Islam

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I really don't understand why so many Christians are opposed to Islam despite it being almost identical to Christianity
While there are a lot of similarities, as Islam heavily borrows doctrine from both Christianity and Judaism, I'd say there's a lot of key differences. For one thing, Islam is a religion of conquest whereas Christianity is Missionary (which doesn't necessarily make it any better)

This is why the world of Islam is often "cut up" into multiple nations that coincidentally follow the path of Islamic conquests. It's also why many Muslims are very adamant about the destruction of Israel and the recreation of Al-Andalus, even today.

Islam is also much more strict with it's concepts of virtues and sins. Virtues in Christianity are looked on as things to aspire to, where as virtues in Islam are considered mandatory. In fact, Islam has a classification system that Muslims use to see if their actions are Pious or Decadent.
 
Islam is also much more strict with it's concepts of virtues and sins. Virtues in Christianity are looked on as things to aspire to, where as virtues in Islam are considered mandatory. In fact, Islam has a classification system that Muslims use to see if their actions are Pious or Decadent.
I actually prefer the islamic idea of sins and virtues because it is more specific. Although virtue is mandatory in Islam it is also a lot less strict (for example you can think of commiting a sin and it isn't a sin and you can engage in marital sexual activity and it is not a sin). Not to mention many muslims don't follow this anyways. In Christianity the bar is set extremely high but there is almost no reason to actually act virtuously because you can just confess your sins afterwards.
This is why the world of Islam is often "cut up" into multiple nations that coincidentally follow the path of Islamic conquests. It's also why many Muslims are very adamant about the destruction of Israel and the recreation of Al-Andalus, even today.
I think this is more just a part of the regions being screwed over by the events of the past few centuries. They probably wouldn't care much if they were having massive prosperity just like Christians in general don't care much about the dome on the rock or the loss of the roman territory in northern africa and the middle east
 
True, but Islam has a specific system in place. I forget what all of it is now, but I remember the most pious point was Wajib, and the most decadent point is Haram.

First, I don't know why you keep repeating the word "decadent" as though Muslims are /pol/. Haram doesn't equal "decadent" (which is a word most often used to refer to collective or individual decline, not religious sinfulness), it equals sinful or forbidden.

The classification system you're referring to is how Islamic jurisprudents have categorized actions, and in a basic form it consists of wajib (actions you are required to to), mustahhab (actions you are recommended to do) mubah (totally neutral actions; this is what the majority of actions are classified as), makruh (actions which are allowed, but discouraged), and haram (forbidden actions).

This way of classifying things is pretty common in religions, even if the specific terminology is confined to Islam. While not identical to the system of classifying mitzvot that exists in Judaism, it is very similar. It's also similar to the classical Hindu system of moral and ritual codes derived from the Vedas. Religions, being comprehensive traditions that claim divine inspiration, generally have some way of telling their followers "do this, don't do that; it's good to do this, it's OK to do that, but it's better to do this."

Now I will autistically pick apart your earlier post.

While there are a lot of similarities, as Islam heavily borrows doctrine from both Christianity and Judaism, I'd say there's a lot of key differences. For one thing, Islam is a religion of conquest whereas Christianity is Missionary (which doesn't necessarily make it any better)

Christianity and Islam have both simultaneously been religions spread by conquest and missionary endeavors. The adoption of Christianity as Rome's state religion was as instrumental to the worldwide spread of Christianity as early Islamic conquests were to Islam. It's true that it took longer for Christianity to get militaristic, but by the time Mohammed was born it had been 300 years since Constantine had his vision that told him to conquer in the sign of the cross.

On the other end, Islam was not solely spread through conquest. Islam was spread in Southeast Asia mostly through missionary efforts by Sufi mystics from Yemen and Central Asia, and through trade partnerships with Arab merchants. In fact, Sufi mystics played a huge role in evangelizing for Islam in much of the world. Even though there were Muslim conquests in India and West Africa, most of the conversions that occurred historically were at the hands of Sufis.

This is why the world of Islam is often "cut up" into multiple nations that coincidentally follow the path of Islamic conquests. It's also why many Muslims are very adamant about the destruction of Israel and the recreation of Al-Andalus, even today.

Nations have borders that generally follow lines marked out by wars and conquests. That's why "nations" exist.

Fair point about Israel (although Muslims are not the only people who hate it), but only the most autistic Islamists on the block actually care about reconquering Spain. That's more an AQ and ISIS propaganda point than anything else.

Islam is also much more strict with it's concepts of virtues and sins. Virtues in Christianity are looked on as things to aspire to, where as virtues in Islam are considered mandatory. In fact, Islam has a classification system that Muslims use to see if their actions are Pious or Decadent.

I'm not sure what you mean by any of this. I think what you are trying to say is that Islam has a complex system of laws (much like Judaism) whereas Christianity doesn't. This is true, but it doesn't follow that "virtues are mandatory in Islam, but just something to aspire to in Christianity." I think that's actually not giving enough credit to Christianity. Both religions require their followers to aspire to virtuousness, and both also speak a great deal about how humans are imperfect and fall short, but God is forgiving and merciful. Christianity and Islam are very different, but your "virtue is mandatory in Islam" spiel is a vague and unhelpful assertion.
 
Last edited:
First, I don't know why you keep repeating the word "decadent" as though Muslims are /pol/. Haram doesn't equal "decadent" (which is a word most often used to refer to collective or individual decline, not religious sinfulness), it equals sinful or forbidden.

The classification system you're referring to is how Islamic jurisprudents have categorized actions, and in a basic form it consists of wajib (actions you are required to to), mustahhab (actions you are recommended to do) mubah (totally neutral actions; this is what the majority of actions are classified as), makruh (actions which are allowed, but discouraged), and haram (forbidden actions).

This way of classifying things is pretty common in religions, even if the specific terminology is confined to Islam. While not identical to the system of classifying mitzvot that exists in Judaism, it is very similar. It's also similar to the classical Hindu system of moral and ritual codes derived from the Vedas. Religions, being comprehensive traditions that claim divine inspiration, generally have some way of telling their followers "do this, don't do that; it's good to do this, it's OK to do that, but it's better to do this."

Now I will autistically pick apart your earlier post.



Christianity and Islam have both simultaneously been religions spread by conquest and missionary endeavors. The adoption of Christianity as Rome's state religion was as instrumental to the worldwide spread of Christianity as early Islamic conquests were to Islam. It's true that it took longer for Christianity to get militaristic, but by the time Mohammed was born it had been 300 years since Constantine had his vision that told him to conquer in the sign of the cross.

On the other end, Islam was not solely spread through conquest. Islam was spread in Southeast Asia, mostly through missionary efforts by Sufi mystics from Yemen and Central Asia, and through trade partnerships with Arab merchants.



Nations have borders that generally follow lines marked out by wars and conquests. That's why "nations" exist.

Fair point about Israel (although Muslims are not the only people who hate it), but only the most autistic Islamists on the block actually care about reconquering Spain. That's more an AQ and ISIS propaganda point than anything else.



I'm not sure what you mean by any of this. I think what you are trying to say is that Islam has a complex system of laws (much like Judaism) whereas Christianity doesn't. This is true, but it doesn't follow that "virtues are mandatory in Islam, but just something to aspire to in Christianity." I think that's actually not giving enough credit to Christianity. Both religions require their followers to aspire to virtuousness, and both also speak a great deal about how humans are imperfect and fall short, but God is forgiving and merciful. Christianity and Islam are very different, but your "virtue is mandatory in Islam" spiel is a vague and unhelpful assertion.
lol calm down
 
I'm not sure what you mean by any of this. I think what you are trying to say is that Islam has a complex system of laws (much like Judaism) whereas Christianity doesn't. This is true, but it doesn't follow that "virtues are mandatory in Islam, but just something to aspire to in Christianity." I think that's actually not giving enough credit to Christianity. Both religions require their followers to aspire to virtuousness, and both also speak a great deal about how humans are imperfect and fall short, but God is forgiving and merciful. Christianity and Islam are very different, but your "virtue is mandatory in Islam" spiel is a vague and unhelpful assertion.
I think that in part it is more that in contrmporary Christianity not many people know or care about Canon Law because it is not in the bible (not sure whether these laws are in the Quran or hadith though). Canon law is quite well developed but since the protestant reformation it has been common to simply ignore it.

Please elaborate on the differentes you were talking about
 
The classification system you're referring to is how Islamic jurisprudents have categorized actions, and in a basic form it consists of wajib (actions you are required to to), mustahhab (actions you are recommended to do) mubah (totally neutral actions; this is what the majority of actions are classified as), makruh (actions which are allowed, but discouraged), and haram (forbidden actions).
Which of these is the stuff about killing apostates, women requiring more witnesses for their testimonies, amputating the hands of thieves etc etc?

and how do you distinguish?
 
Which of these is the stuff about killing apostates, women requiring more witnesses for their testimonies, amputating the hands of thieves etc etc?

and how do you distinguish?

Those things are not related to the classification system I (and pepsi) mentioned. This classification is related to personal behavior. The things you mentioned are part of ahkam (judgements) and qada (judiciary procedure).
 
Those things are not related to the classification system I (and pepsi) mentioned. This classification is related to personal behavior. The things you mentioned are part of ahkam (judgements) and qada (judiciary procedure).
right. I understand the distinction between judicial procedure but i fail to see how commands to kill apostates or adulterers is not a command regulating personal behaviour. There are others endorsing the beating of wives which i think must surely be personal behaviour.
 
right. I understand the distinction between judicial procedure but i fail to see how commands to kill apostates or adulterers is not a command regulating personal behaviour. There are others endorsing the beating of wives which i think must surely be personal behaviour.

The prohibition against adultery is related to personal behavior, but the command to stone adulterers is related solely to a punishment meted out by a judiciary. There's no general command to kill all adulterers, only a statute dictating that a married person who is caught in the act of sexual intercourse with someone who they are not married to and convicted by a state-operated court on the testimony of at least four witnesses who claim to have seen the act of penetration is to be stoned to death. Killing an adulterer extra-judicially would be forbidden in any case.

As for the command to kill apostates, that is a disputed matter to begin with, and that is also something which can only be done judicially. Extra-judicially killing someone who apostatizes from Islam is forbidden according to all recognized schools of jurisprudence.

As for wife-beating, there's nothing that endorses it wholesale, but there are things which say that in certain cases a man is allowed to physically strike his wife, so long as he does not cause marks or injuries, does not do anything which may threaten her health, does not do so to satiate his anger, and does not strike her anywhere in the face.

The reason why hitting a woman in the face is forbidden is because hitting a human being of any sex is forbidden in Islam (one reason why many Muftis say that being a boxer is forbidden). This is due to a hadith in which Mohammed commanded his followers to avoid striking anyone in the face because Adam was made in the image of God.
 
The prohibition against adultery is related to personal behavior, but the command to stone adulterers is related solely to a punishment meted out by a judiciary. There's no general command to kill all adulterers, only a statute dictating that a married person who is caught in the act of sexual intercourse with someone who they are not married to and convicted by a state-operated court on the testimony of at least four witnesses who claim to have seen the act of penetration is to be stoned to death. Killing an adulterer extra-judicially would be forbidden in any case.
Does having 4 witnesses that witness different incidents be sufficient. Also what about video evidence?
As for the command to kill apostates, that is a disputed matter to begin with, and that is also something which can only be done judicially. Extra-judicially killing someone who apostatizes from Islam is forbidden according to all recognized schools of jurisprudence.
I know that Zakir Naik considers it to only apply to apostates who actively oppose Islam and some other scholars consider it to more refer to state loyalty rather than personal belief. What do you think of these interpretations?
 
Does having 4 witnesses that witness different incidents be sufficient. Also what about video evidence?

No, it would have to be four witnesses of one incident.

As for video evidence, AFAIK that's not admissible according to most jurists. There may be ikhtilaf (disagreement) on this. There is ikhtilaf on almost everything.

I know that Zakir Naik considers it to only apply to apostates who actively oppose Islam and some other scholars consider it to more refer to state loyalty rather than personal belief. What do you think of these interpretations?

Those interpretations are very common among jurists and pretty well-founded in general.
 
I really don't understand why so many Christians are opposed to Islam despite it being almost identical to Christianity

That's exactly why they're so opposed to it. They're competing for the same minds.
 
Why do western muslims support left wing politics when they have socially conservative leanings? It almost feels like they want to help trannies conquer the west as vengeance for colonialism. Why don't they just help the west when it needs help by assisting the fight against degeneracy that they themselves are opposed to?

"all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom