Your thoughts on Islam?

[Otto Kretschmer]

Most discussion on this forum seems to be about Christianity. But what do you guys think of Islam? 

My thoughts about it are mixed. I appreciate parts of it like a strong emphasis on charity and support of free market but I dislike other parts of it like death penalty for adultsry, apostasy and blasphemy or a generally lower status of women.

What are your thoughts?

 

[iNow]

Same mannequin, different wig

[Phi for All]

All the Abrahamic religions are heavily patriarchal, with a skewed hierarchy that places God above Man and Man above Nature, which seems to give most followers a free pass when it comes to environmental responsibility. Just like Christianity and Judaism, Islam preaches that the balance Allah created shouldn't be tampered with, and the Hadiths contain many admonitions about misusing natural resources and protecting our environment. Unfortunately, politically these religions have a horrible track record with environmental causes. I'm not sure what causes this hypocrisy, but I suspect many Muslims consider protecting Earth to be a waste of time compared to getting into Heaven.

[MigL]

Like all religions it has its good and bad.
While it tries to encourage some aspects of moral behavior which is good., it is also a means of controlling people, and some of the measures of control are especially barbaric, as they involve consequences in this life, not the 'after-life'

It is further complicated by the fact that Islam is re-interpreted by many Imans differently, all over the Muslim world; and some of those Imans control the Government in places where government is not secular.

[Peterkin]

The original Abrahamic scripture has God putting man at the top of creation: All this is for you to enjoy. Then he punished the humans for developing a moral sense, by tossing them out into the wilderness, to live however they could. Unlike the origin stories of primitive religions, which were told by hunter-gatherers who live in and with nature, this story is borrowed from tiered culture with a clearly defined ruler.  The only reference to nature is as a hardship to overcome. This story seems to have gained acceptance at a time when the tribe of Abraham was nomadic herders, who no doubt encountered much of that hardship. 

Muhammad had some education in that scripture, plus the Christian corollary - which was gaining popularity and military strength. You have to bear in mind that a large part of that territory is desert; the fertile bits were already occupied by powerful, sophisticated civilizations founded on farming and urban industries - nature is seen as an enemy, when it's seen at at all. The Arab peoples were urban remnants of older empires, engaged in seafaring trade along the coast, and nomadic herders, hunter-gatherers, seasonal farmers, traders and raiders in the interior. Some practiced a version of Christianity, some were polytheists. It was Muhammad's vision that they could be united for their mutual benefit, and live amicable alongside the other "people of the book". 

In the OT, women, children and slaves are chattels of the patriarch; servants and field workers, not much more. Jehovah doesn't cavil at commanding Abraham to sacrifice the son he waited and prayed for all his adult life - then says, "Just kidding! Here's a nice ram instead." No question that Abraham has a right to kill both. Jehovah kills off all Job's dependents for the sole purpose of testing his faith, then gives him new children and servants, as if they were interchangeable accoutrements.  In the NT, there is no reform suggested to the status of women and children; in Christianity, men were allowed to beat their wives, own slaves, abuse or sell their children. Why should the third iteration have different values?

Eventually, reformed versions of all three religions became less rigid, more tolerant and humane.  They were influenced, too, by secular thinking in their various societies, as religion lost its death-grip on culture and governance. Where any of these religions is in sole power, the laws are far more harsh and biblical than in countries with multiple religions a strong secular faction.    

Edited February 7 by Peterkin

[joigus]

2 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

a strong emphasis on charity and support of free market

Ok. But slavery is allowed (halal), adoption forbidden (haram), sex with minors allowed (halal), etc, if political conditions allow. A lot of what you can or cannot apply from sharia depends on political climate, as stated clearly in the Qu'ran concerning taqiyya.

Quote

The latest Global Slavery Index, produced by human rights group Walk Free, reveals the 10 countries with the highest prevalence of modern slavery are North Korea, Eritrea, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Tajikistan, United Arab Emirates, Russia, Afghanistan, and Kuwait.

From: https://reliefweb.int/ with my emphasis

I for one prefer Zoroastrianism, as long as you're careful with fire.

All religions are OK, I suppose, as long as you don't take them seriously --actually apply certain/a few/most of their principles.

All religions are OK if you reduce them to wearing of certain gear and handling of certain ritual objects and ceremonies. In that sense, they're not very different from a funny sport.

[TheVat]

I lean towards Bill Maher's stance that we shouldn't have to make excuses for Islam and withhold criticism just because there are anti Muslim bigots running about.  Its more extreme factions are notably ugly and anyone has the right to condemn the ugly parts.  The repression of women, enslavement, violence to infidels, etc is reprehensible and I'm not going to take some faux-tolerant posture that hey that's a different culture and we will be tolerant of those differences.  Nor does anti-Christian whataboutism interest me.  Yes, other religions crank out garbage, too, but if I am criticizing Islam then that's the topic and it won't get better for adherents of that religion unless condemnation is strong, focused, and delivered from as many quarters as possible.  It's possible that Christianity's advantage (in the limited sense of now being a bit less rapey/slavey/suicide vesty) is partly just time - it's had an extra 600 years to get clear of its middle ages. 

I agree with @Peterkin that the "more harsh and biblical" excesses of a religion seem to thrive in a theocratic society more than a secular one with multiple coexisting religions.  Power corrupts.

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Most discussion on this forum seems to be about Christianity. But what do you guys think of Islam? 

My thoughts about it are mixed. I appreciate parts of it like a strong emphasis on charity and support of free market but I dislike other parts of it like death penalty for adultsry, apostasy and blasphemy or a generally lower status of women.

What are your thoughts?

 

I think it arose in the c.5th, probably in Mesopotamia, out of the mix of Judaism, Christianity and other influences.
 

I came into contact with it when I lived in the Middle East. It can engender a very attractive, calm and gentle attitude in its adherents (men and women). But of course in its strident militant form it is just as bad as the Puritanism of old in the Christian world, or even worse. So as with most religion, it can have both positive and negative aspects.

[Moontanman]

Islam is just another religion, a man made mythology that serves only to allow some people to control others. No truth to the proposition that a god exists is any more prevalent in Islam than any other religion. Present a an assertion that Islam is the truth and I will ask for your evidence for this and critique or accept any evidence that can be confirmed. No particular positive or negative premise is given for Islam or any other religion here that I've seen.    

[Peterkin]

We have to be aware, too, of the rise of extreme conservatism in both politics and religions, pretty much the world over. Islam is in the forefront of that trend, starting with the counterrevolution in Iran, bolstered in popular sentiment by reaction against the high-handed colonialist methods of the western powers in middle eastern affairs and the ascendancy of Israel. Conservative religious factions (as well as violent actions) were [are?] supported by the rich Arab kingdoms like Saudi Arabia... only, the current leadership seems more inclined to modern reform and liberalization. Even Iran has a radical faction which pulls toward Marxist ideology and a middle-of-the-road faction that is pragmatic and willing to share power with secular interests. Meanwhile, the religious right in christian, nominally secular countries is very concerning.  

Many people blame terrorism on the Quran, which is as reasonable as blaming all christian atrocities on the Bible. When people are hell-bent on doing something - whether it's war or charity - they'll find a passage in their holy writ to support that action.

Edited February 7 by Peterkin

[MigL]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

I think it arose in the c.5th, probably in Mesopotamia

The prophet Mohamed actually started gaining followers in Mecca, of present day Saudi Arabia.
The powers of the time drove him out of the city because they feared his growing influence.
He went to Medina, where He and his followers raided wagon trains crossing the Arabian peninsula, until He raised enough wealth, and an army, to return and take Mecca.
The conquest, and Islam, then spread across North Africa, all the way to the Iberian peninsula before being stopped by Charlemagne's father, and to the East as far as the Punjab.

These are documented historical facts, unlike for Christianity, where there is no historical evidence of a Jesus Christ ( He may actually have been a 'composite' person, indicative of the rebellion against the imposed Roman rule of the region ), or, the pure allegory of the Bible, more indicative of the times ( and society ) when those parts of the bible were written ( see Peterkin's post ) than actual historic events.

Edited February 7 by MigL

[Otto Kretschmer]

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

The prophet Mohamed actually started gaining followers in Mecca, of present day Saudi Arabia.
The powers of the time drove him out of the city because they feared his growing influence.
He went to Medina, where He and his followers raided wagon trains crossing the Arabian peninsula, until He raised enough wealth, and an army, to return and take Mecca.
The conquest, and Islam, then spread across North Africa, all the way to the Iberian peninsula before being stopped by Charlemagne's father, and to the East as far as the Punjab.

These are documented historical facts, unlike for Christianity, where there is no historical evidence of a Jesus Christ ( He may actually have been a 'composite' person, indicative of the rebellion against the imposed Roman rule of the region ), or, pure allegory, more indicative of the times ( and society ) when those parts of the bible were written ( see Peterkin's post ) than actual historic events.

I am not sure about this.

Muhammad's life is no better documented than the life of Jesus - all information about him comes from sources written over a century after his death (the first biography of Muhammad comes from ca. 750 AD while he died in 632 AD).

Confucius and Buddha aren't better documented either. 

[exchemist]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

The prophet Mohamed actually started gaining followers in Mecca, of present day Saudi Arabia.
The powers of the time drove him out of the city because they feared his growing influence.
He went to Medina, where He and his followers raided wagon trains crossing the Arabian peninsula, until He raised enough wealth, and an army, to return and take Mecca.
The conquest, and Islam, then spread across North Africa, all the way to the Iberian peninsula before being stopped by Charlemagne's father, and to the East as far as the Punjab.

These are documented historical facts, unlike for Christianity, where there is no historical evidence of a Jesus Christ ( He may actually have been a 'composite' person, indicative of the rebellion against the imposed Roman rule of the region ), or, pure allegory, more indicative of the times ( and society ) when those parts of the bible were written ( see Peterkin's post ) than actual historic events.

Yes I know but the religion did not spring, fully formed, from Mohammed.

[MigL]

9 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

I am not sure about this.

Non Muslim historical sources

"Early Islamic history is also reflected in sources written in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Hebrew by Jewish and Christian communities, all of which are dated after 633 CE.^[2] These sources contain some essential differences with regard to Muslim sources, in particular regarding the chronology and Muhammad's attitude towards the Jews and Palestine.^[2] According to Nevo and Koren, no Byzantine or Syriac sources provide any detail on "Muhammad's early career ... which predate the Muslim literature on the subject".^[48]

According to Syriac and Byzantine sources studied by historian S.P. Brock,^[49] "The title 'prophet' [applied to Muhammad] is not very common, 'apostle' even less so. Normally he is simply described as the first of the Arab kings, and it would be generally true to say that the Syriac sources of this period see the conquests primarily as Arab, and not Muslim"

From      Historicity of Muhammad - Wikipedia

 

21 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I know but the religion did not spring, fully formed, from Mohammed.

Yes, it was a mix-mash of religions and beliefs from the traders that passed through Mecca.
Most religions are based on earlier ones.

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Non Muslim historical sources

"Early Islamic history is also reflected in sources written in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Hebrew by Jewish and Christian communities, all of which are dated after 633 CE.^[2] These sources contain some essential differences with regard to Muslim sources, in particular regarding the chronology and Muhammad's attitude towards the Jews and Palestine.^[2] According to Nevo and Koren, no Byzantine or Syriac sources provide any detail on "Muhammad's early career ... which predate the Muslim literature on the subject".^[48]

According to Syriac and Byzantine sources studied by historian S.P. Brock,^[49] "The title 'prophet' [applied to Muhammad] is not very common, 'apostle' even less so. Normally he is simply described as the first of the Arab kings, and it would be generally true to say that the Syriac sources of this period see the conquests primarily as Arab, and not Muslim"

From      Historicity of Muhammad - Wikipedia

 

Yes, it was a mix-mash of religions and beliefs from the traders that passed through Mecca.
Most religions are based on earlier ones.

Not much passed through Mecca though. More likely Mohammed brought ideas back from his travels to the North. (I admit to being attracted to the “revisionist” school of Wansbrough et al, as it seems to me relatively objective and historical, whereas so much of what is presented as the history of Islam is suffused with the tradition of believers, which cannot often be corroborated.)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wansbrough

Edited February 7 by exchemist

[Otto Kretschmer]

50 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Not much passed through Mecca though. More likely Mohammed brought ideas back from his travels to the North. (I admit to being attracted to the “revisionist” school of Wansbrough et al, as it seems to me relatively objective and historical, whereas so much of what is presented as the history of Islam is suffused with the tradition of believers, which cannot often be corroborated.)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wansbrough

Muhammad did not travel much. IIRC he made a single trip to Damascus on behalf of his wife, selling her merchandise and buying what she requested. That's it.

[exchemist]

15 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said:

Muhammad did not travel much. IIRC he made a single trip to Damascus on behalf of his wife, selling her merchandise and buying what she requested. That's it.

I had read he was a merchant trading goods through to the Mediterranean. Seems likely to me he did quite a lot of travelling. But it is all very obscure, certainly. 

[Peterkin]

In the biography I read, he was assistant and protege to a trader who died. He stayed to take of the business and married the widow (and later, seven other women) and carried on representing her interests.

Whether that was anywhere near the truth, we have some other evidence of his having moved around:

Quote

a number of rudimentary details about Muhammad are confirmed by non-Islamic sources dating from the first decades after Muhammad’s traditional date of death. For instance, a Syriac chronicle dating from about 640 mentions a battle between the Romans and “the Arabs of Muhammad,” and an Armenian history composed about 660 describes Muhammad as a merchant who preached to the Arabs and thereby triggered the Islamic conquests. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Muhammad

 

[MigL]

19 hours ago, exchemist said:

Not much passed through Mecca though.

It would be a strange place for a trader to be located, if that was the case.

"Historian Patricia Crone has cast doubt on the claim that Mecca was a major historical trading outpost.^[51][52] However, other scholars such as Glen W. Bowersock disagree and assert that Mecca was a major trading outpost.^[53][54] Crone later on disregarded some of her theories.^[55] She argues that Meccan trade relied on skins, hides, manufactured leather goods, clarified butter, Hijazi woollens, and camels. She suggests that most of these goods were destined for the Roman army, which is known to have required colossal quantities of leather and hides for its equipment."

From     Mecca - Wikipedia

 

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

She argues that Meccan trade relied on skins, hides, manufactured leather goods, clarified butter, Hijazi woollens, and camels. She suggests that most of these goods were destined for the Roman army, which is known to have required colossal quantities of leather and hides for its equipment."

And where would a merchant acquire these items? In the interior, where the tribal, semi-nomadic, non-affiliated Arabs lived. Plenty of opportunity to preach at them about a unified Arab nation as powerful as the empires to the west and south. 

And trade with Roman empire provides opportunity to observe their successful military organization and strategy, passing that information on to the Arabs.

Edited February 8 by Peterkin

[iNow]

To the thread title, I never think of Islam and it only enters my thoughts when I see threads about it like this one. It’s a nice change of pace after all the stereotyping and bigotry and marginalization we saw after 9/11

[MigL]

Actual history can be discussed with Islam, and I like History.
By Contrast, Christianity's Jesus Christ may be an imaginary person, and the New Testament written centuries after His supposed existence.
And I won't even mention the burning bushes, Arcs of the Covenant, and floods survived by a male and female of each species, in the Old Testament of the Jewish faith.

[Eise]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

By Contrast, Christianity's Jesus Christ may be an imaginary person, and the New Testament written centuries after His supposed existence.

Just a side note: not 'centuries'. The latest gospel written was that of John, and historians estimate that it was written around the year 100 CE.

I always supposed that Mohammed was much more historical than Jesus. The merchant being his uncle, such stuff. But maybe I have to correct that opinion. 

And was Mecca not already a place of religious worship: there stands the Kaaba, which is older than Islam. Could that have been a reason to conquer Mecca, to seize power over this important religious symbol?

[exchemist]

20 hours ago, MigL said:

It would be a strange place for a trader to be located, if that was the case.

"Historian Patricia Crone has cast doubt on the claim that Mecca was a major historical trading outpost.^[51][52] However, other scholars such as Glen W. Bowersock disagree and assert that Mecca was a major trading outpost.^[53][54] Crone later on disregarded some of her theories.^[55] She argues that Meccan trade relied on skins, hides, manufactured leather goods, clarified butter, Hijazi woollens, and camels. She suggests that most of these goods were destined for the Roman army, which is known to have required colossal quantities of leather and hides for its equipment."

From     Mecca - Wikipedia

 

Fair point. It all seems to be very murky. 

[dimreepr]

My thoughts on Islam is the word prophet, the idea that someone would come along in a different place and time, with the same idea but a different God.

When are we going to realise that a good idea is not always a magical snare...