Why Islam is dangerous

[Mighty AC]

I believe that all religions are false and dangerous to some degree; however, the level of devotion, violence and hate exhibited by the followers of Islam is something special. Many of my fellow liberals and atheists react with scorn when I suggest that Islam is even more dangerous than Christianity and other religions. They attribute the violence and hate to fringe extremists "whose legitimate political grievances and social ties cause them to act out in regrettable ways."

Sam Harris wrote an excellent article on this subject. It is long but worth reading, especially if you find yourself attributing the actions of Muslims to social conditions or political issues. I have quoted a section of the article and a video here, but I recommend reading the entire thing. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/islam-and-the-misuses-of-ecstasy

This video has everything: the power of ritual and the power of the crowd; tears of devotion and a lust for vengeance. How many of the people in that mosque are jihadists? I have no idea—perhaps none. But their spiritual aspirations and deepest positive emotions—love, devotion, compassion, bliss, awe—are being focused through the lens of sectarian hatred and humiliation.

Read every word of the translation so that you understand what these devout people are weeping over. Their ecstasy is inseparable from the desire to see nonbelievers punished in hellfire. Is this some weird distortion of the true teachings of Islam? No. This is a recitation from the Koran articulating its central message.

The video has over 2 million views on YouTube. It was posted by someone who promised his fellow Muslims that they, too, would weep tears of devotion upon seeing it. The reciter is Sheikh Mishary bin Rashid Alafasy of Kuwait. He has as many Twitter followers as Jerry Seinfeld and J.K. Rowling (2 million). In doctrinal terms, this is not the fringe of Islam. It is the center.

Watch the entire video with your full attention. If you cannot feel the haunting beauty of this recitation, if it is inexplicable to you that people can be moved to tears by the mere sound of these verses, then you are not in contact with the data. Indeed, if you don’t understand how someone could be willing to die to defend the legitimacy of such an experience, you are very poorly placed to understand the problem of Islam.

In my opinion, Sam very eloquently explains why the core, not just the fringes, of Islam is more dangerous than other religions.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sam Harris just offers up his own brand of religious intolerance and extremism to sell books and earn speaking fees. I can get that from Anne Coulter and she has better legs !

[Shady]

Bill Maher has also been saying the same thing for years.

[Mighty AC]

bush_cheney2004, on 30 Jul 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

Sam Harris just offers up his own brand of religious intolerance and extremism to sell books and earn speaking fees.  I can get that from Anne Coulter and she has better legs !

Shady, on 30 Jul 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

Bill Maher has also been saying the same thing for years.

I think religion deserves about as much tolerance as any idea not supported by evidence. Loch Ness Monster, Reiki, Astrology, a living Elvis Presley, etc. Religion deserves criticism along with many of our social and economic problems and guys like Bill Maher, Stewart, Oliver, Colbert, etc. do do an excellent job of highlighting those in a funny and entertaining fashion. However, Sam isn't just bashing religion here, nor is he just opining that Islam is worse.

In this article he takes on the educated, liberal excuse factory with evidence, logic and very persuasive examples. Sam isn't giving other religions a free pass either, he simply demonstrates 2 main points. 1) Islam uses the same ploys and gimmicks relied upon by all other religions, but in a more effective way that creates a more fervent and dangerous level of commitment. 2) The core of Islam (even those peaceful 2 billion) are reciting dangerous and violent words in their rituals, not just the minority that engage in extreme actions.

Poor social and political conditions coupled with any religious mind control system can create problems. However, I agree with Sam that Islam is a more effective religious mind control system for creating violence.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Mighty AC

[eyeball]

So you gotta wonder...why on bloody Earth would so many people near the core of decision making power in the west insist that we stick our dingus in this hornet's nest and keep stirring it up?

Talk about dangerous...wtf is up with that? We must be out of our freaking minds too.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Poor social and political conditions coupled with any religious mind control system can create problems. However, I agree with Sam that Islam is a more effective religious mind control system for creating violence.

Harris has a very narrow historical perspective if he wishes to paint Islamic extremism in the most unfavourable light. But he has every right to spout his new atheist religion, just as others have the right to theirs. The violent actions of individuals can be found across a wide spectrum of religiosity, including none.

[bush_cheney2004]

So you gotta wonder...why on bloody Earth would so many people near the core of decision making power in the west insist that we stick our dingus in this hornet's nest and keep stirring it up?

Because that's where some of the sweetest hydrocarbons are. Any questions ?

Edited July 30, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

No, I always suspected as much, I just thought it would be better if a devout follower of our core beliefs acknowledged that early in the thread. Thanks for taking the bait, I knew I could count on you.

[bush_cheney2004]

Good...now that we have settled the obvious...back to the topic please...nervous atheists !

[eyeball]

More of a nervous consumer really, nervous about the intersecting spectra of economics and religiosity and of course virtue or lack thereof.

[Moonlight Graham]

Sam Harris is full of BS here, he's misinterpreting the scripture in the video. Sam says:

This video has everything: the power of ritual and the power of the crowd; tears of devotion and a lust for vengeance. How many of the people in that mosque are jihadists? I have no idea—perhaps none. But their spiritual aspirations and deepest positive emotions—love, devotion, compassion, bliss, awe—are being focused through the lens of sectarian hatred and humiliation...Their ecstasy is inseparable from the desire to see nonbelievers punished in hellfire.

What "lust for vengeance"? What "sectarian hatred and humiliation". There is NONE in the video. The Quran passage recited in the video is about the afterlife, punishment in hell for non-believers and heaven/angels for believers in Allah (God). Any reference to "Fire" or "Hell-fire" (both words capitalized) refers to hell, not a call for Muslims to blow up non-believers with explosives:

"That is the recompense of the enemies of Allah - the Fire. For them therein is the home of eternity as recompense for what they, of Our verses, were rejecting."

Also, when the verse says "We" (in capitals), that "We" refers to God speaking, not "we" as in "everyone praying in this temple. Allah in the Quran refers to himself as various pronouns like "I", "He", Our", We" etc. So Sam Harris is mistakenly confused by passages like the following:

"But We will surely cause those who disbelieve to taste a severe punishment, and We will surely recompense them for the worst of what they had been doing."

This "severe punishment" is an eternity in the Fire/Hell-fire (ie: hell) sentenced by Allah (God). This is exactly what ie: Christianty and Judaism teaches too in the Bible/Torah, so how is Islam more dangerous? This is clearly not a call to arms for Muslims to kill disbelievers etc. The weeping in the vid is as much (or possibly more) about the recital talking about glory and reward in heaven by God and angels for believers as any punishment to hell for non-believers.

[Argus]

So you gotta wonder...why on bloody Earth would so many people near the core of decision making power in the west insist that we stick our dingus in this hornet's nest and keep stirring it up?

Talk about dangerous...wtf is up with that? We must be out of our freaking minds too.

You mean like just leave them alone in their shitholes and they won't bother us? Like we did in Afghanistan?

[eyeball]

No, like we should have done decades and decades ago. Back around the time of Mossadegh would probably have started doing the trick.

By now Afghanistan might be borrowing money from us to continue expanding their infrastructure...out of materials we were hauling back from the asteroid belt.

[freekundli]

Why Islam is dangerous

Islam is not dangerous. People are dangerous.

[Altai]

Whole the article was a big "Blah blah" with zero logic. Author seem like he also does not know what to say to puke some hatred on Islam. Looks like another ordered article. So someones want him to write an article to create hatred against Islam and he accepts this job offer.

Thé summary of article: Islam is evil because someones perform some evil actions by claiming for being a Muslim. Forget about %99.99 of them who live in peace.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Altai

[The_Squid]

Whole the article was a big "Blah blah" with zero logic. Author seem like he also does not know what to say to puke some hatred on Islam. Looks like another ordered article. So someones want him to write an article to create hatred against Islam and he accepts this job offer.

Thé summary of article: Islam is evil because someones perform some evil actions by claiming for being a Muslim. Forget about %99.99 of them who live in peace.

Of all the religions in the world, Islam seems to be the one with the most violent extremists at the current time.

The article doesn't condemn the 99% (or whatever the real figure is) of "peaceful" Muslims. Islam definitely has issues. To criticize those issues is not to demean the people that live peacefully.

[Altai]

Of all the religions in the world, Islam seems to be the one with the most violent extremists at the current time.

The article doesn't condemn the 99% (or whatever the real figure is) of "peaceful" Muslims. Islam definitely has issues. To criticize those issues is not to demean the people that live peacefully.

Wrong. I dont say %99,99 is "good" Muslims and %0,01 is "bad" Muslims. We have discussed this issue before.

You can find it under this topic >>> http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/26028-were-all-extremists-eventually/

and my posts >>> from post 12 to post 105

[Guest]

What about Quran 2:193?

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)

Do Mulims have to fight atheists and followers of other gods?

[Altai]

What about Quran 2:193?

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)

Do Mulims have to fight atheists and followers of other gods?

I really cant believe that, many of these words are translated false.

There is no such a thing that "Fitnah" means "disbelief", or "Zalimun" means "polytheists".

Fitnah means "trying to create hatred, enmity, unrest". Zalimun means "the ones who behaves brutal, cruel."

There is no word in the verse which means "worship" too. The word which is falsely translated as "worship" is Arabic word "deen" and the closest meaning for it in English is "system"/"order".

The Arabic word "deen" is falsely translated as "religion" in many other verses too. There is no word in Quran that means "religion".

There is also no words in Quran that means "non-believer" or "dis-believer" or "non-Muslim" but you can see these three words are used in many English translations.

If we back to the topic, you should read the pre and after verses to understand what does verse 2:193 really mean. The pre-verse says, dont fight them if they gives up to fight you. After verse says that enmity of Muslims is only against the cruels.

[Guest]

I really cant believe that, many of these words are translated false.

There is no such a thing that "Fitnah" means "disbelief", or "Zalimun" means "polytheists".

Fitnah means "trying to create hatred, enmity, unrest". Zalimun means "the ones who behaves brutal, cruel."

There is no word in the verse which means "worship" too. The word which is falsely translated as "worship" is Arabic word "deen" and the closest meaning for it in English is "system"/"order".

The Arabic word "deen" is falsely translated as "religion" in many other verses too. There is no word in Quran that means "religion".

There is also no words in Quran that means "non-believer" or "dis-believer" or "non-Muslim" but you can see these three words are used in many English translations.

If we back to the topic, you should read the pre and after verses to understand what does verse 2:193 really mean. The pre-verse says, dont fight them if they gives up to fight you. After verse says that enmity of Muslims is only against the cruels.

Interesting as multiple pages provide examples which state that Fitnah means a trial or test in which something disliked is eliminated. The website Islam Questions and Answers supervised by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid states that in 2:193 "this means shirk (worshipping others besides Allaah)"

The same site shows the word Zalimun being used to describe non-believers and polytheists. https://islamqa.info/en/170927

So as was being discussed in thread about extremists that has been locked, it seems there is plenty of room for interpretation of the rules among Muslims. Is it possible for some to conclude that verse means Muslims should fight non-believers unless they convert to Islam?

Edited September 6, 2016 by Guest

[Altai]

Interesting as multiple pages provide examples which state that Fitnah means a trial or test in which something disliked is eliminated. The website Islam Questions and Answers supervised by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid states that in 2:193 "this means shirk (worshipping others besides Allaah)"

The same site shows the word Zalimun being used to describe non-believers and polytheists. https://islamqa.info/en/170927

So as was being discussed in thread about extremists that has been locked, it seems there is plenty of room for interpretation of the rules among Muslims. Is it possible for some to conclude that verse means Muslims should fight non-believers unless they convert to Islam?

Ofcourse no, there are words with multiple meanings in all languages. This does not mean that you can translate a sentence in many different meanings. You can translate it with the most significant state.

[DogOnPorch]

"Disbeliever" from the Quran = كافر

[Altai]

"Disbeliever" from the Quran = كافر

Kafir means "hiding" and its used in Quran as the ones who try to hide facts.

[DogOnPorch]

كافر = Infidel

[Altai]

كافر = Infidel

You copy paste the same words, so it is translated as disbeliever and infidel at the same time.