What Is ISLAM?

[Cyclops]

Personally I think Islam is an Abrahamic religion in that it partakes of the same stream of monotheism as surviving Judaism and, to a lesser extent, Christianity does. Frankly it borders on idiocy or perversely insulting bigotry to suggest otherwise, given the clear shared cultural milieu of Near eastern religious currents present across the "big three".

Even more personally I believe Abraham, or his inspiration, was an enthusiastic son slaughtering incestuous polygamous polytheist. I believe that part of the story was remodelled for the benefit of the later monotheists who adopted and monopolised their/xyr legacy.

[swabian]

Even more personally I believe Abraham, or his inspiration, was an enthusiastic son slaughtering incestuous polygamous polytheist. I believe that part of the story was remodelled for the benefit of the later monotheists who adopted and monopolised their/xyr legacy.

I'm sorry, but are you trying to say that you appreciate Abrahamitic religions because they, among other things, maybe euphemized the story of some ancient raging tyrant and murderer of his own children? I find it much easier to believe that the depravity and psychological disturbance in some men always was extremely deep and awful.

[Axalon]

Islam is inherently political distinct from other religions, I feel like that was missed.

Islam is an openly totalitarian movement – it is implicitly understood that it will have inherent significant political dimensions and elements in it. Political Islam (Islamism) is an inherent element and part of Islam. It can never be - credibly - separated from the Islamic corpus somehow - without also abandoning the very framework that make up and defines Islam in the first place. In short, the two go together, always. In order to achieve (unchallenged) Islamic supremacy - which is always the endgame of Islam – the struggle for securing political power, application and impact is inherent and crucial. Without it, Islam can not function properly - as intended and outlined in the Islamic source-material.

Now, how do you think sharia will work out with the western secular (kafir) civilization and its freedoms? As it (sharia) inherently rejects each and every freedom that defines the western secular (kafir) civilization in the first place... That’s right folks - it doesn’t. What a coincidence, who could have thought?!?

- A

[PointOfViewGun]

Islam is an openly totalitarian movement – it is implicitly understood that it will have inherent significant political dimensions and elements in it. Political Islam (Islamism) is an inherent element and part of Islam. It can never be - credibly - separated from the Islamic corpus somehow - without also abandoning the very framework that make up and defines Islam in the first place. In short, the two go together, always. In order to achieve (unchallenged) Islamic supremacy - which is always the endgame of Islam – the struggle for securing political power, application and impact is inherent and crucial. Without it, Islam can not function properly - as intended and outlined in the Islamic source-material.

Now, how do you think sharia will work out with the western secular (kafir) civilization and its freedoms? As it (sharia) inherently rejects each and every freedom that defines the western secular (kafir) civilization in the first place... That’s right folks - it doesn’t. What a coincidence, who could have thought?!?

- A

Does it really? Sharia is merely a set of laws inspired by Islam. It's coverage and application differs from era to region. Sharia could work perfectly or poorly in any European country depending on what gets covered by it. The failure in your "analysis" is that you think Sharia is singular static set of laws. It's not.

[basics]

PointOfViewGun,

For all your defense of Islam you have not yet answered the question, " What is Islam?" What is it? What does it do? How does it work?

[Sar1n]

Does it really? Sharia is merely a set of laws inspired by Islam. It's coverage and application differs from era to region. Sharia could work perfectly or poorly in any European country depending on what gets covered by it. The failure in your "analysis" is that you think Sharia is singular static set of laws. It's not.

It does a remarkably good job of dragging the countries where it applies back to the barbarism of Muhammad's age. That's because it isn't "inspired", it's directly derived from Muhammad's life as narrated by Islamic tradition. And thus it will always be incompatible with basic principles of western secular civilization.

[PointOfViewGun]

PointOfViewGun,
For all your defense of Islam you have not yet answered the question, " What is Islam?" What is it? What does it do? How does it work?

It doesn't do anything. It doesn't work in any way. It's a monotheistic religion.

It does a remarkably good job of dragging the countries where it applies back to the barbarism of Muhammad's age. That's because it isn't "inspired", it's directly derived from Muhammad's life as narrated by Islamic tradition. And thus it will always be incompatible with basic principles of western secular civilization.

Does it? Throughout history different Muslim majority countries fared differently. Since the Hadith contradict itself immensely you could easily create a Sharia that's as modern as the Swedish democracy. You simply prefer to rely on one sub-set of stories while ignoring others.

[Sar1n]

Does it? Throughout history different Muslim majority countries fared differently. Since the Hadith contradict itself immensely you could easily create a Sharia that's as modern as the Swedish democracy. You simply prefer to rely on one sub-set of stories while ignoring others.

And yet they never advanced toward the basic values of freedom, secularism and so on that define modern western countries. Of course, how do you, for example, derive secular principle that religion has no business making laws within framework of religion making laws, which is what Sharia is?

[PointOfViewGun]

And yet they never advanced toward the basic values of freedom, secularism and so on that define modern western countries. Of course, how do you, for example, derive secular principle that religion has no business making laws within framework of religion making laws, which is what Sharia is?

Some certainly have advanced, some regressed. Through out roughly 1400 years of its existence Islam was applied differently in different countries in different eras. Today, jizya, for example, isn't used in the medieval sense in almost any country. Even Saudi Arabia doesn't have it. On the other hand, one can easily grant religious freedom based on the Quranic verse saying that there is no compulsion in religion.

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

10:99 And if your Lord had pleased, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; will you then force men till they become believers?

88:21-22 Therefore do remind, for you are only a reminder. You are not a watcher over them.

Is that not a secular principle?

[Sar1n]

On the other hand, one can easily grant religious freedom based on the Quranic verse saying that there is no compulsion in religion.

Is that not a secular principle?

Which is in itself a paradox. If you make a law based on this passage, the law itself is breaking it. And what is Sharia but a law?

Which is why it is always ignored when it come to the big pick'n mix which is what Islam, and any other religion really, is. But every religion is applied-and usually tailored for that purpose-first and foremost to control people. The power of religion is directly dependent on how many aspect of the believers' lives it can affect and control. And Islam is most pervasive out of all major religions.

And that is a very bad thing for everyone who shares the planet with it and wants to do things differently.

[PointOfViewGun]

Which is in itself a paradox. If you make a law based on this passage, the law itself is breaking it. And what is Sharia but a law?

Which is why it is always ignored when it come to the big pick'n mix which is what Islam, and any other religion really, is. But every religion is applied-and usually tailored for that purpose-first and foremost to control people. The power of religion is directly dependent on how many aspect of the believers' lives it can affect and control. And Islam is most pervasive out of all major religions.

And that is a very bad thing for everyone who shares the planet with it and wants to do things differently.

If you make a law based on the passages I pointed, a law that would grant freedom of religion, it would break the passage saying that there is no compulsion in religion? How does that make sense?

[Sar1n]

If you make a law based on the passages I pointed, a law that would grant freedom of religion, it would break the passage saying that there is no compulsion in religion? How does that make sense?

Then you are creating a religious compulsion to tolerate other religions. That's something that doesn't come easily to ideologies that claim to know the truth and right way of doing things from the source greater than humanity, because the other religions claim the same.

[PointOfViewGun]

Then you are creating a religious compulsion to tolerate other religions. That's something that doesn't come easily to ideologies that claim to know the truth and right way of doing things from the source greater than humanity, because the other religions claim the same.

I don't always use emojis, but damn, this is hilarious. You're actually arguing against me here about this, and you're relying on semantics play. Saying that there is no compulsion in religion and that Allah in Quran basically mocks those that force others to believe in their own religion is not forcing others to be tolerate of other religions absolutely. It says that you can't force your religion onto others while violating their rights. That's a quite modern idea.

[Sar1n]

I don't always use emojis, but damn, this is hilarious. You're actually arguing against me here about this, and you're relying on semantics play. Saying that there is no compulsion in religion and that Allah in Quran basically mocks those that force others to believe in their own religion is not forcing others to be tolerate of other religions absolutely. It says that you can't force your religion onto others while violating their rights. That's a quite modern idea.

It's a paradox. You've admitted before that they're inherent to Islam. I've set it up so I can illustrate one thing: theoretically, it's possible to derive anything from it. Practice? How often was this verse used as justification of anything in Sharia? How often was Sharia really used to create laws that could represent the western civilization?

This is because every religion is, in practice, authoritative ideology. You have the clergy that interprets the religion for those under them. They claim to have the authority given by divine, and those who believe grant it to them. Thus, when left alone, the clergy makes interpretations that maintain or reinforce their hold. Which is incompatible with freedom and secularism of western civilization.

It took hundreds of years to strip Christianity of most of its hold over population. Islam is, in most areas, still reinforcing it.

[basics]

PointOfViewGun,

Quote " It doesn't do anything. It doesn't work in any way. It's a monotheistic religion."

Now that is quite a surprising admittance for if it doesn't do anything why is it surrounded by so many laws that demand its followers do many things? I mean what kind of god doesn't do anything that makes people follow it? You see Jesus as a prophet from God and since no prophet from God can lie why do you disregard His words about salvation bought and paid for by His death and resurrection which was God actually doing something for sinning people by following a god and a so-called prophet that does nothing for you? I'm sorry but I don't see the logic behind following a god who may or may not have mercy on you when you die. According to God salvation must come before death so mercy after is a false promise. Mohammed never died to save anyone but Jesus Christ did. Mohammed is not coming back to judge the world but Jesus Christ is, why? It's so simple, Jesus Christ is God.

[PointOfViewGun]

It's a paradox. You've admitted before that they're inherent to Islam. I've set it up so I can illustrate one thing: theoretically, it's possible to derive anything from it. Practice? How often was this verse used as justification of anything in Sharia? How often was Sharia really used to create laws that could represent the western civilization?
This is because every religion is, in practice, authoritative ideology. You have the clergy that interprets the religion for those under them. They claim to have the authority given by divine, and those who believe grant it to them. Thus, when left alone, the clergy makes interpretations that maintain or reinforce their hold. Which is incompatible with freedom and secularism of western civilization.
It took hundreds of years to strip Christianity of most of its hold over population. Islam is, in most areas, still reinforcing it.

I've admitted that its a paradox? Where? You seem to be altering too much to keep your narrative alive. You also seem to be moving the goal post there. It's a wonderful way of admitting that your earlier assertion failed. Also, you make it obvious that any ideology or principle can be corrupted. Hence, in your attempt to attack Islam you're undermining any kind of ideology, religion or not. That makes your new line of argument completely pointless.

PointOfViewGun,

Quote " It doesn't do anything. It doesn't work in any way. It's a monotheistic religion."

Now that is quite a surprising admittance for if it doesn't do anything why is it surrounded by so many laws that demand its followers do many things? I mean what kind of god doesn't do anything that makes people follow it? You see Jesus as a prophet from God and since no prophet from God can lie why do you disregard His words about salvation bought and paid for by His death and resurrection which was God actually doing something for sinning people by following a god and a so-called prophet that does nothing for you? I'm sorry but I don't see the logic behind following a god who may or may not have mercy on you when you die. According to God salvation must come before death so mercy after is a false promise. Mohammed never died to save anyone but Jesus Christ did. Mohammed is not coming back to judge the world but Jesus Christ is, why? It's so simple, Jesus Christ is God.

To get a meaningful answer you need to ask the right question. Ideologies don't do anything themselves. They convey ideas. Just Christianity doesn't do anything Islam itself doesn't do anything... I'm not saying Jesus lied. I'm saying people who reported the current version of what he said lied. You should stick to what people actually argue. Why do you have to lie about what people say to defend your religion's validity?

[Sar1n]

I've admitted that its a paradox? Where? You seem to be altering too much to keep your narrative alive. You also seem to be moving the goal post there. It's a wonderful way of admitting that your earlier assertion failed. Also, you make it obvious that any ideology or principle can be corrupted. Hence, in your attempt to attack Islam you're undermining any kind of ideology, religion or not. That makes your new line of argument completely pointless.

Does it? Throughout history different Muslim majority countries fared differently. Since the Hadith contradict itself immensely you could easily create a Sharia that's as modern as the Swedish democracy. You simply prefer to rely on one sub-set of stories while ignoring others.

Here we go.

Oh, any ideology can be changed and corrupted with enough effort. If it doesn't have proper system of checks, it's easier. The more authoritative it is, it's easier. If it derives its authority from a belief in something that cannot be proven, even easier.

Of course, when it was started by a barbaric warlord who used it to create his power base, it's hard to say if it wasn't meant that way in the first place.

[PointOfViewGun]

Here we go.
Oh, any ideology can be changed and corrupted with enough effort. If it doesn't have proper system of checks, it's easier. The more authoritative it is, it's easier. If it derives its authority from a belief in something that cannot be proven, even easier.
Of course, when it was started by a barbaric warlord who used it to create his power base, it's hard to say if it wasn't meant that way in the first place.

Go where? I'm talking about Hadith there, not Islam. Islam is Quran. Anything on top of the Quran is human addition. How far are you gonna carry this goal post?

[Sar1n]

Go where? I'm talking about Hadith there, not Islam. Islam is Quran. Anything on top of the Quran is human addition. How far are you gonna carry this goal post?

About 99% of muslims, give or take a few, disagree with you. For them hadith-though they might have sometimes different ideas about what exactly is relevant hadith-is just as integral part of Islam as Qu'ran.

And after all, it's what people do with it matters...wasn't that your point a little bit back?

To get a meaningful answer you need to ask the right question. Ideologies don't do anything themselves. They convey ideas. Just Christianity doesn't do anything Islam itself doesn't do anything... I'm not saying Jesus lied. I'm saying people who reported the current version of what he said lied. You should stick to what people actually argue. Why do you have to lie about what people say to defend your religion's validity?

[PointOfViewGun]

About 99% of muslims, give or take a few, disagree with you. For them hadith-though they might have sometimes different ideas about what exactly is relevant hadith-is just as integral part of Islam as Qu'ran.
And after all, it's what people do with it matters...wasn't that your point a little bit back?

I have the intellectual capacity to distinguish between the idea and the follower. There is no real study I could find to suggest what is the prevalence of rejection of Hadith as a religious authority, but sure, vast majority would give Hadith stories religious importance, but no one would equate it with the Quran. That's quite blasphemous thing to suggest. Then again most random Muslims would have no idea what they exactly cover. People have Quran's in their house but rarely a book containing Hadith stories.

You made a claim about what Islam is. You need to acknowledge that you failed miserably at it.