Debate: Is Islam a Threat to the West?

[Amica]

I just came back from Europe which is my birthplace and I am cringing whenever I see the invasion that is taking place in Europe. It is not a military invasion but a cultural and ethnic kind.
I understand these individuals. They're exhibiting the most human quality which is to do whatever it takes to survive. But these Middle Easterners that somehow do make it to the West need to understand that this is exactly the reason we demand that they leave the shackles of their backwards religion behind. Why is it that almost all the failed states in the World come from where Muslims live … Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan … This is also where the most grotesque terrorism in the world comes from. People are naturally going to be weary about allowing such a dysfunctional culture to come into their countries
Based on human emotions we must be compassionate but letting this barbaric culture further advance in our midst is a grave mistake! The so called "refugees" eat (!) their own travel documents, so there is harder for the authorities to send them back! They start fights, loot, steal and behave thuggish menacing ways, that is very unbecoming to the image of a poor refugee. I feel very sorry for the kids and families with small children, but otherwise the sheer number is prohibitive in terms of letting them stay...There is a human catastrophe in Syria but how come Turkey wants to move her 2 million and pass them onto Europe? Now they are building a wall! Hungary is building a wall! If you say there is no threat your head is in your butt, simply saying....How come they cannot go to Saudi Arabia? They have the room and the funds....they are closer culturally...?? Send them back there!
Just imagine how many sleepers for the Islamic State are in the crowds whether they are coming from either Syria/Iraq or Northern Africa?
The EU political correctness and stupidity (no, that is not compassion! It is moronic) is digging their own grave! Endangering their own citizenry in the name of some moronic utopia is a mistake that will haunt EU as well as the idiot in the White House.

I sure hope you never have to become a refugee because, and I as someone who was a refugee know, it is not a very positive experience! There is no "invasion" of Europe. It is just a reaction to European support of unjust wars. Perhaps Western powers that be wanted all Arabs to go extinct and were caught of guard by thousands of people who refuse to be killed.

 

[Friend]

One such is the belief that death is the appropriate response to those who choose to leave the faith. I don't have the exact numbers right at hand, but 30% is what I am remembering. Considering the great number of those who profess to follow this religion, that is a whopping number of people.

It is your choice to believe in islam or not even if you are a muslim ,, It'syour testimony in this life and in the Hereafter result will be obtained .

Allah says: “Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 256]

the problem start when you try to convince others to leave Islam ,,

Preaching against Islamas when you leave islamic faith is kind of adeclaration of war against Islam and this is what we call (Apostasy Wars in Islam)

 

[shunyadragon]

I sure hope you never have to become a refugee because, and I as someone who was a refugee know, it is not a very positive experience! There is no "invasion" of Europe. It is just a reaction to European support of unjust wars. Perhaps Western powers that be wanted all Arabs to go extinct and were caught of guard by thousands of people who refuse to be killed.

I believe it is unrealistic to blame the west entirely for the conflicts where the nature of Judaism, Christianity and Islam contribute equally to the unfortunate bloody conflicts in the Middle East and Europe over time. The brutal historical conflicts between Sunni and Shite Islam is Islam's problem, and not the West.

Nonetheless the historical nature of Christianities Holy War and attempts to control, colonize, manipulate, and culturally dominate and convert Islam is a huge factor center stage in the Middle East throughout the history of these relationships.

The failure to develop a universal perspective of international law and relationships with non-Muslims creates a separation and violence in relationship with those who believe differently. The fact that most Islamic countries today are hostile toward religious minorities, and often violently oppressive, regardless of vague euphemistic statements of religious tolerance. The religious minorities are being forced out of these countries. A classic example is the expulsion of Jews form Egypt in 1956-57, and the confiscation of their properties.

In my view clinging to ancient out of date religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam are in fact of history a threat to western civilization West, East, North and South.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

A classic example is the expulsion of Jews form Egypt in 1956-57, and the confiscation of their properties.

Nice date drop. Do you realize what was going on during this time? Both in Egypt and its neighbor? Egypt was at war with Israel, the Jews in Egypt were quite blatant supporters of Israel and some (not all) even began attempting to fight from within. It is a causation of war that many countries remove certain groups from its borders. However it is a point of note that there is still a significant Jewish and Christian population in Egypt. So the idea that it was all Jews is still a fruitless claim.

I feel it is also fair to point out the expulsion of most Muslims and Christians (and working on a full expulsion through attrition and governing) from the only Jewish country.

In my view clinging to ancient out of date religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam are in fact of history a threat to western civilization West, East, North and South.

In my view Agnosticism based "modern" religions are nothing but cherry picking baseless ideas that have no real argument. You keep saying, they are ancient so they are wrong, yet give no tangible proof of such a statement. You claim to be a form of Bahai, and yet you speak more like an atheist angry that they have no proof of their claim and making blanket non-supported claims of falsehoods of other religions.

You are right that there have been violent clashes in the past, and many do not support the doctrine of the religions. But that in and of itself is not a proof of inherited error. You must have missed the point of much of the Quran where it details conflicts involving Christians and Jews, where the groups would make deals and not stand for them, or would attack Muslims for financial gain, but Allah protected. Whether that be Divine intervention or simply a common thread of meaning among the fighting men. Conflict is inevitable. The Ummah has had its political issues, however through it all, the Ummah has remained.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nice date drop. Do you realize what was going on during this time? Both in Egypt and its neighbor? Egypt was at war with Israel, the Jews in Egypt were quite blatant supporters of Israel and some (not all) even began attempting to fight from within. It is a causation of war that many countries remove certain groups from its borders. However it is a point of note that there is still a significant Jewish and Christian population in Egypt. So the idea that it was all Jews is still a fruitless claim.

Actually the above highlighted is blatantly false big time as to what was documented at the time. There is no evidence of Jews even supporting Israel in any significance nor attempting to fight from within. There were not any significant incidents by Jews within Egypt reported during this time. If there were the normal persecution of those involved would be in order. Egypt was not at war with its own Jewish citizens. This blanket expulsion and seizing of property was blatant religious ethnic cleansing on a large scale. I would advise you to get your facts straight.

I feel it is also fair to point out the expulsion of most Muslims and Christians (and working on a full expulsion through attrition and governing) from the only Jewish country.

Of course it is fair for you to include this. As far as my post and future conversations, I include Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the same boat as problems in the modern world.

In my view Agnosticism based "modern" religions are nothing but cherry picking baseless ideas that have no real argument. You keep saying, they are ancient so they are wrong, yet give no tangible proof of such a statement. You claim to be a form of Bahai, and yet you speak more like an atheist angry that they have no proof of their claim and making blanket non-supported claims of falsehoods of other religions.

I cite facts, and the accusation of 'angry atheist' reflects your bigoted view of those who believe differently, which by your witness predominates contemporary Islam in Islamic countries.

Your accusations of agnostic modern religions 'are nothing but cherry picking baseless ideas that have no real argument.' is itself baseless, and does not include the Theist Baha'i Faith. These modern religions like the Unitarian Universalist are as a matter of fact decidedly less if not 'non-violent when compared to the ancient traditional religions.

Your negative view towards what you call 'modern religions,' which are decidedly less violent clearly reflects the problems these religions have in the Islamic countries where they are being forced out, and even in a moderate country like Turkey they are decreasing in numbers due slow grinding pressure.

You are right that there have been violent clashes in the past, and many do not support the doctrine of the religions. But that in and of itself is not a proof of inherited error. You must have missed the point of much of the Quran where it details conflicts involving Christians and Jews, where the groups would make deals and not stand for them, or would attack Muslims for financial gain, but Allah protected. Whether that be Divine intervention or simply a common thread of meaning among the fighting men. Conflict is inevitable. The Ummah has had its political issues, however through it all, the Ummah has remained.

I have not excluded either Judaism nor Christianity for contributing to the unending violence in the name of religion in the modern world.

You consider it fate that 'conflict is inevitable,' this is an fortunate view that further plagues ancient world views.

Your are neglecting the violent bloody schism between Sunni and Shite that plagues the Islamic world. Do you consider this 'conflict inevitable'?

I have to consider this an 'angry' no response, and a failure to address the issues where Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all threats to Western Civilization.

 

[shunyadragon]

error in posting

 

[BigJoeNobody]

This blanket expulsion and seizing of property was blatant religious ethnic cleansing on a large scale. I would advise you to get your facts straight.

and yet you post this... so tell me, how many Jews were effected by this "blanket expulsion" and at what point were they allowed to return to such an oppressive state?

regardless of your claims, they don't stand up to reason. If they were all expatriated, why is there still a significant population in Egypt? Why did the "religious intolerance" stop at Jews? Why were the Christians not pushed out as well?

You claim this sounds like an angry post, and to a certain degree it is. You seem to think it is everyone else who is wrong and you yourself are "correct". at no point in your rambling have you said 1 positive thing, nor neutral, nor even mentioned a view you have of your own. You simply say Baha'i don't believe this or that and are non-violent, and "ancient" religions are "out of date" insinuating their falsehood and they are inherently violent.

as problems in the modern world.

To say someones religion is a problem in the modern world is quite a insult. This normally wouldn't have been allowed in these forums but as you can see it has slid through again.

I cite facts

no you cite instances of issues. Not facts. Facts that the religions are "out of date" would require an actual analysis of how they were true, but are no longer. You could suffice to make arguments of how the teachings are now simply not true irregardless of their truth at inception. Saying look at the Shia/Sunni conflicts (again... it's been covered many times by people much more knowledgeable than I) are in comparison to many world issues, minor at best.

Your accusations of agnostic modern religions 'are nothing but cherry picking baseless ideas that have no real argument.' is itself baseless, and does not include the Theist Baha'i Faith. These modern religions like the Unitarian Universalist are as a matter of fact decidedly less if not 'non-violent when compared to the ancient traditional religions.

ok. Where are the views based? are they not picked and chosen from Abrahamic scriptures, Poetry, and teachings of a man (and excuse me if I am wrong, but a man that never claimed to be a prophet) who preached that there was truth in all of those sources? Am I missing something in your description of "Theist Baha'i Faith" that is supposed to make it different from the other sources I have heard of Baha'i followers which seem to maintain the idea of Abrahamic Theology with some extra teachings?

Your negative view towards what you call 'modern religions,' which are decidedly less violent clearly reflects the problems these religions have in the Islamic countries where they are being forced out, and even in a moderate country like Turkey they are decreasing in numbers due slow grinding pressure.

your opinion is they are "less violent". The FACT is the number of followers is so low that the reported levels would be nearly a blip in a database even at the levels seen in Africa (chosen due to recent violence in the last 20-25 yrs) as a marker for percentages. The religions of all Abrahamics are peaceful, as you have stated man is fallible. The only Fact to be shown is that regardless of right in the world there will always be wrongdoers. These wrongdoers aren't really a representation of what they claim to follow, but rather the opposite of such. BTW the phasing out of such groups is mostly due to people falling out of those faiths or leaving to other countries for better acceptance. I mean it is tough to live around someone who says, I believe your Text is from God, but your view is rubbish, that can become quite abrasive.

the accusation of 'angry atheist' reflects your bigoted view of those who believe differently, which by your witness predominates contemporary Islam in Islamic countries.

No it reflects a actual group of atheists who are very vocal about their dislike of religion. I do not witness any bigoted views... Not sure why you are claiming this. I don't see much of a difference in "contemporary" or "classical" Islam, nor do I see a mass disapproval of other religions, except where those religions whose followers are anti Islam vocally and publicly.

You consider it fate that 'conflict is inevitable,' this is an fortunate view that further plagues ancient world views.

and you feel this world will work without some conflict? everyone can just agree on everything?

I have to consider this an 'angry' no response, and a failure to address the issues where Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all threats to Western Civilization.

And yet you have shown at no point how a religion (much less the majority religions who were here at the founding of this country) is of any threat to anyone, much less this country or the west in general. Everything your posts have said have literally been talking points on the "Angry Atheist" show. At least they attempt to show how the religions are to blame, although their argument and base is rarely holding any credit.

 

[shunyadragon]

and yet you post this... so tell me, how many Jews were effected by this "blanket expulsion" and at what point were they allowed to return to such an oppressive state?

regardless of your claims, they don't stand up to reason. If they were all expatriated, why is there still a significant population in Egypt? Why did the "religious intolerance" stop at Jews? Why were the Christians not pushed out as well?

First, you need to get you facts straight before you make your dump!

Second, the bottom line they were not repatriated! . . . and no, there is no longer a significant population of Jews in Egypt. This source details the history of the Jews progressive expulsion from Egypt from the 1920's up to after

[cite=[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country][/URL]
1970. Egypt, for example, had a Jewish community of 80,000 in the early twentieth century that numbers less than 40 today . . . [/cite]

[cite=[URL='http://www.hsje.org/Egypt/Egypt%20Today/egyptian_jewry_under_the_nasser_.htm#.V1s8fZErK00]']http://www.hsje.org/Egypt/Egypt Today/egyptian_jewry_under_the_nasser_.htm#.V1s8fZErK00][/URL]

Summary: The history of the Egyptian Jews from 1956 to 1970 is presented.
Egyptian Jewry under the Nasser regime, 1956-70.

By; Michael M. Laskier
CONCLUSION

In September 1970 there were no more than 300 Jews left in Egypt where a community of at least 80,000 had existed in 1948. The process of self-liquidation was hastened by the regime's political and socioeconomic policies, particularly after the mid-1950s. Of course, these developments were deeply rooted under the ancien regime, during the years immediately following the Second World War and just prior to the 1948 Egyptian-Israeli War.(101) In fact, the political situation of the Jewish minority in most Muslim countries, mainly those of the Middle East (as contrasted with the Maghreb) where political independence had been granted by the colonial powers, had steadily deteriorated. Egypt of the post-1945 period avidly demanded 'Egypt for the Egyptians' insensitive to the problems of foreigners or national and religious minority groups, who were depicted as elite forces remote from the masses and supportive of Britain and other imperialist powers. These minorities were now vulnerable to the whims of extremist Islamic fundamentalist groups or Egyptian patriotic societies with increasing pan-Arab and/or pan-Islamic leanings, later supported by political forces within the government. Moreover, though the Jews figured prominently on the list of victims of these prevailing trends, they were by no means the only ones under threat. The Greeks, Armenians, Italians and other Christian groups were affected as well. [/cite]

You claim this sounds like an angry post, and to a certain degree it is. You seem to think it is everyone else who is wrong and you yourself are "correct". at no point in your rambling have you said 1 positive thing, nor neutral, nor even mentioned a view you have of your own. You simply say Baha'i don't believe this or that and are non-violent, and "ancient" religions are "out of date" insinuating their falsehood and they are inherently violent.

No insinuating falsehood. The facts I cite in these posts and future posts are true and relevant.

To say someones religion is a problem in the modern world is quite a insult. This normally wouldn't have been allowed in these forums but as you can see it has slid through again.

The facts are not complementary. Facts are perfectly valid, and I will cite more. Nothing slipped through. Everything I have cited and stated are perfectly acceptable under the forum rules. Feel free to report these posts to a forum moderator if you feel it is a problem.

no you cite instances of issues. Not facts. Facts that the religions are "out of date" would require an actual analysis of how they were true, but are no longer. You could suffice to make arguments of how the teachings are now simply not true irregardless of their truth at inception. Saying look at the Shia/Sunni conflicts (again... it's been covered many times by people much more knowledgeable than I) are in comparison to many world issues, minor at best.

The expulsion of Jews from Egypt are unflattering very real facts of modern ethnic cleansing in an Islamic country. There will be more.

ok. Where are the views based? are they not picked and chosen from Abrahamic scriptures, Poetry, and teachings of a man (and excuse me if I am wrong, but a man that never claimed to be a prophet) who preached that there was truth in all of those sources? Am I missing something in your description of "Theist Baha'i Faith" that is supposed to make it different from the other sources I have heard of Baha'i followers which seem to maintain the idea of Abrahamic Theology with some extra teachings?

Excuse you? None of the above is factually correct concerning the Baha'i Faith. 'I have heard is the weakest approach to approach a discussion, especially since it is misleading.

your opinion is they are "less violent". The FACT is the number of followers is so low that the reported levels would be nearly a blip in a database even at the levels seen in Africa (chosen due to recent violence in the last 20-25 yrs) as a marker for percentages. The religions of all Abrahamics are peaceful, as you have stated man is fallible. The only Fact to be shown is that regardless of right in the world there will always be wrongdoers. These wrongdoers aren't really a representation of what they claim to follow, but rather the opposite of such. BTW the phasing out of such groups is mostly due to people falling out of those faiths or leaving to other countries for better acceptance. I mean it is tough to live around someone who says, I believe your Text is from God, but your view is rubbish, that can become quite abrasive.

No it reflects a actual group of atheists who are very vocal about their dislike of religion. I do not witness any bigoted views... Not sure why you are claiming this. I don't see much of a difference in "contemporary" or "classical" Islam, nor do I see a mass disapproval of other religions, except where those religions whose followers are anti Islam vocally and publicly.

What religion are you referring to here????

and you feel this world will work without some conflict? everyone can just agree on everything?

No, we are not referring to 'some conflict. The millennia + of bloody violent conflict between shite and sunni is not just 'some conflict.' Your continuing to ignore this problem, as well as 'hand waving' others.

And yet you have shown at no point how a religion (much less the majority religions who were here at the founding of this country) is of any threat to anyone, much less this country or the west in general. Everything your posts have said have literally been talking points on the "Angry Atheist" show. At least they attempt to show how the religions are to blame, although their argument and base is rarely holding any credit.

I do not know of any "Angry Atheist" show. I am not an atheist. I am a theist.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

No insinuating falsehood. The facts I cite in these posts and future posts are true and relevant.

The issue is they aren't facts, and even the figures you post are highly disputed.

[cite=[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country][/URL]
1970. Egypt, for example, had a Jewish community of 80,000 in the early twentieth century that numbers less than 40 today . . . [/cite]

Convenient to use this as an example (although I find this suspicious that maybe the entire community is not represented, seeing as how Ive known people who have been to the Jewish communities and reported many many more, as in a medium town's worth) and yet you cut off the statement that contradicts what you say and somewhat agrees with me.

Egypt, for example, had a Jewish community of 80,000 in the early twentieth century that numbers less than 40 today, mainly because of the immigration movements to Israel at that time.

No need to cite as you have already done so.

Everything I have cited and stated are perfectly acceptable under the forum rules. Feel free to report these posts to a forum moderator if you feel it is a problem.

http://interfaith.org/community/threads/7047/
Please take a look at rule 4 again. I have been hit for much less than what your "facts" are.

No insinuating falsehood. The facts I cite in these posts and future posts are true and relevant.

you claimed I am saying false things, and as I said, the "facts" you post are clearly not "facts" but disputed figures used for your personal agenda. Promoting your own view while knocking down that of others, and worse you aren't even using topics of the religion, just stating that the religion is not compatible and out of date, and saying... "That's a fact". Well how about the fact that Islam is the FASTEST growing religion (other than Atheism, although the 2 are actually comparable in membership change) and already contains 1.7B people who agree with me that it in itself is not outdated. And most of those do not harbor any ill will to anyone, including the west, Israel, etc.

The facts are not complementary. Facts are perfectly valid, and I will cite more. Nothing slipped through. Everything I have cited and stated are perfectly acceptable under the forum rules. Feel free to report these posts to a forum moderator if you feel it is a problem.

The problem is they are not facts. Just saying "This happened" is not a causation. Saying that Russia became a communist state then when it failed became a democratic one does not mean Russian Orthodoxy Christianity is not compatible with Communism. These are mixing religious and political issues. For every source you have saying 80,000 Jews were expelled there's other sources that say 50 or 60 (not thousands, tens). And your term you CHOOSE to use is ethnic cleansing? Expulsion? you do realize when we discuss Ethnic cleansing we are referring to more of a situation as Nazis and Jews in WW2? Which BTW is another example of Political issue over religious. You keep throwing around this "bigot" title and yet you are specifically targeting Abrahamic faiths and saying they are false because you don't believe them. That would be like me calling Hinduism false and claiming it as fact without any discussion or reasoning, or citing the violence of Indian Hindus against Muslims. This isn't Interfaith, and it isn't by any measure a proven fact.

Excuse you? None of the above is factually correct concerning the Baha'i Faith.

and yet that exact conclusion was given to me via a Baha'i follower, in person. Reading examples from Arthra, I gathered essentially the same thing. That the general belief is there was corruption in all texts, but the founder of Baha'i corrected those misunderstandings. not that it is the UU of world faiths as you have often made it sound.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

"...no proof of their claim and making blanket non-supported claims of falsehoods of other religions. "
"I would advise you to get your facts straight."
"...no you cite instances of issues. Not facts."
"First, you need to get you facts straight before you make your dump!"
"...you claimed I am saying false things, and as I said, the "facts" you post are clearly not "facts" but disputed figures used for your personal agenda."

May I make a suggestion? Either leave out the fact discussion, or have a proper one because I don't think you're getting anywhere as things are going.

 

[Ahanu]

That the general belief is there was corruption in all texts, but the founder of Baha'i corrected those misunderstandings. not that it is the UU of world faiths as you have often made it sound.

Hi Joe,

Baha'is believe there was corruption of meaning, not that "there was corruption in all texts." See the issue of tahrif debated throughout the history of Islam for an example, for Muslim scholars argued over the alteration of text or the alteration of meaning. In this debate Baha'is lean towards the latter.

 

[shunyadragon]

The issue is they aren't facts, and even the figures you post are highly disputed.

Convenient to use this as an example (although I find this suspicious that maybe the entire community is not represented, seeing as how Ive known people who have been to the Jewish communities and reported many many more, as in a medium town's worth) and yet you cut off the statement that contradicts what you say and somewhat agrees with me. No need to cite as you have already done so.

http://interfaith.org/community/threads/7047/
Please take a look at rule 4 again. I have been hit for much less than what your "facts" are.

you claimed I am saying false things, and as I said, the "facts" you post are clearly not "facts" but disputed figures used for your personal agenda. Promoting your own view while knocking down that of others, and worse you aren't even using topics of the religion, just stating that the religion is not compatible and out of date, and saying... "That's a fact". Well how about the fact that Islam is the FASTEST growing religion (other than Atheism, although the 2 are actually comparable in membership change) and already contains 1.7B people who agree with me that it in itself is not outdated. And most of those do not harbor any ill will to anyone, including the west, Israel, etc.

The problem is they are not facts. Just saying "This happened" is not a causation. Saying that Russia became a communist state then when it failed became a democratic one does not mean Russian Orthodoxy Christianity is not compatible with Communism. These are mixing religious and political issues. For every source you have saying 80,000 Jews were expelled there's other sources that say 50 or 60 (not thousands, tens). And your term you CHOOSE to use is ethnic cleansing? Expulsion? you do realize when we discuss Ethnic cleansing we are referring to more of a situation as Nazis and Jews in WW2? Which BTW is another example of Political issue over religious. You keep throwing around this "bigot" title and yet you are specifically targeting Abrahamic faiths and saying they are false because you don't believe them. That would be like me calling Hinduism false and claiming it as fact without any discussion or reasoning, or citing the violence of Indian Hindus against Muslims. This isn't Interfaith, and it isn't by any measure a proven fact.

and yet that exact conclusion was given to me via a Baha'i follower, in person. Reading examples from Arthra, I gathered essentially the same thing. That the general belief is there was corruption in all texts, but the founder of Baha'i corrected those misunderstandings. not that it is the UU of world faiths as you have often made it sound.

They are referenced facts unless you can provide a reliable reference the above is nothing. I gave a reference and you challenged me and offer nothing in response.

What about Judaism and the Old Testament? Why would it be necessary for a Jew to become a Muslim?

Still waiting . . .

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I have to agree with Tea here gents. Both of you have been passing off too many opinions as facts. Now, both your opinions may be based on facts - without citing evidence to support your opinions though, they remain but opinions.

Shuny has now cited an article to support at least one part of his argument. Your turn Joe.

 

[shunyadragon]

IF Islam is not out of date and meets the needs of the world today explain this:

http://www.thewire.com/global/2013/1...-death/355961/ (From Dec 2013)

They are all countries governed by Islam in some major way.

http://www.thewire.com/global/2013/1...-death/355961/[/URL] (From Dec 2013)]
"Atheists living in 13 countries risk being condemned to death, just for their beliefs (or non-belief) according to a new, comprehensive report from the International Humanist and Ethical Union out on Tuesday. All 13 countries identified by the study are Muslim majority.

The countries that impose these penalties are Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. With the exception of Pakistan, those countries all allow for capital punishment against apostasy, i.e., the renunciation of a particular religion. Pakistan, meanwhile, imposes the death penalty for blasphemy, which can obviously include disbelief in God."

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Hi Joe,

Baha'is believe there was corruption of meaning, not that "there was corruption in all texts." See the issue of tahrif debated throughout the history of Islam for an example, for Muslim scholars argued over the alteration of text or the alteration of meaning. In this debate Baha'is lean towards the latter.

I understand your point Ahanu, and If I wasn't able to explain it with enough eloquence for understanding what I understood of your view, you certainly did, thank you.

Shuny has now cited an article to support at least one part of his argument. Your turn Joe.

he used 2, one of which I re-cited as it contained a point I was making. Also his other reference, although I'm sure makes a fine read, is but 1 person's opinion, which Shunya agrees with. It seems to point out some issues with the argument he is making as well, namely that a lot of the issues was with foreign powers (gee I wonder which powers... Colonial ones such as those that tried to hold Turkey? The newly established, and arguably land stolen from others, Israel?) and The initial push being that of a nationalistic nature. "you don't want to be with us, move to them" kind of thing. Guess what influence the Jews were siding with? This isn't a source of question. Many Many Jews left for Israel early on... Leading up to the war between Egypt and Israel (want a history lesson, go see who bombed our, US, ship and admitted to it later in an attempt to get US involved) more left and some were forced to leave (common for many countries to remove supporters of enemies). So I'm not denying that many Jews left. I've talked to several Egyptians who came to the US 7-8 years ago who say there is still sizable towns of Jews. This is all touched on in his summary.

What about Judaism and the Old Testament? Why would it be necessary for a Jew to become a Muslim?

From a theistic sense, it would be imperative that a Jew would recognize a prophet, and the work of prophets. If one were to recognize it, then one would have to accept its authority as the prophet is sent by God (AKA YHWH, Allah, Elohim, etc.)

As for the rest, you are asking me to explain how Islam, which doesn't endorse any worldly punishment for apostasy nor any aggression toward anyone other than in defense, is relevant when political issues happen in countries where Islam is a majority claimed religion. Your favorite argument is "Man is Fallible", yet you don't seem to be able to put it in this context. These people aren't acting on what is taught in Islam. They are acting on emotions of nationalism and patriotism, Maybe even with the Islamic community, but they are not acting Islamically. It is sin that they are committing which is entirely what the religion preaches to avoid. Preached and practice are 2 different things. Although Islam lays out the framework of politics, it isn't followed by any country in the world today. Most attempt it, but add too many restrictions, essentially caused by corruption and oppressive attitudes of leaders. If you are going to spew that Islam is wrong or out of date, then you are going to have to show where the religion fails, not the people. "Man is fallible, God is not".

 

[Etu Malku]

Ignorance and herd mentality is strongest in Islam, their bigotry, religious hatred, oppression and suppression being their tools for religious enslavement . . . this is indeed a threat to not only the West but everyone not Islamic. (bold=ban)

 

[Devils' Advocate]

If you are going to spew that Islam is wrong or out of date, then you are going to have to show where the religion fails, not the people. "Man is fallible, God is not".

Technically he is saying that all the Abrahamics are out of date and flawed because of that. Not just Islam. Still I take your point.

The same argument has been used on this board for many of the evils done by Christians past and present. Or for other religions. That the religion doesn't fail, it is the people that fail. This argument has always been problematic for me. No matter which religion we are speaking of, the people are the religion. How closely they follow the faith they supposedly believe in, or not, determines the validity of that faith. That of course is my point of view and I know many on this site will disagree with it.

All that I can offer in my defense is that I do not hold this belief about religious institutions alone; rather all powerful institutions religious or secular. In this American election cycle we keep hearing about how great our country is from one side, how we need to make our country great again from the other.

Our country is no longer great. The three branches of government are all corrupt. The media is corrupt. Corporations hold most of the real power and they are the most corrupt of all. We were a great nation. Once. Now we are a Banana Republic with nukes. All the fine words of our Constitution does not change this reality.

People and their actions make the world what it is. Any grand commentary they care to spew is irrelevant if the actions of those people is diametrically opposed to their sacred words.

 

[Etu Malku]

Technically he is saying that all the Abrahamics are out of date and flawed because of that. Not just Islam. Still I take your point.

The same argument has been used on this board for many of the evils done by Christians past and present. Or for other religions. That the religion doesn't fail, it is the people that fail. This argument has always been problematic for me. No matter which religion we are speaking of, the people are the religion. How closely they follow the faith they supposedly believe in, or not, determines the validity of that faith. That of course is my point of view and I know many on this site will disagree with it.

All that I can offer in my defense is that I do not hold this belief about religious institutions alone; rather all powerful institutions religious or secular. In this American election cycle we keep hearing about how great our country is from one side, how we need to make our country great again from the other.

Our country is no longer great. The three branches of government are all corrupt. The media is corrupt. Corporations hold most of the real power and they are the most corrupt of all. We were a great nation. Once. Now we are a Banana Republic with nukes. All the fine words of our Constitution does not change this reality.

People and their actions make the world what it is. Any grand commentary they care to spew is irrelevant if the actions of those people is diametrically opposed to their sacred words.

IMO when a religion's scriptures / tenets (word of god) clearly dictates hatred, oppression, submission, bigotry, racism and slavery then THAT religion has failed and can only produce failures in the form of adherents.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Not quite. The Bible has as all the evil tenants that you have described. And at some points in history Christians have been just as vicious as Muslims are today. The problem is not books, it is how willing the faithful are to letting go of views that may have made sense 1000 years ago but have no place in the modern world.

At this particular moment in history Christianity is doing a better job of suppressing the evil tenants in the Bible. At this particular moment in history the Muslims are doing a much poorer job of suppressing the evil tenants in the Koran.

My apologies in advance Joe as I know you will find that offensive. It is an accurate view of the situation though, at least from my prospective.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Shuny, assuming for the sake of argument that the ancient religions are indeed bad, is it possible that they are bad for reasons other than just having been around for a long time?

The modern faiths you have claimed as the better religions are both relatively tiny. It seems to me that any endeavor by humanity, once it reaches a certain size, it spirals out of control. Are the ancient religions bad because they are ancient? Or are they bad because they are massive sprawling bureaucracies. Can you say that in 100 years if the Baha'i faith were to blossom to the size of todays major religions, they would necessarily maintain their tolerant stance for all?

Obviously a rhetorical question. One that should be considered though as there may be other reasons ancient religions are bad other than the fact that they are ancient.