Islam: A Victim of Circumstance?

[TheEgoist]

Would the world be drastically different if Islam were the dominant Religion for the past 2000 years? And is Islam inherently more violent than Christianity and other major religions because of it's murderous founder?

Could Christianity be stuck in the dark ages like Islam is now?

[KendallJ]

My particular opinion is that any religion could be as violent as Islam. Christianity lucked out be having Thomas Aquinas rediscover Aristotle, and having reason infused into much of its doctrine. I don't think that is an inherent aspect of Christianity, and Christianity would still be stuck in the dark ages if it weren't for that.

[avampirist]

the answer is yes. the koran is worse than the old testament, not by much, but worse. since actions are based on beliefs, we can easily say that the world would have been worse off.

[LaszloWalrus]

the answer is yes. the koran is worse than the old testament, not by much, but worse.

What makes the Koran worse?

[Praxus]

What makes the Koran worse?

The Quran demands uncessing warfare against any and all unbelievers that do not submit. The old testament asks for it only some of the time.

[aquatiq]

The Quran demands uncessing warfare against any and all unbelievers that do not submit. The old testament asks for it only some of the time.

naaa.... you are definately wrong on this one:

The bible mandates the same principles as the Quran. Muhammad was no more barbaric or brutal than Joshua, David, Solomon, etc... In fact, Muhammad was only the last in this same group. One could easily say that the Quran is only the last set of scriptures after Revelation.

Muhammad believed in all of the other prophets of the Torah, and Gospel, and teaches submission to the same "god".

Screw all that submit to a savage religion of desert dwellers.

[softwareNerd]

I'd guess that many Christians give the New Testament more doctrinal weight, treating the OT as history and lesser, especially when it says horrible things.

[Robert J. Kolker]

naaa.... you are definately wrong on this one:

The bible mandates the same principles as the Quran. Muhammad was no more barbaric or brutal than Joshua, David, Solomon, etc... In fact, Muhammad was only the last in this same group. One could easily say that the Quran is only the last set of scriptures after Revelation.

Muhammad believed in all of the other prophets of the Torah, and Gospel, and teaches submission to the same "god".

Screw all that submit to a savage religion of desert dwellers.

In Orthodox Judaism, the scriptures (written Torah) has been largely displaced by the oral tradition which is currently written down as the Talmud. Why is the Oral Tradition now written down? Because the death of a scholar erased three million words of philosophy, religious doctrine and wisdom. In the y'shivot (the schools of orthodox Judaism) crib notes were taken and these are essentially the corpus of the Talmud (the Mishnah) along with later written commentary by various rabbis, such as Schlomo Itzak (the Rashi) or Moshe bin Maimon (the Rambum, or rabbi Moshe bin Nachman (the Ramban), etc etc. Judaism has not been a biblical religion for nearly two thousand years.

The only folks in the West who take the bible seriously and literally are the Protestant Crazies.

In the less orthodox branches of Judaism (conservative and reform), tradition is still the largest component along with some social and ethical ideas developed since the Enlightenment. Which is why many conservative (so-called) and reform Jews tend toward political liberalism.

Jews stopped being savage desert dwellers since the Diaspora and even sometime before. The tribal phase of Judaism ended somewhere during the reign of King David and certainly during the reign of Solomon who established the -city- of Jerusalem as Cult Central for Jewish worship (in those days, the Temple stood). That all came to an end with the conquest by the Assyrians and later the Babylonians (Persians). Judaism has been "tenderized" and "detoxified" by dispersion and conquest. Jews have had the shit kicked out of them so often they learned to cope and to survive in strange and hostile places. Nothing like being beaten up to teach one to be humble and lovable. In the early stages, Jews were ten hairs short of being baboons. Later on they became traders and city dwellers. That civilized them. So much so, that Alexander the Great was very easy in his treatment of Jews. Jews did not resist Alexander's conquests and Alexander returned the favor. Later on, Jews did revolt against one of Alexander's successors during the Hasmonian Revolt. That is the origin of the Jewish holiday of Channukah.

Unfortunately for the world, Islam has not undergone and softening up process like that to which the Jews were subjected and you can see the results by reading the daily newspapers. Ask yourself what the last time was when Jewish suicide bombing happened. Or the last time a bunch of Orthodox Crazies stole a commercial airplane and crashed it into a tall building. Jews got out of that business around the time of King Solomon. Jews ceased to proselytize a little over 2000 years ago. Since then being Jewish has been largely a family manner. There are very few converts to Judaism. Most Jews are the children of Jewish parents.

Bob Kolker

[avampirist]

naaa.... you are definately wrong on this one:

The bible mandates the same principles as the Quran. Muhammad was no more barbaric or brutal than Joshua, David, Solomon, etc... In fact, Muhammad was only the last in this same group. One could easily say that the Quran is only the last set of scriptures after Revelation.

Muhammad believed in all of the other prophets of the Torah, and Gospel, and teaches submission to the same "god".

Screw all that submit to a savage religion of desert dwellers.

All you need to do is look at the current state of the Middle East. That is Islamic philosophy in action. There is more violent scripture in the Old Testament, but the Quran is worse by percentage. Only (roughly) 7 percent of the Old Testament insights violence, whereas 17 percent of the Quran does. Have you ever read the Quran? It calls for death to apostates on nearly every page (literally).

We've reached an age where iron-age beliefs are mixed with 21st century weapons. Islam currently poses the greatest threat humanity has ever been faced with.

[Surfwench]

Careful...Jesus never killed anyone and Muhammed was a soldier. Islam is a soldier's religion and Christianity is a remarkable melding of jewish and greek philosophy. A happy intersection that has led directly to the Enlightenment, the founding of the US, and women's suffrangence, (is that a word?). When I think about the incredible breadth of it I am weak kneed and speechless at the majesty of the human accomplishment. And it was Ayn Rand who gave me the words to encompass it.

[softwareNerd]

... that has led directly to the Enlightenment, the founding of the US, and women's suffrangence, (is that a word?).

When you say Christianity led to the enlightenment, you need to back it up with some facts. Just because someone who became "enlightened" was once a Christian does not mean Christianity was the source of his turn to reason; it's more likely that his turn to reason was his rebellion against Christianity. Therefore proof does not consist of pointing out that Christians were the first to turn away from their religion, and come closer to reason. Given this standard, do you think you can make the case that Christian philosophy led to reason?

P.S. It's "suffrage".

[Robert J. Kolker]

When you say Christianity led to the enlightenment, you need to back it up with some facts. Just because someone who became "enlightened" was once a Christian does not mean Christianity was the source of his turn to reason; it's more likely that his turn to reason was his rebellion against Christianity. Therefore proof does not consist of pointing out that Christians were the first to turn away from their religion, and come closer to reason. Given this standard, do you think you can make the case that Christian philosophy led to reason?

P.S. It's "suffrage".

Galileo and Newton were cases in point. Galileo was a faithful Son of the Church. He was a devout Roman Catholic. He believed the world, -as it was- was the manifest will of the Creator. So to learn God's will one studies the world. Isaac Newton, was a God Phreak. He believed that Space and Time was the sensorum of God. In several scholia in his -Principia Mathematica- were declarations of God's creative act. And these men were not atypical. The scientists of the seventeen, eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth centuries (c.e.) were believers. What they did NOT accept was that the Church was the sole and true spokesman of God and that judgments of the Church Fathers necessarily truly uttered God's will. As Galileo said (in Italian of course) - The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go-.

Charles Darwin, for a good part of his life, was a Christian gentlemen and his early training was to be a church minister. When his most beloved daughter died of typhoid or some such disease he began to doubt God's benevolence, but he never, never was an atheist. He saw the will of God manifest in the workings of nature. See the closing paragraph of his -Origin of Species-. It was a paraphrase of the Psalm -- The heavens declare Thy Handiwork. Charles Darwin probably lost the belief that God was a Loving Father who cared for His children.

Where these great scientists parted company with their churches was in accepting the declarations and judgments of their church leaders as the Truth concerning reality. They preferred to study reality as it was, not as the church fathers said it was. That is what got them into trouble. Isaac Newton was an Arianist Heretic (not an atheist at all). He denied the Trinity and considered the doctrine of the Trinity as a corrupt fraud that the church leaders put over on the faithful. Newton was a passionate God Phreak. He wrote more words decoding the "true meaning" of the Bible and other ancient writings than he did on physics. He had to conceal his true beliefs else he would have found himself in jail or out of a job. The way we know what Newton really thought was from private letters and diaries of Newton, that were eventually purchased by John Maynard Keynes (yes, that Keynes!).

Bob Kolker

[Robert J. Kolker]

naaa.... you are definately wrong on this one:

The bible mandates the same principles as the Quran. Muhammad was no more barbaric or brutal than Joshua, David, Solomon, etc... In fact, Muhammad was only the last in this same group. One could easily say that the Quran is only the last set of scriptures after Revelation.

In his old age, Solomon was a kind of Stoic. Read the Book of Ecclesiastes which is attributed to Solomon. Solomon was a politician, not a Warrior. Also -The Song of Songs- which is flat out erotica, was attributed to Solomon. He was too busy with his wives and concubines to slay the Unbelievers and many of his wives (whom he married for political purposes) were pagans and idol worshipers.

Kind David, on the other hand, was a thug. But he wrote Psalms and poems. Joshua was a soldier and a general. Burning enemy cities was his specialty.

Bob Kolker

[softwareNerd]

Galileo ... Isaac Newton, ... Charles Darwin,...

Bob, You did not address my post at all. Instead, you did exactly what I requested not be done.

Using the example of Galileo is the most ludicrous of all. Not only did the Christian boss go after him, but even the environment of his patron was hardly in the tradition of Jesus. In fact, the Medici can be given much credit for making the Church more mercenary than ever.

Christianity was a mystical Jewish sect that had a problem with the idea of property ownership. The early church had a huge controversy about whether Jesus owned property. People like Galileo were what they were primarily because they strayed so far from the philosophy of Christianity.

Edited September 30, 2007 by softwareNerd

[avampirist]

"It is the same whether or not you forwarn them [the unbelievers], they will have no faith" (2:6). A fire "whose fuel is men and stones" awaits them (2:24). They will be "rewarded with disgrace in this world and with grievous punishment on the Day of Resurrection" (2:85). "God's curse be upon the infidels!" (2:89). "they have incurred God's most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits [them]" (2:90). "God is the enemy of the unbelievers" (2:98). "The unbelievers among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], and the pagans, resent that any blessing should have been sent down to you from your Lord" (2:105). "[We] shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them into the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate" (2:126). "Do not say that those slain in the cause of God are dead. They are alive, but you are not aware of them" (2:154). "But the infidels who die unbelievers shall incur the curse of God, the angels, and all men. Under it they shall remain for ever; their punishment shall not be lightened, nor shall they be reprieved" (2:162). "The unbelievers are like beasts which, call out to them as one may, can hear nothing but a shout of a cry. Deaf, dumb, and blind, they understand nothing" (2:172)."How steadfastly they seek the Fire! That is because God has revealed the Book with truth; those that disagree about it are in extreme schism" (2:176). "Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage." . . . f they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil doers" (2:190-93). "Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not" (2:216) "They will not cease to fight against you until they force you to renounce your faith--if they are able. But whoever of you recants and dies and unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing in this world and in the world to come. Such men shall be the tenants of Hell, wherein they shall abide forever. Those that have embraced the faith, and those that have fled their land and fought for the cause of God, may hope for God's mercy" (2:217-18). "Those that deny God's revelations shall be sternly punished; God is might and capable of revenge" (3:5). "Say to the unbelievers: 'You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell--an evil resting place!'" (3:12). "Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal" (3:118). "If you have suffered a defeat, so did the enemy. We alternate these vicissitudes among mankind so that God may know the true believers and choose martyrs from among you (God does not love the evil-doers); and that God may test the faithful and annihilate the infidels" (3:140). "Believers, if you yield to the infidels they will drag you back to unbelief and you will return headlong to perdition.... We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers....The Fire shall be their home" (3:149-51). "Those that suffered persecution for My sake and fought and were slain: I shall forgive them their sins and admit them to gardens watered by running streams, as a reward from God; God holds the richest recompense. Do not be deceived by the fortunes of the unbelievers in the land. Their prosperity is brief. Hell shall be their home, a dismal resting place" (3:195-96). "Such are those that are damned by their own sins. They shall drink scalding water and be sternly punished for their unbelief" (6:70).

It seems to me to be less than a trivial problem that this is a tiny fraction of the Quran.

I wonder why there's fighting in the Middle East. "I dunno"

They must have "complicated socio-political issues or something".

Edited September 30, 2007 by avampirist

[Julian]

Would the world be drastically different if Islam were the dominant Religion for the past 2000 years? And is Islam inherently more violent than Christianity and other major religions because of it's murderous founder?

Could Christianity be stuck in the dark ages like Islam is now?

I'm a recent convert to Islam, but I am no apologist for the current crazies. It's interesting because Muhammad had nothing to do with the eventual Islamic Empire after his death. All he had done was fight the people who had first fought him, and it is impossible to build an empire in such a manner.

I've been researching political ideology in the Qur'an. I'm putting together a website on how Islam supports freedom and denounces coercion as my contribution towards defeating the Islamofascists.

Once I'm done with that I'll get around to examining the Qur'an in the context of Objectivism. As for now, I'm working on making reason superior in my own life.

Edited October 7, 2007 by Julian

[Julian]

The Quran demands uncessing warfare against any and all unbelievers that do not submit. The old testament asks for it only some of the time.

On the Reciprocation of Force

- Individual Response

Self-Defense

The Repast 5:45: A life for a life, and an eye for an eye, and a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and a [similar] retribution for wounds.

Islam permits self-defense proportional to the aggression.

The Pilgrimage 22:40: For, if God had not enabled people to defend themselves against one another, [all] monasteries and churches and synagogues and mosques—in [all of] which God's name is abundantly extolled—would surely have been destroyed [ere now]. And God will most certainly succour him who succours His cause: for, verily, God is most powerful, almighty.

The Consultation 42:36-39: [it shall be given] to all who attain to faith and in their Sustainer place their trust; and who shun the more heinous sins and abominations; and who, whenever they are moved to anger, readily forgive; and who respond to [the call of] their Sustainer and are constant in prayer; and whose rule [in all matters of common concern] is consultation among themselves; and who spend on others out of what We provide for them as sustenance; and who, whenever tyranny afflicts them, defend themselves.

Forgoing Self-Defense

The Repast 5:27-32: AND CONVEY unto them, setting forth the truth, the story of the two sons of Adam—how each offered a sacrifice, and it was accepted from one of them whereas it was not accepted from the other.

[And Cain] said: "I will surely slay thee!" [Abel] replied: "Behold, God accepts only from those who are conscious of Him.

Even if thou lay thy hand on me to slay me, I shall not lay my hand on thee to slay thee: behold, I fear God, the Sustainer of all the worlds. I am willing, indeed, for thee to bear [the burden of] all the sins ever done by me as well as of the sin done by thee: [but] then thou wouldst be destined for the fire, since that is the requital of evildoers!"

But the other's passion drove him to slaying his brother; and he slew him: and thus he became one of the lost.

Thereupon God sent forth a raven which scratched the earth, to show him how he might conceal the nakedness of his brother's body. [And Cain] cried out: "Oh, woe is me! Am I then too weak to do what this raven did, and to conceal the nakedness of my brother's body?"—and was thereupon smitten with remorse.

Because of this did We ordain unto the children of Israel that if anyone slays a human being-unless it be [in punishment] for murder or for spreading corruption on earth-it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind.

And, indeed, there came unto them Our apostles with all evidence of the truth: yet, behold, notwithstanding all this, many of them go on committing all manner of excesses on earth.

The story of Cain and Abel in the Qur'an is very interesting. It suggests that by not defending yourself, and by not attempting to use force even in retaliation, your sins are forgiven.

The Repast 5:44,45: "Verily, it is We who bestowed from on high the Torah, wherein there was guidance and light. On its strength did the prophets, who had surrendered themselves unto God, deliver judgment unto those who followed the Jewish faith; and so did the [early] men of God and the rabbis, inasmuch as some of God's writ had been entrusted to their care: and they [all] bore witness to its truth. Therefore, [O children of Israel] hold not men in awe, but stand in awe of Me; and do not barter away My messages for trifling gain: for they who do not judge in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high are, indeed, deniers of the truth! And We ordained from them in that [Torah]: A life for a life, and an eye for an eye, and a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and a [similar] retribution for wounds; but he who shall forgo it out of charity will atone thereby for some of his past sins. And they who do not judge in accordance with what God has revealed—they, they are the evildoers!

The underlined verse above also points out that to forgo retaliating force is charity to the human race. However, this only applies to individual defense. Warfare in response to warfare is necessary, because your choice in this matter does not just affect you. You can choose to sacrifice yourself, but not to sacrifice others.

Consultation 42:40-42: But [remember that an attempt at] requiting evil may, too, become an evil: hence, whoever pardons [his foe] and makes peace, his reward rests with God—for, verily, He does not love evildoers. Yet indeed, as for any who defend themselves after having been wronged—no blame whatever attaches to them: blame attaches but to those who oppress [other] people and behave outrageously on earth, offending against all right: for them there is grievous suffering in store!

- Group Response (Warfare)

The Cow 2:190: AND FIGHT in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression—for, verily, God does not love aggressors...

Before responding with force there is one critical criteria that needs to be met, a group has to have "wage[d] war against you!" Otherwise, it would be initiating force.

...And slay them, wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away—for oppression is even worse than killing.

The above verse is often quoted by itself to deliberately make the Qur'an appear warmongering, but as the former verse explains, this applies only to those who "wage war against you." So therefore, put into context the verse would be better of put as follows:

...And slay [those who wage war against you], wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away—for oppression is even worse than killing.

This makes the meaning a lot clearer.

And fight not against them near the Inviolable House of Worship unless they fight against you there first; but if they fight against you, slay them: such shall be the recompense of those who deny the truth.

This warning to not be the first ones to bring fighting near the mosque, church, or synagogue further emphasizes the non-initiation line. When this verse is stripped down we also get a basic outline to follow: "Do not fight against them... unless they fight against you... but if they fight against you.... slay them."

But if they desist—behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.

As this only applies to those who wage war against you, if they are no longer waging war in either action or declaration, then neither should you. If there is no state of war, retaliation is a no-no.

The Repast 5:33, 34: It is but a just recompense for those who make war on God and His apostle, and endeavour to spread corruption on earth, that they are being slain in great numbers, or crucified in great numbers, or have, in result of their perverseness, their hands and feet cut off in great numbers, or are being [entirely] banished from [the face of] the earth: such is their ignominy in this world. But in the life to come [yet more] awesome suffering awaits them—save for such [of them] as repent ere you [O believers] become more powerful than they: for you must know that God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.

This verse suggests that it is just that those who are making war on others are being physically and spiritually punished for their aggression so long as they keep making war with no remorse.

The Spoils of War 8:56-61: AS FOR THOSE with whom thou hast made a covenant, and who thereupon break their covenant on every occasion, not being conscious of God—if thou find them at war [with you], make of them a fearsome example for those who follow them, so that they might take it to heart; or, if thou hast reason to fear treachery from people [with whom thou hast made a covenant], cast it back at them in an equitable manner: for, verily, God does not love the treacherous!

And let them not think—those who are bent on denying the truth—that they shall escape [God]: behold, they can never frustrate [His purpose.

Hence, make ready against them whatever force and war mounts you are able to muster, so that you might deter thereby the enemies of God, who are your enemies as well, and others besides them of whom you may be unaware, [but] of whom God is aware; and whatever you may expend in God's cause shall be repaid to you in full, and you shall not be wronged.

But if they incline to peace, incline thou to it as well, and place thy trust in God: verily, He alone is all-hearing, all-knowing! And should they seek but to deceive thee [by their show of peace]—behold, God is enough for thee!"

A covenant is a signed and written agreement between two nations. It differs from a contract in that the covenant only applies to the covenantor, who promised to do or not do something specified. For a covenantor to break its covenant to another nation, without having had hostility from that nation, would be fraud, which is a type of coercive action. Your nation can declare war on them for this.

The Pilgrimage 22:39: PERMISSION [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged—and, verily, God has indeed the power to succour them: those who have been driven from their homelands against all right for no other reason than their saying, "Our Sustainer is God!"

If war is being rightfully waged against a nation, in that the nation is guilty of coercion through fraud or other more direct means, then that nation is in the wrong and should seek peace immediately.

Edited October 7, 2007 by Julian

[Ender]

Once I'm done with that I'll get around to examining the Qur'an in the context of Objectivism. As for now, I'm working on making reason superior in my own life.

How will you resolve the contradiction of reason and religion? There is no room for supernatural beliefs in the Objectivist philosophy.

*** Mod's note: For the response, please see this split topic - sN ***

Edited October 8, 2007 by softwareNerd
Added split-topic annotation

[Mathlete]

Would the world be drastically different if Islam were the dominant Religion for the past 2000 years? And is Islam inherently more violent than Christianity and other major religions because of it's murderous founder?

Could Christianity be stuck in the dark ages like Islam is now?

Back to the original post I feel you only have to look at the thriving success of middle eastern and islamic states to realize that the world in my opinion would have been better off with sadism than islamism for the past 2000 years.

[Jon Pizzo]

Would the world be drastically different if Islam were the dominant Religion for the past 2000 years? And is Islam inherently more violent than Christianity and other major religions because of it's murderous founder?

Could Christianity be stuck in the dark ages like Islam is now?

Are you claiming that it is not? The only difference between the Christians and Muslims is that the Christians have more wealth and were generally raised in a more civilized society. Do you mean to say that the crusades were not horribly violent? Sure, christians are not out blowing themselves up right now, but honestly, if it came to it...I think they would.

However, I do agree with what you are saying in one sense: Islam is not an inherently violent religion, but certain rulers and leaders have twisted it to become one, much like the Phelps family has done for christianity.