What is the problem with Islam?

[shunyadragon]

The problems with Islam are similar to the problems with Judaism and Christianity. They are ancient religions from the past, and they have become divided, in violent conflict through modern history, and many of the spiritual laws are outdated and subject to conflict even within the religion. Questions of moral and ethical problems involving equality of women and slavery are handled inconsistently in history and today.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

The problems with Islam are similar to the problems with Judaism and Christianity.

I will explain why this is one of those "I can say it and there's nothing you can dispute", mainly due to the fact it isn't an argument.

They are ancient religions from the past

not an inherent flaw... maybe a point of view though.

they have become divided

I would say to a much smaller degree than others, but in the fundamental beliefs, we are all the same... This is in sharp contrast to that of the Jewish and Christian Doctrines.

in violent conflict through modern history

Again, no more so than any other religion. There has always been a certain degree of war that would arise for political or financial reasons that stims a violent reaction. overall however the Muslim world has been the center of the most interfaith, and generally peaceful societies, until recently of course. Much like any group of people throughout history, when you get too many corrupt leaders who don't adhere to the law, you get problems.

many of the spiritual laws are outdated and subject to conflict even within the religion

Now we are getting to the point of the thread, however you have made no distinction as to what particular laws those are. you might find that most can be explained very logically, and most of the conflict is minimal at most.

Questions of moral and ethical problems involving equality of women and slavery are handled inconsistently in history and today

in 2 or 3 countries this might be true. throughout the rest of the world however, not so much. yes there are different rules in Islam itself for men and women, but that largely depends on the family unit prescribed. How about you individualize the issues, and maybe we can revisit this so I or one of the other Muslim members can explain it to you or give a reasoning why it is different than the "normal" western society.

 

[Richard Pickett]

True.... Odds are high if I were to be killed it would be by a Christian...and not a Muslim....the rhetoric today on the US is totally illogical and fear based.

Why would you say that? Why would a Christian be more likely to kill you than a Muslim? Because of your beliefs? What you eat?

 

[Richard Pickett]

I will explain why this is one of those "I can say it and there's nothing you can dispute", mainly due to the fact it isn't an argument.


not an inherent flaw... maybe a point of view though.


I would say to a much smaller degree than others, but in the fundamental beliefs, we are all the same... This is in sharp contrast to that of the Jewish and Christian Doctrines.


Again, no more so than any other religion. There has always been a certain degree of war that would arise for political or financial reasons that stims a violent reaction. overall however the Muslim world has been the center of the most interfaith, and generally peaceful societies, until recently of course. Much like any group of people throughout history, when you get too many corrupt leaders who don't adhere to the law, you get problems.


Now we are getting to the point of the thread, however you have made no distinction as to what particular laws those are. you might find that most can be explained very logically, and most of the conflict is minimal at most.


in 2 or 3 countries this might be true. throughout the rest of the world however, not so much. yes there are different rules in Islam itself for men and women, but that largely depends on the family unit prescribed. How about you individualize the issues, and maybe we can revisit this so I or one of the other Muslim members can explain it to you or give a reasoning why it is different than the "normal" western society.

Curious as to your definition of "normal" Western society..

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Why would you say that? Why would a Christian be more likely to kill you than a Muslim? Because of your beliefs? What you eat?

Uh, because there are a fraction of the number of Muslims than Christians in this country!

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Why would you say that? Why would a Christian be more likely to kill you than a Muslim? Because of your beliefs? What you eat?

Uh, because there are a fraction of the number of Muslims than Christians in this country!

what DA said, except statistically speaking, this could be applied to world as well. not counting wars, you have Christian Dominated Countries where murder is an everyday part of life. Central and South America are examples, as are several African countries. If you add in war issues, you have the US and western bombs going off all over the world making "accidental" collateral damage. you still have those murders, and counting every life ISIS has taken as a "Muslim" killing people, we still barely equate to that of people killed by "Christians" in the northern hemisphere Americas. World statistics don't show Islam as more violent in terms of quantity or per capita numbers being any higher than that of Christians.

Curious as to your definition of "normal" Western society..

it is a general statement used for mass acceptable actions of people in the US and western Europe.

 

[Richard Pickett]

what DA said, except statistically speaking, this could be applied to world as well. not counting wars, you have Christian Dominated Countries where murder is an everyday part of life. Central and South America are examples, as are several African countries. If you add in war issues, you have the US and western bombs going off all over the world making "accidental" collateral damage. you still have those murders, and counting every life ISIS has taken as a "Muslim" killing people, we still barely equate to that of people killed by "Christians" in the northern hemisphere Americas. World statistics don't show Islam as more violent in terms of quantity or per capita numbers being any higher than that of Christians.


it is a general statement used for mass acceptable actions of people in the US and western Europe.

That would only work for me if those committing the murders are actually Christian or, at least, identify themselves as such. just because someone lives in a predominately Christian Country doesn't mean they are.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

That would only work for me if those committing the murders are actually Christian or, at least, identify themselves as such. just because someone lives in a predominately Christian Country doesn't mean they are.

most of the countries I'm speaking of, I think you would be hard pressed to find someone claiming not to be christian. yes there are small populations of people who are not, but in most central and south american countries 95%+ claim christian faith. Most cartels are run by catholic families (I give you that they are not acting in a Christian way, but they would undoubtedly claim it)

 

[shunyadragon]

Why would you say that? Why would a Christian be more likely to kill you than a Muslim? Because of your beliefs? What you eat?

It is far, far more likely as a Baha'i to be killed by a Muslim.

 

[shunyadragon]

what DA said, except statistically speaking, this could be applied to world as well. not counting wars, you have Christian Dominated Countries where murder is an everyday part of life. Central and South America are examples, as are several African countries. If you add in war issues, you have the US and western bombs going off all over the world making "accidental" collateral damage. you still have those murders, and counting every life ISIS has taken as a "Muslim" killing people, we still barely equate to that of people killed by "Christians" in the northern hemisphere Americas. World statistics don't show Islam as more violent in terms of quantity or per capita numbers being any higher than that of Christians.


it is a general statement used for mass acceptable actions of people in the US and western Europe.

It is easy to acknowledge the problems of crime in Western Countries, and also the intolerance and persecution of minorities in history including Muslims, but . . .

Your seriously neglecting the problems of Islamic countries, which at times can be easily more severe concerning religious minorities. It is most common for Baha'is to be killed or imprisoned in Islamic countries than any other country in the world.

It would be difficult for you to justify oppression of minority Jews, Christians and most brutally the Baha'is in many if not most Islamic countries. The minorities are being pushed out of many Islamic countries and some progressive Islamic countries like Turkey.

 

[shunyadragon]

I will explain why this is one of those "I can say it and there's nothing you can dispute", mainly due to the fact it isn't an argument.


not an inherent flaw... maybe a point of view though.

Not totally just a point of view. Islam remains violently divided between Sunni and Shi'ite, and Islamic law is variable and inconsistent in terms of addressing the universal world of many different religions, most including Baha'i are not welcome in most Islamic countries.

I would say to a much smaller degree than others, but in the fundamental beliefs, we are all the same... This is in sharp contrast to that of the Jewish and Christian Doctrines.

Again, no more so than any other religion. There has always been a certain degree of war that would arise for political or financial reasons that stems a violent reaction. overall however the Muslim world has been the center of the most interfaith, and generally peaceful societies, until recently of course. Much like any group of people throughout history, when you get too many corrupt leaders who don't adhere to the law, you get problems.

In the early history Islam did represent a more tolerant religion at times, but history is a witness as time went by Islam became less tolerant and peaceful like other ancient religions.

True, that is the problem with ancient religions. Yes, like other ancient religions, violently and irrevocably and violent divided between Sunni and Shi'ite.

Now we are getting to the point of the thread, however you have made no distinction as to what particular laws those are. you might find that most can be explained very logically, and most of the conflict is minimal at most.

The difference in laws is not minimal.

Shiria Law is not consistent In Islamic countries and is oppressive in many Islamic countries, with cruel ancient methods of punishment not remotely in accordance with modern international law.

Simply search Islamic countries where Shiria Laws rule.

in 2 or 3 countries this might be true. throughout the rest of the world however, not so much. yes there are different rules in Islam itself for men and women, but that largely depends on the family unit prescribed. How about you individualize the issues, and maybe we can revisit this so I or one of the other Muslim members can explain it to you or give a reasoning why it is different than the "normal" western society.

This is blatantly untrue in most Islamic countries particularly those that impose Shiria.

 

[Saheim]

the issue as I see it...if non muslims get involved in fighting taliban....they are thrown is as anti muslim....when they are simply figting the taliban's oppression...

the problem is always finding out who the oppressors are...

the walking behind to protect?? absolute BS in my book.... If I were to need to protect my woman.... (that sounds bad enough) I surely could not do so if she were 3 or 10 spaces behind me. I'd have her at my side, in front, behind depending on where the trouble is perceived....

I am not saying you as an individual....but just as we Christians separate ourselves from the KKK or the Westboro Baptists.... we shouldn't expect others to say it...we need to say it and repeat it.

Greetins All! Completely new here and, so far, like the place

I might be able to help provide just a little insight on the "behind for protection" thing. One of the things I am trained in is "Dignitary Protection" (bodyguarding). YES having the "dig" always behind you would put you at a tactical disadvantage, you are correct. However, there are certain times when it is a MUST. For example - if you are entering a room that is KNOWN to be secure, the dig goes first BUT if it is a room that is not known to be secure YOU go first. I believe the man walking in front of the woman was based on the same concept - YOU encounter the danger, of the unknown area, first.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I've never given it much thought, but dignitary protection must be a huge business these days. And not just for political figures. Any movie star of any note has at least one big bruiser that follows them around everywhere they go.

 

[DawudTalut]

Could you tell me what Islam teaches on the Christ's cruxifiction?
I have heard something before, but it was very vague.
Did Mohammed address this in detail?

Peace be on you.
According to Ahmadiyya Muslims, Jesus (on whom be peace) was saved from cross as already promised by God. Then he migrated to meet other sheep of bani-Israel. Through Iran, Afghanistan he reached Kashmir where he preached and passed away at the age 120 with successes.
[For details and proofs from Quran, Bible, old medical and historical record, please search "Jesus in India ahmadiyya alislam"]

Note:
Ahmadiyya Muslims believe the second coming of Hazrat Jesus (on whom be peace) [Hazrat is a word for respect] has been fulfilled in the person of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian India who claimed as Promised Messiah, the Covenanted Mahdi [as subservient Prophet to Best-and-Last-Prophet-with-Last-Book-Quran] made a Community 'Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at in 1889. After he passed away in 1908, his Khilafat began and currently Fifth Khalifah heads the Jama'at in 209 countries to continue the message of peace and reform worldwide -- with prayers, morals and service and with no use of force.

 

[kkc2354]

Hi BJN, I hope this is not too far away from your Topic. I am a Chinese Christian Indonesian. Would you mind to offer your opinion on the issue of "Ahok" the Governor of Jakarta and tafsir of Almaidah 5:51.
In Oct/Nov 2016, Ahok has been accused as criminal under Indonesian blasphemy laws due to this verse.
A large number of Muslim Indonesians would like him to be jailed (last demonstrations calling for this was estimated by its organisers as 500,000 ppl).
The original Indonesian Alquran translation of this verse (I think since 1965) states that Muslims can not have non-Muslim 'Leader' (awliya).
During his election campaign, Ahok states to a group of villagers, do not be fooled by people using this verse.
Note that the international translation of this verse is that Muslims can not have non-Muslim 'Friend/ally' (in the context of war time).
But many Indonesian Muslim teachers have been teaching their congregation that they can not have non-Muslim leader. Period.
It is also noted that a lot of Indonesian Muslims are employees of non-Muslim business owners.
Interestingly, when the indonesian Muslims started to check their copy of the Alquran, they found that the the translation had been changed from 'Leader' to 'friend/ally'. And caused a bit of an uproar on the Internet, some asking the masses to burn the printing houses. The printing houses Issued a statement they only printed what was instructed by the Indonesian ministry of religion. In turn, the Ministry of Religion issued a statement that the translation was changed since 2002. Long before the uproar due to this Ahok case. And suggested that the masses not rely on translations but tafsir from respected Muslim teachers (which ones? Couldn't give a direct answer. It is still ambiguous to me).
But to many of the Muslim masses, it doesn't change anything, they stated, if the Alquran does not allow Muslim to have non-Muslim 'friend/ally', let alone 'leader'!!! Kill or jail Ahok.
Basically the above is the short translation of these two sites (including the statement from the ministry of religion):
http://www.moslemtoday.com/beredar-...-maidah-51-kata-pemimpin-diganti-teman-setia/
https://www.kemenag.go.id/berita/41...iy-sebagai-teman-setia-ini-penjelasan-kemenag
In my opinion, Islam and Alquran most likely not fallible. But its verses are very easily taken out of context, at face value. To incite violence. Or for political gain. Or other ulterior motives. Especially by the largely pious but lowly educated masses. And even by many Muslims teachers in Indonesia, since 1965 to 2016.
It is noted that there are some token and high profile Indonesian Muslim teachers and leaders who preach peace and forgiveness in the Ahok case, but they stop short of voicing their opinion on the contrary to the masses. (In my opinion, they should say that verse was taken in the context of war, not related to governor election).
There were attempts by more moderate Muslims to organise demonstrations to support Ahok, but their number pales compared to those 500,000.
Please don't give me the people of 'other religion' do bad things too response, I am aware of that, and it doesn't justify why People of Islam can do bad things, and it doesn't provide a valid respond to this question.
I am ashamed of those bad things carried in the name of my religion. I am ashamed of my powerlessness. All that I could do was write letters to the politicians in this western country where I currently reside that they shouldn't go to unjust wars. All that I could do was inform my friends of the oppression of the Palestinians by Israel. Or how would they feel if other nation set up military bases in this country. And I admit that is not enough. but I am interested in what is your honest view on Ahok and Almaidah 5:51 and secondly, how easy it is to influence a large number of people, for many years based on tafsirs, for certain motives.

 

[timotheos]

peace,

the problem with islam is its not islam, islam is explained in the quran, and the previous scriptures, but the people abadonned them to follow hadiths, in judaism they abandonned the tanakh to follow their rabbis etc, in jesus case they abandoned his teachings to follow the teachings of paul, and in muhammads case they abandonned the quran to follow the hadith.

of course this is in general, in reference to the 'sects', some followers of judaism, christianity, islam and others are still believers, but many of the doctrines and dogma mislead the people.

 

[timotheos]

Could you tell me what Islam teaches on the Christ's cruxifiction?
I have heard something before, but it was very vague.
Did Mohammed address this in detail?

peace,

'and they say "indeed we killed The Messiah, `Isa, son of mary, the messenger of God, and they did not kill him, and they did not crucify him, rather it was an example for them, and indeed those who debate in it are surely in doubt of it, they have not in it any knowledge, except following opinions, and they did not kill him, for certain. Nay, God raised him to Him, and God is Mighty, Wise' - quran 4:157-8

thats how i read the verse, based on my understanding

 

[BigJoeNobody]

and in muhammads case they abandonned the quran to follow the hadith.

Salaam Allahikum,

How does one abandon the Quran by following Hadith? Hadith is the sayings and actions that people recorded the Prophet (PBUH) saying and doing. So do you believe Mouhammed's talks and actions weren't in line with Quran? for Further response, I think the discussion on http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/24773/is-the-quran-complete-if-so-why-do-we-need-hadith would be a good source. seems that the question is quite well covered.

 

[timotheos]

Salaam Allahikum,

How does one abandon the Quran by following Hadith? Hadith is the sayings and actions that people recorded the Prophet (PBUH) saying and doing. So do you believe Mouhammed's talks and actions weren't in line with Quran? for Further response, I think the discussion on http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/24773/is-the-quran-complete-if-so-why-do-we-need-hadith would be a good source. seems that the question is quite well covered.

Peace,

The question probably is covered, considering the word used to describe disbelief in the Quran is kafar which means to cover.

"Indeed my people have abandoned this Quran" - words of the messenger from the Quran itself.

I think the Quran is probably a better source, and a better hadith, as it mentions "we have revealed in this the best hadith", "in what hadith after it will they believe"

The Quran mentions do not say about that which your tounges assert "this is lawful and this is forbidden" so as to invent lies about God.
Many of the scholars do this, and more, I can provide much evidence for the fact that Muslims have abandoned the Quran in favor of fabrications, what I know for certain, because I read the Quran and refer to it when in doubt, as it instructs, is that much of the hadith cannot possibly be from God or the messenger of God, I recommend reading the Quran itself, briefly here are a few things that hadith and doctrines of "islam" contradict the Quran:

Lawful and unlawful foods.
Times of prayer
The most fundamental part of islam, the shahada
The criteria for a believer

And much more.

Peace

 

[BigJoeNobody]

Peace,

The question probably is covered, considering the word used to describe disbelief in the Quran is kafar which means to cover.

"Indeed my people have abandoned this Quran" - words of the messenger from the Quran itself.

I think the Quran is probably a better source, and a better hadith, as it mentions "we have revealed in this the best hadith", "in what hadith after it will they believe"

The Quran mentions do not say about that which your tounges assert "this is lawful and this is forbidden" so as to invent lies about God.
Many of the scholars do this, and more, I can provide much evidence for the fact that Muslims have abandoned the Quran in favor of fabrications, what I know for certain, because I read the Quran and refer to it when in doubt, as it instructs, is that much of the hadith cannot possibly be from God or the messenger of God, I recommend reading the Quran itself, briefly here are a few things that hadith and doctrines of "islam" contradict the Quran:

Lawful and unlawful foods.
Times of prayer
The most fundamental part of islam, the shahada
The criteria for a believer

And much more.

Peace

Assalaam Allahikum, Well you are certainly able to try to understand it without the help of scholars, or Hadith. The topics you listed tend to be favorites of the Quran only groups, but Even though I once had a strong leaning that way (and don't get me wrong, Quran before Hadith is definitely correct), I have seen too many Ustadh's and Scholars eat apart those arguments to believe that Hadith can't build on what is already stated in Quran.