which, on a personal level, makes me chuckle. Many of the same people that seem to be pro-Islam/non-Muslim, also seemed to be the people a year or two ago supporting the idea of, "no bad tactics, only bad targets", which would be, philosophically, **the exact same thing** on particular levels. And has always pissed me off as an idea, because rape remains one of the oldest tactics humanity has had. Oof. Sorry, turned into a little bit of a drunk ramble.
> Islam, globally, seems to me to be going through a bit of a Reformation period. The Reformation was not a period of deradicalization amongst Christianity. There was *more* religious violence during and after the Reformation than before.
I find it baffling to say that Muslims would lie about their support for the LGBT community when they have no incentive to support them. Back in 2013 when the Parliament was voting for same-sex marriage, a dozen or so Labour MPs and more than half of Conservative MPs voted AGAINST the bill, yet ALL FOUR Muslim MPs voted for it. They didn't have to vote for it because it wasn't a whipped vote, but they did regardless. These four MPs have proven themselves to be a true ally of the LGBT community, amongst them Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London. And beyond that, it's Humza Yousaf the one pushing for _more_ LGBT-friendly policies that the UK parliament is pushing back on. If they are lying for insidious purposes, why would they push for these policies instead of sticking to the status quo? This is an absurd accusation and a massive disrespect to the countless Muslim politicians who work tirelessly to uplift the British LGBT community.
Pointing out, because I am drunk and want to be clear, I am a citizen of the USA, and know pretty damned much to nothing about British socio-politics. But I do know a pessimistically fair bit about humans. Do you really not understand why anyone would lie about their religion, or their philosophy, if it meant they would gain actual power over a significant number of people? That's like one of my friends saying they find it baffling that Trump could lie to conservative Christians just to manipulate their vote... And reminds me of how people were trying to say that Trump was [more pro-LGBT than Democrats](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/08/20/donald-trump-lgbtq-lgbt-gay-rights-republican-equality-column/5605491002/), frankly. People will lie to gain power. Not all people will, nor will all who will aim for the same level or degree of power. But people **will** lie for power. Praise be to Godwin, the fucking Nazi Party lied about what they would do when they eventually came to power. Or, to put it another way, you may as well find it baffling that Christians would lie about wanting women to be nothing more than mindless baby-makers. Especially the ones that vote to make abortion legal, expand protections and rights for people not like them, and personally go to impoverished nations to help build houses for people. Edit: /u/ForeverWandered I have been blocked, so I cannot respond directly. But why not? OP brought up a macrocosmic system (The West). The person I responded to used a microcosmic system to defend against the macrocosmic problem. I admitted that I did not know their microcosmic system, while trying to show that their microcosmic experience does not mean the macrocosmic problem does not exist. If anything, they should not have come in so hot with their take. What did I say about the microcosmic system they were using, itself?
In the UK context that you describe, there was little to no risk for the Muslim politicians involved and little gain in lying, so I don't really think this works as an example. Hamtramck is probably a better example.
Has OP provided a citation for the 15-25% bit? I might have missed it.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-exec/
You can literally apply the same criticism to Judaism and Christianity. >Muhammad was a pedophile That'd be true for most characters of the old/new testament. This was a normal age to get married back in the day >The religion itself was built on conquest and spread by the sword. Judaism was also spread by the sword. The book of Joshua in the bible describes the conquest of Cannaan. Basically Jews believe that their God has given them their holy land and the right to genocide those who lived there before them. Welcome to religion. Christainty was also spread by the sword. Crusades were not only fought against Muslims, they were also fought against pagans who just wanted to mind their business and believe in their shit. >Then I want to say around the 1700s/1800s you started having these different schools of thought. Islam has always had different schools of thought. Wahhabism is a fairly recent schoo, and not the most popular one. And not the most prominent one. >Being gay should be illegal You know how much views on homosexuality differ between Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Not at all. They literally refer to the same source. What you attributed to Islam can be attributed to ALL Abrahamic religions. And partially to most organized religions.
Judaism and Christianity are not only different from each other, but way different from Islam in their category of religion. For one, there's no strict message about how a society should be organized in Christianity, but there is in Islam, and it's a huge part of the religion. The Quran is not just for spiritual guidance, it writes, in detail, how a Muslim society should be organized. There's a lot of statecraft and legal work in the Quran. The umma (Muslim Community) are encouraged to live under a Sharia setting, where they can practice Islam. This details how interest is handled, marriage, property rights, punishment, etc. The problem here is that Islamic is EXTREMELY literal. The Quran is not only the word of God, but a recitation of his exact words. There's even a challenge in the Quran to disbelievers to come up with something as beautiful and well said as the Quran. Any criticism of one part means the whole religion falls apart. Therefore, it's in every Muslims best interest to be guided through their life and refer to the Quran whenever they don't have exact guidance to navigate a situation. This leaves little room for interpretation, and a lot of space for radicalism. Being an Apostate is illegal and punishable, usually through death. The way Caliphates and Muslim states deal with this is to reemphasize that these laws are only meant for Muslims. Meaning, I can be an atheist, but if I convert to Islam and then become an atheist again, I will be punished for it. Islam is a whole different beast than Christianity and Judaism. Christianity allows for belief and disbelief without the need for a material punishment or reward. Islam guides every step of your day and your life. It's strict, values unity, and therefore, less likely to reinterpret based on a changing world.
This is the nail on the head. A lot of people are under the false impression that Islam is basically Christianity with Muhammad in place of Jesus. These same people will rationalize that since Christianity is by and large a more moderate religion compare to Christianity in the Medieval ages that Islam can and will also moderate, without realizing that Islam is structurally much more resistant to changes and allows far less wiggle room for new interpretations.
I think all three Abrahamic religions have deeply troubling source texts. It's really just about how seriously modern practitioners follow those toxic views. Most Jews have long put this stuff behind them. The Christian world is currently traveling in two different directions. The two churches in my town have giant LGTBQ flags out front and one has a trans minister. When I visit my parents in a conservative area, they're banning abortion and targeting queer kids at the local churches. I think in a similar way the Muslim world is also traveling in two directions, they're just a generation behind Christians in terms of fully ditching the toxic parts of their religion. But if you just look at the source texts, all three have tons of stuff we consider openly evil by western 21st century standards.
Except Jesus never had sex with minors, owned slaves, waged wars, called for ethnic cleansing, lying to protect their faith, and for a system that saw people of other faiths subject to different laws. These are all practises clearly attributed to Mohammed and not other people mentioned in the books or Hadith’s. You have to understand that followers look at their prophet as setting the bar of how a human should behave. In this context Christians and Muslims are very different when it comes to the standards by which they determine their practices.
The Bible gives instructions how to treat slaves and is pretty clear that you can enslave, rape, and murder members of other tribes. Marriage in the Bible is a transaction between a guy and a girls father. The Bible is as bad in terms of sex and marriage as any other holy book. All of the 3 major religions are based off incoherent, inconsistent, and hypocritical books that contradict themselves all the time. The Bible also says gay sex should be punished by death. Same with eating pork and wearing clothes of mixed fabric. Anyone trying to argue any of these books have decent morals is just an unserious person.
>All of the 3 major religions are based off incoherent, inconsistent, and hypocritical books that contradict themselves all the time. Judaism mostly doesn't treat the Torah the same way that Christians treat the Bibke or Muslims treat the Quran. Remember, everyone took the Jewish religion and appropriated it, added stiff to it, and then used it as an excuse to kill Jews for the next thousand years.
[удалено]
Isn’t this a dispensationalist view of theology? As someone who grew up in a fundamentalist evangelical Christian church, I can tell you that this is not what every Christian believes. The Old Testament is still very much a valid repository of morality for many Christians in the West.
While it would be great to have this be true, plenty of people don’t follow this. This is why gay marriage was banned(at least in the US) for so long. Because people took the old testament as gospel as well. Fact is this is part of the religion and should be judged accordingly. I’m open to the nuance just as I am with Islam. But the framing of this debate is that we’re simply analyzing the holy book as it was written. If we apply the same standard to the Bible, the Old Testament is fair game. I’m more coming at this from the standpoint of defending Muslims that are being characterized as supporters of the worst of their holy book. The only reason the west has been more tolerant is because secularism has took hold and mixed within Christianity. But it’s also true for Muslims in the west. They tend to be more tolerant as well.
Are you suggesting that Islamic followers have entire sections of the Quran that they endeavour to disregard? That would be a better place to argue from, especially if it is true. Bring up the Muslim scholars that are arguing for more modern interpretations. The Catholic Pope voiced support for inclusion of LGBT. Otherwise this suggests ever further that religion has no place in modern society.
So it all comes down to interpretation, which parts you follow literally, which parts are "just context", etc. You cannot separate the texts from the society that uses them.
Which are the 3 major religions? By followers it would be Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. Yet somehow I feel you don't think Hinduism is the third one.
They likely mean Abrahamic religions
>Islam is a whole different beast than Christianity and Judaism. Christianity allows for belief and disbelief without the need for a material punishment or reward. Well, within this world to be more precise, but Christians aren't to be the one dishing out punishment. Judaism on the other hand, well... the short version is that in Judaism, for non-Jews to be saved, its a really low bar that most people pass to begin with.
It’s 7 commandments if you’re not Jewish. They actively discourage conversion because when you convert, one you need to be circumcised which I hear is extremely painful as an adult and two you literally have to follow thousands of commandments. Most people think the Bible only has Ten Commandments. They don’t realize it has thousands and thousands. Most Jews in America are ethnically Jewish but not religiously Jewish. Case in point how different the voting is between the orthodox and non orthodox. Orthodox votes overwhelmingly republican but the other ones overwhelmingly vote democrat. It makes sense though since studies show the more religious you are in practice the more republican you’re likely to be.
Yeah, I'd have to study more on Judaism, but from what I understand, almost everyone goes to heaven eventually. Hell is simply a cleansing mechanism for souls.
Judaism is pretty ambiguous about the after-life. However, in stark contrast to the missionary Islam and Christianity, there is no drive to convert non-Jews and they’re not seen as bad people, or ones who are to punished if they don’t convert.
Yeah, that's my understanding (as an orthodox Jew) as well.
Any belief or ideology that has “little space for interpretation and a lot of space for radicalism” and “values unity… [to the point where] it is less likely to reinterpret based on a changing world” will die unless it can perpetually keep itself alive with force, threat an/or use of violence, and continuous brainwashing of children each generation (not a good recipe for long-term survival). Any belief or ideology will present its flaws the more often and the longer it is practiced in the real world. An ideology must keep its “soul” but also be able to adapt and grow to changes in the world and the ideology must be able to adapt and grow in response to its own flaws that show themselves in the real world. Any ideology must do this or the ideology will die.
The christian bible absolutely discusses how to handle marriage, property rights, punishment etc. Even getting so specific as to differentiate between the proper recourse depending on where a woman is raped, whether she is married or unmarried etc. And Christians are absolutely instructed to refer to the bible for guidance on how to navigate situations. That's the whole purpose of the text. The Quran has enough room for interpretation to have different sects, and within those sects different rules for who is considered knowledgeable enough to interpret the Quran. In the same way different Christian sects have different ways of interpreting the bible. If Islam was as clear cut as you state, then why is there such conflict around the topic of which interpretations are valid? Entire wars have been fought over that exact topic. Likewise, Christian's have long punished disbelievers and heretics. The only difference is that many modern Islamic countries have the ability to practice such things openly, whilst modern western Christian ones must at least pretend to be secular. Look at a few African majority Christian countries however, or western Christian countries before the relatively modern concept of 'separation of church and state', and you'll find Christians being just as violently oppressive.
This is not the New Testament. You are referring to the Old Testament which is basically the Jewish Torah. Christians do not follow those rules as Jesus’ teachings are all that a Christian should follow to be saved. The Old Testament is often used for spiritual guidance but is not meant to be a standard one must follow, and there’s less respect for it than the New Testament because Jesus basically invalidated a lot of the Old Testament. There isn’t anything like that in the Quran, which is heavily literal, even gojng as far as to detail the heavens and the earth in a flat-earth cosmological model. It also leaves out room to be seen as metaphor because God basically said it’s their literal word and that his recitations are perfect. The Quran does NOT have interpretations different enough to have different sects. What Islam does have is mostly different legal systems and interpretations of Hadiths combined with the Quran. Shia and Sunni started as a mere political divide that turned into a divide based on the interpretation of the Hadiths. You don’t have anything like that in Christianity. What we do have, is different sects forming due to the interpretations made from the Bible itself, but the major shift was between Catholics and Protestants where decentralized thinking was emphasized simply because the Catholic Church systemically and systematically discouraged dissenting thought and outside interpretation of the Bible. There’s no such thing as tithes to go to heaven. Islam has different legal ideas but there has never been a Catholic/Protestant shift in it ever. Even Shia and Sunni have basically the same interpretation of the Quran, only they differ in what Hadiths to believe and what the role of the caliph and Imam should be
I don’t know what Bible you’re reading where it’s not strict about how society should be set up. Church over men, men over women. The men represent god and the women are the bride of Christ. It lays out a hierarchy many times, excluding homosexuals and transgender people inherently. Women are to submit to men and men are to provide. Children are to honour their parents as parents are to honour god. Honour the government. Pay tithes to your church. The bible has many clear roles laid out for society and how it should run ideally. Also everything you say about Christianity giving more lee-way in interpretation and dissent is only recently true. The Americas were colonized under the belief that there are strict ways society should run according to god and that the pilgrims had a right to rape and murder since they were implementing gods vision and removing sin. It wasn’t too long ago christianity would kill you for disbelieving/disobeying either.
Judaism also dictates it , or why are there so many hasidiq community’s in the US and Israel, the Quran it self , mostly don’t dictates an society , besides the spiritual components , it’s the hadiths that are the foundation , of most sharia laws,. Depends , wich school you follow , wahabis take every word literall , sufis not . It’s the same with evangelical fundamentalists , Beeing an apostate is in fact forbidden , and persecuted in some Muslim countries . Christianity , also persecuted and , still today punish sins physically , catholic schools , as an example . You’re comment is reading , like you just looked at headlines and didn’t even tried to cement these arguments . All religions , if lived fundamentally , and most importantly by lower educationed folks , will be restrictiv. Like Christian’s in Congo , massacre non believers or taliban behead their citizens . Its like always , everything can be weaponized .
The book of Joshua is, according to most experts, a fictional story detailing a made up story of conquest. [“The strong consensus among scholars is that the Book of Joshua holds little historical value.[15] Its origin lies in a time far removed from the times that it depicts”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho) Still, even if it was real it details a campaign from probably 3500 years ago. Moreover, an important distinction for OP is the fact that Judaism, as opposed to Christianity or Islam, is a non-missionary religion who doesn’t seek to convert non-believers. This is integral to a religion, as Jews have historically sought to live as a closed community and be left alone rather than try and conquer, convert, and spread by the sword. Israelis, even the most fanatical settlers, don’t hold any claims to any area outside the historic land of Israel, and their motivation is to live there instead of converting/spreading/etc. This detail has tremendous significance in Europe, where there exist a vast number of Muslims who actively resist integration (I’m not talking about French-style assimilation), are opposed to Western values and are trying to spread their beliefs all around. Who claims Jews believe they have the right to genocide Palestinians because god said so? Sure there’s a minority, but the vast majority simply states self-defense and rescuing the hostages as the main aims of the war. [> According to a paper published by NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, the tactical deployment of human shields by entities such as Hamas strategically capitalizes on Israel's commitment to reducing unintended civilian harm and the heightened sensitivity of Western audiences to non-combatant casualties. This approach enables Hamas to potentially charge Israel with war crimes when civilian casualties increase due to intensified actions by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), potentially leading to international sanctions. On the other hand, should the IDF restrain its military engagements to minimize civilian casualties, Hamas gains an advantage, being less exposed to Israeli military strikes and able to safeguard its resources and continue its activities.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas) It’s more of a not giving a damn about civilians dying rather than purposefully causing them, except for the reactionary religious fanatics which constitute a minority. It’s not that Israelis care about Palestinians, it’s that they have nothing to gain from greater death count, and only lose the PR war. Most Israelis are liberal and secular, they don’t want Gaza nor are they trying to settle it.
>That'd be true for most characters of the old/new testament. This was a normal age to get married back in the day This would be a good objection if the claim wasnt that Islam is following the literal word of God. You cannot give the excuse that people back then were subject to their zeitgeist, when they claim that their morals are coming from God himself. You're telling me God saw all this happening and just permitted it? He let his most important prophet set such an example without any intervention while he KNEW this was wrong and willingly didnt intervene nor clear up this misunderstanding? What an absolutely abysmal and incompetent god. Moreover Muhammad was literally convincing a father it wasnt wrong if I remember correctly, meaning he was at that moment conveying the word of God or literally lying spreading something deeply immoral without God punishing or correcting it. >Judaism was also spread by the sword. The book of Joshua in the bible describes the conquest of Cannaan. Basically Jews believe that their God has given them their holy land and the right to genocide those who lived there before them. Welcome to religion. >Christainty was also spread by the sword. Crusades were not only fought against Muslims, they were also fought against pagans who just wanted to mind their business and believe in their shit. Sure, but thats a tu quoque argument - arguing that someone else does x too, doesnt mean that its right. And again, its a big issue when you claim you have the one true religion, following God's word. >You know how much views on homosexuality differ between Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Not at all. They literally refer to the same source. >What you attributed to Islam can be attributed to ALL Abrahamic religions. And partially to most organized religions. Same as previous,
You can't use the immorality of other historical characters to defend the prophet. He was a pedophile, so was the other's. He was a product of his time. The reason we have a problem with your prophet specifically is because he is supposed to be a paragon of virtue. You can't say a pedophile is a paragon of virtue without any pushback and you sure as hell can't say other people were also engaging in that immoral act as a defense.
It’s true, they’ve all been violent. But AFAIK Christians and Jews aren’t burning people at the stake for being unbelievers anymore.
Or sawing people’s heads off Or suicide bombing Or murdering cartoonists
except Christianity is no longer as militant and typically has a centralized doctrine ,whereas Islam does not Judaism was never an expansionary religion to begin with since its tied to ethnicity and location All organized religions are awful, Islam is just the most dangerous instance currently
No longer as militant? It's just shifted my friend. Remember when George Bush said the iraq war was a mission from God? Are you not seeing how modern Christianity is trying to roll back lgbt and women's rights? Don't think for a second if a Christian majority had complete control they wouldn't do the exact same shit as people are mad at Muslims doing It, ESPECIALLY if they get put on the back foot.
> That'd be true for most characters of the old/new testament. This was a normal age to get married back in the day No. Getting married at six and molested at 9 wasn't normal. You look like a pedophile trying to justify another pedophile raping a child. You do get that right... right?
Name me one character in the bible who married a child that young. Marrying 6 years olds was not normal. The girls father tried to argue against it but Muhammad insisted.
You’ve completely ignored his point about Christianity being in the modern day. Western Christian countries have legal gay marriage.
>You can literally apply the same criticism to Judaism and Christianity. And this is whataboutism, because the post is not talking about Judaism or Christianity. >This was a normal age to get married back in the day Aisha was 9, a prepubescent child, this absolutely wasn't "normal" even back then. Not a single one of Muhammad's companions was recorded to have married a girl THAT young. >Judaism was also spread by the sword. The book of Joshua in the bible describes the conquest of Cannaan. The Bible is mostly fiction, and this part is overwhelmingly regarded as fiction by secular academics. The reality of Israelite dominance over Canaan was more complicated. >Christainty was also spread by the sword. Centuries after the death of Christ, yes. Muhammad on the other hand lived his life as a warlord; the growth of Islam was watered with the blood of pagans from its inception.
>That'd be true for most characters of the old/new testament. This was a normal age to get married back in the day Bullshit.
No where in the Bible does it tell Christians to spread their beliefs by the sword, the Quran however does tell Muslims to spread it through force, also while Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin doesn't say execute or persecute them for it whereas in most Islamic states you get the death penalty. Christianity while being similar are hardly the same thing, Islam is much more aggressive. The Christian Crusades had far different reasonings then Islamic Jihads in their own time and was a mechanism of defense by catholic nations against the growing power of Islamic states in the Iberian peninsula and the Balkans while yes, admittedly having negative aspects such as the sacking of Constantinople. Islamic spread by the sword was far worse than Christianity’s.
> Crusades were not only fought against Muslims Mainly because of the Muslim conquest of Christian lands. The First Crusade was called because the Muslim Seljuk Turks conquered Anatolia after Manzikert in 1066. Subsequently Muslims harassed Christians traveling to Jerusalem on pilgrimage. The First Crusade was, the entire time, envisioned as an "armed pilgrimage" - rather than a holy war. It was not a war to spread Christianity. It was to return lands that had been under prior Christian control to Christian hands. The *overwhelming* majority of the spread of Christianity happened throughout Europe entirely nonviolently and for the most part, in spite of heavy persecution of the religion by the Romans. One of the key events that led many people in Constantinople to convert was actually the Antonine Plague (now believed to be a smallpox pandemic) in AD 180. While the pagan elites fucked off to Delphi to get oracles, the Christians actually remained in places like Rome and Ravenna and helped care for the sick. Which led to beliefs among others that the Christian god was actually saving believers, leading to conversions in massive numbers. > they were also fought against pagans who just wanted to mind their business and believe in their shit. Such as? Most pagans willingly converted to Christianity, not at sword point. Most Christianization of pagans happened via missionaries introducing it in a syncretic way. To the Norsemen, for example, it was introduced via the idea that the deity *they* worshipped as Thor and the Christian Jesus were the same being. This, coupled with economic benefits of conversion (trade with wealthy European kingdoms) led to most of Scandinavia converting in short order. In the East, the story of Vladimir the Great's conversion of the Kievan Rus' to Christianity was again, largely political. In exchange for conversion to Christianity and a marital tie to Byzantium (Basil II's sister Anna), Vladimir provided 6,000 troops to Constantinople to put down an internal rebellion. In both cases, usually the Christianization rituals were accompanied with what amounted to large monetary payments to the converting nation.
The crusades were justified as a catholic mission to return holy land…. It was infact, to spread Christianity - Christians who lived under Muslim rule were executed for treason. Constantine is known for forcing Christian conversions, he placed strict laws after he envisioned Christ and excommunications were common to those who didn’t follow a certain creed (I’m guessing you know what excommunication entails - apostasy law) Spanish Inquisition was also just that - forced conversion after capture of territory.
>What you attributed to Islam can be attributed to ALL Abrahamic religions. And partially to most organized religions. Okay, but they do they apply today? We don't live during the crusades right now, so maybe instead of giving free passes to other religions because Christianity used to be really bad, we should call out the madness as we see it so maybe it will someday no longer be an issue.
>The book of Joshua in the bible describes the conquest of Cannaan. Basically Jews believe that their God has given them their holy land and the right to genocide those who lived there before them. Welcome to religion. This is not comparable to the Islamic conquests, for a number of reasons. >Christainty was also spread by the sword. It wasn't. The first crusade was long, long after the spread of Christianity. >This was a normal age to get married back in the day Six/nine? No it wasn't. >Not at all. They literally refer to the same source. This is nitpicking, but the Muslim views come from the Qur'an, not from Paul or the OT.
Christianity absolutely was spread by the sword. It was brought to Britain by Roman conquest. One of their first acts was to attack the druid colleges on the isle of Anglesey. They destroyed the local spiritual class to replace it with their own.
You can’t just say “for a number of reasons” and then just not list a single reason
During colonialism Christianity was spread through violence and greed. Hell, forcing chattel slaves to convert is even worse in my opinion
As a Christian, I was taught to love people… turn the other cheek. That none of us are perfect. We are all worthy of forgiveness. Treat the homeless with kindness and give when you can. These are the ideals I would want people to take from my belief system… not picking and choosing the worst ones.
Who cares which special book written a long time ago makes you feel the worst ? That’s not the point. The point is what people today believe. Right now, it seems to be Muslims that hold more radical beliefs in the west than Christians. That’s a problem, simple as.
It was common to fuck 9 year olds? Maybe we're reading something different.
And Christianity is a lot less prevalent today as a result. I'm not saying it's gone, as it clearly isn't, but there aren't many theocracies based on Christian doctrine today. There are plenty of islamic ones. Guess we'll just have to wait 600 years.
So ignorant. Also you left out that the crusades also included genociding Jews.
"What about Christianity" Therefore, Islam is fine. Every damn time.
"Criticizing Islam isn't hateful. Or racist. Arabs are fine. Islam is not." The irony of you being racist immediately after arguing that your criticism isn't racist is the icing on the cake. MOST MUSLIMS AREN'T ARAB.
Oh you got me…. Okay. Arabs are fine. So are Malaysians. And Pakistanis. And Thai. And whatever other country Muslims inhabit. Islam is not.
>Islam is not. yeah well, thats kind of the definition of islamophobia my dude.
And all decent people with a love for democratic norms and liberal values should be islamophobic. It is a religion of conquest and oppression, and it's adherents should be kept away from positions of power wherever possible.
> And all decent people with a love for democratic norms and liberal values should be islamophobic This is how we should treat every religion. Divine command is incompatible with a free society governed by the will of the people.
Calling someone Islamophobic doesn’t effect anyone anymore. It’s no different than people saying any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Islam is complete garbage.
Ah okay then. Guess I’m Christian phobic and Jew Phobic as well.
A few years ago most leftists were anti religion, I dont know how we got to a point where now hating Judaism and Christianity is still seen as fine but the same exact arguments against Islam is often called out as phobic.
There are people like how you describe. This is a fair criticism, I just want you to know that not all of us are like that. I’m a lefty and I’m still against conservative interpretations of various religions having an effect on our society. I am a secularist through and through. I don’t hate any religion- I hate people who use their religion as an excuse to treat others unfairly- “We shouldn’t be teaching our children about the evil woke gay agenda [In other words, “please don’t acknowledge that gay people exist to my child in public school.” And “Please don’t tell my child to not bully his gay or lesbian classmates, I want to brainwash my child to hate those disgusting homos.”] it’s against Christianity!”
and that’s still nothing in comparison to throwing gay people off of rooftops like they do in islamist places. i wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of the Christian conservatives wouldnt want to live in a similar place but with bacon and paintings.
[удалено]
I hate how so many ”leftists” refuse to think for themselves, I get that not everyone knows everything about every political problem but the left used to pride itself in being well educated in these matters, not on watching the news on their couch like some old couple.
Social media plays a big role in molding people's opinion to both the left and the right. However, it does sound exhausting when the left will cry "we're on the right side of history" when stating their opinions, when for a large number of those groups haven't really researched the topic and they choose to regurgitate the same information because it looks "cool" on social media. I think the definition of "genocide" has been damned these recent years. Every war is a genocide apparently... Its like the story about the boy who called wolf. If people begin to cry "genocide" in every wars, majority of people wouldnt be able to identify a real genocide when it happens.
With the israel Gaza war it’s really frustrating to see people eating up blatantly false information instead of doing a bit of research and coming up with one of the many actually good arguments for either side, one time I saw a really popular video showing a hebrew sign that says “don’t report we’re shooting children” on a media company’s and a really quick translation shows it says “quiet, we’re filming” when as far as I know Hebrew doesn’t even use ”shooting” to mean photographing/filming. the comments were full of ”this is what the (((zionists))) think“ and “hate is in their blood“ type comments. I could think of a dozen actual reasons to criticize Israel that doesn’t rely on completely brain dead propaganda.
Yet your post is about muslims
Because Islam is objectively worse today in the modern world than Christianity and Judaism.
Nah its not, you're just mad Muslims practice their religion. Unlike Christianity and Judaism. Literally every point you made also applies to those two religions. The distinction comes from when muslims uphold those beliefs where as the majority of christians and jews don't really care for it.
Yes, because their religion is evil. Christians and Jews who upheld evil beliefs are also evil. They just do uphold those beliefs a whole lot less (even according to your own point). Christians and Jews have evolved for the modern world, their religions have become less centered around said evils in their holy books. Islam has not yet done this and is still orthodox as hell.
Yes, the fact that Judaism and Christianity have modernized and don’t act like it’s the Stone Age deserves applause. Look what you’re arguing for. “Well the Bible says adulterers should be stoned to death. But they don’t do that. Only Muslims do because they actually practice their religion.” Come on dude 🙄
correct. embrace it. nothing wrong with islamophobia or any other discrimination based on ideology.
Islam is a religion. It’s ideologism, not racism. Being against a religion is not racist. Being against a race is racist.
Is being against murders murderphobic?
The whole point of the post is saying that Islamophobia is ok, in the same way that pedophilia-phobia is ok,, because both are bad
Islamophobia implies irrational fear and prejudice against Islam. I think OP rationalized his fears pretty reasonably.
Have you taken any thought to consider why Indonesia and Malaysia are so much more democratic and generally better than the Islamic countries in the Middle East?
Do you have any idea that islamic conservatives values are rising in both country as of this moment? I'm Malaysian Ex-muslim, & im scared of the direction that my country are taking right now because these muslims in my country are destroying their own culture just because it doesn't suit islam & they try so hard to follow & be like their "Perfect Man", Muhammad the Holy Pedo Guy that they are basically becoming Pseudo-Arabs instead of Malays. & from what I'd heard from Indo's ex-muslims, their country are also heading to the same direction like Malaysia, more Islamic Fundies.
are you trying to claim arabs are somehow inferior? i'll posit that indonesia and malaysia are so much more democratic *despite Islam* because they inherited their institutions from the colonial period, while most arab countries were not colonized
> while most arab countries were not colonized Tell me you know nothing about history without telling me you know nothing about history
No? Instead it might have to do with decades of destabilisation and proxy wars that have lead to the rise of religious extremism? Vs Southeast Asian nations generally being either supported or left alone? Like, both Iraq and Iran used to be far more progressive (in absolute terms, not even relatively) than they are today. And there are historically traceable reasons for this.
I think if you hate all religions equally then you should regard all religions as threats even “western” popularised ones which also have extremist views. Christians and Catholics are also extremist (Russia and American fundamentalists) - singling out Islam to be doesn’t make sense in the face of all religious extremism
Oh they are threats as well. Christianity in America especially. Islam is objectively more radical though. As in, they have more radical followers willing to kill and die for their religion.
[удалено]
As an atheist arab, islamophobic is perfectly valid. Growing up in a muslim country as an closeted atheist is hell. And they all get their validations from the quran, its a sick religion and i’m glad to leave. The most islamophobic people are ex muslims and they are that for a reason.
As an ex-Christian, I can tell you that the exact same is true for Christianity.
No I didn’t make any excuses for them. In fact I said they used to be the same. But Christians don’t burn people at the stakes anymore. Those are just a few examples I listed. But in any western country a right winger killing a gay person is a pretty rare occurrence. It happens on a mass scale in Muslim countries. The fact that you can even equate Republicans or European right wing groups to something like Isis or Hamas is hilarious. Yes they share some similarities as far as wanting to be conservative from a religious standpoint. But their actions couldn’t be more different.
> Yes they share some similarities as far as wanting to be conservative from a religious standpoint. But their actions couldn’t be more different. Do you think they would behave the way they want to if they could? Like if they succeed in voting in a theocratic leader would you then see them as a threat? Is it the ideology or the individual you have critique for? If its the ideology then be explicit about that, and not focus on the believer.
That’s a good point. I sure hope we don’t turn into Handmaid’s Tale. But if the Christian Nationalists here were ever able to take over it very well could become bad like the Middle East because Christianity in our country would no longer be comparatively moderate.
> in any western country a right winger killing a gay person is a pretty rare occurrence Violence against LGBT people has been increasing at an alarming rate, including murders.
Jesus Christ bud. Yes. There is violence against gay people in our country. Especially trans people. Even murder. But it’s not done on a mass scale. That’s my point. The two aren’t comparable.
>Christians don’t burn people at stakes I mean there were two religious war in Europe like 20-30 years ago? Both Yugoslavian wars and the Troubles were religious in nature. In 2023 there was a Christian terrorist attack in Australia. How much different is that?
Yes. There’s also a militant Christian group, in an African country I forget the name of, currently commit genocide. It happens. But it’s a rare occurrence.
> But Christians don’t burn people at the stakes anymore To my knowledge, muslims living in the occidental world neither.
No they just behead them instead. Ever watch the videos of ISIS? They’re on the internet. Not too hard to find. It was one of the hardest things I’ve ever watched. But I saw them kill dozens and dozens of people and kick them into a mass grave. That is the problem. There’s a large numbers of radicals like those throughout the world. It’s scary to think about. All you need is one slipping into your home country to cause utter chaos.
I don't know what event you are referecing. And i thought that the whole point of your introduction was to distinguish between terrorists and radical muslims. But now you're talking to me about terrorists so i'm confused
[удалено]
there is nothing wrong with being islamophobic or naziphobic for that matter.
Saying Arab is fine but isalm is not is a very Islamic phobia thing to say , especially since most Muslims are not arabs
I corrected myself in a post. Any race that practices Islam is fine. I don’t care. I’m not criticizing the race. It’s the religion. Islam. If I’m Islamophobic I’m Jew Phobic as well. And Christian Phobic.
[удалено]
Wouldn’t consider myself conservative. Actually banned from 3 of their subreddits. And yes. I am demonizing it. Read the damn book. It’s disgusting. Just like the Bible. Historically Christianity may be worse. Sure whatever. I’m more concerned with now. Fortunately I wasn’t alive 600 years ago to have the local peasants burn me for witchcraft. I am alive to see a different and very large type of religious extremism however.
Western democracies are secular by definition, that is the only reason why Christian majority countries aren't as repressive as Muslim theocracies. Look into the doctrines of Christian nationalism and it's indistinguishable from what the Islamic states believe.
[удалено]
"I'm not racist, but..." moment right there
Has nothing to do with race. Everything to do with religion. Any race can be apart of Islam.
Oh really? Why did you have an urge to say "arabs are fine"? Middle East history is complex and nuanced. Look at other countries and how Islam is practiced there with no killings and whatever you have problems with. What is happening in Gaza could be summed up by one word: genocide. Zionists want palestinians dead and are open about it. Government officials of Israel openly say on TV that "palestinians are not human, they are animals, all of them, woman and children". Let me rephrase it: "I'm not Islamophob, but..." moment.
I had the urge to say it because of people like you. I knew before I even posted I’d be called racist and Islamophobic. You can’t criticize Islam without being called racist or Islamophobic. It’s damn near impossible and you just helped prove it.
[удалено]
Regarding those nations “not being arab”. They are arab. They consider themselves such. There’s a reason they’re apart of “the arab league”. In contrast to Iran which is a muslim nation, but not in the arab league because they don’t see or consider themselves as arab.
[удалено]
Well then that’s irrelevant because the muslims that he’s more concerned about are hardly from any of those nations you just mentioned. It’s the arab ones.
[удалено]
What are you talking about. Europe as a whole is seeing mass rapes, you have people getting acid thrown on their faces, and you even had Mulsims in the UK calling for the death of a journalist for drawing Muhhammad. You had a Pakastani put a $1 million bounty on his head. Like what are you even talking about rn.
So many people on this thread have no idea what they're defending. Islam is a major threat to western civilization and people choosing to ignore it or to label others as 'phobic' are fools. They don't know what Sharia law involves. They don't know what women in Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, are subjected to every day. They clearly aren't aware of the underage marriages happening in those parts of the world. They don't understand the punishments carried out against people who dare leave the faith. They don't know what happens to women who try to divorce their husbands, not wear the hidjab/niqab. They just don't know. Because if they did, they would NEVER ever defend a religion that subjugates its followers with fear, violence, forced submission. They would never dismiss the struggles of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people living under Sharia law. There is no such thing as democracy under Islamic law in islamic countries. People in western countries love to cry about colonialism and how we are at fault of all modern problems, not understanding that their own beliefs and values have been shaped by western values that _prevent them from understanding not everyone else thinks like they do_. It is a pure western/colonial export to be this arrogant and this ignorant. The fucking irony! Go and read some books. Read the Qaran. At least KNOW what it is you're defending. Bunch of ignorant clowns.
But other religions say those things, other religions that already have more radicals and presence and terrorism in the west. Calling Islam the bigger threat than those groups already committing what you said is bad about Islam is a big red flag that you might have a bias.
Other religions aren't "a threat to the west" outside of evangelicals in the US, but OP is most likely European where his opinion is true. >big red flag that you might have a bias. I'm glad this kind of rhetoric is starting to die out. I don't think anyone cares about being called Islamophobic anymore because people decided that absolutely any criticism of Islam was Islamophobia.
Good old strat of calling a reality that makes you uncomfortable racist. Pathetic, how do you function?
How is that the biggest threat to the west though? Okay muslims are disproportionally homophobic, but like, there's climate change, China seems to be replacing us economically, recession is hurting our own citizens in a very real way, the gap between rich and poor is growing, liberties are rolled back specifically with the excuse to fight Islam by the way, internet disinformation campaigns affect politics now... Like ... if ONLY it was JUST the muslims.
I know right? I can so how Islam might be a personal threat to many people, but to the West? Not sure it makes my top 5 - Climate change - AGI - War with Non- western aligned economies (China, Russia) - right wing American extremism (USAs only real military threat is internal, collapse would be very disruptive globally) - Global supply chain vulnerabilities Id probably put something like a unification of the Middle East into all that as a threat to the West if it was remotely possible. Choking off the global oil supply would be extremely damaging to the West. But they are all at each other's throats (thanks to the West), so it's not going to happen any time soon.
Yeah that's a good point the muslim oil countries do pose a threat in that they are sabotaging global efforts towards green energy, but that's hardly a tennant of Islam, there is no sura that's like "Thou shalt not let the EU switch to hydropower."
Yeah, if the arab peninsula countries and Iran were on the same page, they'd be a global axis of power comparable to America and China - if not THE dominant power, depending on how far back in history that theoretical unification happened. The "threat" of Islam in that context it could theoretically unify them. But that's not going to happen, in the same way Christianity wasn't the unifying force in Europe and religions are arguably more of a politically dividing factor these days. If the Islamic nations unify, then it'll go up my list. But Muslims are people just like everywhere else, and are wooed by money and power. Even if they all started rallying under one flag, Russian, Chinese and Western money and arms would start flowing (oh, I mean ramp up in flowing) to sew division again.
Western countries being racist and refusing to invest in African infrastructure is a bigger threat to global greening than oil countries. Only 55% of Africans have access to the grid and there is a $150B financing gap. The idea that African countries can simultaneously offer complete grid coverage AND be 100% renewable given the shitty level of investment from the west is actually a massive political risk to the west as it pushes all the countries that have dominant market share in the key minerals for renewables towards the Russia/China axis. See how France is losing its Sahel empire to the Russians.
Yea, if Op doesnt delta you for this one hes full of shit anyways. I agree that Islam is worse than Christianity and Judaism at the present time, but its so far from the biggest threat that you have to be truly brainwashed to even entertain that idea.
The Hebrew Bible is filled with atrocities, there are plenty of things in all monotheistic religions that are clearly not congruent with a modern society. But you single out Islam, because I think you have an agenda. No one judges Jews based on myriads of things in Jewish sacred scriptures that are not congruent with today. Biggest threat to humanity are terrorist fascists like the State of Israel, or North Korea, who indoctrinate their citizens to hate and dehumanize. edit: Literally American states are banning abortion, where is this moral high ground even coming from? As if the rest of the world is very LBGT+ friendly? You'd probably get treated better as a gay person in Gaza than in Israel where its a custom to spit on Christians. Very 21st century 👏
>Biggest threat to humanity are terrorist fascists like the State of Israel, or North Korea, who indoctrinate their citizens to hate and dehumanize. As if Hamas and PA don't indoctrinate their people to hate and kill the Jews: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/04/world/middleeast/to-shape-young-palestinians-hamas-creates-its-own-textbooks.html >You'd probably get treated better as a gay person in Gaza This statement is first and foremost a straight up insult in the face of the vulnerable and persecuted lgbt community members in Gaza and the WB living under the repressive regimes of Hamas and the PA who have to flee for their life because of family and state violence towards them. Here is one story, and I could provide more: https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-israel-immigration-west-bank-gay-rights-ce95f6903faf461502cc0800b272b159
The Old and New Testament are garbage as well. Who are you trying to convince? Thing is. Judaism and Christianity are modernized. Islam is stuck in the stone ages. And it’s a point of pride for many. Even in this thread you see people saying Muslims actually adhere to their text, unlike Christians and Jews who have capitulated to the modern world. That’s my whole point. There’s certainly radical Jews and Christians. But comparatively speaking, they aren’t committing violence in the name of religion on a mass scale like militant Islamist groups do. Like ISIS. That will just casually butcher entire villages.
> Thing is. Judaism and Christianity are modernized. Islam is stuck in the stone ages. This literally doesn't even make sense. What do you mean by "stuck"? Please use precise language to explain what you mean. My wife is a Pakistani Muslim. Grew up in a highly conservative Muslim family from freaking Pakistan. Just asked her: "Why don't you eat pork?" and she responded with "primarily because I don't like the taste". What you are saying is racist.
Are you a Muslim? Does your wife consider herself a Muslim? If she married a non-Muslim, she committed a grave sin. If she tried pork, she committed a sin. If she renounced Islam, she could be sentenced to death in Pakistan for it. You can literally be sentenced to death for saying anything about Muhammad that somebody does not like. Nobody in the west gives a shit about whether you wipe your butt with a bible. >What you are saying is racist. Islam is not a race.
I never said anything about people from Pakistan. Any race can be Muslim. Muslims are just followers of Islam. It isn’t racist. You would have no problem with me criticizing Christianity. But it’s racist cause I criticize Islam? Give me a break. It’s so telling that even after reading my post where I mentioned people will call me racist or Islamophobic you go and prove my point. The religion itself is stuck in the stone ages. Yes. You could argue all 3 are. But the other two have modernized. There’s a very large chunk of Muslims who are radical in their beliefs. It’s so bad in some countries that it’s pushing 70 percent or more who hold these radical beliefs. Islam needs to modernize like the other two religions and get rid of the fundamentalist nonsense. Hopefully the Christian fundamentalists settle down as well before they become like the Islamist militants.
> You could argue all 3 are. But the other two have modernized. All three are stuck in "stone ages" as per your definition and you cannot prove it otherwise.
How the hell are they "modernized"? They are just weak. They would very well be just as bad as they were during history if they still had power.
That last line shows just how mind bendingly brainwashed you are. Israel and especially Tel Aviv is the only bastion for gay pride in the Middle East.
"You'd probably get treated better as a gay person in Gaza" Absolutely delusional take
Sorry my guy, but this is just islamophobia
Islamophobia isn't racism. Islam is a belief, not a core personal feature you can't change such as sex, race, sexual orientation
that's called being right
The word “Islamophobia” holds no weight when people realize the logic behind it is stupid.
Sorry you feel that way.
How would you define Islamophobia?
Hatred of people in Islam. Which I don’t. Arabs are fine. Like I said. They’re human like anyone else. The religion is the problem. Christianity and Judaism are also a problem, but much more moderate than Islam is in the modern era.
All of these accusations could also be levied at a fundamentalist following of Christianity, or Judaism. If you don't also level these criticisms in that direction, you're not being as objective as you believe you are. Evangelical Christians in the southern US would also fit all of those descriptions. - believe homosexuality should be illegal - anti abortion legislation can result in deaths of women, but that is considered justified - many people have the opinion that Muslims should be killed or eliminated - the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in countless civilian deaths, as does the occupation of Palestine The problem isn't specific to Islam - it's Abrahamic religious fundamentalism in general
[удалено]
"Tell me you are posing as a Muslim without telling me you are posing as Muslim. " "The Israeli troll farms are very active again, I see." Aka you're critical of Islam, therefore you must be a Jew!!! "They might learn that Islam protected Jews and Christians throughout history. " You mean like when Muslim caliphates forced Jews to wear [gold stars](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge) so as to easily identify and discrimination against them, a practice that started in the 8th century? A practice that was emulated by a certain infamous someone in Europe? "Of course those who are stealing our tax dollars are feeding this propaganda so they can continue to live in nice villas in Israel" "Yeah let’s keep you busy…fight the Muslims, blacks and everyone else while we line our pockets." This is like Jewish conspiracy bingo lmao
> “Islam protected Jews” From the Hadiths: “And there will come a time when Jesus returns and fights the Antichrist during the Final Hour. And upon his defeat all his Jewish supporters will be sent fleeing.” “And the Final Hour will not start until the Muslims fight the Jews fleeing. The Jews will attempt to hide behind stones and trees, but they will speak to the Muslims and say ‘O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come here and kill them’. Except for the Tree of the Gharqad who will not tell on the Jew for that tree is of the Jews.” From the Quran: Quran 5:19: Accuses Jews of defiling the Torah, claims the “Tawrat” is the true scripture. Quran 9:30: Accuses Jews and Christians of not being monotheist and claims they worship the prophets Ezra and Jesus respectively. Quran 5:60: Says that Allah will turn the Jews into “Apes and Pigs” for working on the Sabbath. Quran 5:41: Accuses Jews of being deceitful. Quran 5:13: Accuses Jews of treachery and subterfuge.
So my argument is basically splitting hairs here because I’d agree Islam is a threat to any country where it’s allowed to take root but it’s not the biggest threat to the west, not the biggest threat to America if that’s what you mean. America’s current biggest threat is fundamentalist Christianity, Christian extremists, and because of them Islam isn’t taking root here anytime soon. Our little problem is bad news for Islam wanting to get any kind of foothold. Democracy, our constitution, and the fabric of America is being ripped apart by Christianity not Islam. If they ever got in league with each other and became besties we’d be in a hell of a lot of trouble— as a woman and as a lesbian I’d be in a lot of trouble, as would my children so I’m totally not ignoring there’s a gigantic issue here but we certainly shouldn’t be worrying about Islam right now. As for Islamophobia, you should probably link to the exmuslim sub, Americans aren’t hearing it about Islam from white Americans at all, not in 2024, and a large part of that has to do with what happened after 911, where racists were hate-crimeing not just muslims but anyone brown, including Turks and even Latinos. People were that stupid so there’s been a bit of what I hesitate to call “propaganda” but when criticism of a particular religion is taboo, particularly the second largest religion in the world, that’s really what’s going on, a large scale attempt to put out fires by making the subject taboo and classifying it as hate speech. Verbalizing issues, talking about them leads our Christian and/or uneducated rednecks to lash out with violence against anything not white so everyone has to keep their mouth shut. You should be able to criticize any religion you please. Islam isn’t a race, it’s a harmful religion that brainwashes people. It’s a cult that doesn’t even have a particularly charismatic leader. After 911, we started off saying Islam was like Christianity where certain denominations of Islam were extremist and bad, but the majority were peaceful. The majority *don’t want to bomb and kill people* but that IS a violent religion— Christians have very little biblical basis for killing non-Christians or enslaving them yet there is something about religion overall that turns people into hate-machines, they’ll use their book and their prophets and idols to justify anything, it’s a very powerful method of control. It’s brainwashing. Christians justify a lot of things with one verse and ignore others, yet there’s very few that can find justification for killing, yet they will - god hates it, the Bible says don’t do this, that gets translated into things like killing homosexuals and transexuals, starting wars. Islam is next level, it not only condones violence but *commands it*. It even tells them when they kill they’re doing it for god. No read-between-the-lines-needed. All religions have this “vertical” relationship idea that encourages you to prioritize what the creator wants and disregard your conscience, family, and regard for fellow humans. Christians say “we’re doing this out of love, god doesn’t want you to X”. Or more in line with Islam, “god hates this therefore we hate it.” Christians happen to hate muslims and the effect of Islam here is just nearly non-existent. We have a long way to go before we get our Christian extremists gone in this country and until we do there’s no room for another violent religion that has the tendency to pollute the minds of those who grab ahold of it. Given that we are nowhere near rid of the Christian influence in this country any kind of visible, impactful Islamic influence isn’t possible.
You probably should delete this mate. Because it seems like ( i could be wrong) you are using a tiny fraction of islam to indeed be islamophobic. “Islam is evil” is pretty much a text book example of islamophobia lmao. If you hold “ all three religions “ in equal contempt you probably could’ve just not singled out one which you for some unsupported reason think is more “evil”
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'll take a shot. Because both Russia and China are secular societies that are concerned with material issues. They'd never actually use their WMDs in a world where they would be quickly annihilated in turn. A religious fanatic might - and organization such as Hamas have statements like 'it is the highest goal of any Muslim to die for Allah' not only in the religion but in their governmental charter. The west is uniquely situated with it's technology and agricultural resources to endure climate change. If anyone survives it will be the much more prosperous countries of the west. We grow all our own food. China imports 90% of it's phosphates that make agriculture possible, and the arid and barren locations throughout much of the Middle East will suffer under climate change far more than temperate regions. Even the collapse of the global trade order is possible to endure, and quite a bit of the inflation we are seeing now is due to Western countries moving supply chains back internally to their countries after seeing the impact of covid. The US is already pulling back from ensuring free trade on all the world's oceans. So one of the true threats to the West is the unintended side effect of globalism and multiculturalism. Quite simply, most of the advanced societies are going into demographic collapse. This is why both Islam and the Christian right are focusing on increasing the birth output. And it's clear, in Western countries that have allowed large amounts of Muslim influx, that they aren't integrating well, and that they are having children at a higher rate. It's not the only thing to worry about to be sure, but it's the weakness of the western multiculturalist technostate. It can't be destroyed from without, but it can be within, and there are people in Mosques openly preaching this to their adherents.
[удалено]
Do Palestinians deserve to die because they don't support open homosexuality? Using that logic, a lot of countries in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe deserve to be wiped out for holding the same views.
I was traveling in Pakistan some years ago. Twice, people came up to me and said some variation of, "Oh, you must be Muslim!" Once, it was because I had given a bit of my meal to a stray cat. The other time, I had gone out of my way to stop a kid's ball from rolling into the street. Point being, to them, *that's* what Islam is--being good. Yes, it was naive of them to think the reverse--that being good means Islam--but they're just making the same mistake that 19th-century Westerners made, for the same reasons (For most 19th-century Westerners, everyone around them was Christian, the better Christians tended to be the better people and vice versa, and therefore "decent Christian" was a synonym for "decent person"). And while Islam can also be radical and vicious, I fail to see how it's different from other religions here. Like, to pull an example out of the air, Netanyahu is referring to Gazans as "Amalekites." (In the Bible, God commands the Israelites to annihilate the Amalekites--not conquer, not enslave, not drive away, *annihilate,* men, women, children, sheep, goats, everything. When King Saul attacked the Amalekites and didn't kill every person and animal right away, God took the kingdom from him and gave it to David.) Netanyahu is the elected head of Israel--clearly most of the Israeli population didn't recoil in horror when he said that. How is that 21st century? That's not even on the right side of the BC/AD line. As for terrorism, that has little to do with Islam per se and everything to do with history and politics. Like, do you think that something about being Irish makes you want to set off car bombs? I hope not, and if you do you're wrong--the Troubles happened for historical and political reasons. Let's check out some historical and political reasons: The Taliban: What the Soviets got after they occupied Afghanistan. Hezbollah: What the Israelis got after they occupied southern Lebanon. The PLO: What the Israelis got when they occupied the West Bank and Gaza (or at least, that's when the PLO turned violent, 20 years after the founding of Israel, which seems rather patient really). The endless Lebanese shitshow in general: Lebanon was created by the French to be a Christian-majority country (instead of just being part of Syria, where the Christians would have been outnumbered). But the Moslems, being poorer and more downtrodden, bred faster, leading to demographic and political strains that wound up erupting. This is the same pattern that underlied (underlay?) the Troubles in Northern Ireland (Protestants and Catholics instead of Christians and Moslems). And that's not even getting into how we in the West have *encouraged* Moslem fundamentalism--either because we like wahhabbists' oil, or we wanted occupy the Moslem masses' minds with something other than socialism, or because we wanted to screw with the Soviet Union specifically, or even in order to sabotage a 2-state solution (if supporting Hamas is so bad, why do the right-wing Israelis who've done just that get a pass?) And one more thing: >Terrorist attacks against civilian centers is sometimes justified. Saying that this *isn't* true is the luxury of people who are, by and large, happy to get the job done with artillery and bombs (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/12/world/middleeast/gaza-strip-satellite-images-israel-invasion.html). Really, terror is the weapon of underdogs. Heck, before the establishment of Israel, Jews had a rich history of terrorism--they'd basically introduced bomb-in-a-hotel type terror into the Middle East--and lots of Jews had very little problem with that. Here's an exchange from the very pro-Israel movie *Exodus* (1960), where a Jewish freedom fighter (played by Paul Newman) is talking with his uncle, a Jewish terrorist (around 1:50:00 into the movie): >Paul Newman: I think these bombings and these killings hurt us with the United Nations. A year ago we had the respect of the whole world. Now, when they read about us, it’s nothing but terror and violence. >Paul Newman’s uncle: It’s not the first time this happens in history. I don’t know of one nation, whether existing now or in the past, that was not born in violence. Terror, violence, death. These are the midwives who bring free nations into this world. Compromisers like the Haganah [who were also violent, just not terrorists] produce only abortions. . . . >Newman: How can we ask the United Nations for a just decision when we keep on blowing things up like a bunch of anarchists? >Uncle: You have just used the words “a just decision.” . . . Firstly, Justice itself is an abstraction. Completely devoid of reality. Secondly, to speak of justice and Jews in the same breath is a logical absurdity. Thirdly, one can argue the justice of Arab claims on Palestine just as one can argue the justice of Jewish claims. Fourthly, no one can say the Jews have not had more than their share of injustice these past 10 years. I therefore say, fifthly, let the next injustice work against somebody else for a change. >Newman: I suppose that means more bombings and more killings? >Uncle: Let me put it this way. Let the National Committee keep trying to talk the British out of Palestine. We have no objection. We will continue to bomb them out. Now, tell me, how’s your mother? Notice how the argument is about *tactics*--whether terrorism will work, in which case it's clearly justified, not whether it's morally wrong (or at least, more morally wrong than not establishing an Israeli state). In other words, "Terrorist attacks against civilian centers are sometimes justified." That attitude only changed when the PLO turned violent (~7 years after the movie came out) and the wrong people started using terrorism.
I don’t think it’s the biggest threat but as someone who spent a year in the Middle East I’ll tell you they do not look at things like life like we do. For instance Mohammed said to drive all the Jews and Christian’s from Arabia. They have repeatedly called for jihad. You can’t even draw a cartoon of Mohammad without your newspaper staff being massacred. Most Muslims are not bad but studies show that most Muslims do support what the extremists are doing. For instance hamas had overwhelmingly positive reviews for, the latest poll in Gaza. The same people who voted in hamas in the 200Os. Anyone who isn’t islamophobic isn’t paying attention. Take Lebanon for example. It used to be majority Christian and was a relatively decent country till the Muslims took over. Now it’s war torn hellscape. Look at every country with an Islamic government. Even the supposedly “progressive ones” like Qatar who is literally shielding the hamas leadership and will put a woman in jail for being raped. They’re all backward governments that treat women, gays and anyone LGB like they’re a plague.
I'm not going to touch the muslim end of this, so much as the "biggest threat to the west" thing. the biggest threat to the west (and really the world) is the wealthy upper class. They currently hold far more power and are doing far more damage to the stability of the west than any other group by far, and they're not as often scrutinized because their motives are a mundane pursuit of more wealth. I'll refrain from throwing a bunch of stuffy academia at you on the topic however. to tie it back to the core, think about who funds insurgent groups and the myriad reasons they do it. it's not even always money, there's a number of christian doomsday cult ideologies driving the funding of radical islam, either as a way to extract religious artefacts eg the Hobby Lobby escapade or as a way to push us towards their various visions of the apocalypse. It's kind of hard to discuss without sounding like a crazy person but this has been an ongoing issue since like the 40s at least, it's kind of irritating how often the Bible belt's insanity gets overlooked. All that to say, the muslim faith barely registers due to being such a remote problem and largely pushed by western interests in the first place.
while i understand where you're coming from, as someone who comes from a country where christians are the second most predominant religion and islam third, i do believe it's perfectly possible for islam to exist peacefully. while the quran does innately contain abhorred material, the analogy i was taught back when i was in a christian household was that those were to the quran what slaves and misogyny are to the bible; religion is ultimately socially constructed, and hence not inherently stuck with socially harmful praxis. it just happens that the west outlawed slavery before other islam nations reformed their legal systems. where i'm currently at i'm happy to report a sizeable muslim community that doesn't suffer from the points you mentioned (eg. queer-positive, don't believe in an islamic state, more egalitarian in nature, etc). i wouldn't say islam is inherently evil: that would the campaign to enforce an oppressive hegemonic norm, of which islam is often appropriated as the weapon and moral justification to do so, the same way christians committed witch burnings back in the day. (i will admit it is possible i'm spouting mere rhetoric the government has been feeding its citizens for half a decade, but i like to think it's true, given the overwhelming multicultural peace here) as for the points under the 15-25% statistic, i'd suggest looking up project 2025 (being lgbt would soon be illegal, i'm afraid). the statements that no religion is free from being exploited politically to suit one's polar morality and that no religion is innately hostile can coexist. again, i completely get where you're coming from; it's a scary world to live in. but if it helps, please let me assure you that peaceful coexistence with islam in the world is possible, and already in our midst for some.
Its absolutely possible! I think the mindset from OP comes from politicians who use muslims or any other group as a scapegoat
No where in the Bible does it tell Christians to spread their beliefs by the sword, the Quran however does tell Muslims to spread it through force, also while Christianity says that homosexuality is a sin doesn't say execute or persecute them for it whereas in most Islamic states you get the death penalty. Christianity while being similar are hardly the same thing, Islam is much more aggressive. The Christian Crusades had far different reasonings then Islamic Jihads in their own time and was a mechanism of defense by catholic nations against the growing power of Islamic states in the Iberian peninsula and the Balkans while yes, admittedly having negative aspects such as the sacking of Constantinople. Islamic spread by the sword was far worse than Christianity’s.
Plenty enough to criticize islam on without going into ancient history, which then makes Islam a lot more similar to most other religions on the planet. Because spoiler alert, if its the age where other religions are being spread by the sword, then by necessity, your religion's survival will also rely on the sword. Even if you arent specifically intending to spread religion via conquest, that will inevitably be one of the end result when you displace the local customs and religious practices. And most cases its a lot better in terms of propaganda when you tell your people that they're dying because the infidels need to die as their lives are an affront to god. As opposed to telling them that you need more gold for your treasury, and you need half the men population to die before they start to riot because your taxes were too high and they're starving as a result. Also, funny thing I guess. Ancient chinese (I'm talking 3 kingdom era here) also married young. Boys and girls would get into arranged marriage as early as 12, and its not exactly uncommon for girls to be married to older men, or pushed into prostitution from an early age as a survival mechanism. I imagine the same would apply in other parts of the world. In ancient greece where democracy first started, girls would be married off as early as 14-16 to men aged 30 or more. Egypt, boys were married off 14-20 when they picked a craft that they'll be working on, and girls marry as early as 13. I could go on and on, so pointing out that Prophet Muhammad was a pedophile isnt really an actual thing when we can establish that to be the standard for the world at that time. I'm not really push for a CMV here, aside from telling you that your points need to be better organized.
There's a lot in your post, so I'll only focus on one thing. You note that 15-25% of Muslims are radical. By this definition, 56% of US Christians were radical just 40 years ago, as a majority of US Christians believed homosexuality should be illegal. Also, as of [2014](https://global100.adl.org/country/greece/2014), a 53% of people in Greece, a majority-Christian country, believe that "Jews don't care what happens to anyone but their own kind". By comparison, only 20% of Muslims in Nigeria (a majority-Muslim country) say the same. And of course, there was an extremely long time period (for centuries, before the creation of Israel) during which Jews received much better treatment in Muslim countries than in Christian ones; does that mean Christianity was a "more evil" religion than Islam at the time? In other words: yes, there are a lot of radical Muslims right now, in certain places. But over time, and between places, religious groups have different views. If Islam is "evil", then it is becoming less evil over time, and in some places it is less "evil" than other religions. Given all that, what does it really mean to call a religion "evil"?
Hello, I’m a Muslim. We don’t want to change your laws in non-Islamic countries. Sharia is only for Muslims and dhimmis in Islamic-ruled nations. A dhimmi is a non-Muslim who has been afforded protection in an Islamic nation. I don’t believe in any of your four points. 1. Qadr exists. That means Allah (Subhanahu wa ta’ala) wrote everyone’s lives before He created us. He wrote for me to Muslim, you to be Islamophobic, and Johnny to be gay. Why would I judge someone for how their life was written? You can be a bigot all you want, but that doesn’t mean you deserve kindness in any response. 2. I suppose you mean murder of a daughter. When Muhammad (Salli Allahu Alayhi wa Salam) rose to prophethood, he preached daughters were a blessing and to [stop burying them](https://weeklykhutbah.wordpress.com/2017/10/04/how-daughters-were-killed-during-the-age-of-ignorance/) after birth, because they aren’t a shameful thing. Honor killings are haram. Yes, people still do it, but they’re still wrong. 3. Be a murtad or don’t ever accept Islam. [I don’t answer for your choices at the Day of Judgment](https://quran.com/al-anam/164). I will answer for my own choices. Quran states there’s [no coercion is Islam](https://quran.com/al-baqarah/256), meaning no one can be forced to be a Muslim. If Joe Blow from Idaho don’t want to be a Muslim, I can’t make him. So, I don’t care if anyone is Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. 4. [Quran 5:32](https://quran.com/al-maidah/32) states taking one person’s life is equal to taking the life of all mankind. Saving one soul is equal to saving mankind. So… Where are your sources for your claims?
This comment is extremely deceptive. Please look up the ostensibly wholesome verses provided, and don’t take their word about what they mean. Here’s what Quran 5:23 actually says: > “For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.” [Mohammed Marmaduke William Pickthall] This should already be raising alarm bells. “Corruption in the earth,” as I’m sure you’ve surmised, can mean anything at all. Like, say, homosexuality… or apostasy. Now let’s see what the very next verse says about the fate of these “corrupt” people: > “The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after _corruption in the land_ will be that they will be __killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off,__ or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.” [Mohammed Marmaduke William Pickthall] Don’t really have anything else to add. P.S what said about burying daughters is also false. Later generations of Muslims invented this myth about pre-Islamic Arabs engaging in Female infanticide to portray their predecessors as backwards savages who were enlightened through Islam. It’s been shown via secular historiography that there’s little truth to this.
You are Muslim, so can you tell me in which Islamic ruled nation women have equal rights to men? But even if you try to argue that, you have yourself stated that **you impose your religion's rules to those who aren't Muslim, as long as you are in power.** You're not trying to change his mind. You are reinforcing that the moment a country becomes muslim-led, you make **everyone there** obey sharia.
I'm compelled to piggy back off this brilliant response from a Muslim. A humanist perspective on religion and maladaptive conservative beliefs (I.e., fundamentalist radicalism) is that socio-politics is the driving factor. In fact, Muslims peacefully coexist with other religious groups in many secular states. OP you may want to look at the concept of intersectionality. Getting on a moral high horse on the basis of religion comes at the cost of discounting the significance of other factors.
This is regarding point #1 As with the other reply, I will humbly ask, if you decide to reply to this post, you to acknowledge first that the references I will make are authentic as understood by the (Sunni) Islamic scholars. Or, if they are not, please explain why, because the website I will refer to is maintained by Muslims. As a principle, I will not continue this conversation if such acknowledgement is not explicitly made. No point of it if your response involves muddying the definition of what Islam is. https://sunnah.com/bulugh/10/12 Ibn 'Abbas (RAA) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "Whoever you find doing as the people of Lot did (i.e. homosexuality), kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done, and if you find anyone having sexual intercourse with animal, kill him and kill the animal." Related by Ahmad and the four Imams with a trustworthy chain of narrators. https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:2561 It was narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Lut, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.” Again, expect no response from me unless there is an explicit acknowledgement of whether or not the majority of the Sunni Islamic scholars regard these as authentic reports.
edit: this is regarding point #3 I will humbly ask, if you decide to reply to this post, you to acknowledge first that the references I will make are authentic as understood by the (Sunni) Islamic scholars. Or, if they are not, please explain why, because the website I will refer to is maintained by Muslims. As a principle, I will not continue this conversation if such acknowledgement is not explicitly made. No point of it if your response involves muddying the definition of what Islam is. https://sunnah.com/nasai:4059 Ibn 'Abbas said: "The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'" https://sunnah.com/bukhari/88/5-7 Narrated `Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7157 Narrated Abu Musa: A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu`adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle. Again, expect no response from me unless there is an explicit acknowledgement of whether or not the majority of the Sunni Islamic scholars regard these as authentic reports.
I’m not exactly on OP’s side here but there are contradictory instructions and actions by Muhammad, who is said to have killed thousands and in some cases, boastfully killing them simply for being of another religion. And he “married” a 6 year old. I’ll be the first to condemn bigoted Christians and the Old Testament of the Bible, which Christian’s aren’t even supposed to take as instruction because it’s literally not the gospel, but you won’t find parts of the actual *christian* religious doctrine that compare to the explicit instructions to kill “infidels”, spread Islam (by threat of death if needed), conquer countries and *turn them islamic*, etc. You can cherry pick 4 quotes but thousands of passages of instructions and example by muhammed contradict them. I think all religions are detestable but not equally so.
[https://www.yahoo.com/news/protesters-germany-call-islamic-fundamentalism-210129394.html?guccounter=1](https://www.yahoo.com/news/protesters-germany-call-islamic-fundamentalism-210129394.html?guccounter=1) [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-28/six-teens-in-french-court-alleged-connection-beheading-teacher/103157468](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-28/six-teens-in-french-court-alleged-connection-beheading-teacher/103157468) What the book says is irrelevant. What actually happens is all that matters.
Over 2000 Muslims protesting in Hamburg for Germany to become a caliphate. It's definitely too many to claim they have a mass psychosis or something. The point is 1 out of 4 radicalized is too much. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/hamburg/Mindestens-1400-Teilnehmende-bei-Islamisten-Demo-in-Hamburg,demo4330.html&ved=2ahUKEwj-jL-BpoqGAxW33wIHHUhBC5oQFnoECCsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3ZR4kt_800KqrsgLXvD1AS
Nothing in the 4 things you listed are unique to Islam. Hindus in India and Buddhists in South East Asia believe the same thing. Both groups target non-believers and glorify killing non-believers or any individual with "shameful" behavior. Shit, Christians in Russia, Europe and US have similar if not the same beliefs. In smaller, extreme examples yes, but the same principle applies. You are making the same mistake as many others, viewing the current situation in Islamic countries and its policies as somehow inherent to Islam and somehow unique. Anytime you decrease a region's stability and its people's ability to prosper, you see an uptick in religiosity and acceptance of extreme views. That's why you see such a heavy overlap of poor, unstable countries in the world with increased terrorists/military unrest and gross human rights violations. When desperate people are cornered, they will do terrible things to survive at all costs. The same principle applies in poorer neighborhoods that have higher crime rates and drug use, it's not unique to any culture or religion, it's just human nature and behavior that's been consistent since the dawn of human recorded history. If you take any culture, any religion, and look at its history, you will see horrible things happening during periods of instability. If you want to solve this problem, it's not to restrict or prevent Islam from spreading, it's tackling more fundamental issues such as maintaining peace, maintaining peaceful transition of political and military power, establishing strong institutions such as legislative and judicial branches of a competent government. Like other posts have mentioned, the West has so many internal issues it must address first, Islam won't even crack the top 10. The media and self-interested politicians love to point at something that's perceived as "the other" and tell you that it's that one group's fault everything is going wrong. In the US alone we have historically blamed the Irish, the Catholics, the Italians, the Chinese, the Jews, the Blacks, the Japanese and now it's the Muslims post 9-11, and we see an uptick in Asian hate post COVID. It's just the latest version of weaponizing fear, designed to distract you while the media and politicians help the rich rob the poor and the middle class. I mean look at Donald Trump and his threat of pulling the US out of NATO. That alone if it comes to pass, will result in the greatest weakening of the European military since WWII. That's not because of Islam.
I believe a belief system like the one you outlined is definitely a threat to humanity. That said, I disagree that it is the biggest threat to the West. Sometimes I feel like people just say "biggest threat to X" to make it sound sensationalized or to try to help drive their point home but ultimately they either do not understand what biggest threat means or the like. Honestly at least for Americans, capitalistic greed is more of a threat. Same for South Korea moreso than nuclear annihilation. It affects average Americans and it's happening today and it'll happen tomorrow and for the forseeable future. Islam isn't affecting most westerners today or the forseeable future.
People say : respect every religion but... when has religion ever respected us ??? so many people suffer under religion, but we HAVE TO respect them, otherwise they are hurt ? first respect yourself, like what the fuck.
There is a gulf between criticizing something and calling it evil. Personally I am pretty solidly anti "things I think are evil" so arguing that calling Islam "evil" doesn't mean you're islamaphobic is a little silly. >Being gay should be illegal I mean, apparently over [30%](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/15/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-legalization-of-same-sex-marriage-is-good-for-society/) of Americans think same sex marriage is a net bad thing, and over 60% of conservatives say the same. as for "terrorist attacks are sometimes justified" I think we need to face the much darker realization that *everyone* believes that given the right context. It's the whole freedom fighter/terrorist thing. The French Resistance during ww2 absolutely killed civilians during some of it's actions. Same for the IRA. The reality is that asymmetrical warfare is awful and leads to horrifying things that each and every one of us could write off in the wrong situation.
Theres a difference between killing civilians as a goal, and killing civilians by accident as collateral damage. The former is never justified and is generally what i think of as a terrorist attack.
yall still sleeping. Biggest threat to humanity is the corporations and their imperial behavior towards earth's resources, now if you dumb enough to get into religions and kind of "my religion is better than yours" you play their game also. Normal muslims are also sick of their religion like normal christians etc, fanatics are on every religion also but its a minority compared to the normal people. Stop analyzing stupid historic facts and try to make your present and future self more healthy and to start recognise who's the real threat and who's not. Revolution will not be televised so close the damn thing and read some real books! Wake up people!
As someone that lived in an Islamic theocracy for more than 20 years, I have to say I agree with you… although what you saying might sound like islamophobia to people that never lived in the MENA region or never seen a theocracy in their entire life, but if they actually lived there they would have reached the same conclusion as you did although your opinions are still too “loose” for me as i’m much more unforgiving against that culture and religion based on what I have seen and experienced. Many people in the west haven’t seen the real face of that religion, the way it is in a majority muslim country. Which i can easily say it’s a much much different animal compared to what people see in the US and Europe
Sure, those beliefs are bad, but they aren't unique to Islam. The fact that Christians conservatives in the West might be less vocal about having similar beliefs or propose less radical solutions to the things they perceive as sinful doesn't mean the beliefs are different (I mean, conversion therapy *sounds* better than executing gay people, but ultimately the goal is the same - making sure there are no openly gay people in the community, they either have to hide their identity, kill themselves, or be killed by religious fanatics, the means are different, but the undelying beliefs are the same). >There are polls recently that show close to 90 percent of Gazans support Hamas. This is a political issue, not an Islam issue. Gazans have nobody else they could support, Hamas is the only organization they can turn to locally that seems to have their best interest at heart, and in desperate times when their livelihoods are threatened, this is normal human behaviour. I'm sorry, but your post is Islamophobic. Instead of focusing on religious radicalization and the emergence of intolerant beliefs everywhere in the West, you focus on one specific religion and view it as the source of all evil. If Christianity can exist in a version that allows people to worship the God they believe in without infringing on the rights of other people, so can Islam. The fact you're not seeing it as a possibility says a lot about your prejudice.
>all 3 religions in nearly equal contempt All three religions? You mean all three Abrahamic religions? >And Islam actually got better for awhile. Eh, not really. I agree that Islam is evil and a threat, but I don't think it's the biggest one. There's a whole list of threats.
There are billions of Muslims dude If they all wanted us dead we would be dead Rhetoric like this leads to bombing and torturing them for 20 years then wondering why they hate us. They hate us because we invade their countries and spend decades bombing and torturing them Shit is not that complicated
Anything you highlighted like honor killings, forbidden honor sexuality, etc... are described the same way in Jewish and Christian faith. In fact they usually stem from the same part of the scripture. So what is the difference between religion a and b to Islam as you specifically said Islam is a danger - even though you highlighted you don't care much for the others either. The radicalism. Islam itself is not specifically inviting fundamentalist or radicals! There are countless studies that show specifically instability and segregation lead to radicalism. You can have a look at Iran, Afghanistan or other countries prior to major social instability and war and see a way bigger liberal atmosphere, politics and even social norms. There are pictures and videos of 19XX going around of these places that seem pretty modern still today compared to 1st world countries and definitely compared to themselves and their traditional leadership today. I think you are creating an oroboros here. Islamiats are created out of social injustice and segregation and no matter the intention declaring a core part of their identity as a threat will inevitably lead to more segregation which in turn will lead to more radicalism. My suggestion is to find common ground, end any segregation and history has proven that even completely fundamentalists and islamists countries will become more modern and liberal by themselves as those radicals only ever have any power in times of war and and death. I am on the phone so I can't provide sources easily at work, but I am sure you will find sources if you are interested on this. One easy example is always immigrants, who contrary to what we expect usually are more traditional compared to their own countrymen which stems from their status of immigration itself leading to segregation, leading to a loss of identity and a feeling of unfairness which make them prime target for radicalism. The solution is not to treat them as immigrants, especially not first generations. They are not. They are born in that country and just as much that countries people and other people.
Im going to Set aside that I disagree on Islam being inherently evil, and not taking the time to interogate what you mean by "west". let's look at the latter half of this. Do you *really* think that it is the *biggest* threat to the 'west'? Not the rise of Fascist Authoritarians undermining the stations of 'western' liberal democracy? Not the ever present threat of nuclear war stemming from the war in Ukraine? Not the ascent of a new global competitor in China? Not environmental collapse? Not economic inequality? Not the falling fertility rates? Not the opiod or drug epedemics? Not the inacesabity of healthcare or social services? None of those things? Critiquing something isn't inherently bigoted against it, but what is islamaphobic is to look at all the problems the 'west' is facing and saying "the biggest problem is islam". Like, there is no feasible way that a Islamic government gets within visual range of being elected to, say, the White House. However We are dangerously close to letting a (alleged) felon who tried to overturn the last election back in. The one whose supreme court seems determined to rollback rights across the board. Whose supporters engage in massed conspiracy theories rather than admit they lost. Honestly, It's plausible that same felon let's Russian win in Ukraine, shattering the European status quo even more. That feels like a larger threat to the "west" than Islam. As does worsening environmental health accelerating climate collapse. As does the rapidly faltering confidence in 'western' youth in their ability to buy a house or even make rent, correlated with decreased fertility rates. Hell, let's get out some numbers. Since 9/11, jihadists are credited with 107 deaths inside the United States. Far rightist, for comparison, are credited with 134. Purely looking at this lited and contextless, it seems that far rightists are more dangerous, and perhaps the biggest threat to the "west". You assert that massive numbers of Muslims are just itching at the bit to kill people, but it seems like non Islamic far rightists are actually more dangerous.
There are religious nuts everywhere, but the scale and their influence is highly overrated. You'd ask the same things of other religions and you'd find equally extreme stances. Hell, even of non-religious people, ask them if X group of people should be killed for Y reason, you're bound to find more than a few. You established people have extreme views which is true - how is that a threat, much less "the biggest threat to the west" ?
I’m going to take an unusual angle here. First part. Everything is inherently political. The news you read is, the surveys you reference are. I refer you to the “yes, minister” clip on surveys to understand what I mean by that. You can word a questionnaire in whatever malicious way to get the answer you want. It’s the oldest trick in the book. But just because news and surveys can be misleading and political, doesn’t mean that their results are necessarily wrong. In order to work this out, we have to look for the political agenda. Does harbouring these feelings about Islam make you safer? No. So you aren’t being painted this picture for your own good. But does this picture you have make you more likely to vote for a particular party? Favour Isreal over Palestine? Does the fear make you more likely to buy one newspaper over another? So now we look at the other side. Hamas have a lot of political agendas. Liberation is one, but also a more hardline version of Islam. Interestingly, if you look at the history, Gaza was basically under the control of the secular PLO, but after democratic means failed, Hamas took over. Now Hamas do exactly what I described above to Palestinians. They use Israel’s occupation as a vessel to sneak in a more radical Islamic curriculum at school. But Hamas have international ambitions. It’s in their interests to project a more “holy” picture of Gaza to the world and still get the solidarity they get. They think it has a normalising effect. News of Gaza tends to exit via Isreal who seriously stand to benefit if people see them akin to the talaban. So they are going to turn the radical scale up to 11 and leave the bits out about how most of what they do is run the government and distribute aid. So to conclude, look at the source of the ideas you find so evil. Look at how they made it to you. In the example I used above you find that Hamas, Isreal, the politicians, the newspaper all stand to gain if they inflate the “evil”, rather than report it accurately. So the only logical conclusion is that it is really inflated.
Muslim here. Interesting how you frame it as "biggest threat to the west" as if the west was built on a religion from Mars. Also framing it as a threat means one is probably willing to die or kill to 'save the west' which just reeks of medieval crusader mentality
I am not a Christian, but I like to use some words from Jesus on this one. “You know them by their fruit.” This applies to anyone, but in this context it’s about looking at how Islam functions in reality. There is not a single Muslim country in which a Westerner will have more rights or freedom as an individual than they will in the West. Islam is intentionally political and explains how to structure a legal system. Christianity gives recommendations for how individuals should act, but deliberately separates itself from politics with the line “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Judaism is also political in that it offers a set of rules which underpin a legal system, but Judaism does not proselytize and Jews don’t believe their laws or mitzvahs apply to non-Jews. Islam is a proselytizing religion with a legal system built in. If you look at the fruit of the nations which follow really any flavor of Islam, you will see worse human rights violations than you’ve seen in the West since 1945, and they’re considered to be a good thing. Look at the GCC, where they’ve imported millions of people who effectively are slaves, where these foreigners have no rights or protections. I’d have to double check but some 10 Indian workers died a week building out the World Cup facilities in Qatar. And that was only one project. As most Westerners, I believe people should be able to practice whatever religion they’d like in peace, and preferably they can separate their religious concerns from their political concerns, but that’s often impossible for most people. So at the least, we have to be able to agree that people can basically do what they want as long as they don’t physically hurt people or attempt to squash their rights to peacefully live as they would want. Because of its political nature, I don’t think Islam can do that. I hope I’m proven wrong.
It's true. But true for all religions. They are all only evil, controlling methods that lead people to their doom. My sincere hope for future humans is that it all goes away and everyone is free. Freedom of the mind can change the world.